2026 Constitutional Amendments: May 16, 2026

Louisiana voters are once again being asked to amend one of the longest, most policy-heavy constitutions in the country. If you haven’t received a voter guide from your state Representative yet it is likely on its way (The House of Representatives spent $658,000.00 last year alone to mail voter guides and legislative updates).

Some of these proposals deal with real structural questions. Others are attempts to solve policy problems by rewriting the Constitution itself. Here’s what each amendment actually does and what to watch for before you vote.

Proposed Amendment No. 1:  Civil Service — Who Controls Government Jobs?

Origin: Senate Bill 8 from the 2025 Regular Session by Senator Jay Morris (R 9/10) and Representative Tehmi Chassion (D 5/10).

Ballot Language: Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to remove or add officers, positions, and employees to the unclassified state civil service? (Amends Article X, Section 2(B))

Current Constitution: Our current constitution already contains a laundry list of officers and employees in both state and city civil service, which fall into the unclassified service:

1. Elected officials and persons appointed to fill vacancies in elective offices;
2. The heads of each principal executive department appointed by the governor, the mayor, or the governing authority of a city;
3. City attorneys;
4. Registrars of voters;
5. Members of state and city boards, authorities, and commissions;
6. One private secretary to the president of each college or university;
7. One person holding a confidential position and one principal assistant or deputy to any officer, board, commission, or authority mentioned in 1, 2, 4, or 5 above, except civil service departments;
8. Members of the military or naval forces;
9. Teaching and professional staffs, and administrative officers of schools, colleges, and universities of the state, and bona fide students of those institutions employed by any state, parochial, or municipal agency;
10. Employees, deputies, and officers of the legislature and of the offices of the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, each mayor and city attorney, of police juries, school boards, assessors, and of all offices provided for in Article V of this constitution except the offices of clerk of the municipal and traffic courts in New Orleans;
11. Commissioners of elections, watchers, and custodians and deputy custodians of voting machines;
12. Railroad employees whose working conditions and retirement benefits are regulated by federal agencies in accordance with federal law; and
13. The director, deputy director, and all employees of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness

What it means. If passed, this amendment would shift power away from civil service commissions and toward the legislature — allowing elected officials to decide which jobs are protected and which are political. To take it one step further, instead of requiring voter approval to add another office, position, or employee to the Constitution, a “yes” vote would remove the requirement for voter approval and allow the Legislature to make those changes by statute. The same Legislature that is often handed the very bills it carries by the very agencies affected by them. State and local civil service commissions would still play a role, but the Legislature could override them by statute.

Why it matters. Civil service exists for one reason: to keep government jobs from becoming political favors. There are certain offices already in that constitutional list that employ “Outreach Representatives” or similar designations. This could expand the ability to add more positions for political patronage or messaging roles. Do we really need a clueless legislator carrying a bill handed to them by a department within the Executive Branch seeking to put those positions beyond the reach of Civil Service Commissioners?

While this amendment doesn’t eliminate those protections, it makes them easier to erode over time.

The real question. Do you want more flexibility in government hiring — or more insulation from politics?

Bottom line

• ✔ Flexibility increases
• ❌ Risk of favoritism increases
• ❌ Risk of increased politicized bureaucrats without voter oversight.

Proposed Amendment No. 2:  St. George Schools — Local Control or Constitutional Clutter?

Origin. Senate Bill 25 from the 2025 Regular Session by Senator Rick Edmonds (R 8/10) and Representative Emily Chenevert (R 8/10).

Ballot Language. Do you support an amendment to grant the St. George community school system in East Baton Rouge Parish the same authority granted parishes for purposes of Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution of Louisiana, including purposes related to the minimum foundation program, funding for certain school books and instructional materials, and the raising of certain local revenues for the support of elementary and secondary schools? (Amends Article VIII, Section 13(D)(1))

What it means. St. George would be treated like Central or Zachary — able to receive funding and raise local revenue.

The issue beneath the issue. This is likely good policy for St. George. But it raises a bigger question: Why does every new school system require a constitutional amendment? Louisiana continues to use its Constitution as a policy manual rather than a governing framework.

The real question. Should local school system decisions be made:

• by statute (flexible), or
• by constitutional amendment (permanent and rigid)?

Bottom line.

• ✔ Expands local control
• ❌ Adds another carve-out to an already bloated Constitution

Proposed Amendment No. 3:  Teacher Pay Raises — Funded by Savings… or Assumptions?

Origin. House Bill 473 from the 2025 Regular Session by former Representative Julie Emerson (R 9/10) and Senator Rick Edmonds (R 8/10).

Ballot Language. Do you support an amendment to fund a $2,250 teacher pay raise and $1,125 support staff pay raise by utilizing the remaining savings from paying down the debt of the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana with monies from certain constitutional funds? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Amends Article VII, Section 10.8(A)(1), (2), and (4), (B), and (C)(1); Adds Article VII, Section 10.17; Repeals Article VII, Sections 10(F)(4)(d), 10.1, 10.8(A)(3) and (C)(3), and 10.16(A)(9))

What it means. The state:

1. Liquidates certain education trust funds
2. Pays down retirement debt
3. Uses the resulting “savings” to fund permanent raises

The problem. This only works if the projected savings actually materialize and continue to cover the cost — every year, going forward, forever. If they don’t:

• The state creates a long-term budget gap (fiscal cliff)
• Future taxpayers are left to fill it

Additional concerns. This amendment restructures or redirects voter-created protected education funds in favor of immediate spending.

