This voter education guide is published primarily as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement of any candidate or proposition by ANTIGRAVITY Magazine.
Welcome once again to your ANTIGRAVITY voter education guide for the March 29 election. On this ballot, you will be voting on four state constitutional amendments and, in some areas, a parcel fee for the Lakeview Crime Prevention District.
We have published these guides since 2014—previously in collaboration with the New Orleans Harm Reduction Network and now under the ANTIGRAVITY banner. We utilized national media, local media, and social media. Our research included but was not limited to public records, campaign finance reports, court filings, and real estate records.
Despite lacking faith in politicians or the political order, we create this document as a way to dissect and map power. We do not offer endorsements, but we do provide summaries, as this is a resource designed to aid and alleviate the work for you, the reader. News relevant to this ballot will continue to break. We are but one resource, and we hope that you consult as many as possible before heading to the polls.
We suggest you bring a photo ID to the polls, but if you do not have one you can still cast a ballot by signing a voter affidavit which vouches for your identity. The secretary of state audits all voter affidavits after the election to ensure that you are who you say you are.
If you have a disability, you are entitled to receive assistance to cast your vote. If your assigned polling place is not accessible, report the issue to the ADA compliance officer at ada@sos.la.gov or 225-362-5113.
The makeup of the ballot, including texts of propositions, as well as information about how, where, and when to register and vote is based on information provided by the Louisiana secretary of state and the City of New Orleans website. For info on what your ballot looks like, as well as information about disability and voting, go to the SoS website, voterportal.sos.la.gov.
If you find that you cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a specific ballot measure, you are allowed to skip that ballot item. According to the secretary of state’s office, “A voter cannot cast a blank ballot; otherwise, they are free to vote for as many or as few races/questions as are on their ballot—from all of them to just one of them.”
This voter guide is offered without cost or sponsorship as a service to our beloved readers, but donations are accepted to help cover research fees and labor. A suggested donation of whatever your lifestyle considers $5 is appreciated. Payments can be made via Venmo or PayPal to @antigravitymag (all one word, no dashes). Please include “Voter Guide” or “VG” in the comment or memo.
Welcome to your first voter education guide of 2025. As we rapidly descend into the federally-directed dismantling of our infrastructure, education, and environment, it’s easy to lose the local focus. But here in Louisiana, we’ve been working against our own ultra-right leader, Governor Jeff Landry, for the past year. On this ballot, you will be voting on four constitutional amendments approved by the Republican-led state legislature, and potentially one other ballot measure. Conventional wisdom dictates that turnout for this type of election could be extremely low (in December’s election, which also featured mostly constitutional amendments, the turnout was around 10%). While we lament the lack of civic participation, the good news is that if you do show up to the polls this go-around, your vote may carry extra weight. While the stakes of this election may seem small in comparison to elections with high-profile and high-office candidates, there are ballot measures in this cycle that could have far-reaching implications for the people of Louisiana. So let’s get into it.
Constitutional Amendments
CA No. 1 (ACT No. 2, 2024-3ES – SB 1)
To provide for disciplinary proceedings over attorneys and to create courts of limited jurisdiction
Do you support an amendment granting the Louisiana Supreme Court jurisdiction to discipline out-of-state lawyers for unethical legal practices in the state of Louisiana, and to grant the legislature the authority to establish trial courts of limited and specialized jurisdiction? (Amends Article V, Sections 5(B), 15(A) and 16(A))
Amendment 1 is the first of a quartet of concerning state constitutional amendments on this ballot, all of which seek to expand the powers of Louisiana’s legal system, which is arguably already armed with too much power. The aims of Amendment 1 are two-fold: first, to grant the Louisiana Supreme Court the authority to discipline out-of-state lawyers for unethical legal practices in the state of Louisiana; and second, to grant the Louisiana legislature the power to establish regional or statewide specialty courts unconnected to a local district court.
