Louisiana voters this month will determine the fate of a ballot measure that would give state lawmakers more flexibility to create specialty courts dealing with issues such as complex business issues –- something critics say would favor special interests.
The March 29 statewide ballot includes four amendments, including Amendment 1, which advances two justice system reforms. It would give the state Legislature the authority to establish trial courts with specialized jurisdictions if a two-thirds majority of lawmakers agreed and give the state Supreme Court the ability to discipline out-of-state attorneys involved in Louisiana litigation.
The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) characterized the constitutional amendment as a legal reform measure that would help modernize the state’s business climate.
“... We believe constitutional amendments 1, 2 and 4 are critical steps toward unlocking our state’s economic potential,” Will Green, LABI’s president and CEO, said in a prepared statement. “These measures will drive investment, improve governance and set the stage for future reforms that benefit businesses and residents alike."
Amendment 2 would overhaul the state’s taxation and revenue-collection systems, while Amendment 4 would mandate elections to fill new judicial positions or vacancies be held during gubernatorial or congressional votes, if those election dates are within a year of any vacancy.
But other groups say Amendment 1 represents a danger to the state judicial system’s integrity, and they express particular concern about the expansion of lawmaker powers to create specialty courts of their own choosing.
"The Louisiana Supreme Court already has the authority to discipline non-local attorneys, so this amendment isn’t addressing a gap -- it’s a distraction from the real goal of allowing politicians to create new courts focused on specific types of cases, like business disputes," Ashley Shelton, founder and CEO of the Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, told the Louisiana Record. "This could lead to unequal access to justice, favoring well-funded interests over everyday Louisianans. Our judicial system should prioritize fairness and accessibility for all, not carve out special pathways for political or financial gain."
The ACLU of Louisiana has similar concerns.
“The ACLU ... is deeply concerned that these proposed specialty courts will just be ‘kangaroo courts’ that big businesses and politicians create in order to win legal fights,” Sarah Whittington, the ACLU of Louisiana’s advocacy directory, said in a statement emailed to the Record. “This amendment could allow legislators and their political supporters to use taxpayer money to dilute voter power and move cases out of our communities.”
In turn, the measure could bring about major increases in state spending on new courts as a means to circumvent the authority of locally elected judges, according to Whittington. The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana (PAR), which outlines the pro and con arguments about state constitutional amendments, noted that some Amendment 1 opponents fear specialized courts could usurp the authority of elected judges in New Orleans.
In addition, the amendment is not really about disciplining out-of-state attorneys, Whittington said.
“Out-of-state attorneys already are disciplined and disbarred for their actions – all of the time,” she said. “Therefore, the question is begging to be asked ... what is the Legislature not telling us?”
Amendment 1 was passed by the Legislature in the wake of a Houston-based law firm, McClenny, Moseley & Associates, being sanctioned for filing hundreds of questionable lawsuits related to property damage from Hurricanes Laura and Delta in 2020.
Supporters of the measure, however, indicate that local judges already have heavy workloads due to criminal cases, vehicle accident claims and other routine legal matters and that specialty courts hearing complex business or class-action cases would provide more resources, especially in rural areas.
But the counter-argument, as explained by PAR, is that Louisiana already has more judges per capita than several other states and that the language in the amendment is too vague about what types of courts supporters want to create.