Lafayette, LA – With Louisiana’s upcoming March 29th election, voters are faced with important decisions regarding four proposed constitutional amendments. One of the most debated is Amendment One, which tackles two significant issues: empowering the Louisiana Supreme Court to regulate out-of-state lawyers and granting the state legislature the authority to establish trial courts of limited and specialized jurisdiction.
The first section of Amendment One seeks to grant the Louisiana Supreme Court the ability to discipline out-of-state lawyers for unethical legal practices conducted within the state. The issue has gained attention due to concerns over the actions of out-of-state attorneys, particularly after recent natural disasters in southwest Louisiana. State Senator Jay Morris, who co-authored the amendment, emphasized the necessity of this change.
“The Supreme Court has no authority to oversee or regulate or discipline lawyers, and there was a real problem with out-of-state lawyers that were pretty bad actors that came in after some of the storms in southwest Louisiana, and the Supreme Court couldn’t do anything about it,” said Morris.
Currently, the Louisiana Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over attorneys practicing in the state who are licensed elsewhere. This gap in regulatory power has raised concerns about potential abuse, especially during times of crisis, like after hurricanes, when a surge of out-of-state lawyers often floods the market. A vote in favor of Amendment One would grant the Supreme Court the authority to investigate and discipline these lawyers.
However, opponents of the amendment argue that the proposal is unnecessary and could lead to overreach. A vote against the amendment would preserve the current system, where out-of-state lawyers are not subject to Louisiana’s regulatory oversight.
The second portion of Amendment One proposes to allow the state legislature to create trial courts with limited and specialized jurisdiction. This aspect of the amendment would give lawmakers the ability to establish courts focused on specific issues, such as drug courts. According to Senator Morris, this change would provide much-needed flexibility, especially for rural parishes that lack the resources to fund a full-time judge for specialized cases.
“Right now, a single rural parish cannot afford a judge just for drug cases, which is very important as we try to address the drug problems that we have,” Morris explained. “Because the constitution stands in the way of that, this would allow, for example, five rural parishes to go to the legislature and say, ‘Please create a drug court for this region,’ and there’s enough money to pay for one judge.”
However, not everyone supports this part of the amendment. Consuela Gaines, an advocate from the grassroots organization Voice of the Experienced (VOTE), has filed a lawsuit to remove the amendment from the ballot. Gaines argues that the creation of specialized courts could disproportionately harm marginalized communities, particularly Black and Brown individuals. She expressed concerns about the broad language of the amendment, warning that it leaves the creation of these courts too vague, without clear guidelines on their scope or authority.
“It would allow the powers that be to create courts that can be harmful to many people: Black, Brown, poor. We don’t know specifically what these specialty courts will be. I think that is way too broad for them to just say specialty courts. Name that, name what those courts will have the power to do,” Gaines stated.
As voters head to the polls on March 29th, they will face the decision of whether to support or reject these changes. Amendment One is a complex proposal with implications for both legal practices and the judicial system in Louisiana. Those in favor argue that it will enhance accountability and provide much-needed flexibility, while critics remain concerned about its potential to create unintended consequences.
Voters will have the final say on whether these proposed changes to the state’s legal framework are necessary or whether they could potentially lead to greater harm.