Currently, the Louisiana Supreme Court oversees the discipline of attorneys who practice in Louisiana and writes the rules of professional conduct and ethics for these attorneys. These rules apply to lawyers licensed in Louisiana, as well as lawyers who are granted temporary authority to practice in Louisiana courts for a particular proceeding, and out-of-state lawyers who provide legal services in Louisiana. Amendment 1 aims to extend the state Supreme Court’s disciplinary powers to have explicit authority over out-of-state lawyers practicing and/or offering legal services in Louisiana. This comes from incidents such as the Houston-based law firm McClenny, Moseley & Associates’ mishandling of thousands of lawsuits over hurricane property damage in Louisiana after Hurricanes Laura, Delta, and Ida. While there is certainly room for misuse of power in the first part of Amendment 1, there also does not seem to be much controversy around it, as it would help to quell predatory behavior from out-of-state attorneys.
The second part of Amendment 1 is the most alarming, and is the reason why this amendment should not be enshrined in the state constitution. At present, the Louisiana legislature has the power to create so-called specialty courts to handle certain subject matters (e.g., drug charges, DWIs, reentry matters, family preservation) within the purview of district courts, both of which currently have territorial limits. Under Amendment 1, the Louisiana Legislature would be able to expand the number of specialty courts, bypassing the democratically elected district courts, via a two-thirds majority vote of the State House and Senate, potentially creating separate regions of jurisdiction for these specialized courts gerrymandered to elect conservative-leaning judges. There is also no specific mention of what specialty courts could be created, thus giving the Louisiana legislature further power in creating specialty courts based on political agendas. As one example, it would allow for changes to drug specialty courts, a concern as the state and federal government continue to push War on Drugs legislation that undermines harm reduction and public health efforts. This also opens up the very real possibility of specialty courts designed to target abortion providers and people seeking abortions outside Louisiana. There is already a precedent set for this: In 2023, Governor Landry (then attorney general) solicited the federal government for information about Louisiana residents seeking abortions outside the state (a larger concern now that the second Trump administration is in power), and current Attorney General Liz Murrill recently charged and attempted to extradite a New York physician for providing the abortion medication mifepristone to the mother of a pregnant teenager in Louisiana.
Amendment 1 is also potentially linked to Amendment 3, which changes the laws related to the charging of youth accused of committing violent crimes to charge these children as adults. Make no mistake: Amendment 1, like the other three constitutional amendments on this ballot, will cause irreparable harm to the people of Louisiana for generations.
SUMMARY: Vote no.
CA No. 2 (ACT No. 1, 2024-3ES – HB 7)
To provide with respect to the power of taxation including limitations thereon
Do you support an amendment to revise Article VII of the Constitution of Louisiana including revisions to lower the maximum rate of income tax, increase income tax deductions for citizens over sixty-five, provide for a government growth limit, modify operation of certain constitutional funds, provide for property tax exemptions retaining the homestead exemption and exemption for religious organizations, provide a permanent teacher salary increase by requiring a surplus payment to teacher retirement debt, and make other modifications? (Amends Article VII, Sections 1 through 28; Adds Article VII, Sections 29 through 42)
Amendment 2 would drastically change state tax law, and is embroiled in legal battles as of press time, with a lawsuit claiming that the ballot language is misleading. But let’s back up: In November 2024, a special legislative session was held over the course of 20 days, which led to a tax reform plan that caused the loss of $1.3 billion in state annual personal income tax revenue, cuts to corporate taxes, and an increase in sales taxes. These changes made Louisiana the state that pays the highest sales tax rate in the country.
According to Invest in Louisiana (formerly the Louisiana Budget Project), this left the state with fewer resources for various programs and services, and forced lower and middle income individuals to pay a higher effective tax rate than the wealthy.
House Bill 7 was also passed in that period, which would rewrite the section of the state constitution that covers taxes and spending. However, changes to the constitution (even if passed by the legislature) must be approved by voters. CA 2 is meant to revise Article VII of the state constitution. According to KLFY.com, “The proposal would revise Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution, consolidating state funds, restructuring tax exemptions, and addressing state spending limits.”
