Left misleads on LA rebalancing criminal laws

As most of Republican Gov. Jeff Landry’s criminal justice reforms as legislation heads to his desk for his signature into law, Louisiana’s political left is working overtime to cast aspersions on measures reversing the ethos behind changes predecessor Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards had enticed, despite data showing very much such assertions are baseless.

In essence, Landry’s increases severity of sentences for some crimes, for 17-year-olds convicted of some crimes, and lengthens incarceration time for many convicts. Edwards’ had done the opposite, on the theory that the existing measures were cost ineffective, or that any reduction in crime was more than offset by costs involved. Indeed, more vocal advocates of the so-called “smart on crime” approach actually argued that you could have it both ways, reduced crime and costs.

At the very least, the left wishes to delegitimize Landry’s restoration with claims along the lines that being “tougher” on crime won’t make much of a difference, if not make matters worse, and certainly would cost more. A typical leftist view on the philosophy behind his package is “there is no firm empirical evidence that confirms” that “more stringent punitive measures [are] a criminal deterrent.”

Another Supreme Court map failure benefits Cox

The soap opera concerning possible reapportionment of Louisiana’s Supreme Court districts looks to spill over to a third try in the 2024 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, caught up in electoral politics directly affecting at least one declared candidate for the open Second District seat later this year.

At the First Extraordinary Session, the Senate refused to move a bill that would have accomplished this. It did so again this week during the Second Extraordinary Session, although under somewhat different circumstances.

Crucial to understanding the machinations involved, consider the context. Nothing legally requires the state to do this. As judicial elections cover offices not considered policy-making and therefore not necessary to represent constituencies, neither equal apportionment nor guarantees that district arrangements not impair the ability of minority groups to elect candidates of their own choosing apply to judicial reapportionment questions. Thus, Louisiana’s current environment of seven districts with enormous population districts and just one majority-minority district in a state where about a third of the population claims black ancestry is perfectly constitutional.

LA should prohibit preying on pregnant girls

If Louisiana wants to boost parental rights, protect some lives, and make Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom waste some of his money, it should join other states in making criminal activity that attempts to spirit unemancipated minor girls out of state to receive abortions.

This week, Newsom announced that he would dip into his own leftover campaign funds – perhaps a bit prematurely, as he collected these dollars in defense against a recall petition he successfully beat back, but another appears on the way – banked by an affiliated organization to fund media buys in several states that have, in the case of Idaho since last year, or are considering laws these laws. He already ran some in Tennessee and says he’ll spend millions.

Recognize this, of course, as a last-minute ploy to sell himself as a replacement for Democrat Pres. Joe Biden, whose low polling numbers and consistent running behind and significantly Republican former Pres. Donald Trump in the polls have increased the chances that party powerbrokers will try to stage an intervention to get him to desist in attempted reelection. An ad or two appearing in conservative states isn’t going to make any difference in whether laws of this nature pass or fail, but it does raise his profile.

Legislature needs to add sore loser provision

A major tweak that the Louisiana Legislature should make to its recent changes to candidate qualifying for certain offices would prevent “sore losers” from trying to game the system.

Earlier this year, the state instituted semi-closed primary elections to determine partisan general election candidates, essentially nominating them for office. Starting in 2026, this will apply to all federal legislative candidates as well as members of plenary statewide executive and judicial bodies. The law will make parties award nominations thus eligibility to run in the general election using their labels, where they can be joined by candidates not from a recognized party – currently the two major plus Greens, Libertarian, and Independent – on the general election ballot. In these primaries, only party members and any no party registrants who choose only on party’s ballot may participate.

But the law doesn’t prevent someone from running in a party primary who loses then to run in the general election under any label other than recognized parties’ or as no party. This subverts the idea of preventing other parties’ registrants to determine a party’s sole general election participant, even if the loser runs under another or without a label.

BC cuts tiny part of venture capitalist losses

The chickens continue to come home to roost over Bossier City’s profligacy of the past three decades as its agenda of government as economic development machine through interventions into the local economy with taxpayer dollars cascade from failure to failure.

Recently, headlines about how the city has squandered wealth and opportunity have focused on the duplicative Walter O. Bigby Carriageway and provision of expensive recreation for a tiny minority of city residents or for non-residents while discouraging other residents from using these facilities. But while these come from relatively recent poor decisions, there are some huge expenses with little payoff in the past often forgotten.

At over $65 million in cost, the Brookshire Grocery Arena has turned into a perennial money-loser. Since its opening in 2000, it had only three years where it turned a profit, the last in 2006. Its total losses through 2022 have been a startling $9.655 million. And while some of its desperate boosters (echoing arguments made about the millions of dollars going into city park facilities restricted to out-of-towner use) claim it can make that up through taxes paid by visitors to arena events, it’s laughable that non-residents to arena events during their trips could have bought in the city goods worth $386.2 million, the break-even point.