The Louisiana Supreme Court this week dismissed a lawsuit that challenged Amendment 2 on the March 29 ballot, concluding that it neither contained misleading language nor strayed from the requirement that such measures cover a single policy change.
The state’s high court said in a 4-3 opinion on Tuesday that the ballot measure, which revises fiscal policies, the tax structure and government spending rules outlined in Article VII of the state constitution, is presented in simple, concise language and does not violate state law.
“Plaintiffs also argue that the ballot language is biased; that it's ‘all dessert and no vegetables,’” the opinion states. “Yet vegetables may be healthier than dessert. This too is a matter of opinion and for debate, beyond this court's analysis, and for the voters to decide. We do not find the ballot proposition misleading or biased in the manner the Legislature sought to proscribe.”
The litigation, which was filed on behalf of two teachers and a pastor, had recently been taken up by a district court, which decided not to remove the proposed amendment from the ballot or take an action that might disrupt the March 29 election. But Judge Louise Hines of the 19th District Judicial Court did allow the lawsuit to move forward. In response, state Attorney General Liz Murrill asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue.
“The wisdom of the proposed changes is not before the court,” the majority decision states. “This will be decided after investigation, debate and a vote of the people. This issue is whether the question has been legally presented to the voters.”
But Chief Justice John Weimer dissented, questioning why the matter could not have been handled in the normal way through district court hearings and the appeal process.
“When this court rules without a hearing or trial at the district court level, without prior review by the court of appeal and without oral arguments at this court, the public is largely left out of the process and remains in the dark, except as to any reasons given by this court in summarily ruling,” Weimer said in his dissent. “Such a process erodes respect for the fairness and impartiality of the system of justice.”
With the high court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, any evidence the parties planned to present through the legal system will be “essentially swept under the rug,” he said.
Justice John Guidry also dissented, disagreeing with the majority that the amendment’s title is adequate and arguing that the measure unconstitutionally covers a multitude of unrelated issues.
The majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the title inadequately describes what’s in the amendment and that the measure unconstitutionally covers multiple policy changes in its overhaul of Article VII. The state constitution allows the state Legislature to propose revisions of entire articles of the constitution, the justices said.
William Most, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment that the high court opted to dismiss the case without a hearing and added that this may not be the end of the legal challenge.
“The dissenting justices raised serious concerns about transparency and fairness, and we're weighing our options to ensure voters have the clarity they deserve," Most told the Louisiana Record.
The amendment would make several changes to the constitution, including the requirement that tax legislation pass the Legislature by a supermajority, a reduction in the top income tax rate from 4.25% to 3.75% and a permanent teacher salary increase. Another aim of the measure is to make the constitution less cumbersome by removing language about property tax exemptions, which would be protected through general law instead.