According to Amendment 2’s ballot language, passage would lead to things such as increasing income tax deductions for those over 65, homestead exemptions for religious organizations, a permanent teacher salary increase, and more. These promises on their surface may sound good.
But a lawsuit, filed on February 17 on the behalf of a pastor and two educators from East Baton Rouge and New Orleans Parishes, aims to challenge Amendment 2’s ballot language and the scope of the changes it’s attempting to make, arguing it violates the “one object” rule and that the ballot language misrepresents the changes proposed.
The “one object” rule states that constitutional amendments need to focus on either changing one subject under an article, or revising the whole article (i.e., a singular amendment can’t seek to change tax rates while simultaneously giving lawmakers raises; either one or the other will need to happen, or the entire article needs to be changed). The lawsuit claims that HB 7 makes multiple unrelated substantial changes to Article VII, but doesn’t change the whole article, thus breaking the rule. The plaintiffs’ attorney, William Most of Most & Associates, a New Orleans law firm, said, “The authors of this are not being honest with the voters of Louisiana about changing the constitution.”
In addition, the lawsuit claims that the ballot language is misleading. HB 7 is over 100 pages long, whereas the language that will appear on the ballot is less than 100 words. One hundred words is not enough space to distill the nuances of a 115-page bill, and left on the cutting room floor are the downsides to approving the amendment. According to Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) of Louisiana, Amendment 2 would seemingly raid or eliminate three trust funds, which, for example, would include two education trust funds that help pay for early childhood education, K-12 schools, and research at public universities. As the lawsuit states, “Of the hundreds of changes to [the constitution] that are proposed, only a few of the most appealing changes are included in the ballot language… None of the unappealing changes are included. The ballot language is all dessert, no vegetables.” All you’ll see on election day—if the lawsuit does not succeed—are the yummiest bits of HB 7. Even in that regard, the language is distorted. For instance, the language stating that teachers will get a pay raise, according to Invest in Louisiana, won’t do that at all: “The teacher pay ‘raise’ mentioned in the ballot language is actually replacing a stipend that public school teachers are already getting, so teachers’ overall take-home pay will not change under this amendment.” Louisiana’s attorney general and secretary of state have attempted to get the lawsuit thrown out but on March 13 a Baton Rouge judge rejected their arguments, and paused the case in order for an appeals court to weigh in.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP)’s Louisiana chapter supports a “yes” vote on this amendment. AFP is a group founded by controversial conservative mega-donors the Koch brothers, who have a history of funding conservative and far-right causes to enrich themselves, often to the detriment of public goods like public education or transit. So if an organization not just affiliated with, but founded by, one of the Koch brothers has nice things to say about a measure, it’s worth considering that maybe things might not be on the up-and-up.
SUMMARY: Vote no.
CA No. 3 (ACT No. 3, 2024-3ES – SB 2)
To provide relative to crimes committed by juveniles and to special juvenile proceedings
Do you support an amendment to provide the legislature the authority to determine which felony crimes, when committed by a person under the age of seventeen, may be transferred for criminal prosecution as an adult? (Amends Article V, Section 19)
Amendment 3 gives the legislature the ability to determine what felonies can qualify a person younger than 17 years old to be tried as an adult and sent to adult prison facilities. This amendment, like all the others, is an attempt to manipulate Louisiana’s judiciary system to advance Governor Jeff Landry’s “tough on crime” agenda.
In last year’s special session on crime, the state legislature limited options for parole, made certain juvenile records publicly available, and repealed the “Raise the Age” law that had increased the minimum age of adult trials from 17 to 18 years old, making Louisiana the first state to both pass and repeal such a law. In the third special session last year, Landry continued to target youth involved in crime, mentioning cases of fatal carjackings and teen shootings. This session was focused on passing Senate Bill 2, a bill proposing a constitutional amendment to expand the current list of felonies someone under the age of 17 can be tried for as an adult.
