Reviewing the Saints 2018 Draft
As tantalizingly close as I came to some correct predictions, I want to get something out of the way first, regarding draft philosophy, and why I was disappointed in the Saints’ approach this year.
My fundamental philosophy regarding the draft is twofold:
- The purpose of the draft is to build the foundation of your team, not merely to plug immediate holes;
- Even first-round picks bust a significant amount of the time (around 50 percent), so a strategy geared toward picking more often, rather than targeting a small number of players, tends to be more successful.
Pretending to Be Poor? Go to Jail
Attorney General Jeff Landry may not have put in a personal appearance in the Senate Finance Committee Monday, but his fingerprints were all over a plan to lock up more of the state’s impoverished citizens.
“This bill creates the crime of government benefits fraud, making it a crime to provide false information in order to receive government benefits,” Rep. Sherman Mack (R-Albany) said, as he introduced HB 88.
“Tell me where we’re going with this,” Sen. Wesley Bishop (D-New Orleans) asked Mack. “Whether it’s the intention or not, this will have a disproportionate effect on the elderly, poor, and disabled folks.”
“This is the Attorney General’s bill. It is targeted to those who do not qualify for the benefits, and who intentionally put things on the application they knew to be false, in order to receive the benefits,” Mack responded.
“The purpose is to prosecute people. We are currently prohibited from doing straight up recipient fraud,” explained Ellison Travis, an attorney with the AG’s Medicaid Fraud Unit. “It’s targeted at people who are pretending to be poor.”
“Why would somebody pretend to be poor?” Bishop asked, clearly appalled by the assertion.
“In order to obtain the benefits,” Travis replied, matter-of-factly. “We get tips. People call in and say because of their relationship with someone, they know their income, and they know they’re on Medicaid.”
“So you get an anonymous call, saying that so-and-so is trying to defraud the government. And based on that tip, you want to bring criminal charges against an already economically-disadvantaged individual?” Bishop asked. “How do they come up with enough money to ward off the government?”
“I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that those are the people being targeted,” Travis insisted. “This is targeting people who do have money – more money than would make them eligible for Medicaid. It’s not the poor people.”
Bishop then turned back to Mack, asking, “Were any of these concerns expressed to you prior to filing the bill?”
“None of them were expressed to me before filing the bill, and to be honest, none were expressed to me either on the House floor or in my committee,” said Mack, who chairs the House Criminal Justice Committee. And again he reiterated, “It is the Attorney General’s bill.”
“In the seven years that you have served on the House Criminal justice Committee, has the Attorney General ever brought you a bill to take the same action against corporations, as opposed to individuals?” Bishop asked.
“He has not,” Mack admitted.
“How many people do you anticipate prosecuting next year, based on your knowledge right now?” Senate Finance chairman Eric LaFleur asked.
“As it is right now, we are prohibited from doing this,” Travis stated. “Our Medicaid Fraud Unit cannot accept these cases, because our federal grant prohibits us from investigating straight-up recipient fraud. We can only investigate recipient fraud when they are colluding with a provider.”
That’s not just a part of the grant that funds the AG’s Medicaid fraud unit: it’s basic federal law, which states: “The investigation and prosecution of cases of suspected recipient fraud not involving suspected conspiracy with a provider is prohibited.”
And just as the Bayou Brief’s Lamar White has previously reported, the Attorney General’s office is not reluctant to play fast and loose with grant requirements. Despite being prohibited from going after recipients for fraud– something Jeff Landry has described as “being handcuffed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services” — the Attorney General has been running ads online and on radio, urging people to report Medicaid recipient fraud.
Presumably, they are being paid for out of his Medicaid Fraud Unit’s budget, which is funded by the federal grant that specifically prohibits such activity.
Still, Sen. LaFleur was somewhat taken aback by the testimony from the AG’s office.
“You don’t go after this kind of fraud?” LaFleur asked.
“Current law requires us to refer cases like this to the local district attorney,”Travis explained. “He can prosecute the individuals for theft. But when someone applies for Medicaid, they get put into one of the managed care organizations, and the state is paying basically about $4800 per year for their healthcare coverage. They’re not getting cash. They’re not getting money. And unless they access more services, it may be difficult to convince a judge that that individual has taken something of value, and that it amounts to theft.