Then there is the lingering question of why our legislature continues to fund teacher pay raises for local school districts. At what point will school districts seeking to recruit and retain qualified personnel stop relying on state funds to subsidize their operations? We all know the answer. NEVER! Lawmakers and state elected officials love that teachers have to come to their trough for pay raises. It is more about control and the political capital that flows from teachers, a loosely organized voting bloc.

The real question. Are we:

• responsibly converting savings into pay raises, or
• spending money before proving it exists?

Bottom line.

• ✔ Teacher pay increase
• ❌ Relies on uncertain long-term savings
• ❌ Trades long-term stability for short-term relief

In effect, it risks converting today’s savings into tomorrow’s tax burden.

If you’re looking for more information, here’s a newer article that goes into more detail on Amendment 3.

Proposed Amendment No. 4: Business Inventory Tax — Tax Relief with a Catch

Origin. House Bill 366 from the 2025 Regular Session by former Representative Daryl Deshotel (R 6/10).

Ballot Language. Do you support an amendment to allow a parish to reduce or exempt property tax on property held as business inventory and to provide for the classification of Public Service Property? (Amends Article VII, Sections 10.15(F)(1) and 18(A) and (B); Adds Article VII, Sections 20.1, 20.2, and 21(P))

What it means. Local officials (sheriff, school board, parish) can jointly:

• eliminate or reduce inventory taxes
• receive a one-time state payment as compensation

The catch.

• The tax cut is permanent.
• The state payment is not.

What happens next? Five years from now:

• Will other taxes increase?
• Will services be cut if revenue drops?

The structural issue. This shifts decisions locally — but leaves long-term consequences unresolved. The hope is that reducing this business tax creates an environment for businesses to thrive, thereby offsetting any future losses in government revenue (tax revenue). Lower taxation and regulation are the right ways to spur private-sector growth. However, what if it doesn’t work out that way for you?  Historically, bloated government spending has proven difficult to reduce. When that happens, we can rest assured that the tax burden on the people will increase.

Is this:

• smart local control, or
• a temporary buyout masking permanent revenue loss?

Bottom line

• ✔ Local flexibility
• ✔ Business tax relief
• ❌ Long-term fiscal uncertainty

Proposed Amendment No. 5: Judicial Retirement — Why Only Judges?

Origin. House Bill 63 from the 2025 Regular Session by Representatives Kyle Green (D 2/10) and Jason Hughes (D 2/10).

Ballot Language. Do you support an amendment to change the mandatory retirement age for judges from seventy to seventy-five, provided that a judge may continue to serve to complete a term of office? (Amends Article V, Section 23(B))

What it means. Judges can stay on the bench until an older age (longer).

The inconsistency. No other elected official in Louisiana has a mandatory retirement age. Not:

• Governor
• Legislators
• Sheriffs
• Mayors

Only judges.

The argument for the rule.

• Judicial work requires sustained mental acuity.
• Judges serve long terms with limited accountability between elections.

The argument against it. If voters can judge everyone else, why not judges?

The real question. Should judges be:

• treated like every other elected official, or
• held to a different standard?

The reality is that a different standard already exists. This would just soften it slightly.

Bottom line

• ✔ May retain a few experienced judges
• ❌ Creates (or maintains) a double standard

You Must Decide

Taken one at a time, each of these amendments can be debated on its own merits. But taken together, they reveal a pattern Louisiana voters should not ignore. Again and again, we are asked to solve ordinary policy questions by amending the Constitution itself. Some of these amendments may move in the right direction. Others raise legitimate concerns. But all of them continue the steady transformation of Louisiana’s Constitution into something it was never meant to be: a policy manual, revised election by election.

That matters because every time we place another policy decision into the Constitution, we make it harder to adapt, harder to correct mistakes, and harder to govern responsibly in the future. We have arrived at this point because of the extreme distrust we have for our government and elected officials in Louisiana. It is the same reason why attempts at a constitutional convention are thwarted again and again. The constitution still stands as protection. A shield against tyranny, and in many ways, incompetence.

It brings us back to the same questions we should ask with every constitutional amendment:

• Does it limit the powers of the government and government officials?
• Does it decrease the size and scope of government?
• Will it reduce government spending?
• Is it likely to prevent abuse by current or future officeholders?

If a proposed amendment does not restrict government power, does it truly belong in our Constitution? A constitution should not be an ever-changing document manipulated to advance short-term policy goals. Instead, it should remain a stable, guiding framework that protects individual liberties and restrains government authority.

We can even ponder a much broader question. Before voting yes or no on any amendment, step back and ask: Are we improving the structure of government, or are we simply rewriting it to accommodate the moment? The answer to that question matters more than any one vote on the ballot.

###