Five Louisiana voters, along with the advocacy group Voice of the Experienced (VOTE), have filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Nancy Landry, seeking to remove two proposed constitutional amendments from the March 29, 2025, ballot. The legal challenge alleges that the Louisiana Legislature violated constitutional procedures to fast-track the measures, marking the second lawsuit against this ballot and the first to expose irregularities in the passage of Amendments 1 and 3 during a rushed special session in November.
The plaintiffs—residents of East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, Orleans, and Tangipahoa parishes—argue that lawmakers circumvented legal safeguards intended to uphold the integrity of the Louisiana Constitution. According to the lawsuit, proposed Amendment 1 (Act 2) and Amendment 3 (Act 3) were pushed through an extraordinary legislative session without proper scrutiny.
Claims of a “Broken Process”
Lead plaintiff Darlene Joseph Jones criticized the Legislature’s handling of the amendments, saying they would strip everyday citizens of legal protections.
“It’s unbelievable that they’re trying to sell this as something about out-of-state lawyers,” Jones said. “Amendment 1 gives politicians the power to create a whole new court system—with handpicked magistrates and rules stacked even more against everyday people. Amendments 1 and 3 are just covert ways to lock our people up and throw away the key.”
VOTE’s General Counsel Emily Posner echoed those concerns, emphasizing that the Louisiana Constitution was designed with a clear process for amendments to ensure fairness.
“The Louisiana Constitution is a remarkable document, crafted to protect the inalienable rights of all our state’s people and environment,” Posner said. “But our ultra-conservative Legislature has ignored these rules entirely to force through its anti-democratic agenda.”
VOTE’s Founder and Executive Director Norris Henderson accused lawmakers of disregarding their own legal standards.
“They want people to respect the law, but they don’t follow it themselves,” Henderson said. “Each one of these amendments does more than one thing—that alone violates the law. The same rules they expect us to follow, they’ve ignored.”
A Questionable Legislative Process
VOTE leaders and plaintiffs also pointed to specific instances of alleged legislative misconduct during the Third Extraordinary Session in November.
“Not only were hearings for Act 2 [proposed Amendment 1] scheduled with less than 24 hours’ notice, but I was there when the bill failed in committee. You can see the video,” said Bruce Reilly, VOTE’s Deputy Director.
“Instead of properly reporting that the bill failed, legislative leaders made up a new phrase and said it was ‘discharged.’ And the next day, the same bill that was ‘discharged’ somehow passed in a different committee? That ain’t right,” Reilly added.
Rushed Amendments, Low-Turnout Election
According to VOTE, the four constitutional amendments on the March ballot, including the contested Amendments 1 and 3, were rushed through a special session and placed on a spring election date that historically sees lower voter participation.
“Typically, constitutional amendments are vetted in full legislative sessions and placed on high-turnout fall ballots,” the organization stated. “Instead, these were fast-tracked through a special session and scheduled for a historically low-turnout spring election, just weeks after Mardi Gras.”
With early voting set to begin on March 15, 2025, the lawsuit underscores the high stakes surrounding the upcoming election. The plaintiffs argue that voters deserve full transparency and that the constitutional process must be respected to maintain public trust.
