A state constitution is supposed to serve as the basic rulebook for state government. It establishes the broad principles that we use to govern ourselves, the rights and responsibilities of the different branches, and the rights that belong to each citizen.
But Louisiana’s constitution has evolved into something much more convoluted and complex in the 51 years since it took effect in 1975. It has been amended 221 times since taking effect in 1975, while another 109 proposed amendments have been rejected by voters (including the last nine).
The Nov. 3 ballot offers no relief, as voters will decide on 10 amendments that were approved by the Legislature. Half of them deal with property taxes – the revenue that supports local schools, fire departments, parks and other public services – offering new tax breaks to widows, senior citizens and people who develop blighted property. Voters will also decide whether governors should have a lifetime limit of two terms, whether people who commit crimes against children should have the right to post bail, and whether “foreign adversaries” should have the right to seize private property for public use.
Voters can be forgiven for thinking this year’s amendments are small potatoes. The vast majority of Louisianans will not see their life change as a result of any changes to the constitution. There is one potential exception: Amendment 7, which creates a new exception to the constitution’s ban on the donation of public funds for private purposes. New Orleans officials say the amendment is needed so they can take advantage of $150 million in federal funding to upgrade the city’s water system and eliminate lead-contaminated water lines.
Official source: Louisiana Secretary of State — 2026 Proposed Constitutional Amendments. The Secretary of State’s document is the controlling source for ballot order and ballot wording.
Note: Nine amendments were enacted during the 2026 Regular Session; Amendment 9 (Act 220 / HB 300) was enacted during the 2025 Regular Session.
Quick reference
| No. | Subject | Act / Bill | Primary author |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Transfer of disabled-veteran property-tax exemption by surviving spouse | Act 39 (2026 RS) / SB 180 | Sen. Franklin J. Foil |
| 2 | Local property-tax millage rates after reassessment | Act 273 (2026 RS) / HB 521 | Rep. Roger Wilder III |
| 3 | Post-conviction bail for aggravated offenses against minor children | Act 271 (2026 RS) / HB 51 | Rep. Debbie Villio |
| 4 | Lifetime term limit for governor | Act 414 (2026 RS) / HB 225 | Rep. Michael Bayham |
| 5 | Use of nonrecurring money to pay state retirement-system deb | Act 606 (2026 RS) / HB 27 | Rep. Dixon McMakin |
| 6 | Optional additional property-tax exemption for qualifying homeowners age 65+ | Act 274 (2026 RS) / HB 514 | Rep. Les Farnum |
| 7 | Public funds for lead and hazardous drinking-water service lines on private property | Act 607 (2026 RS) / SB 228 | Sen. Royce Duplessis |
| 8 | Expropriation of property by foreign adversaries | Act 277 (2026 RS) / HB 192 | Rep. Charles Owen |
| 9 | Income limit for the special assessment level (property-tax assessment freeze) | Act 220 (2025 RS) / HB 300 | Rep. Sherman Mack |
| 10 | Property-tax exemption for rehabilitated blighted or derelict property | Act 272 (2026 RS) / HB 214 | Rep. Chance Henry |
Amendment 1: Transfer of disabled-veteran property-tax exemption by surviving spouse
Act 39 (2026 RS) • SB 180 • Sen. Franklin J. Foil | Legislature bill page for SB 180
Constitutional provision: Article VII, §21(K)(1) • Effective: January 1, 2027
What’s on the ballot
Do you support an amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran with a service-connected disability, who receives the additional property tax exemption, to make a one-time transfer of the additional property tax exemption to a subsequent qualifying property?
What it does
Louisiana’s constitution provides a homestead exemption on a person’s primary residence that protects the first $75,000 of its value from property taxes. Disabled veterans and their surviving spouses are eligible for additional property tax breaks, depending on the extent of their disability. This amendment would allow a surviving spouse who gets the additional tax exemption to transfer it one time to a new primary residence.
Analysis
This is not a major change to the constitution, and would affect a very small number of people and have virtually no effect on the ability of local governments to provide services to their citizens. The Legislative Fiscal Office reports that there were 229 surviving spouses in Louisiana who claimed the service-related tax exemption in 2025. The total value of the tax exemption was around $168,000. It’s impossible to know how many of those spouses will buy a new home in Louisiana during a given year, but that number is likely to be very low, and the value of the tax break they would receive is minimal.
