The 10 Constitutional Amendments
Election Day: Tues, Nov 3 · Early Voting: Oct 20–27
St. Tammany Democratic Parish Executive Committee
Louisiana voters will decide 10 proposed constitutional amendments this election. Four of them are tax exemptions carved out for specific groups, and several more would lock narrow, specific policy choices into the state constitution rather than passing them as ordinary law, where they could get a full fiscal review and be adjusted later if needed. Here's where we land on each one, and why. We recommend a No vote on nine of the ten, and a Yes vote on one, Amendment 7.
Disabled Veteran Surviving-Spouse Property Tax Exemption
NoWhat it does: Lets the surviving spouse of a disabled veteran who receives the extra homestead tax exemption move that exemption to a new home one time, if they relocate.
Why: We support military families, and we understand why a surviving spouse might need to downsize or relocate after losing a spouse. But this is a narrow, specific tax rule, exactly the kind of thing the Legislature can pass and adjust as an ordinary law. Instead, it would be written permanently into the Louisiana Constitution, which is already one of the longest and most amended constitutions in the country, largely because of amendments like this one. If it ever needs a tweak, fixing it means sending it back to every voter in the state, not a committee vote in Baton Rouge.
Ending the “Use It or Lose It” Property Tax Rule
NoWhat it does: Today, if a parish, school board, or similar agency lowers its property tax rate below what voters approved and doesn't raise it back within a set window after reassessment, it permanently loses the right to return to that higher rate without new voter approval. This amendment removes that rule. Agencies could bank their voter-approved maximum rate indefinitely and raise their rate back to it later with a two-thirds vote of the governing body after a public hearing, no trip back to the ballot required.
Why: In St. Tammany, this isn't hypothetical. After the 2024 parishwide reassessment, our median property tax rate actually fell, from about 140 mills to about 131, and it fell again in 2025. That's the current system working as designed. A lot of homeowners still saw their bills rise anyway, because assessed property values jumped roughly 22% parishwide, a separate issue this amendment does nothing to fix. What this amendment changes is the backstop: today, bringing a rate back up to its old maximum eventually requires going back to voters. This amendment replaces that with a vote of the governing board. We'd rather keep the public, not just a supermajority of a board, as the ones local government has to convince.
Ending Bail After Conviction for Crimes Against Children
NoWhat it does: Bars bail for a list of serious, aggravated crimes against children once a person has been convicted, even while their case is on appeal.
Why: This amendment responds to a real and upsetting case: a man convicted of raping an 8-year-old in Baton Rouge was released on bail pending sentencing, despite living near his victim. Nobody disputes that outcome was wrong. Our objection isn't to the goal, it's to solving a judicial-discretion problem by eliminating judicial discretion altogether, through a permanent constitutional change rather than stronger bail statutes or judicial accountability, which already exist. Voters can and do remove judges who make bad calls. A judge should be able to weigh the specifics of a case, and due process, including the right to appeal, shouldn't carry an exception for one category of crime just because the public outcry over a single case was justified.
Lifetime Term Limit for Governor
NoWhat it does: Changes Louisiana's current limit of two consecutive four-year terms to a lifetime limit: anyone who has served more than a term and a half as governor could never be elected governor again, even after years away from office. As written, it would bar former Govs. John Bel Edwards and Bobby Jindal from ever running again.
Why: Louisiana already has a term limit. This amendment doesn't close a loophole, it takes a choice away from voters permanently. If voters decide, years from now, that a former governor is exactly who they want back in the job, that should be their call to make at the ballot box, not something foreclosed today by a constitutional amendment aimed at specific individuals.
Retirement System Debt Payment Flexibility
NoWhat it does: Extra state money sent to pay down Louisiana's public retirement debt, more than $13 billion in unfunded liability, currently must go to the oldest debt first. This amendment lets the Legislature, or the retirement systems themselves, choose which debt to pay down first instead.
Why: The Legislative Fiscal Office projects no cost from this change, so this isn't about a looming fiscal hit. It's about trading a clear, predictable rule for one that depends on whoever is making budget decisions in a given year. A transparent, oldest-debt-first rule is harder to quietly bend for short-term political convenience than a system that reopens the choice every session.