“Still, they have this coverage. It’s there, but they may never use it. The application, however, is fraudulent, and this would allow us to prosecute,” Travis insisted.
“I’m concerned that this is a very broad-based bill that captures everybody that commits fraud. It is not income-based, or solely Medicaid,” LaFleur said. “The last paragraph of the bill says ‘any record, voucher, payment, money or thing of value, good, service, right or privilege provided or administered by a state government entity’. That’s a very wide net to cast.”
Sen. Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport) had concerns, as well.
“Are you planning on putting grandma in prison?” he asked. “You know, somebody 80 years old, the total amount is $600 in fraud? Won’t it cost more to prosecute than what they owe? And is it realistic to send them to prison for five years?”
“We’re not just talking about getting money back,” Travis replied. “We’re talking about deterrence. The cost of prosecuting doesn’t outweigh the benefit of deterring this type of behavior.”
“I agree that we don’t want to lock Grandma up,” said Sen. Sharon Hewitt (R-Slidell), “but we need more tools in the toolbox to get a handle on Medicaid, especially with our budget issues.”
Ultimately, the committee voted to return the bill to “the stack”, where they have placed all other bills carrying fiscal notes that indicate increased costs to the state. It isn’t dead. In fact, it could come back up for a vote as soon as next week.
Louisiana Politics Imitates Looney Toons
Lately, it appears that state politics is a live-action version of the old Warner Brothers cartoons we watched on Saturday morning. For example, the Wile E. Coyotes of House GOP leadership keep luring the state’s citizen Road Runners ever closer to the edge of the fiscal cliff. And the recent revelation of texts of the actual communications Secretary of State Tom Schedler sent to his executive secretary, who is now suing him for sexual harassment, make him look a lot like Pepe’ Le Pew.
It could be funny – if it wasn’t real life.
Early Thursday morning, a full cast of cartoon characters showed up for the State Bond Commission meeting. It all began when U.S. Senator and former Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy – in the role of Spike the Bulldog – got his knickers in a knot over Citigroup and Bank of America announcing new policies for their business clients who deal in guns.
“Our friends at Citigroup and Bank of America apparently aren’t busy enough with their banking business; they have decided that they are going to set policy for the second amendment,” Kennedy said during a congressional hearing on April 13. And for the next ten days it was all he talked about on Twitter.
Current state Treasurer John Schroder – playing Chester the Terrier – paid attention, of course. After all, he has made it clear that, “Anything you say, Spike, ‘cuz you and me is pals. Spike is my hero.” He then summoned the Bond Commission and representatives of the two banking institutions to a 7:30 a.m. meeting.
“I want to discuss the corporate firearms policy recently adopted by Citigroup and Bank of America. It looks like these 2 companies have decided to quit doing business with people who don’t comply with what Citigroug and B of A think the laws on selling and owning firearms should be,” Schroder announced. “ I’ve been troubled to read and see the policies, and I asked the Attorney General last week and the two banks to be here today so we can have an open discussion on this issue.”
Ron Davis with Bank of America apologized for his CEO’s inavailability on such short notice, and said he would refer any questions to the bank’s public policy group in Dallas. Michael Hole, with Citigroup, was more expansive, reading a statement on the policy enacted by his employer.
“On March 22, Citigroup announced a new policy for our retail customers who retail firearms. One, they must perform background checks. Two, they don’t sell to anyone under 21. And three, they don’t sell bumpstocks or high-capacity magazines. If Citigroup’s clients don’t choose to comply, we will work with them to transition their business to another financial institution,” Hole explained. “We respect individual second amendment rights. This policy applies standards for our interactions with business clients of our firm.”
Then Yosemite Sam, a.k.a. Rep. Blake Miguez (who originally ran for the legislature on his “fame” from having appeared as a competitor on the History Channel program “Top Shot”), unholstered his verbal guns.
“Will you answer questions?” Miguez asked, and then immediately started firing. “When did you decide to get into policy-making business instead of the banking business? Are you aware Louisiana passed a constitutional amendment in 2012, requiring strict scrutiny of any attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights? Your policies restrict 18 to 20 year-olds from buying guns, but you support sending these young people to war, and then say they can’t come home and defend their families?”