Senate Bill 2 was co-sponsored by Sen. Heather Cloud, who authored the bill to repeal the “Raise the Age law,” and State Rep. Debbie Villio, who is the chair of the House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice that pushed the bill forward. Both Cloud and Villio believe that this amendment will address an uptick of violent adolescent crime since the pandemic by allowing district attorneys to charge teenagers for additional crimes that aren’t included in the constitutional provision. Verite News tied this push by Villio to previous legislation she penned that added to the list of “transferable crimes” that could transfer juveniles to adult trial with the potential for decades-long sentences, to include purse snatching, domestic battery with strangulation, fentanyl and heroin distribution, and crimes that result in “serious bodily injury.”
The constitution already defines the most serious crimes that adolescents as young as 15 (and 14 years old in some cases) could be tried for as adults, including first- and second-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, and first-degree rape, which already are automatically transferred for adult trial after probable cause hearings. Opponents of this amendment argue that district attorneys are already afforded the flexibility to prosecute juveniles as adults for crimes involving firearms. But rather than have citizens vote for modifications to this list of felonies, Amendment 3 will give that power to the Republican-dominated state legislature with two-thirds majority to make any crime transferrable to adult courts, no matter how small.
According to a quarterly report by the state Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ), 883 Louisiana youth were in custody during the fourth quarter of 2024 and Black youth were “disproportionately represented in every custody and supervision status.” With a youth incarceration rate reportedly higher in Louisiana than the national rate, the amendment increases the risk for our youth to be sent to adult prison, further depriving them of resources necessary for a stable re-entry back to the community, like federally-mandated access to education for juvenile detainees. Federal regulation also requires minors in adult prisons to be held separately to mitigate risk of rape and abuse. However, justice advocates have stated this often leads ill-equipped facilities to place teens in solitary confinement, traumatizing them further while preventing access to rehabilitative services. After the “Raise the Age” law was repealed, Lafayette Parish spent $125,000 to move 17-year-olds charged as adults to Jackson Parish jail, after there were reports of improper separation and mistreatment of minors at the Lafayette Parish Juvenile Detention Home. In Orleans Parish, Sheriff Susan Hutson said the law change would make it “nearly impossible” to meet accommodation rules due to the anticipated influx of adolescent prisoners.
Amendment 3 will not solve issues with over-detainment, inadequate staffing, and subsequent traumatic negligence that pervade Louisiana’s juvenile detention centers. Louisiana has maintained the highest incarceration rates in the nation and has not become any safer for it. Governor Landry is working to cement Louisiana’s status of “prison capital of the world,” recently passing laws that bar parole for most prisoners and enact more severe sentences for fentanyl distribution (that has no impact on reducing opioid overdoses). Bruce Reilly, Deputy Director of Voice of the Experienced, anticipates the state is projected to double its prison population over the next six years. Sending adolescents to adult prisons lowers their chances for rehabilitation. increases the likelihood of re-committing crime, and destabilizes vulnerable communities. If legislators continue down this path, the state will inevitably continue investing in an economic machine (to the tune of an extra $100 million on top of OJJ’s $165 million budget) that produces more incentives for prisons and policing as alternatives to the community wrap-around youth services that advocates wish to see. In keeping with this voter guide’s tradition of prioritizing harm reduction and the people most harmed by systemic oppression, we cannot support any legislation or ballot measures that invest in or expand carceral systems.
SUMMARY: Vote no.
CA No. 4 (ACT No. 4, 2024-3ES – SB 5)
To provide for election dates for newly-created judgeships or vacancies in office of judge
Do you support an amendment to provide for the use of the earliest election date to fill judicial vacancies? (Amends Article V, Section 22(B))
In 2024, Louisiana lawmakers, under the direction of Governor Landry, created a closed primary system for a handful of elections, including Congress, the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Louisiana Public Service Commission, and Louisiana Supreme Court. The change will take effect in 2026, and in doing so, will potentially add another set of elections for these seats if no single candidate receives a majority of the vote during the closed primaries.