Extra Property Tax Exemption for Homeowners 65 and Older
NoWhat it does: Lets a parish or city, with local voter approval, offer an additional homestead exemption to homeowners 65 and older who already qualify for the state's special assessment freeze. The exemption is a flat dollar amount set purely by age bracket, not by home value, rising from an extra $60,000 of home value exempted at ages 65–69 up to $300,000 by age 81 and older. It would take effect in 2028 at the earliest, parish by parish.
Why: We aren't against seniors getting real relief. Our objection is to how this one is built. The size of the break depends entirely on a homeowner's age, not their income or need, so a wealthy 81-year-old in a large home receives the identical exemption as an 81-year-old living on a tight fixed income in a modest one. More than 184,000 Louisianians already receive the existing senior freeze; this would stack a second, larger break on top of it, with the cost landing on parish and school budgets rather than the state. Because it's a local option, it also creates pressure: once some parishes adopt it, others may feel they have to match it to stay competitive for retirees, whether or not their budget can absorb the hit to the schools, roads, and emergency services that seniors rely on too.
Public Funds for Lead Water Line Replacement
YesWhat it does: Louisiana's constitution generally bars spending public money for private benefit. This amendment creates a narrow, specific exception allowing public funds to locate and replace lead and other hazardous drinking water lines, including the portion that runs under privately owned property, where a water system chooses to do the work.
Why: This is the one amendment on this ballot we're asking voters to support, and the reasoning is different from our objections to the others. Federal law already requires water systems to replace lead service lines within the next decade, and the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans alone estimates up to 50,000 homes in the city may still have them. Current law is genuinely unclear about whether public money can be spent on the private-property portion of those lines, and that uncertainty puts more than $150 million in already-committed federal funding at risk. Unlike the tax amendments on this ballot, this isn't a narrow break for a specific group. It's a public health fix with a real deadline, a quantifiable benefit, and no new financial pressure on parish or school budgets. It clarifies that local governments can act. It doesn't force them to.
Property Rights and Foreign Adversaries
NoWhat it does: Writes a ban on property seizure in Louisiana by designated “foreign adversary” nations or their agents into the state constitution. Louisiana law already bars foreign adversaries from owning or leasing property within 50 miles of a military base.
Why: The state hasn't pointed to an actual case this amendment would solve. The list of “foreign adversaries” it relies on is set by the federal government and can change with a future presidential administration, meaning Louisiana would have no control over who falls under its own constitutional provision. Its definition of an affected “agent” is also broad enough that it could reach legitimate companies with minority foreign investment or financing, which is part of why business groups, not just civil liberties advocates, have raised concerns. A real problem deserves a real, specific statute, not a symbolic gesture with unpredictable side effects written permanently into the constitution.
Higher Income Cap for the Senior Tax Freeze
NoWhat it does: Raises the income limit to qualify for Louisiana's existing special assessment freeze, which locks in a senior's home value for tax purposes, from $100,000 to $150,000 in adjusted gross income.
Why: Nearly 233,000 Louisianians already use this freeze. Raising the income cap to $150,000, well above the state's median household income, broadens an already large tax break to many households that aren't the ones most at risk of being taxed out of their homes. Like Amendment 6, the lost revenue doesn't disappear. It shifts onto a shrinking pool of other taxpayers and, over time, pushes parishes further toward sales taxes, which hit lower-income households hardest since everyone pays the same rate regardless of what they earn.
Tax Break for Rehabilitated Blighted Property
NoWhat it does: Lets a parish, if it chooses, offer a property tax exemption of up to 75% of assessed value for up to 20 years on a rehabilitated structure that had previously been declared blighted, unsafe, or a public nuisance. The Legislature would set the detailed eligibility rules later, in a separate law.
Why: Cleaning up blighted property is a real and worthwhile goal, and we don't dispute that. But voters are being asked to approve a tax exemption before knowing who qualifies or how it will be run. Those rules come later, in a companion law most voters will never see. A 75%, 20-year exemption is also generous enough that it could end up rewarding developers and house-flippers as much as the neighbors living next to an eyesore. We'd rather see the details worked out and made public first, then passed as a targeted, accountable program, not approved as a blank check in the constitution.