“We appreciate your concerns…” Hole began, but Miguez wasn’t finished.
“I am very concerned, because your policies infringe on the rights of the citizens of Louisiana and their families, and their right to the 2nd Amendment. How much money did you guys take in the bailout of 2008? It was billions! All of it tax dollars, including tax dollars paid by the citizens of Louisiana. For all our generosity to you, why do you look down on the citizens of this state? Why insult them by infringing on their 2nd amendment rights?
“A national article I read said you are transitioning away from gun-related businesses,” Miguez continued. “I just think we should repay the courtesy and start transitioning business away from Citibank and B of A, because if you can’t do business with the law-abiding citizens in the state of Louisiana, why should the state of Louisiana do business with you?”
Enter Elmer Fudd.
“It’s offensive to me that Bank of America and Citigroup think they can engage in public policy decisions. Is it American to just decide arbitrarily who we sell guns to and who we don’t? Why isn’t this ‘fassism’ at its best?” Attorney General Jeff Landry began his screed (and we presume he meant “fascism”).“’Fassism’ is when you take the industries of a country and you turn it into oppressive policies, and that’s what this is! Who made Bank of America and Citigroup the social police?
“Do y’all do any business with automobile dealerships? With any pharmaceutical manufacturers?” Landry continued on his rant. ”Opioids are killing 60-thousand people a year! Automobiles kill 37-thousand! You sell a car to anybody – you don’t have to be 18. And yet cars kill three times as many people as guns!“
(Wait a minute. Isn’t the mantra “guns don’t kill people”?)
Foghorn Leghorn put in a cameo then, as portrayed by Senate President John Alario.
“Will it be our policy when we get a letter from a congressman to hold special meetings like this? I’m concerned, with all the things we’ve got going on during the session,” Alario inquired. “It’s a different thing if a contract with them is on the agenda. But if every time a congressman sends us a letter, we gotta have a meeting. I get a little concerned about scheduling my time.”
“Senator Alario, just for the record, you know, when Senator Kennedy sent that letter to me, my first question was to the Attorney General – hey, are we violating Louisiana law?” Schroder responded. “That’s what I want to know.
The Senator brought it up and I thought it was my duty to look into it.”
“Now, we do have a contract coming up in June, and I have a resolution,’ the Treasurer continued. “I asked my executive counsel, in conjunction with the Attorney General, to draft this resolution, as I am troubled by the policies of these big banks.”
As members each perused a copy of the resolution, Senate Finance Committee chairman Eric LaFleur attempted (as Bugs Bunny often does) to bring some logic to bear on the discussion.
“I know we all have personal opinions on the second amendment, but this language about ‘discriminating against citizens based on their lawful exercise of their constitutional rights’? You’re going to capture all kinds of things in that net, I would think,” LaFleur observed. “If a company is exercising their first amendment right, as protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, how to you balance – how do you reconcile – those two?”
“The companies are private parties who have taken private party action, but government does not have to condone that,” the Treasurer’s executive counsel, Thomas Enright, replied. “This would simply put a question in the solicitation, and they can answer it, ‘No, we do not discriminate against the citizens of the state of Louisiana,’ and that would satisfy the question.”
Alario chimed in again, “It says ‘otherwise unlawfully discriminate.’ Does that mean they’ll have to evaluate for race, religion, and sex discrimination, as well?”
The undercurrent to LaFleur’s and Alario’s comments was, of course, the Attorney General’s battle with Governor John Bel Edwards over the governor’s executive order prohibiting discrimination by any company seeking a state contract. Landry took the governor to court over it all, asking repeatedly to be declared the supreme legal authority of the sate. That didn’t happen, but the state Supreme Court decided last month not to grant a hearing on the dispute over Edwards’ executive order, prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity’.
Sadly, Landry didn’t see the inherent hypocrisy in protecting rights for some, and not for others, as he started tazzing over reluctance to move forward with the resolution.
“First of all, let me say it’s amazing we’re having this conversation in this state. I didn’t know our 2nd amendment rights are up for sale, or there’s a price on them!” Landry harangued commission members. “This is a very simple question: do we as the state of Louisiana want to do business if these companies are discriminating against our citizens? All we’re saying is if you want to engage in this particular policy, we as a state don’t want to do business with you!
