Directs the La. State Law Institute to stop printing unconstitutionally adopted language in Article I, Section 10 of the La. Constitution
HCR51 has significant implications for the Louisiana Constitution and ensures that the document accurately reflects only those amendments that have been legally adopted. The resolution acts as a correction, ensuring that the law reflects true voter intent by preventing continuance of the printing of provisions that have been ruled null and void by the Louisiana Supreme Court. This action serves to reinforce the integrity of the state's legal framework surrounding voting rights and legislative amendments.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 51 (HCR51) was introduced to address the printing of unconstitutionally adopted language in Article I, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution. The resolution directs the Louisiana State Law Institute to take necessary actions to cease the printing of the invalid language, effectively correcting the constitutional text as initially intended during its adoption process. This resolution is rooted in the legislative history dating back to Act No. 1492 of the 1997 Regular Session, where it was determined that proposed amendments were not properly ratified by voters according to constitutional requirements.
The sentiment around HCR51 appears to be broadly supportive among legislators, as evidenced by the unanimous vote of 29-0 in the Senate, indicating a strong consensus on the necessity of addressing the unconstitutionally adopted language. Lawmakers recognized the importance of maintaining accurate and legally valid governmental documents, which upholds the rule of law and the safeguarding of citizens' rights.
While there appears to be significant agreement on the resolution, some discussions have highlighted the need for vigilance to ensure that future legislative actions conform strictly to constitutional protocols. With history indicating issues in the amendment process, the resolution opens a conversation about the importance of legislative clarity and transparency to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Critics may argue that closer scrutiny of legislative processes is needed to avoid complications such as those presented by Act No. 1492.