Willie Calhoun, Jr. Et Al. v. Nancy Landry

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 18, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
WILLIE CALHOUN, JR. ET AL.
VS.
NANCY LANDRY
No. 2025-CD-00316
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Nancy Landry, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State for the State
of Louisiana - Applicant Defendant; Elizabeth Murrill, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Louisiana - Applicant Intervenor; Applying For
Supervisory Writ, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court
Number(s) C-759264;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 18, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Weimer, C.J. and Guidry, J.
Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Cole, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JDH
WJC
JBM
CRC
03/18/2025 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CD-00316
WILLIE CALHOUN, JR. ET AL.
VS.
NANCY LANDRY
On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. In November of 2024 the Louisiana Legislature by Joint
Resolution, with overwhelming majorities in both houses, proposed an amendment
to revise Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution. A Joint Resolution of the
Legislature is not law; the law will change only if the voters approve the p roposed
amendment. The measure is scheduled to appear on the March 29 th ballot as
proposed Amendment No. 2.
The wisdom of the proposed changes is not before the court. That will be
decided after investigation, debate, and a vote of the people. The issue is whether
the question has been legally presented to the voters.
Plaintiffs have filed a petition raising constitutional and statutory challenges
to the proposed amendment, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Time is of
the essence given that early voting commenced March 15 and is ongoing.
Considering the interests of judicial economy, the need to provide a definitive
resolution of the issue, to prevent confusion or concern about infringement of the
right to vote, or the effect of electoral choice, we elect to exercise our plenary
supervisory authority under La. Const. Art. V, §5(a). See Unwired Telecom Corp.
v Par ish of Calcasieu, 2003-0732, p. 8 (La. 1/19/05), 903 So. 2d 392, 400
(explaining “the constitutional grant of supervisory authority to this court is plenary,
unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion

2
of the court”); see also Mellor v. Parish of Jefferson, 2022-01713 (La. 9/1/23), 370
So. 3d 388, 391 (explaining this court may exercise its plenary authority “based on
the possibility of constitutional infringement”).
The text of the enactment and constitutional and statutory provisions are clear,
and the questions are all purely legal, therefore they are reviewed by the court de
novo. There is no evidence to adduce and no reason to delay resolution of this
important matter.
Constitutional Objections
Plaintiffs argue that the title to the amendment is inadequate. Article XIII,
Section 1(B) provides that a “proposed amendment shall have a title containing a
brief summary of the changes proposed”. This constitutional requirement differs
from the statu tory requirements for the language on the ballot. The title to the
proposed amendment is “To provide with respect to the power of taxation including
limitations thereon”. The title to Article VII is simply, “Revenue and Finance”. It
is well-settled that the title of a legislative act is not dispositive, rather the substance
controls. "[T]he provisions in the body of a law, which are germane to the object of
the legislation need not be expressed in the title and the title is not required to be a
complete index to every section of the statute. It is sufficient if the title in general
terms directs attention to the purpose of the enactment. ... The title of an act is not to
be strictly or technically construed. ... All that is required is that the title of a statute
should be indicative of its object. The constitutional provision must be construed
broadly with the view of effectuating not frustrating the legislative purpose." State
v. Sliger, 261 La. 999, 1006-07, 261 So. 2d 643, 646 (1972). We believe the same
principle applies here. We find the title is adequate and therefore find no merit in
this argument.
Plaintiffs also raise a “one object” argument. Article XIII, 1(B) of the
constitution provides that a proposed amendment “shall be confined to one object”.

3

It further provides, however, that “the legislature may propose, as one amendment,
a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects
or changes”. That is clearly the case here. The proposed amendment provides a
robust overhaul of Article VII. The fact that Sections 12, 13, and 17 and some parts
of other sections remain as they were is of no moment in the larger legislative
objective. This argument also has no merit.
Statutory Objections
Plaintiffs claims that the language appearing on the ballot violates La. R.S.
18:1299.1, which provides in full:
A. The preparation of a question or proposition to be submitted
to the voters at an election shall be the responsibility of the governing
authority or other entity calling the election or submitting the question
or proposition. The proposition shall be comprised of simple, unbiased,
concise, and easily understood language and be in the form of a
question. The proposition shall not exceed two hundred words in length
and shall not include words that are struck through, underscored, or in
boldface type.
B. The secretary of state shall be responsible for ensuring that the
proposition complies with the requirements of this Section.

The legislature adopted the following ballot language, which is set to appear
on the March 29 ballot:
Do you support an amendment to revise Article VII of the
Constitution of Louisiana including revisions to lower the maximum
rate of income tax, increase income tax deductions for citizens over
sixty-five, provide for a government growth limit, modify operation of
certain constitutional funds, provide for property tax exemptions
retaining the homestead exemption and exemption for religious
organizations, provide a permanent teacher salary increase by requiring
a surplus payment to teacher retirement debt, an d make other
modifications? (Amends Article VII, Sections 1 through 28; Adds
Article VII, Sections 29 through 42)

Plaintiffs argue that the word “modify” is misleading, because the funds in
question are being deleted, not modified; that “retaining” tax exemptions for
religious organizations is misleading because they are potentially more restrictive;
and that providing a “permanent” teacher salary increase is misleading because the
year to year salary stipends teachers have been receiving provide the same dollars.

4

The full text of the amendment is available to the public on the Louisiana
Legislature’s website: htps://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocment.aspx?d=
1390004. We find the ballot language for the proposition at issue is framed in
“simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood language.” There is no
requirement that every detail of the proposition be stated on the ballot. The state’s
voters have access to the entire legislative bill giving all the details of the proposed
constitutional amendments on the state legislature’s website. The effect of the
proposed changes is a subject for debate beyond the purview of this court.
This court has long recognized that: The publication gives voters information
as to the contents or provisions of a proposed constitutional amendment. All that is
required to be printed on the ballot is sufficient information to identify which
proposed amendment the voters are voting for or against. Hotard v. City of New
Orleans, 35 So.2d 752, 756 (La. 1948). Amendment 2 has been published on the
legislature’s website for over three months. The public is able to make itself aware
of all contents of Amendment 2.
Plaintiffs also argue that the ballot language is biased; that it’s “all dessert and
no vegetables.” Yet vegetables may be healthier than dessert. This too is a matter
of opinion and for debate, beyond this court’s analysis, and for the voters to decide.
We do not find the ballot proposition misleading or biased in the manner the
legislature sought to proscribe. Accordingly, we find no violation of La. R.S.
18:1299.1
Again, it is not the duty of this court to pass on the wisdom of the proposed
changes to Article VII of the constitution. The voters rather than the courts should
decide. We do find that the issue has been adequately and legally presented to the
voters, and therefor dismiss the petition of Plaintiffs with prejudice.
JUDGEMENT RENDERED.