“I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and if Citigroup and ‘BO-FA’ want the business that bad, tell them to change their policy!” Landry wound up. (And yes, he did pronounce “B of A”, as Bank of America is familiarly called, as “Bo-Fa”.)
“I agree with the AG’s statement,” Miguez said, approvingly. “I think we need to take a stand today to say that we support the 2nd amendment. At the appropriate time I’d like to move forward with the resolution. I think the citizens back home expect us to support their rights.”
Senator Jay Luneau objected, saying, “My concern is that we’re inviting litigation which would use up very scarce resources and put us in a position where these projects get delayed. I suggest we deal with this later.”
“I move that we move forward with this resolution,” Landry insisted.
“I would like to make a substitute motion, to amend this resolution,” said the governor’s executive counsel, Matthew Block.
“I was wondering when you were going to say something,” Schroder said, snidely.
“We’re discussing a very important issue, not just relating to the 2nd amendment, but to the fiscal policy of this state,” Block explained. “This has language, frankly, that is open to wide variation of interpretation. This has not been thought through as to how this is handled mechanically, and I suggest we remove parts of this resolution.”
You know that cartoon scene where everybody gets in a squiggled tangle? Yep, that’s what happened next, over – of all things – the next procedural step.
“We have a motion and a second,” Schroder, the Bond Commission chairman said. “Take a roll call vote on it…as is.”
“No, we have to vote on the substitute first,” LaFleur said.
“Normally, parliamentary issues are decided by the senior legal representative on the commission, which would be the Attorney General,” Enright refereed.
“We vote on this motion. If it fails, we can take up yours after,” Landry told Block.
“Mr. Chairman,” Alario said directly to Schroder, “it has been customary that when you have an original motion, there is opportunity to offer a substitute. That is what it says in Robert’s Rules of Order. I know the AG is new to this commission — I believe this is the first meeting he has attended, but you know, Mr. Chairman, the first amendment is very important, too.”
“The motion was made. A second was made. We vote on that,“ Landry contended. “Afterwise, if then he wants to offer a motion to substitute that, he can — after that.”
“Mr. Attorney General, you can’t rewrite parliamentary procedure!” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said, with annoyance. “When somebody makes a substitute motion, you vote on the substitute motion first. Then, if it fails, you vote on the main motion. I mean, this is Parliamentary Procedure 101 – legislative procedure 101. If there’s a substitute motion on the floor, you vote on it first.”
“You can do it like I said, under Robert’s Rules of Order, and that how we’re going to do this,” the AG insisted.
“That sounds more like Landry’s Rules of Order,” Alario commented, not quite under his breath.
At this point, Schroder has found himself in a real dilemma. Does he conduct the meeting according to proper procedure, or does he allow Landry’s ideological farce – which Schroder has aided and abetted up till now – play out according to the AG’s self-serving and erroneous version of the rules?
Schroder leans back in his chair, takes a deep breath, and then beckons his counsel forward, with a single finger.
“I’m going to take a second, because I know how I’ve done this for ten years in the legislature,” Schroder says to those assembled. “And I want some clarification.”
While he conferred with his lawyer, there was more than a little snickering behind hands in the audience, while Landry’s face flushed a deep pink.
“Okay, we have a lot of customs in this building, and I wanted to make sure I was accurate in…um…” Schroder said, clearly discomfited by the glare he was getting from Landry. Looking down, instead of at the panel, he continued, “So we had a motion, and a substitute motion. Would you clarify that substitute, Mr. Block?”
The governor’s counsel suggested they remove the part of the resolution prohibiting companies with these policies from consideration, and simply turn it into an inquiry about such policies, to be included as a factor in the overall evaluation of bond bids.
“I want to object to that,” Landry said. “That just clouds the issue. We can make our statement today.”
A roll call vote was taken, with House members on the Bond Commission (all Republicans) aligning with the AG and the Treasurer. Senate members, the representatives of other statewide elected officials, as well as members of the administration voted for removing the prohibition, so the substitute motion carried the day.