Amendment 2: Local property-tax millage rates after reassessment
Act 273 (2026 RS) • HB 521 • Rep. Roger Wilder III | Legislature bill page for HB 521
Constitutional provision: Article VII, §23(C) • Effective: January 1, 2027
What’s on the ballot
Do you support an amendment to allow a local taxing authority to continue to levy a lower millage rate without losing its ability to adjust to the maximum authorized millage rate from a prior year’s reassessment?
What it does
The constitution requires properties to be appraised every four years. Tax millages are then automatically adjusted so that local taxing authorities receive the same amount of revenue as before even if property values have increased. But the constitution also lets taxing authorities, such as school districts and parish councils, capture the additional revenue from higher valuations by “rolling forward” the millage to the previous year’s maximum authorized rate. The roll-forward requires a two-thirds vote of the taxing body but does not have to go before voters. But if local authorities don’t roll forward their millage before the next appraisal, the lower rate becomes permanent.
The proposed amendment would allow local authorities to continue levying the lower rate without giving up the right to raise them later to the maximum authorized millage.
Analysis
This amendment closely mirrors a similar measure that voters rejected in 2022. While it would give local governments more flexibility to adjust their property taxes, it would likely result in less revenue flowing to local coffers. Right now local authorities have a strong incentive to roll their millages forward when property values rise because the constitution essentially offers a “use it or lose it” proposition. Without that threat, many local governments will feel pressure to maintain the lower millage, even if it means forgoing revenue that could help support public schools, parks, police and other essential services. But it’s impossible to say for sure how this would play out among different political jurisdictions.
Amendment 3: Post-conviction bail for aggravated crimes against children
Act 271 (2026 RS) • HB 51 • Rep. Debbie Villio | Legislature bill page for HB 51
Constitutional provision: Adds Article I, §18(C) • Effective: Upon adoption/proclamation as provided by the Act
What’s on the ballot
Do you support an amendment to prohibit a defendant from being released on any post-conviction bail if the defendant is convicted of an aggravated offense against a minor child?
What it does
Current law already gives judges tools to keep dangerous people in custody after conviction. For example, a judge cannot grant release if the person is likely to flee or is a danger to others, and must presume danger if the person has been convicted of most serious sex and violent crimes. The amendment would go further and remove judicial discretion entirely for aggravated offenses against children, so no judge could grant post-conviction bail in those cases.
Analysis
The amendment would turn a case-by-case judicial decision into an absolute rule for people convicted of serious crimes against children. Because post-conviction bail is already uncommon, and already restricted for dangerous offenders, the amendment is likely to affect few cases. Supporters can argue that people convicted of crimes like child rape should not be free while appealing, and that a firm rule gives victims and families certainty. The question for voters is whether an automatic ban with no exceptions is warranted, or whether the existing safeguards, which let judges deny release to anyone dangerous or likely to flee, are sufficient.
Amendment 4: Lifetime term limit for governor
Act 414 (2026 RS) • HB 225 • Rep. Michael Bayham | Legislature bill page for HB 225
Constitutional provision: Article IV, §3(B) • Effective: Upon adoption/proclamation as provided by the Act
What’s on the ballot?
Do you support an amendment to prohibit a person who has served more than one and one-half terms as governor from being elected as governor for any future term?
What it does
The constitution limits governors who have served more than one and one-half terms in two consecutive terms from being elected to the succeeding term. But governors can return to office after sitting out a term. The proposed amendment would create a lifetime limit: Anyone who has served more than one and one-half terms as governor could not be elected again.
Analysis
Term limits tend to be popular with voters, even though they restrict voters’ freedom to elect candidates of their choice. As long as people have the right to vote, they can limit anybody’s term in office by voting for someone else.
The amendment is seen by some as being aimed at former Gov. John Bel Edwards, who served two consecutive terms from 2016 to 2024 but would be eligible to run again in 2027. It would also apply to former Gov. Bobby Jindal, and any future two-term governor. Neither Jindal nor Edwards has given any indication that they want to run again.
It also would create different term-limit rules for governors than for state legislators, who currently are limited to three consecutive terms in each chamber, but are free to run again for their old offices after sitting out a term.
Amendment 5: Use of nonrecurring money to pay state retirement-system debt
Act 606 (2026 RS) • HB 27 • Rep. Dixon McMakin | Legislature bill page for HB 27
Constitutional provision: Article VII, §10(D)(2)(b)(iii) • Effective: Upon adoption/proclamation as provided by the Act
What’s on the ballot?
