Why did Louisiana voters reject all four constitutional amendments? Pollster shares observations
The four amendments dealing with specialty courts, tax rates and juvenile prosecution were defeated by a significant margin, with nearly identical percentage votes.
Louisiana pollster John Couvillon identified three main reasons for the amendments' defeat on Saturday.
More: Louisiana election results: Four proposed constitutional amendments rejected
Couvillon noted a significant increase in Democratic turnout during this election cycle, particularly among Black voters, who outnumbered white voters. In Orleans Parish, the amendment election attracted 10,000 more voters than the 2023 gubernatorial election.
"From a percentage standpoint, Election Day turnout from Black voters was 17 percent, while it was 14 percent amongst white voters," Couvillon said. "As an example of Democratic turnout being elevated, Orleans Parish's turnout was 10 percent higher than the rest of the state, in other words, 31 versus 21 percent. I calculate that Black voters, or shall I say voters in overwhelmingly Black precincts, voted 92-to-8 against Amendment 2, while white voters voted 53-to-47 against Amendment 2."
Couvillon pointed out that Republicans were divided over the taxation of churches. Couvillon said several Evangelical types opposed Amendment 2 based on this issue, with Republican Representative Danny McCormick of Oil City also opposing the amendment.
Couvillon noted that he does not recall seeing any advertisements for the amendment until the week of early voting, which he believes is short notice. He likened an amendment campaign to a political campaign.
"With it being defeated by such a wide margin ‒ and with nearly identical percentage votes all four amendments − you kind of have to conclude that given the confusion that voters had about Amendment 2, they then took that confusion out on the other three amendments," he said.
This article originally appeared on Shreveport Times: Why did all four Louisiana constitutional amendments fail to pass?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment
Donald Trump still has a political bone to pick with Queen Bey. The president, who has previously voiced criticism of celebrities who showed support for his election counterpart, Kamala Harris, took to social media on Saturday, July 26, to renew his unfounded claim that pop star Beyoncé was allegedly paid $11 million to endorse Harris' presidential bid. In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, the "Cowboy Carter" songstress made her endorsement of Harris official when she appeared at the former vice president's abortion rights rally in her hometown of Houston in October. She also cleared the usage of her 2016 song "Freedom" for Harris, and the tune became the Democratic nominee's official campaign song. "I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats after the presidential election and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, $11 million dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note...)," wrote Trump in a fiery Truth Social post, also citing alleged endorsement payments to media mogul Oprah Winfrey and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. USA TODAY has reached out to a representative for Beyoncé for comment. "Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out!" Trump concluded. "Kamala and all of those that received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter." Trump's digital tirade comes just two months after he accused the Grammy-winning singer and other celebrities of being paid to publicly support Harris' candidacy. In a May Truth Social post, the GOP president announced plans for a "major investigation" into the Harris campaign's celebrity endorsements. Catch up: Trump calls Beyoncé's endorsement of Kamala Harris 'illegal' Did Beyoncé receive payment for Kamala Harris endorsement? At the time of Trump's original allegations in May, the Federal Election Commission had no record of an $11 million payment to Beyoncé from Harris' presidential campaign. Additionally, the agency does not have rules explicitly prohibiting candidates from paying for endorsements. It is unclear where Trump got the unsubstantiated $11 million figure. The Harris campaign last year rejected a rumor that it paid Beyoncé $10 million for her endorsement that spread on social media shortly after the music star's October 2024 appearance with Harris. Beyoncé's mother, Tina Knowles, also pushed back at the $10 million rumor in a November 2024 Instagram post, calling it "false information" and a "lie." She added that the singer "actually paid for her own flights for her and her team." Oprah Winfrey says she was not paid a 'personal fee' for Kamala Harris rally What has Beyoncé said about Kamala Harris campaign? During her October 2024 appearance at Harris' rally, Beyoncé, who was joined by fellow singer and Destiny's Child alum Kelly Rowland, said "It's time for America to sing a new song" when describing Harris' presidential bid. "I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother," the pop star added. "Your freedom is your God-given right, your human right." Harris has long been a fan of Beyoncé. The California-born politician attended the singer's Renaissance World Tour in 2023 just outside of Washington, D.C., after she gifted Harris tickets. Contributing: Caché McClay, Joey Garrison and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic
Gov. Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps to win seats for their party. And in mid-decade, no less, in clear violation of the state Constitution. It's sleazy, anti-democratic — and illegal. Even Hochul admits it, but suggests Dems may do it anyway since Texas and Ohio are moving to draw up new districts in their states. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps, writes The Post Editorial Board. Andrew Schwartz / 'All's fair in love and war,' she huffed last week. 'If there's other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I'll say is, I'm going to look at it closely.' Huh? If Texas and Ohio rig their maps, that doesn't give Hochul & Co. the right to break New York's laws — even if her goal is to offset any advantage Republicans get in those states. Note, too, that Hochul is huffing not about protecting New York's influence in Congress but her party's. And at the expense, presumably, of Republican voters in New York, since the goal would be to draw district lines favorable to Democrats. True, Texas and Ohio Republicans are expected draw lines they hope will favor them. But if those states cheat their Democratic voters, those voters can sue. Hochul and her party are worried that if more Republicans are elected from those states, it'll make it harder for Democrats to win control of the House in next year's midterms. But again, if the donkeys think those states are breaking any laws, they can go to court, too. Meanwhile, if Hochul tried to gerrymander in time for the midterm, she'd be doubly violating the state Constitution. First, redistricting can take place only once every 10 years, after the Census, not mid-decade. Second, in 2014 New Yorkers passed a constitutional amendment that empowered an independent decennial redistricting commission and specifically banned partisan gerrymandering. But Democrats ignored the amendment and tried to gerrymander anyway a few years ago, and it took a ruling by the state's top court to stop them. We don't condone gerrymandering, by either party, in any state. It cheats voters, skews representation and undermines democracy. As even Democratic boss Jay Jacobs warns, 'We need to be careful about democracy,' adding, 'You don't change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can.' Given the tight timeframe, it's unlikely Democrats could pull this off. But then, if New York Dems were willing to violate the Constitution before, who can be sure they won't 'break the rules' again to push through corrupt new district lines in time? New Yorkers of both parties should demand Hochul take back her threat and obey the law.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'
