Legislators propose 22 amendments for Louisiana
Louisiana legislators have filed 22 proposed state constitutional amendments during the 2025 legislative session. However, only a handful of those amendments may end up on the ballot and one has already been withdrawn.
Some of those proposals are duplicates and others were losers from the moment they were filed. Those that haven't been heard by a committee face tough futures. Others are rewritten amendments that voters rejected on March 29.
Senate Bill 8 would make it easier to fire state classified employees who are protected by civil service. It is awaiting a vote by the full Senate.
The new city of St. George in East Baton Rouge Parish would be allowed to create a school system by SB 25. It passed the Senate 26-5 and was sent to the House.
The state's homestead exemption that gives homeowners a $75,000 tax exemption could be increased by $22,500 by parish governing authorities by SB 56. It is still in committee. House Bill 271 would allow parish governing authorities to increase the homestead by $5,000. It was approved 9-5 in one committee and sent to a second committee.
Another bill, SB 57, would remove income limitations on freezing the homestead exemption property assessment for persons ages 65 or older. It is awaiting a Senate vote. SB 115 authorizes a new assessment level for homeowners who meet the federal poverty guidelines. It is awaiting a final Senate vote.
The House has HB 269 that increases the homestead income special exemption level from $100,000 annually to $200,000 for those 65 and older, veterans and the disabled. It is still in committee. HB 300 is a similar amendment.
Judges have to retire at age 70 and SB 86 would repeal the retirement age for judges. That has been tried more than once and been defeated by the state's voters. The amendment failed 12-25, its first vote in the Senate. The House has a similar bill, HB 63, that is still in committee.
The spending of any foreign money in state elections is prohibited by SB 109. It passed the Senate 34-5 and is in a House committee.
HB 294 says 20% of all severance taxes should be sent to parishes and eliminates dollar amounts. It is awaiting House final passage.
An amendment that limits government spending, HB 295, has passed one committee and is in another one.
Fire protection officers employed by an airport authority would become eligible for state supplemental pay under provisions of HB 349. It is still in committee.
Two new members would be added to the five-member Louisiana Public Service Commission by HB364. They would be appointed by the governor. It is still in committee.
Parishes would be authorized to exempt business inventory taxes from property taxes by HB 366. They would receive state funding if they exempt those taxes. It has passed the House unanimously and is in the Senate.
HB 448 would prohibit nonprofit organizations from receiving a property tax exemption on property used for commercial purposes, even if it relates to the income-tax-exempt purposes of the organization. The bill is still in committee.
Solar facilities would have limited eligibility from participating in the Industrial Tax Exemption Program by HB 464. It is still in committee.
School systems would be able to provide salary increases for teachers and other school employees under HB 466, which is not an amendment. It is awaiting House final passage. Three education trust funds would be eliminated by HB 473 in order to fund teacher and support raises required in HB 466. The amendment is awaiting a final vote in the House.
Constitutional amendments would be limited to one object under provisions of HB 471. It is still in committee.
The Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund would be eliminated and its funds would be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Fund (the rainy day fund) by HB 678. It is awaiting House final passage. The goal is to provide legislators with additional budget funds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Some Republicans push to undo gambling tax hike they passed in Trump's megabill
WASHINGTON — Some top Republicans are regretting that they inserted a tax hike on gamblers into President Donald Trump's megabill, with several lawmakers who supported the legislation now calling for rolling back that policy. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, told NBC News that the provision was a 'mistake' and needs to be undone. 'It was definitely not something that we did in the House. I don't understand why the Senate decided to do something like that,' Smith said in a brief interview Wednesday. 'And so it is definitely a provision that — I'm interested in making sure that we fix the Senate's mistake.' The new law cuts the tax deduction on 'wagering losses' from 100% to 90% of losses starting in 2026, disrupting the current dynamic where bettors can offset losses with gains and pay taxes only on net earnings. The new policy could tax gamblers even in years where they break even or net-out losses. For instance, a bettor who wins $100,000 and loses $100,000 in the same year would be stuck with a taxable income of $10,000. 'It would be potentially catastrophic for the industry as it would disproportionately affect high volume gamblers,' said Jack Andrews, the professional sports bettor who goes by that alias. 'Those high volume players are the lifeblood of most casinos,' he added. 'If they realize they could lose, and still have taxable income to pay that they didn't make, they'll stop playing. Or find ways to play that don't generate a paper trail.' Andrews said the new law 'could result in players losing money gambling, but still owing taxes on 'income' they didn't make.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the gambling tax change will raise $1.1 billion over a decade. At least a couple of senators who supported the megabill — which passed with only GOP votes — want to undo the gambling tax. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee have signed on to legislation to roll it back, alongside Nevada's two Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen. The bill is called the Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act, or the FULL HOUSE Act. 'It's unfair. It makes no sense,' Cruz, who plays poker in his spare time, said in an interview of the tax provision. 'The income tax is designed to tax actual income,' he said. 'For example, playing poker for profession — not allowing them to deduct their losses means they're paying taxes not on their actual income.' 'I think we should fix it,' he added. Cruz said most Republicans voted to pass the gambling tax change without knowing about it, a damning indictment of the legislative process for the bill. 'Nobody really takes responsibility for introducing it,' Cruz said. 'None of us knew about it. It's a very big, beautiful bill, and so there are lots of provisions there that at the end, things were moving very fast. I don't know of anyone who was aware of the provision at the time it passed.' The provision was introduced in the mid-June version of the bill, with Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, overseeing the tax portion as chair of the Senate Finance Committee. And he, too, is open to revisiting it. 'Senator Crapo is open to receiving feedback from affected stakeholders and learning more about industry reporting and compliance,' a Crapo spokesperson said. 'To comply with the rules of reconciliation, every provision from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act needed to be modified to create a budgetary effect. In order to retain the gambling loss provision, it was changed to 90 percent,' the spokesperson added. 'While the committee heard from gaming associations on other provisions after text was released on June 16th, there were no concerns raised with lowering the threshold.' The blowback from bettors has since grown since Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, and Democrats have added it to their list of grievances with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'Republicans' hastily put-together bill is full of provisions that are completely counterproductive and harmful to Americans. The provision limiting the wagering loss deduction will have a negative impact on Nevada, and it's one of the many reasons I voted no,' Cortez Masto, the author of the FULL HOUSE Act. On July 10, she sought unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass the legislation but was met with an objection from Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., which prevented speedy passage. Her office said she will 'continue to explore all options available to restore the 100% dedication for gambling losses and protect Nevada's gaming and hospitality industries.' If the tax change isn't undone, it will come as a shock to some bettors, as 'many of them wouldn't realize this until they do their 2026 taxes, which would be early 2027,' Andrews said. But reversing it won't be so easy. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., poured cold water on the proposals from some Republicans to roll back parts of the bill. Asked by NBC News on Tuesday whether measures offered by his colleagues to undo the Medicaid cuts and gambling tax were going to succeed, Thune said flatly, 'No.' 'There are members out there who are saying, we'd like to do this or that differently. That's always the case,' Thune said. 'This was a big piece of legislation that had a lot of moving parts. Not everybody got everything they wanted, but at the end of the day, it's historic in its breadth and the things that it addresses.' The White House didn't immediately return a message seeking comment on whether Trump is open to revisiting the provision. Other Republicans say they're unfamiliar with the industry blowback to the gamblers' tax change. 'I honestly, frankly, haven't had a chance to look at it. So I don't even know what they're talking about,' Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., the second ranking Republican on Ways and Means, said. On the other hand, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, sounded surprised by how much attention the issue is getting. 'Why do so many people care about the gamblers tax?' he quipped. 'I'm kind of agnostic. I don't, frankly, understand why it's such a big deal. But happy to look at anything they propose.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Congress can't decide how much more to cut on climate
