Public Affairs Research (PAR) Council President Steven Procopio appears before the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC) on Monday, December 2, 2024 to provide insight on the four (4) Proposed Constitutional Amendments on the ballot this Saturday, December 7, 2024.
Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) President Steven Procopio was the guest speaker at the meeting of the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC) of Monday, November 2, 2024, and he provided an overview of the four (4) Constitutional Amendments voters face this Saturday, December 7, 2024. For those interested, PAR has also published this educational guide regarding the Proposed Amendments.
Let us now provide Procopio’s presentation on each amendment (though 2 & 3 are presented in tandem) and also state our intended vote on each measure and provide our rationale of why:
12/2/24: Procopio provides overview of Proposed Constitutional Amendment One:
“Do you support an amendment to allow the supreme court to sanction a judge upon an investigation by the judiciary commission, and provide that the recommended sanction shall be instituted by the judiciary commission or by a majority of the supreme court, and to provide for the appointment of five members of the judiciary commission?”
Our Commentary and Vote:
We predict that the Amendment is going to pass because voters are unlikely to read beyond the words, “sanction a judge,” and, given all of the extreme discontent felt by many Louisiana citizens entailing the conduct and perceived shadiness of Louisiana State District Judges, the immediate reaction after seeing those three words will be, “Hell, yes!”
Though we placed the portion about adding five members to the Commission in bold, it will not be that way on the ballot. Nevertheless, that is at the very heart of the Proposed Amendment.
Procopio states, at the 3:48 mark on the above video, that the goal is to provide more transparency regarding the judiciary in Louisiana. We believe this is a mere tweaking of a horrendously-bad system, and we further believe that there is only one way to have the potential to truly solve the problem of judicial corruption in Louisiana! What is that “way?” We believe it is to do just like at least two-thirds of other states have done and permit cameras in courtrooms!
In fact, here is a map of which states (as of 2010) permit cameras in courtrooms and which ones do not:
Beyond cameras in Louisiana State District Courts, we also firmly believe cameras need to be permitted in United States Federal Courtrooms, and so does the law firm Ballard Spahr, which submitted this suggestion to H. Thomas Byron III, Secretary Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
We would note the presence of the word “Trump” 59 times in the preceding “suggestion” because of how emphatic President-Elect Trump has been that he wants cameras in Federal Courtrooms when his own trials would have commenced (obviously those trials will now be going by the wayside). Very importantly, from the Ballard Spahr feature linked above:
President-elect Trump, who repeatedly said he wanted cameras at his criminal trials, will simply work with Congress to pass a law that makes cameras in federal courts mandatory and that limits judicial discretion to ban them. Lobbying efforts to make this happen are already taking shape, and when Trump or Congress decide to do something, they act a lot quicker than the Judicial Conference.
All we can say is, “Thank God for President-Elect Donald J. Trump!!!!!!!”
He knows how to solve problems and we very, very strongly share his sentiments that cameras belong in courtrooms! P-E-R-I-O-D!!!
Now, we don’t fault Sen. Jay Morris for trying this, “poke around the edges solution,” but we firmly believe that the real solution is to do as Trump is already setting the wheels in motion to do and get cameras in courtrooms!!
Therefore, we very strongly encourage Gov. Landry to simply follow the lead of President-Elect Trump and have a legislator (be it Sen. Morris or anyone else) to sponsor a bill to get cameras in Louisiana courtrooms as quickly as possible!
So, with that, we intend to vote “No,” on Proposed Constitutional Amendment Number One because we believe it not only is a mere tweak of a badly-broken system, but also because we share Trump’s sentiments of what the real solution needs to be! We have stated our sentiments repeatedly in that regard during the nine-year history of this blog, but now perhaps with Trump being so emphatic about cameras in Federal Courtrooms, Gov. Landry will follow his lead and get cameras in Louisiana State District Courts!
Anyone want to know the ultimate irony? As stated in the above-linked feature:
On Nov. 6, a day most Americans were preoccupied by election news, a committee of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. rejected a proposal to permit cameras in our country’s federal courtrooms.
