BATON ROUGE — Two teachers and a pastor filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging a controversial effort by Louisiana officials to rewrite a significant portion of the state constitution. The lawsuit alleges that the proposed changes—introduced in November’s special tax session—packaged in a single amendment also known as HB7, are being presented on the upcoming ballot to voters in a misleading and unconstitutional manner.
The lawsuit responds to Gov. Jeff Landry’s ongoing efforts to rewrite the state’s 50-year-old constitution, which was drafted over a three-year period in the 1970s. This follows a failed attempt by Landry to convene a constitutional convention in 2024, which was blocked by Republican legislators. In place of the constitutional convention, Landry called a special legislative session last fall, in which lawmakers passed HB7 to dramatically alter the constitution.
Packaged in one ballot measure, the more than 100-page amendment includes a wide range of changes, such as:
– Narrowing constitutional protections for church and union property;
– Limiting local control over sale taxes;
– Liquidating several educations trust funds;
– Deleting a fund supporting infant mortality programs;
– Changing gendered pronouns in the constitution;
– Potentially increasing taxes on take-out food; and
– Removing constitutional authorization for farmers’ and fishermen’s’ programs.
These changes are condensed into a one-sentence question set to appear on the March 29, 2025, ballot.
The lawsuit filed today argues that the ballot language violates state law, which requires this language to be “simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood”. Plaintiffs contend that the HB7 ballot language is both biased and misleading because it obscures the true impact of the proposed changes.
For example, the plaintiffs point out that the ballot language claims it is “retaining the . . . exemption for religious organizations,” while the changes would actually drastically narrow the religious exemption. The ballot language also claims to “provide a permanent teacher salary increase,” but, the plaintiffs contend that “no teacher will be paid any more than they currently are due to this potential amendment, and some teachers may be paid less.”
The plaintiffs also argue that the ballot language fails to communicate the range of constitutional changes voters may find unappealing, including the elimination of constitutional protection for: early childcare, STEM initiatives, and dyslexia training – programs that will impact more than 26,000 students across the state if the amendment is passed.
The plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Most & Associates.
“Democracy only works if state officials are transparent with voters about what they are being asked to vote on. This proposed amendment flunks the basic honesty test,” said William Most, lead attorney on the case.
###