The House left Washington this week for its August recess, setting the stage for fall showdowns with the Senate and White House on deeper cuts to climate and environment spending. If the sides can't work out their differences, or agree on how to kick the can past Oct. 1, a partial government shutdown could hit in a little more than nine weeks. Three distinct visions of the future are at play: — President Donald Trump's budget request in May asked lawmakers for massive reductions for programs that aim to fight climate change, and agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service. — The Senate has put forth largely bipartisan proposals, eyeing a small cut to EPA and an increase for the Interior Department. In some cases, senators are pushing back at how Trump is handling government funding. — The House, on the other hand, is aiming to take a sledgehammer to those agencies and more, with double-digit percentage cuts that would have to advance with only Republican votes. Its cuts still wouldn't bite as deeply as what Trump proposed. A MOUNTAIN OF DIFFERENCES: Take the spending bill for the Energy Department and water development programs, which advanced through the House Appropriations Committee last week on a party-line vote. It would fund the agencies in its purview at $57.3 billion, or $766 million less than current levels. The Energy Department would get $48.8 billion, a cut of $1.4 billion. Its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is targeted for a 46 percent decrease, while the Office of Grid Deployment's funding would fall by more than half. Trump's budget request eyed even bigger cuts, seeking to reduce the Energy Department's budget by $4.7 billion, slash about 70 percent of the renewable energy office's funding and mostly eliminate money from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. Things are even messier on the Senate side. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who chairs the subcommittee overseeing the energy and water legislation, says he wants the bill to spend less than the $59.9 billion that Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and ranking member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) had agreed to, creating an impasse that has blocked the legislation from moving forward, our Andres Picon reported. A COLLISION OVER EPA: House and Senate appropriators have also shown stark differences in how they're handling Interior and EPA — including which programs they want to cut. The House Appropriations Committee advanced its bill along party lines this week, including a proposed 23 percent cut for the EPA. The bill's total spending for the agencies it covers, $38 billion, is $9.2 billion higher than what Trump requested. But the Senate version, advanced the following day by a subcommittee chaired by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), would cut EPA just 5 percent. The Senate bill also takes aim at the Trump administration and its priorities. It would cut EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's office, provide no funding for EPA's planned closure of its research office, and require the administration to change the name of Alaska's Mount McKinley back to Denali, reversing Trump's January renaming. It's Friday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Timothy Cama. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to tcama@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Zack Colman breaks down how the Trump administration is planning to back off from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Power Centers Extreme storms producing even more rain than some scientists expected Heavy rainfall events like the one that created deadly flooding in the Texas Hill Country are a symptom of climate change, Chelsea Harvey writes. 'The biggest, baddest, rarest extreme precipitation events are precisely those which are going to increase the most in a warming climate,' Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the California Institute for Water Resources, said not long after the Texas floods. This is because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But scientists say recent flash floods have produced more rainfall than their equations hold. Trade deals take gas along for the ride Some nations are currying favor with the Trump administration ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline for tariffs by buying liquefied natural gas from the U.S., Brian Dabbs and Carlos Anchondo write. The president announced new trade deals this week with Indonesia and Japan, the latter of which he said will include a 'major expansion of U.S. energy exports.' 'LNG is playing a significant role in the bilateral trade talks,' said Mark Menezes, president of the U.S. Energy Association trade group and a former Department of Energy official in Trump's first term. China, EU agree and disagree on climate European Union leaders agreed to a joint effort with China to fight climate change this week after leaving Beijing without a wider trade deal, Karl Mathiesen, Koen Verhelst and Jordyn Dahl write. The friction over trade stems from China's dominance in clean technology and its associated supply chains. European leaders see China's exports as a threat to their own manufacturing. Chinese President Xi Jinping called on EU leaders to see that 'convergent interests are not a threat,' in remarks reported by the state-run Xinhua News Agency. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the agreement a 'big step forward … our cooperation can set a global benchmark.' In Other News Pumped up: Massachusetts regulators are considering cutting electricity rates in the winter for households that use heat pumps. Dried up: Louisiana canceled a $3 billion coastal restoration project meant to protect the state from rising seas and extreme weather. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. The CEO of Exelon and chair of the Edison Electric Institute says he's ready to meet the Trump administration's goals but calls for an 'all of the above' energy approach. The Securities and Exchange Commission wants an appeals court to continue hearing a challenge to a Biden-era climate rule even though it is not defending it in court. That's it for today, folks. Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