When all was said and done, Gov. John Bel Edwards issued a statement:“The State Bond Commission meeting was an ugly display of political posturing that could have jeopardized a massive infrastructure plan for the state of Louisiana.”
We doubt we’ll be hearing Porky Pig’s immortal words — “That’s all, folks!” — anytime soon.
It could be funny – if it wasn’t real life.
Early Thursday morning, a full cast of cartoon characters showed up for the State Bond Commission meeting. It all began when U.S. Senator and former Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy – in the role of Spike the Bulldog – got his knickers in a knot over Citigroup and Bank of America announcing new policies for their business clients who deal in guns.
“Our friends at Citigroup and Bank of America apparently aren’t busy enough with their banking business; they have decided that they are going to set policy for the second amendment,” Kennedy said during a congressional hearing on April 13. And for the next ten days it was all he talked about on Twitter.
Current state Treasurer John Schroder – playing Chester the Terrier – paid attention, of course. After all, he has made it clear that, “Anything you say, Spike, ‘cuz you and me is pals. Spike is my hero.” He then summoned the Bond Commission and representatives of the two banking institutions to a 7:30 a.m. meeting.
“I want to discuss the corporate firearms policy recently adopted by Citigroup and Bank of America. It looks like these 2 companies have decided to quit doing business with people who don’t comply with what Citigroug and B of A think the laws on selling and owning firearms should be,” Schroder announced. “ I’ve been troubled to read and see the policies, and I asked the Attorney General last week and the two banks to be here today so we can have an open discussion on this issue.”
Ron Davis with Bank of America apologized for his CEO’s inavailability on such short notice, and said he would refer any questions to the bank’s public policy group in Dallas. Michael Hole, with Citigroup, was more expansive, reading a statement on the policy enacted by his employer.
“On March 22, Citigroup announced a new policy for our retail customers who retail firearms. One, they must perform background checks. Two, they don’t sell to anyone under 21. And three, they don’t sell bumpstocks or high-capacity magazines. If Citigroup’s clients don’t choose to comply, we will work with them to transition their business to another financial institution,” Hole explained. “We respect individual second amendment rights. This policy applies standards for our interactions with business clients of our firm.”
Then Yosemite Sam, a.k.a. Rep. Blake Miguez (who originally ran for the legislature on his “fame” from having appeared as a competitor on the History Channel program “Top Shot”), unholstered his verbal guns.
“Will you answer questions?” Miguez asked, and then immediately started firing. “When did you decide to get into policy-making business instead of the banking business? Are you aware Louisiana passed a constitutional amendment in 2012, requiring strict scrutiny of any attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights? Your policies restrict 18 to 20 year-olds from buying guns, but you support sending these young people to war, and then say they can’t come home and defend their families?”
“We appreciate your concerns…” Hole began, but Miguez wasn’t finished.
“I am very concerned, because your policies infringe on the rights of the citizens of Louisiana and their families, and their right to the 2nd Amendment. How much money did you guys take in the bailout of 2008? It was billions! All of it tax dollars, including tax dollars paid by the citizens of Louisiana. For all our generosity to you, why do you look down on the citizens of this state? Why insult them by infringing on their 2nd amendment rights?
“A national article I read said you are transitioning away from gun-related businesses,” Miguez continued. “I just think we should repay the courtesy and start transitioning business away from Citibank and B of A, because if you can’t do business with the law-abiding citizens in the state of Louisiana, why should the state of Louisiana do business with you?”
Enter Elmer Fudd.
“It’s offensive to me that Bank of America and Citigroup think they can engage in public policy decisions. Is it American to just decide arbitrarily who we sell guns to and who we don’t? Why isn’t this ‘fassism’ at its best?” Attorney General Jeff Landry began his screed (and we presume he meant “fascism”).“’Fassism’ is when you take the industries of a country and you turn it into oppressive policies, and that’s what this is! Who made Bank of America and Citigroup the social police?
“Do y’all do any business with automobile dealerships? With any pharmaceutical manufacturers?” Landry continued on his rant. ”Opioids are killing 60-thousand people a year! Automobiles kill 37-thousand! You sell a car to anybody – you don’t have to be 18. And yet cars kill three times as many people as guns!“
(Wait a minute. Isn’t the mantra “guns don’t kill people”?)
