Court punt likely means LA back to two M/M map

Today the U.S. Supreme Court sent the consolidated Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais into overtime. As a result of the Court’s refusal to decide on this case concerning Louisiana’s reapportionment of congressional districts heard earlier this spring, three major implications follow.

The current congressional map is likely to survive through the 2026 election cycle. The Court’s embracement of what has become called the Purcell Principle means that, realistically, unless the Court renders its decision no later than early 2026 Louisiana will end up using its current map that produces two out of six majority-minority districts for the 2026 election cycle. Lawmakers made this more likely in 2024 when they created semi-closed primaries for congressional elections that bumped up the qualifying date from early summer to late winter, just after they scrapped a single M/M district map that a federal district judge had ruled unconstitutional the previous year in favor of the present one, which itself didn’t seem too different from one the Court rejected three decades earlier that profoundly shaped reapportionment jurisprudence which itself is at the crux of the current case.

Next week the Court should release a 2025 Term schedule. If the case doesn’t appear very early on for argumentation, the clock will run out if changes need to be made and even if eventually found defective the current two M/M map will be used, essentially guaranteeing an additional Democrat elected to Congress.

Bossier Parish feels Landry line item veto heat

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry may have received 71 percent of the vote in Bossier Parish, but he might be somewhat unpopular these days among the courthouse crowd after some vetoes he cast to the state’s capital outlay and supplemental appropriations bills – perhaps all of it over votes cast on a bill Landry strongly backed?

In his first year of governor, Landry didn’t veto that much, and the pattern that emerged from that – indeed, he stated as much in his veto message – was he had to see an “appropriate government function” with an “efficient and effective use of state resources” involved. This time, he vetoed even fewer items.

When the dust settled, Landry cast vetoes on three items in HB 2, for capital outlay. His veto message stated he did so, and for projects where ground had yet to break, because the bill contained about $1 million in spending than authorized money available. Fair enough, but the three items totaled about $15 million, so something else additionally must have been at play.

New tort reform should spur economic development

In a change from typicality, the honor of the longest bill to become law for the 2025 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature was not the operating budget for most of government, HB 1. Instead, SB 244 by Republican state Sen. Bob Hensgens takes the cake, and for the better.

SB 244, just signed into law by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, provides for a massive overhaul of matters energy and conservation; indeed, it renamed the Department of Energy and Natural Resources – itself just renamed 18 months ago – into the Department of Conservation and Energy come Oct. 1. It dipped its toe into many matters, predictably enough given its length, starting out at 66 pages just to reorganize the department, and then burst into a 227-page substitute bill as more stuff got piled on.

Aside from its reorganization focus, the most significant change it triggers comes in how legal questions surrounding land use for fossil fuel energy purposes are to be handled from Sep. 2027 on. Principally, it addresses legacy lawsuits, or legal actions taken against former owners of land used for fossil fuel extraction purposes for alleged environmental damage. It attempts to bring consistency and clarity to the area of legal controversy, mainly by putting more power in the hands of administrative processes at the expense of the judiciary. Courts could override only if they ruled for a much better plan for remediation using a much higher legal standard.

Smaller LA govt takes small steps backwards

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry promised a “standstill” fiscal year 2025-26 budget. What the Legislature spat out ended up as a 6 percent increase. How could and why did this happen?

Back when he introduced it, Landry in fact foresaw a cut in spending of nearly a billion bucks from the budget as it existed last Dec. 1 to $49.4 billion. General fund spending he thought would fall from $12.5 billion nearly $350 million. Falling statutory dedications to the tune of nearly $700 million would surpass an expected more than $600 million in federal funds.

Instead, when the dust settled it shot up from $50.4 billion to $53.5 billion. Federal funds ballooned almost a billion smackers beyond what had been offered, but that was nothing compared to statutory dedications that far from a reduction exploded nearly $1.7 billion. Indeed, aside from a small increase in self-generated funds only a bit larger than the general fund settling lower by about $70 million fewer than estimated, almost the entirety of the escalation came from these two sources.

Higher hopes exist for lesser LA fiscal reform

Aided by a better election calendar, at least some chunk of fiscal reform stands a good chance of making it into the Louisiana Constitution prior to hammering out the fiscal year 2027 budget next year.

After the defeat of the Third Extraordinary Session of 2025’s Act 1 that became this spring’s Amendment 2, due to a motley coalition of big government advocates on the political left and panicked conservatives, reformers went back to the drawing board to try again. This time, reformers offered an omnibus bill like previously but also filed four others taking parts of that bill that could be decided upon discretely.

The omnibus bill this time around, HB 472 by Republican state Rep. Julie Emerson, mutated by substitute into her HB 678 which then stalled in Senate committee. The reduced bill would have represented the portion of the amendment that basically would have folded the Revenue Stabilization Fund into the Budget Stabilization Fund and redirected mineral royalty funds. It floundered because some of the emptied fund could have gone to prop up tax cuts proposed in other bills if revenues dipped too much as a result of the cuts.