Last night, despite strong dissents raising concerns about “transparency” and the “impartiality of the system of justice,” the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by two teachers and a pastor challenging proposed constitutional Amendment 2.
The lawsuit responded to Amendment 2’s proposal to rewrite large swathes of the state’s constitution. The lawsuit contends that Amendment 2’s ballot language violates state law, which requires language to be “simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood”. Plaintiffs contended that the HB7 ballot language is both biased and misleading because it obscures the true impact of proposed changes, such as a severe narrowing of constitutional protections for church property and religious ministries.
On Tuesday evening, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a ruling that was unusual in that it allowed the Attorney General to skip the Court of Appeal and seek the intervention of the Supreme Court directly. The ruling was also unusual because it decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, even though the merits were not an issue before the court. The Court ruled that Amendment 2’s issues have “been adequately and legally presented to the voters” and the Court therefore dismissed the case.
The decision prompted strong dissents. Chief Justice John Weimar, joined by Justice Piper Griffin, wrote that the Court’s decision “erodes respect for the fairness and impartiality of the system of justice” in part because “any evidence the parties intended to introduce will now be essentially swept under the rug.”
Justice John Guidry, also joined by Justice Griffin, wrote, “I strongly disagree with the majority that the proposed ballot language is sufficient and transparent to accurately summarize and put voters on notice concerning what they are being asked to vote for or against.”
A representative for the plaintiffs indicated that they were weighing their options.