Louisiana Senate Bill SB288

Louisiana 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/3/22
• Refer: 3/3/22
• Refer: 3/14/22

Caption

Constitutional Amendment to increase the composition of the Louisiana Supreme Court from six to eight associate justices. (2/3 - CA13s1(A)) (OR +$250,000 GF EX See Note)

Impact

The primary impact of SB288 would be seen in the structure of the judiciary in Louisiana. By expanding the Supreme Court, the bill aims to enhance the deliberative process, allowing for a broader range of perspectives in judicial decisions. However, the proposed changes also necessitate a re-evaluation of the current six supreme court districts, as the legislation mandates the legislature to define a method for transitioning to nine single-member districts.

Summary

Senate Bill 288 proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the number of associate justices on the Louisiana Supreme Court from six to eight. Additionally, it outlines a transition plan that would come into effect on January 1, 2024, requiring a majority of five justices to concur for decisions to be rendered. The amendment intends to refine the Supreme Court's composition and ensure effective oversight of judicial proceedings by providing a larger body for decision-making.

Sentiment

The discussions surrounding SB288 appear to be mixed but lean towards support for the expansion of the court's composition. Supporters argue that increasing the number of justices will allow the court to handle cases more effectively and enhance the quality of judicial review. Conversely, some opponents might view this expansion as unnecessary or potentially politically motivated, although specific sentiments against the bill were not highlighted in the available documentation.

Contention

A notable point of contention may arise from the requirement for a two-thirds legislative approval regarding the transition methods for the election of justices from the new districts. Critics could argue that this requirement complicates the process or allows for political maneuvering, which might influence the impartiality of the judiciary. Nonetheless, overall discussions did not indicate significant resistance to the bill within the legislative transcript.