House ethics panel tells Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pay more for Met Gala attendance
Advertisement As a guest of Vogue, Ocasio-Cortez and her partner received tickets to the gala valued at $35,000, as well as customized clothing, hair and makeup styling and a hotel room to prepare for the high-society event. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The congresswoman worked with an attorney to comply with House ethics rules and paid for most of the goods and services with personal funds, but the ethics panel found 'the payments were significantly delayed and some payments fell short of fair market value.' In a statement, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Mike Casca, said: 'The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House. She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she's done at each step in this process.' Advertisement Representative Mike Kelly Representative Mike Kelly speaks during a hearing on the Secret Service's security failures regarding the assassination attempts on Donald Trump, Dec. 5, 2024, in Washington. Rod Lamkey/Associated Press The House Ethics Committee issued a formal reproval Friday of Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., following a yearslong investigation into an insider-trading allegation over his wife's purchase of stock in a steel company in his Butler-area congressional district. The panel also said Kelly and his wife, Victoria Kelly, should divest of any stock in the company, Cleveland-Cliffs, before the congressman takes any further official actions related to it. While the committee said it 'did not find evidence' that Kelly 'knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information,' its report also said it 'did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.' However, the report said, 'Representative Kelly's failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the alleged misconduct' and of the investigation itself was a violation of the code of official conduct. The committee did 'not find a clear violation' of conflict of interest. The congressman said in a statement Friday, 'My family and I look forward to putting this distraction behind us.' Kelly noted the investigation has 'unnecessarily' lasted for nearly five years, and in the time since the Cleveland Cliffs Butler Works plant faced an uncertain future. 'Throughout this process, I have fought for the 1,400 workers at the plant, I've spoken with these workers, and they appreciate the hard work we have done to fight for those jobs and for Butler,' Kelly said. The investigation was launched after a July 2021 referral regarding allegations the congressman's wife may have purchased stock based on confidential or nonpublic information he had learned during official duties. Advertisement The Ethics Committee staff reviewed more than 25,000 pages of documents, the report said, and interviewed people including the congressman. It found Kelly had advocated for so-called Section 232 tariffs for the product the plant produced even after Mrs. Kelly held stock in Cleveland-Cliffs. 'He took several actions to specifically benefit Cleveland-Cliffs during the time his wife had a direct financial interest in the company,' it said. Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., speaks at an event, July 7, 2022, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Wilfredo Lee/Associated Press The House Ethics Committee announced Friday it had unanimously voted to reauthorize an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations involving Florida Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. In May, the Office of Congressional Ethics referred several allegations to the House Ethics committee, including claims Cherfilus-McCormick, a Democrat, accepted campaign contributions tied to official actions and requested community project funding for a for-profit entity. The south Florida congresswoman has previously faced scrutiny over her campaign activities and the use of her congressional office. And earlier this year, a Florida state agency sued a company owned by her family, alleging it overcharged the state by nearly $5.8 million for pandemic-related work and has refused to return the funds. In a statement, Cherfilus-McCormick underscored that the ethics panel had not reached any final decision and that the further review does not mean she made any violations. 'I fully respect the process and remain committed to cooperating with the Committee as it works to bring this inquiry to a close,' she said. Representative Henry Cuellar Representative Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, speaks during a campaign event, May 4, 2022, in San Antonio. Eric Gay/Associated Press The House Ethics Committee also reauthorized its investigation into Rep. Henry Cuellar over whether he engaged in multiple illegal abuses of his office. The committee launched its investigation into the Texas Democrat last year after the Justice Department indicted Cuellar on numerous federal charges, including bribery, conspiracy and money laundering. Advertisement The committee said in its reauthorization that lawmakers are 'aware of the risks associated with dual investigations' and cautioned that 'the mere fact of an investigation into these allegations does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.' Cuellar's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Matt Brown contributed.