Do you support an amendment to authorize a state retirement system to apply any nonrecurring state monies it receives to any of its unfunded accrued liability rather than requiring application to its oldest unfunded accrued liability?
What it does
The constitution requires that 25% of any money deemed “nonrecurring” – such as surplus dollars that are left over when the state collects more money than it spends in a fiscal year – be used to pay down debt in the state retirement systems. It also requires that this money be applied to the oldest outstanding debt. The amendment would allow surplus funds (or other “nonrecurring” dollars) to be applied to any retirement debt, giving the state more flexibility to decide which obligations to pay in a given year.
Analysis
The Legislative Fiscal Office determined that the amendment would have no fiscal or actuarial impact on the state or its retirement systems. It changes which portion of retirement debt may be paid, not the amount of nonrecurring money allocated.
Amendment 6: Optional additional property-tax exemption for qualifying homeowners age 65+
Act 274 (2026 RS) • HB 514 • Rep. Les Farnum | Legislature bill page for HB 514
Constitutional provision: Adds Article VII, §21(P) • Effective: January 1, 2028
What’s on the ballot?
Do you support an amendment to authorize parishes and municipalities to extend an additional property tax exemption for property subject to the homestead exemption that is owned and occupied by a person who is at least sixty-five years of age and who qualifies for the special assessment level?
What it does
This amendment would give cities and parishes the option of granting new property tax breaks to people 65 and older, beyond what the constitution already allows. Louisiana’s constitution currently provides a homestead exemption that exempts the first $75,000 of a person’s primary residence from property taxes. The constitution also lets homeowners 65 and older “freeze” their assessments if their annual income is $100,000 or less (which would rise to $150,000 if Amendment 9 is approved), meaning their tax bills stay the same even if the market value of their home increases. This amendment would let local authorities exempt even more of a home’s value from property taxes. People who qualify for an assessment freeze would be eligible for extra exemptions, with the value of the exemption rising as people age. A person aged 65-69 would get an extra $60,000 of their home’s value exempted from taxes. By the time a person turns 81 the extra exemption would be worth $300,000, meaning they would not owe property taxes on the first $375,000 of their home’s value. The extra exemption would need approval from a local governing authority (such as a school board or parish council) and the voters of that district.
Analysis
Local governments are already restricted in their ability to raise money to support schools, parks, police protection and other needs and amenities. The majority of their revenue comes from sales taxes (where Louisiana’s combined state/local tax rate is the highest in the country) and property taxes, with the rest coming from fees that are charged for various services. While property taxes vary from parish to parish, Louisiana’s residential property taxes are very low by national standards, in part because of the existing homestead exemption.
While this amendment would not force any local government to increase the homestead exemption, it would create pressure on them to do so. Local governments that create new tax exemptions would have to absorb the revenue loss, meaning they could not pass the cost along to other taxpayers. This would leave less money available for the basic services that all communities depend on, including public schools. The Legislative Fiscal Office calculates that a 65-year old taxpayer would see an average tax cut of $630 per year if their primary residence is valued at $135,000 or more. An 81-year-old resident whose home is valued at $375,000 or more would see their tax bill reduced by more than $3,000.
Amendment 7: Public funds for lead and hazardous drinking-water service lines on private property
Act 607 (2026 RS) • SB 228 • Sen. Royce Duplessis | Legislature bill page for SB 228
Constitutional provision: Article VII, §14(B) • Effective: Upon adoption/proclamation as provided by the Act
What’s on the ballot?
Do you support an amendment to allow for the use of public funds by a political subdivision for the purpose of identifying, inventorying, removing or replacing drinking water utility service lines made of or affected by materials as specified or prescribed by the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, promulgated October 30, 2024, or subsequent promulgation, on property owned by utility customers?
What it does
The current constitution prohibits the use of public funds for private benefit, with certain exceptions. The amendment would create a new exception by allowing federal dollars to be spent on replacing lead-contaminated water lines, including water lines that are on customers’ private property.
