Welcome to the Wednesday, March 26, Brew. 

By: Mercedes Yanora

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

• Louisiana voters to address tax policy, judicial procedures, and juvenile justice laws in Saturday election
• Court strikes down Washington Initiative 2066, related to natural gas, as violating state’s single-subject rule; ruling to be appealed to state supreme court 
• Kansas voters to decide whether to become 22nd state with direct election of state supreme court justices

Louisiana voters to address tax policy, judicial procedures, and juvenile justice laws in Saturday election 

We normally think of election days as events that happen in November. But the election calendar, particularly for state and local issues, is far more complex, with elections occurring at just about any time of year. Including weekends.

Which is exactly what’s happening this coming Saturday, March 29, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., in Louisiana. There, voters will decide on four constitutional amendments that address tax policy, judicial procedures, and juvenile justice laws. 

A two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber was required to put the amendments on the ballot. All four of the amendments were passed with all Republican legislators in favor, while most Democrats opposed them.

Looking at voter turnout in previous years, fewer voters may turnout this Saturday because the election is in an odd year, on a Saturday, and not in November. For example, in 2024, the ballot measure with the highest number of votes (1,871,151) was decided on Nov. 5, which was a Tuesday during a presidential election year. The four other ballot measures that year were decided on Dec. 7 and had a markedly lower number of votes, with 332,181 being the highest recorded. Dec. 7 was a Saturday. 

The same trend held in 2022: with ballot measures on Nov. 8 (a Tuesday, midterm election) garnering voter turnout as high as 1,335,315. The three measures decided on Saturday, Dec. 10, hit a voter turnout high of only 428,486. 

In the last two odd-year elections—2023 and 2021—voters decided on all ballot measures on Saturdays in either October or November. Neither year had voter turnout as high as that of an even year. In 2021, the highest number of votes was 413,714; in 2023, it was 1,017,297.

From 2003 to 2023, 48 constitutional amendments appeared on the statewide ballot. Voters approved 33 (68.75%) and rejected 15 (31.25%). During this period, an average of four amendments appeared on the Louisiana ballot in odd-numbered years.

Here’s an overview of what’s on the ballot.

Amendment 1

Amendment 1 would authorize the Louisiana Supreme Court to discipline out-of-state lawyers for unethical legal practices in the state and provide the court with the power to establish trial courts of limited and specialized jurisdiction.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jay Morris (R-35), said, “Twenty-seven states have business courts to handle complex or highly specialized cases, including Texas recently enacted one, and right now under our constitution we can only create a court that had parish-wide jurisdiction, nothing beyond that.”

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana Voter Guide cited arguments against the amendment, such as: “Louisiana has more judges per capita than many other states, according to several studies. The ability for lawmakers to more easily create specialty courts would worsen the problem and drive up court system costs, requiring taxpayers to pay more for judges, their staff and other expenses.”

Amendment 2

Amendment 2 would revise Article VII of the state constitution, making changes to taxes and the state budget. The amendment would:

• reduce the maximum income tax rate from 4% to 3.75%;
• provide a property tax exemption for property owned by a nonprofit operated for religious purposes;
• repeal the Revenue Stabilization Fund and provide a one-time payment to parishes that elect to exempt business inventory from ad valorem taxes; and
• establish a government growth limit prohibiting spending state general fund recurring revenues above the limit.

Governor Jeff Landry (R), a supporter of the amendment, said, “We offer an opportunity … [s]o your taxation will be driven by more about what you choose to buy, rather than by your labor … This holistic plan is designed not only to address budget shortfalls, but to catapult Louisiana into the future with increased jobs and economic growth for years to come.”

Opponents of the amendment include the ACLU of Louisiana, Louisiana Center for Human Rights, and Invest in Louisiana, as well as Say No! To Them All. Say No! to Them All said, “Legislators boiled down Amendment 2 from 109 pages to just 91 words, and used vague and confusing phrases like ‘modify operation of certain constitutional funds’ and ‘make other modifications’ when they mean cap the amount the rich pay in taxes while gutting education and transportation funding.”

Amendment 3

Currently, the state constitution lists certain crimes that the legislature can exclude from special juvenile procedures with a two-thirds vote. Under Amendment 3, the list would be removed from the constitution, and instead, the legislature would determine which crimes can result in a juvenile being tried as an adult. 

Amendment sponsor Sen. Heather Cloud (R-28) said, “This is very important legislation. It builds upon successes that we’ve already achieved that are critical to the overall well-being and safety and security of our state for today and for future generations.”

