In a controversial decision that bypassed normal judicial procedures, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the ballot language of proposed Amendment 2, a sweeping constitutional change set to appear before voters on March 29, 2025. The ruling has sparked concerns over judicial transparency, voter rights, and the impartiality of Louisiana’s legal system, with strong dissents from multiple justices questioning the Court’s handling of the case.
A High-Stakes Ballot Battle
Amendment 2 proposes major revisions to Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution, which governs taxation and finance. The changes, passed by the Louisiana Legislature in late 2024 through House Bill 7 (HB7), include:
- Lowering the maximum income tax rate
- Increasing tax deductions for residents over 65
- Placing limits on government spending growth
- Altering property tax exemptions, including for religious organizations
- Shifting teacher pay raises to depend on surplus budget payments rather than guaranteed funding
While supporters argue that the amendment simplifies and modernizes the state’s tax structure, critics warn that it reduces constitutional protections for religious institutions, restricts financial safeguards, and misleads voters about its true impact.
The Lawsuit: Allegations of Misleading Ballot Language
The lawsuit, filed by two teachers and a pastor, did not challenge the amendment’s content but rather its ballot language, arguing that it fails to meet legal standards requiring clarity, neutrality, and accuracy. Under Louisiana law (La. R.S. 18:1299.1), ballot language must be:
- Simple
- Unbiased
- Concise
- Easily understood
The plaintiffs argued that the ballot summary is misleading, pointing out that it:
-
Presents a biased, overly positive picture of the amendment.
- The language emphasizes tax cuts and teacher pay raises while obscuring significant changes to property tax exemptions and state financial management.
-
Uses vague wording that misrepresents key changes.
- For example, the ballot states that the amendment “retains tax exemptions for religious organizations,” while in reality, it modifies and potentially restricts them.
-
Fails to inform voters of controversial aspects of the amendment.
- The plaintiffs claim that constitutional protections for church property and religious ministries are being significantly narrowed, but this is not mentioned on the ballot.
Supreme Court’s Controversial Dismissal
In a highly unusual move, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the Attorney General’s request to bypass the Court of Appeal and take the case directly. The Court’s ruling, issued without oral arguments or evidentiary hearings, dismissed the lawsuit outright.
The majority opinion argued that:
- The amendment had been publicly available on the Louisiana Legislature’s website for months, allowing voters to review the full text.
- The ballot language does not need to include every detail of the amendment—only enough to identify it for voters.
- The legislative process was followed correctly, and voters—not the courts—should decide on the amendment.
“We do not find the ballot proposition misleading or biased in the manner the legislature sought to proscribe,” the ruling stated. “The voters rather than the courts should decide.”
Dissenting Justices Warn of Judicial Overreach
Three justices issued strong dissents, accusing the majority of undermining transparency, fairness, and voter rights.
Chief Justice John Weimer criticized the Court’s decision to bypass lower courts, arguing that the case deserved a full hearing before being dismissed.
“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,” he wrote, warning that such actions erode public trust in the justice system.
Justice John Guidry also dissented, specifically rejecting the Court’s conclusion that the ballot language was clear and unbiased. He argued that the language misleads voters by highlighting tax cuts and avoiding mention of significant reductions in protections for religious institutions.
“I strongly disagree with the majority that the proposed ballot language is sufficient and transparent to accurately summarize and put voters on notice concerning what they are being asked to vote for or against,” Guidry wrote.
Legal and Political Fallout
The Court’s decision has major implications for future ballot initiatives, judicial transparency, and voter trust in elections. Critics warn that:
- This ruling sets a precedent for future misleading ballot language to go unchallenged.
- Voter rights could be weakened if courts refuse to intervene in cases of biased or deceptive ballot descriptions.
- The case raises concerns about judicial impartiality, given the unprecedented speed and manner in which the case was dismissed.
William Most, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, condemned the ruling as a setback for voter transparency.
“This ruling continues to leave voters in the dark about the true impacts of Amendment 2,” he said in a statement. “The dissenting justices raised serious concerns about transparency and fairness, and we’re weighing our options to ensure voters have the clarity they deserve as they head to the polls.”
What Happens Next?
- Early voting began on March 15, and the final vote takes place March 29, 2025.
- The plaintiffs are considering their legal options, including potentially seeking federal court intervention.
- If Amendment 2 passes, further legal challenges could be filed arguing that the vote was based on misleading information.
Final Thoughts
The controversy over Amendment 2 isn’t just about tax policy—it’s about whether voters are receiving clear and honest information before making a decision. The Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling has heightened concerns about judicial impartiality, election transparency, and the role of courts in protecting voters’ rights.
With the amendment’s fate now in the hands of Louisiana voters, the debate over its true impact—and the fairness of the judicial process—will likely continue long after the election.