Analysis
Lead contamination in drinking water is a serious health hazard that can lead to developmental delays and other long-term effects. It is especially harmful for children and pregnant women. The problem is particularly acute in New Orleans, where many water lines were built before lead hazards were widely known and are long overdue to be replaced. A recent federal law requires that all lead service lines be replaced within 10 years, starting in 2027, and provides municipalities with the money needed for the work. But city officials worry that the constitutional ban on donations for private benefit would bar them from completing the work according to the federal guidelines, because some of the contaminated service lines are on private property. While there are differing legal opinions on whether that’s the case, supporters of the amendment say the exception is needed so the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans can spend $152 million in federal funding that’s already been allocated.
Amendment 8: Expropriation of property by foreign adversaries
Act 277 (2026 RS) • HB 192 • Rep. Charles Owen | Legislature bill page for HB 192
Constitutional provision: Article I, §4(B)(4) • Effective: Upon adoption/proclamation as provided by the Act
What’s on the ballot
Do you support an amendment to prohibit expropriation of property by a foreign adversary or an agent of a foreign adversary?
What it does:
The constitution allows state and local governments to seize – or “expopriate” – private property if it’s for a public purpose, and the owner is fairly compensated. This amendment would prohibit expropriation of Louisiana property by any country deemed to be a “foreign adversary” or an agent of a foreign adversary. Currently the U.S. government officially lists six nations as adversaries: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
Analysis
This amendment attempts to solve a nonexistent problem. There is no evidence that any “foreign adversary” or their agent has tried to seize property from anyone in Louisiana. The amendment’s author admits that it’s purely intended as a “guardrail” in case something like that would happen in the future. The amendment was backed by religious conservatives, but opposed by business leaders including the Louisiana Chemistry Association and GNO Inc.
Amendment 9: Income limit for the special assessment level (property-tax assessment freeze)
Act 220 (2025 RS) • HB 300 • Rep. Sherman Mack | Legislature bill page for HB 269
Constitutional provision: Article VII, §18(G)(1)(a)(ii) • Effective: January 1, 2027
What’s on the ballot
Do you support an amendment to increase the maximum amount of income a person may receive and still qualify for the special assessment level for residential property receiving the homestead exemption?
What it does
The state constitution allows Louisianans 65 and older, disabled veterans and their spouses, and surviving spouses of people who are killed in action to have the assessed value of their primary residence frozen if their annual household income is below $100,000, which rises with inflation starting in 2026. The amendment would raise the maximum income threshold to $150,000, and delay the inflation adjustment to 2028.
Analysis
This amendment would result in a loss of local tax revenue over time, as people with slightly higher incomes would qualify for an assessment freeze. But it would also provide some financial security for retirees and disabled veterans with moderate incomes by protecting them from paying higher property taxes when the value of their home increases. It’s unlikely to have a major effect on the ability of local governments to provide services. But over time, the accumulation of new property tax breaks for different groups of voters will likely force government entities to use sales taxes – a more regressive form of taxation – to generate needed revenue.
Amendment 10: Property-tax exemption for rehabilitated blighted or derelict property
Act 272 (2026 RS) • HB 214 • Rep. Chance Henry | Legislature bill page for HB 214
Constitutional provision: Adds Article VII, §21(P) • Effective: January 1, 2027
What’s on the ballot
Do you support an amendment to allow property tax exemptions for blighted or derelict properties that have been rehabilitated, and to require the legislature to enact laws providing for administration of these exemptions?
What it does
The current state constitution includes several property tax exemptions. The biggest one for residential property is the homestead exemption, which keeps the first $75,000 of a primary residence from being subject to property taxes. This amendment creates a new constitutional exemption for blighted and derelict properties, but leaves it up to parishes whether to adopt the exemption. A companion bill to the amendment, which only takes effect if the amendment passes, says parishes could exempt up to 75% of the value of a rehabilitated structure for up to 20 years, and up to 25% of the value of unimproved land. Parish councils could adopt the new tax break through a simple resolution.
Analysis
Blighted and derelict properties can harm entire communities by driving down property values, increasing the cost of public services, creating public health hazards and contributing to cycles of crime and neighborhood disinvestment. Blighted properties also don’t yield much in the way of property taxes to support local services. So there is good reason to create incentives for people to bring such properties back into commerce. But revenue from property taxes is critical to maintaining the kind of public services that make communities livable, so elected officials should be careful before giving that revenue away. It’s impossible to predict how much local revenue would be forgone if this amendment were to pass. That would depend on how parishes choose to implement the law, and how many properties were brought back into commerce as a result. The amendment also could create unintended consequences by opening up a lucrative tax break for large developers that might not need it.