No on 3, a coalition of organizations in opposition to the amendment, said, “Amendment 3 would expose more youth to the dangers of adult jails, where they face significantly higher risks of suicide and long-term harm, while worsening Louisiana’s already overburdened and costly legal system. This policy disproportionately impacts marginalized youth and undermines the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile legal system, leading to greater societal and financial costs without improving public safety.”

Amendment 4

Amendment 4 would require judicial vacancies to be filled in a special election at the earliest available date under state law. If the vacancy occurs within 12 months of the next gubernatorial or congressional election, the special election would coincide with that election. This replaces the current law requiring a special election within 12 months of the vacancy.

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana Voter Guide cited arguments in support of the amendment: “Amending the constitution is a better approach than tweaking the closed primary law. If the law is adjusted instead to allow the governor to call a special election that doesn’t coincide with the regular election calendar, Louisiana could be forced to spend additional dollars to comply with the constitutional mandate to elect a new judge within a year.”

Say No! to Them All said in opposition: “The move in Amendment 4 to change the election dates for judges is another ploy to make it easier for Baton Rouge politicians to get their friends elected when few voters are paying attention.”

To learn more about these amendments, have a look at our recent episodes of Ballotpedia Explains here and here!

Court strikes down Washington Initiative 2066, related to natural gas, as violating state’s single-subject rule; ruling to be appealed to state supreme court 

On March 21, King County Superior Court Judge Sandra Widlan struck down Washington Initiative 2066, a measure voters approved on Nov. 5, 2024. Widlan held that the measure violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule. 

A single-subject rule requires ballot initiatives to address a single subject, topic, or issue. Widlan wrote, “… the body of the initiative is so broad and free ranging that it makes it hard to say with any precision what the general topic is.”

Initiative 2066 concerned natural gas regulations, prohibiting legal restrictions or penalties on access to natural gas and requiring gas suppliers—including private and public utilities—to provide natural gas to consumers. The measure also repealed HB 1589, enacted earlier in 2024, which was designed to create programs and requirements to incentivize large combination utility providers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and offer programs and incentives for customers to decarbonize homes and buildings. 

Sixteen of the states that have the initiative process also have single-subject rules. Since 2010, voters in Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota have decided on single-subject rule amendments. Voters approved the amendments in Arizona and South Dakota and rejected the concept in North Dakota.

Ben Avery, director of the Washington chapter of the Sierra Club, said the court’s ruling sends a “strong message to polluting industries that using unconstitutional and misleading ballot initiatives is a waste of taxpayers’ time and money.” Building Industry Association of Washington’s (BIAW) Greg Lane said, “Those who want to ban natural gas are trying to force their minority view on the majority of Washingtonians. I fully expect we will prevail at the Supreme Court.” The BIAW stated, “We will continue to use every avenue available, including appealing to the [Washington] Supreme Court.”

Kansas voters to decide whether to become 22nd state with direct election of state supreme court justices

In the March 18 edition of The Daily Brew, we looked at four states with proposed legislation to change how state supreme court justices are selected. Since then, one of those states, Kansas, has placed a constitutional amendment on the August 2026 ballot that would abolish the existing Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission and allow for direct election of state supreme court justices. If approved, this would make Kansas the 22nd state with direct election. As of this writing, the legislature had not determined whether the elections would be partisan or nonpartisan.

The amendment states that the seven justices would be elected at staggered general elections with positions 1, 2, and 3 elected in November 2028; positions 4 and 5 elected in November 2030; and positions 6 and 7 elected in November 2032. Judges would serve six year terms, as they do currently, and elections would be held to fill vacancies. 

Currently, Kansas is one of 21 states that uses the assisted appointment method to select its supreme court justices. The nominating commission is responsible for providing nominees to the governor, who must then select a justice from that list. The governor appoints four non-lawyers to the commission, while the Kansas State Bar elects five lawyers, one from each congressional district and one statewide.  

Newly appointed justices serve for at least one year, after which they must stand for retention in the next even-year general election. If retained, the justice serves a six-year term and must stand for retention every six years after that point to remain in office. Kansas voters adopted this method in 1958.

The selection of state supreme court justices varies by state. Thirteen states elect judges in nonpartisan elections, eight states use partisan elections, and two states use legislative elections. The remaining states use an appointment method, except for Michigan, which uses a process that combines nonpartisan general elections preceded by a partisan candidate selection process. 

In Kansas, a total of 21 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Voters approved 15 and defeated six.