Foghorn Leghorn put in a cameo then, as portrayed by Senate President John Alario.
“Will it be our policy when we get a letter from a congressman to hold special meetings like this? I’m concerned, with all the things we’ve got going on during the session,” Alario inquired. “It’s a different thing if a contract with them is on the agenda. But if every time a congressman sends us a letter, we gotta have a meeting. I get a little concerned about scheduling my time.”
“Senator Alario, just for the record, you know, when Senator Kennedy sent that letter to me, my first question was to the Attorney General – hey, are we violating Louisiana law?” Schroder responded. “That’s what I want to know.
The Senator brought it up and I thought it was my duty to look into it.”
“Now, we do have a contract coming up in June, and I have a resolution,’ the Treasurer continued. “I asked my executive counsel, in conjunction with the Attorney General, to draft this resolution, as I am troubled by the policies of these big banks.”
As members each perused a copy of the resolution, Senate Finance Committee chairman Eric LaFleur attempted (as Bugs Bunny often does) to bring some logic to bear on the discussion.
“I know we all have personal opinions on the second amendment, but this language about ‘discriminating against citizens based on their lawful exercise of their constitutional rights’? You’re going to capture all kinds of things in that net, I would think,” LaFleur observed. “If a company is exercising their first amendment right, as protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, how to you balance – how do you reconcile – those two?”
“The companies are private parties who have taken private party action, but government does not have to condone that,” the Treasurer’s executive counsel, Thomas Enright, replied. “This would simply put a question in the solicitation, and they can answer it, ‘No, we do not discriminate against the citizens of the state of Louisiana,’ and that would satisfy the question.”
Alario chimed in again, “It says ‘otherwise unlawfully discriminate.’ Does that mean they’ll have to evaluate for race, religion, and sex discrimination, as well?”
The undercurrent to LaFleur’s and Alario’s comments was, of course, the Attorney General’s battle with Governor John Bel Edwards over the governor’s executive order prohibiting discrimination by any company seeking a state contract. Landry took the governor to court over it all, asking repeatedly to be declared the supreme legal authority of the sate. That didn’t happen, but the state Supreme Court decided last month not to grant a hearing on the dispute over Edwards’ executive order, prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity’.
Sadly, Landry didn’t see the inherent hypocrisy in protecting rights for some, and not for others, as he started tazzing over reluctance to move forward with the resolution.
“First of all, let me say it’s amazing we’re having this conversation in this state. I didn’t know our 2nd amendment rights are up for sale, or there’s a price on them!” Landry harangued commission members. “This is a very simple question: do we as the state of Louisiana want to do business if these companies are discriminating against our citizens? All we’re saying is if you want to engage in this particular policy, we as a state don’t want to do business with you!
“I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and if Citigroup and ‘BO-FA’ want the business that bad, tell them to change their policy!” Landry wound up. (And yes, he did pronounce “B of A”, as Bank of America is familiarly called, as “Bo-Fa”.)
“I agree with the AG’s statement,” Miguez said, approvingly. “I think we need to take a stand today to say that we support the 2nd amendment. At the appropriate time I’d like to move forward with the resolution. I think the citizens back home expect us to support their rights.”
Senator Jay Luneau objected, saying, “My concern is that we’re inviting litigation which would use up very scarce resources and put us in a position where these projects get delayed. I suggest we deal with this later.”
“I move that we move forward with this resolution,” Landry insisted.
“I would like to make a substitute motion, to amend this resolution,” said the governor’s executive counsel, Matthew Block.
“I was wondering when you were going to say something,” Schroder said, snidely.
“We’re discussing a very important issue, not just relating to the 2nd amendment, but to the fiscal policy of this state,” Block explained. “This has language, frankly, that is open to wide variation of interpretation. This has not been thought through as to how this is handled mechanically, and I suggest we remove parts of this resolution.”
You know that cartoon scene where everybody gets in a squiggled tangle? Yep, that’s what happened next, over – of all things – the next procedural step.
“We have a motion and a second,” Schroder, the Bond Commission chairman said. “Take a roll call vote on it…as is.”
“No, we have to vote on the substitute first,” LaFleur said.
