A little over 600k turned out
Louisiana voters reject all four amendments championed by Governor Jeff Landry
Louisiana voters decided on four amendments, keeping current policies on taxes, legal oversight, juvenile justice, and judicial vacancies unchanged.
Author: Nigell Moses / WWL Louisiana
Published: 9:26 PM CDT March 29, 2025
Updated: 9:26 PM CDT March 29, 2025
LOUISIANA, USA — Louisiana voters have rejected all four constitutional amendments in the March 29 election, keeping the state's tax, legal, and judicial systems unchanged. Driven by higher-than expected turnout, voters across the state delivered a blow to proposals pushed by Governor Jeff Landry.
See Complete Election Results Here
Amendment 1 failed voting 'No', meaning lawmakers will not have the authority to create new specialty courts. The Louisiana Supreme Court also will not gain expanded power to discipline out-of-state lawyers, leaving legal oversight unchanged. Supporters argued this would have strengthened the court system, while opponents worried about giving lawmakers too much control over judicial matters.
Amendment 2 failed , keeping the state’s current income tax structure and spending limits intact. This means no automatic tax deductions for seniors, no repeal of the property tax on business inventory, and no guaranteed teacher pay raises. While some viewed it as a missed opportunity for tax relief, others were concerned about the potential impact on state funding.
Amendment 3 failed voting 'No' meaning the state will not expand the list of crimes that allow juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. Louisiana's existing rules on juvenile justice remain in place, with opponents arguing that trying more minors as adults would have led to harsher sentences without addressing rehabilitation.
Amendment 4 failed , keeping the current system for filling judicial vacancies. Courts will continue to operate under existing election timelines rather than being required to use the earliest available election date. Critics of the amendment had argued that rushing judicial elections could lead to less voter engagement.