Amendment 2 on the March 29 ballot contains misleading language throughout its 91 words. The most glaring misconception involves the prospect of “permanent” pay raise for teachers and school support workers. The raise is actually just replacing a stipend that public school teachers are already getting, so teachers’ overall take-home pay will not change under the amendment. The proposal would also eliminate three state trust funds – and a protected source of revenue – for education programs. The Times-Picayune | Baton Rouge Advocate’s Elyse Carmosino reports: 

 “Now you’re leaving it up to the vagaries of the Louisiana Legislature, not just next year, but every year thereafter” to find funding, [Executive Director of Invest in Louisiana Jan] Moller said. Last year, the funds provided about $10 million for early childhood education. They also supplied $4.5 million to assist with student testing, $3 million to improve struggling schools and $1.2 million to help school districts with teacher recruitment and retention. The Louisiana Policy Institute for Children has warned that the funds’ removal would leave nearly 1,600 children without access to early education programs, worsening the state’s child care crisis.

Lawmakers can, and should, give all public school teachers a permanent, protected pay raise through the Minimum Foundation Program – the state’s K-12 education funding formula. Unfortunately, that’s not what Amendment 2 does: 

Unions and budget experts explain that because the raises won’t be built into the state’s school-funding formula, where it would remain a permanent part of the state budget, educators would rely on districts to allocate the money. They also say lawmakers could later decide to put the money to other uses. … “It’s kind of taking the state out of the business of providing teacher pay raises and foisting that responsibility more onto the locals,” Moller said, adding that the Legislature should fund “teacher raises annually through the formula — something the state did for years.”

Join us for a webinar on March 12 at 12 p.m. to learn more about Amendment 2 and its implications. Click here to register.

You can also learn more about Amendment 2 by reading our new issue brief or listening to the latest episode of the Didja Know? podcast. 


Going backwards on criminal justice

Two other amendments on the March 29 ballot would make it easier to send children to adult jails and create a two-tiered system of justice by clearing the way for lawmakers to create new “specialty courts” focusing on narrow segments of law. Bruce Reilly, deputy director of VOTE, Voice of The Experienced, in a guest column for the Lens, lays out the pitfalls of Amendment 1:

If this passes, every potential probation violation could go to a “specialty court.” They could also be destinations for every post-conviction writ for people who have been sentenced but who have claims of actual innocence, ineffective counsel, or judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.  With “specially” created court rules and a prejudicial standard of proof such as “reasonably satisfied,” Landry’s magistrates and Attorney General Liz Murrill’s prosecutors could bypass the democratic process of locally elected judges and district attorneys who are accountable to the community.

Current law already allows prosecutors to charge juvenile offenders as adults for certain violent crimes. But as Reilly notes, Amendment 3 would expand that discretion to any felonies:

Judging by what happened last year, legislators will pass a bill that allows a district attorney, on their own discretion, to try a child under the age of 17 in adult court for any of the 60 crimes listed in R.S. 14:2 (b) – and any crimes that state legislators want to add to the list. Children could be subjected to various mandatory minimums along with maximum sentences up to 99 years, without parole.


Medicaid cuts could shutter rural hospitals 

Congressional Republicans’ plan to cut $880 billion largely from Medicaid would eviscerate health-care access in rural America. Rural hospitals are already struggling to keep their doors open, with almost 200 closing in recent decades. Further closures would be catastrophic for rural children and non-elderly adults, who rely on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program more than their counterparts in urban areas. The Washington Post’s Lauren Weber reports: 

Heart attack and stroke victims may lose crucial time being ferried by ambulance to big-city hospitals, health-care experts say. Rural nursing homes may vanish, straining families in the poorest of regions. Those who are pregnant may have no choice but to drive long distances for prenatal checkups and to give birth. … The possible cuts are an “existential issue” for rural hospitals, said Alan Morgan, chief executive of the National Rural Health Association. “Medicaid cuts are going to result in rural hospital closures,” he said. “It’s just a question of how many.”

Weber, reporting from a small town about an hour west of San Antonio, Texas, explains the broader economic impacts that Medicaid cuts can have on rural communities: 

That support comes in part because when a rural hospital closes, communities don’t just lose their access to care — they often lose their economic lifeblood. Medina Regional Hospital is the largest employer in town and key to attracting businesses and young families essential to making Hondo thrive. But items Republicans are proposing, such as work requirements, which often take people off Medicaid’s rolls, could impact its financial stability.


Gutting federal funding has huge implications for state 

President Donald Trump’s move to slash the federal budget would have huge consequences for Louisiana. A proposed overhaul of the Federal Emergency Management Agency would mostly shift the financial responsibility of recovering from natural disasters to states. The Times-Picayune | Baton Rouge Advocate’s Mark Ballard explains how Louisiana, which has received more disaster recovery dollars than any other state in recent decades, would be affected: 

Rep. Troy Carter, D-New Orleans, agrees that FEMA needs “comprehensive reform,” but warns that “dismantling it before putting a new structure in place would leave millions of Americans, especially in disaster-prone areas like Louisiana, vulnerable to further hardship.” “States, while capable of responding to some immediate needs, do not have the resources, infrastructure, or capacity to provide the widespread, coordinated relief that FEMA can offer,” Carter said. “We must strengthen FEMA, not dismantle it, to ensure that no community is left behind in their time of need.”

An executive order from Trump to dismantle the U.S. Education Department appears imminent. The Times-Picayune | Baton Rouge Advocate’s Patrick Wall explains how this move would affect Louisiana, which relies heavily on federal education dollars. 

The state received about $2.3 billion from federal sources for K-12 schools in 2021-22, the most recent year available. That represents about 19.5% of its school funding — one of the highest rates in the U.S., where about 14% of public education funding flows from the federal government. Much of the money comes through Title I, a program that supports schools with large shares of students from low-income families. “The states that have the highest percentage of federal funding, a lot of which is coming from Title I, they are largely red states,” [Director of pre-K-12 education policy at The Century Foundation Halley] Potter said. “And Louisiana is high up on that list.”

Number of the Day

73.6% – Percentage of Louisiana’s total federal grants in 2024 that was allocated for Medicaid. (Source: Pew)