GOP lawmakers must keep up tort reform pressure

Louisiana’s Legislative Republicans wisely have launched a full-court press on tort reform, and must capitalize on the opportunity to build their case while exposing the fallacies of opponents that keep vehicle insurance rates artificially high.

This week, legislative committees dealing with insurance held interim meetings, after another round earlier this summer. Instigated by the supermajority-wielding GOP, these represent an attempt to gather data to make another run at tort reform after tepid 2020 legislation, watered down in response to objections by trial lawyer supporter Democrat former Gov. John Bel Edwards, seemingly has produced mixed results.

Trying to ascribe rate changes to policy is difficult because so many other factors may intervene. For example, Louisiana always will have upwards rate pressure because of its above-average propensity for natural disasters, compared to other states, which damages more vehicles.

LA one step closer to restoring single M/M map

For one party attached to Louisiana’s ongoing controversy about its congressional districts, it’s a matter of forcing a smile and hoping for the best.

Last week, the losers of Callais v. Landry turned in petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court about whether sufficient cause existed for the Court to take up the case directly. Earlier this year, a three-judge panel ruled the state’s redone map impermissibly used race to draw a two majority-minority district map, inflating beyond constitutional bounds that use at the expense of ignoring equal protection of voters and traditional principles of reapportionment.

That plan had come about after another was enjoined by another district judge prior to any trial ruling the drawing of such a map violated the Voting Rights Act by only including a single M/M district. This was unprecedented, as no court ever had endorsed drawing boundaries specifying that the proportion of M/M districts had to equal that of the state’s population, much less without a trial on the merits, on the basis of the VRA which itself explicitly rejects that approach except in cases of clear intent to deprive minority group members of voting rights.

Court should uphold LA Ten Commandments law

Despite a lawsuit by objecting parties, Louisiana’s Act 676 of 2024 is constitutional, but those responsible for administering it must not do so unconstitutionally.

This week, Republican Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill outlined why the suit brought shortly after GOP Gov. Jeff Landry signed the bill into law is defective. As such, she asked for dismissal of the suit alleging that mandated display of the Ten Commandments injects religious content into education in violation of the First Amendment. The state already has promised the displays won’t go up in five school districts before Nov. 15, although the law doesn’t come into effect until Jan. 1, 2025.

The law mandates that in all public education classrooms a copy of the Ten Commandments, taken from the text of a case where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that could be displayed on public property, be displayed along with designated text explaining the context that includes other important historical documents. The law also mandates that no public funds be expended to create the displays, where school districts or colleges may accept donated copies or donated funds to create the displays. It also suggests as part of the display adding the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance, all of which use religious referents.

Hunter filing error invites incident reminder

An upcoming electoral contest with a backstory became even more interesting last week, driven by a rare political opportunity – an open judgeship, with this on the state’s highest court, no less.

Due to a reapportionment itself controversial because it involved Republicans essentially surrendering a safe seat on the Louisiana Supreme Court, a new majority-minority district without an incumbent that split Monroe and moved south into splitting Baton Rouge attracted three black Democrats in a race this fall. One, First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Michael Guidry, was getting a second shot at a spot on the state’s highest court after having run a strong campaign almost a decade ago in a different district that was not M/M. Terms that don’t come up often (of ten years length), an age limit of 70, and that incumbents basically never lose means his second chance is extraordinary.

Guidry, backed by business interests, almost found himself the winner by default almost immediately after qualifying. Someone connected with Guidry sued to remove the other two candidates from the ballot, Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Marcus Hunter and Louisiana Housing Corporation Chief of Staff Leslie Chambers, who is drawing support from trial lawyer interests. Both were argued not to have paid state income taxes in the past, where legally they must have done so to file candidacies, and also that Chambers wasn’t domiciled in the district.

BC charter panel implodes, lawfare on tap

The verdict from the Bossier political establishment: lawfare.

Last week, Bossier City’s Charter Review Commission imploded. It hadn’t had a formal meeting in over a month-and-a-half despite a couple of attempts, with one featuring no members appointed by city councilors who opposed a strict term limits measure, and the other featuring no members appointed by councilors and the mayor who favored that. In the meantime, two members resigned and a citizen petition to put on the ballot a term limits measure of three lifetime retroactively was certified and readied to present to the Council the day after.

That petition mirrored a proposal accepted by the Commission at its previous meeting, where two of the members who had expressed opposition to the measure were absent and put the anti-measure commissioners into the minority. This brought a counterreaction from that group, who still maintained a majority, who at the intended meeting – which was not summoned by the acting chairman Shane Cheatham and because of its not having been scheduled at a previous meeting was of questionable legality – had anti-proposal member Secretary Sandra Morehart place the item for review with the intent of its removal. This would be facilitated by appointing two new members, apparently allies of the majority against strict limits, at the meeting as by state law. The strategy was either to have no term limits measure in the final product or a watered-down version that could override the petition’s version on the Dec. 7 ballot.