Currently, the Louisiana constitution states that vacant judicial seats must be filled within 12 months of a judgeship being vacated. But with the added potential of a third set of elections, filling a seat within 12 months possibly becomes more difficult. This amendment would eliminate the 12-month requirement, and it would instead require that the election be held at the earliest possible election date. While this amendment does technically close a loophole, it gives more potential power for the state to have influence over elections. These newly-created election dates run the risk of being low-turnout elections with little time for candidates to campaign—giving the state the upper hand in installing friendly candidates, control that perhaps shouldn’t be given to a government intent on rewriting the constitution in their favor.
SUMMARY: Vote no.
Orleans Parish Ballot Measures
Lakeview Crime Prevention District
$150 Parcel Fee – CC – 10 Yrs.
Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual flat fee on each parcel within the Lakeview Crime Prevention District (“District”), as delineated by La. R.S. 33:9091.1(B), in an amount not to exceed one hundred and fifty dollars, with the precise fee as provided by duly adopted board resolution, for ten (10) years, beginning January 1, 2027 and ending December 31, 2036, which is estimated to generate approximately $1,026,432 annually, to be used exclusively for aiding in crime prevention and adding to the security of District residents, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of personnel and services provided by the New Orleans Police Department?
The Lakeview Crime Prevention District charges property owners in parts of Lakeview a $150 annual fee, essentially an extra property tax, and uses the money to fund patrols of the district by off-duty NOPD officers.
The District says it spends about 98% on patrols, with the rest of the funds going to costs like insurance and accounting—its latest financial statement appears to bear that out. This ballot measure would extend the fee for another decade, from January 1, 2027 through the end of 2036.
As we’ve written before, research by the City Office of The Inspector General in 2013 found these sorts of districts seem to have lower rates of property crime, but the districts don’t seem to have a significant effect on violent crime or murder rates.
They also raise questions of equality, delivering enhanced City services only to districts with the ability and willingness to pay a special tax, and create additional policing structures less directly accountable to voters.
Each of these districts has its own governing board, chosen in a manner set by the state legislature. In this case, the Lakeview Crime Prevention District board is chosen by a mix of elected officials and the board of the Lakeview Civic Improvement Association (an organization businesses and residents can pay to join). Only Lakeview property owners are eligible to serve on the Crime Prevention District board, meaning renters are effectively denied a seat on the board, even though they are policed by the District’s patrols (and likely help pay for the District indirectly through their rent).
SUMMARY: Say no to privatized police.
Election Info
The deadline to request a mail ballot is March 25 by 4:30 p.m. (other than military and overseas voters).
The deadline for the registrar of voters to receive a mail ballot is March 28 by 4:30 p.m. (other than military and overseas voters).
Early Voting
Early voting for this election begins on Saturday, March 15 and ends on Saturday, March 22, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m, excluding Sunday, March 16.
Saturday election day voting hours are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
City Hall
1300 Perdido St. #1W24 70112
Algiers Courthouse
225 Morgan St. RM#105 70114
Voting Machine Warehouse
8870 Chef Menteur Highway 70127
Lake Vista Community Center
6500 Spanish Fort Blvd. 70124
This voter guide is offered without cost as a service to our beloved readers, but donations are accepted to help cover research fees and labor. A suggested donation of whatever your lifestyle considers $5 is appreciated. Payments can be made via Venmo or PayPal to @antigravitymag (all one word, no dashes). Please include “Voter Guide” or “VG” in the comment or memo.
If donations aren’t your thing, you can also support ANTIGRAVITY simply by signing up for our monthly newsletter—which includes early access to each issue and other info—at the top of our home page.
This voter education guide is published primarily as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement of any candidate or proposition by ANTIGRAVITY Magazine.