As we stated, we expect this Proposed Amendment to pass, so we hope nobody gets any “false sense of security” on the whole issue and that Gov. Landry will call upon a legislator to sponsor a bill to provide what we believe will a much more meaningful solution: getting cameras in courtrooms in Louisiana!
Hopefully, we’ve adequately provided our rationale of why we’re voting “no” on Proposed Constitutional Amendment One, so let’s move on to the second and third Proposed Amendments which were covered by Procopio in tandem, and we’ll note that Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns was the only one present who raised a question on that tandem of amendments:
12/2/24: Procopio provides overview of Proposed Constitutional Amendments Two and Three:
TWO: “Do you support an amendment to require that the legislature wait for at least forty-eight hours prior to concurring in a conference committee report or amendments to a bill appropriating money?”
THREE: “Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to extend a regular session in increments of two days up to a maximum of six days if necessary to pass a bill appropriating money?”
Our Commentary and Vote:
Burns poses his question beginning at the 5:34 mark wherein he asks where things stand if two passes and three fails. Procopio states, at the 6:29 mark, “or it could mean they manage their business and they start passing budgets with at least 48 hours to go.” With that, we intend to vote “yes” on TWO and “no” on THREE. While these two may have been intended to be part of a “tandem,” we believe TWO represents a means to prevent the disastrous (and we believe, inexcusable) way the 2023 Legislative Session concluded, we do not like the idea of providing legislators with a “pressure relief valve” given how much time they have to get their business done!
Procopio does indicate that, if TWO passes and THREE fails, more Special Sessions could arise if the clock literally runs out without a budget being passed. Quite frankly, we believe that is a desirable outcome because it is going to put a huge spotlight on legislators and what can only be described as their ineptitude if they permit such a scenario to transpire. As Procopio indicates, any such Special Session would require beginning the budget process from scratch in such a session, but we view that as a much better alternative to having pork barrel spending crammed down the citizens’ throats as was done in 2023. In short, we want the legislators under as much pressure as possible to act responsibly, and we believe THREE provides an unneeded “pressure relief valve.”
Now on to the final Proposed Constitutional Amendment (4), which Procopio said is the most complex amendment he and PAR have had to try to sort through in all his years at PAR. Here’s his presentation on four and the one question posed, which was by BRPC Secretary-Treasurer John Hightower:
12/02/24: Procopio provides overview of Proposed Constitutional Amendments Four.
FOUR: “Do you support an amendment to eliminate mandatory tax sales for nonpayment of property taxes and require the legislature to provide for such procedures by law; to limit the amount of penalty and interest on delinquent property taxes; and to provide for the postponement of property tax payments under certain circumstances?”
Our Commentary and Vote:
Much of the discussion on this Amendment seems to focus on abandoned property; however, during Burns’ 10-year tenure as a real estate broker who focused on auctioning of property, he observed that to be the exception rather than the rule with regard to tax sales. The far more frequent occurrence seemed to be people routinely just not paying the property taxes timely and allowing tax deed sales to transpire knowing they would just redeem it before the three-year period of redemption was up.
To that end, we were more than a little perplexed with the video above because all of the situations presented simply weren’t what Burns typically encountered. Procopio did state the matter is “complex,” and, because Burns has now been out of the real estate field for 11 years, we’re willing to defer to the content of the video above.
Having said that, we did find one segment of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee testimony to be more in line with our thoughts even for today’s environment. Here’s that segment of the Committee hearing:
4/8/24: A witness with the last name “Wilson” testifies his firm belief that Louisiana, “technically is a lien state.”
All we can say is that Burns has always had the same identical understanding that “Mr. Wilson” does, and we agree with him about bidders quite likely losing interest in the process for the reason he indicated. Thus, for us, we’ll be voting, “no” on Proposed Amendment # 4.
So, the final recap: #1) No; #2) Yes; #3) No; #4) No.
So, of all the proposals, we have the strongest feelings about #1, and we hope we’ve provided what we believe the solution to the readily-apparent problem should be, and that solution just happens to line up with that of President-Elect Trump on the national level regarding Federal courts.