“Normally, parliamentary issues are decided by the senior legal representative on the commission, which would be the Attorney General,” Enright refereed.
“We vote on this motion. If it fails, we can take up yours after,” Landry told Block.
“Mr. Chairman,” Alario said directly to Schroder, “it has been customary that when you have an original motion, there is opportunity to offer a substitute. That is what it says in Robert’s Rules of Order. I know the AG is new to this commission — I believe this is the first meeting he has attended, but you know, Mr. Chairman, the first amendment is very important, too.”
“The motion was made. A second was made. We vote on that,“ Landry contended. “Afterwise, if then he wants to offer a motion to substitute that, he can — after that.”
“Mr. Attorney General, you can’t rewrite parliamentary procedure!” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said, with annoyance. “When somebody makes a substitute motion, you vote on the substitute motion first. Then, if it fails, you vote on the main motion. I mean, this is Parliamentary Procedure 101 – legislative procedure 101. If there’s a substitute motion on the floor, you vote on it first.”
“You can do it like I said, under Robert’s Rules of Order, and that how we’re going to do this,” the AG insisted.
“That sounds more like Landry’s Rules of Order,” Alario commented, not quite under his breath.
At this point, Schroder has found himself in a real dilemma. Does he conduct the meeting according to proper procedure, or does he allow Landry’s ideological farce – which Schroder has aided and abetted up till now – play out according to the AG’s self-serving and erroneous version of the rules?
Schroder leans back in his chair, takes a deep breath, and then beckons his counsel forward, with a single finger.
“I’m going to take a second, because I know how I’ve done this for ten years in the legislature,” Schroder says to those assembled. “And I want some clarification.”
While he conferred with his lawyer, there was more than a little snickering behind hands in the audience, while Landry’s face flushed a deep pink.
“Okay, we have a lot of customs in this building, and I wanted to make sure I was accurate in…um…” Schroder said, clearly discomfited by the glare he was getting from Landry. Looking down, instead of at the panel, he continued, “So we had a motion, and a substitute motion. Would you clarify that substitute, Mr. Block?”
The governor’s counsel suggested they remove the part of the resolution prohibiting companies with these policies from consideration, and simply turn it into an inquiry about such policies, to be included as a factor in the overall evaluation of bond bids.
“I want to object to that,” Landry said. “That just clouds the issue. We can make our statement today.”
A roll call vote was taken, with House members on the Bond Commission (all Republicans) aligning with the AG and the Treasurer. Senate members, the representatives of other statewide elected officials, as well as members of the administration voted for removing the prohibition, so the substitute motion carried the day.
When all was said and done, Gov. John Bel Edwards issued a statement:“The State Bond Commission meeting was an ugly display of political posturing that could have jeopardized a massive infrastructure plan for the state of Louisiana.”
We doubt we’ll be hearing Porky Pig’s immortal words — “That’s all, folks!” — anytime soon. Unmasking the Motives
It’s a frequent occurrence during legislative sessions – lawmakers and others offering opinions and testimony about bills try to “thread the needle” by couching their objections in terms that mask the real reasons for their opposition. Sometimes it works. Other times it results in big reveals of those ulterior motives. Wednesday, in the House Criminal Justice Committee, the results were not one, but two spectacular unmaskings.
When Senator J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans) brought his anti-bestiality bill (SB 236) up on the Senate floor, he tweeted about the floor notes sent out by the Louisiana Family Forum, urging a “no” vote on the legislation. Although ten senators complied with that Christian-advocacy group’s request, the bill retained sufficient support (25 yea votes) to head over to the House. It came up in the lower chamber’s Criminal Justice committee Wednesday.
And LFF’s executive director Gene Mills spoke against it.
“We are compelled to caution and committed to defending our faith,” Mills began. “We oppose striking Louisiana’s bestiality clause from its place in the current statute, where it has been state law for generations. We oppose changing the crimes against nature law because we need to preserve Louisiana’s current statute intact, which spells out community standards of morality.”
Part of SB 236 strikes the language “or with an animal” from the state’s original “crimes against nature” statute, as part of setting up a new statute specific to bestiality. Rep. Valarie Hodges (R-Denham Springs) offered an amendment to keep the original law intact, saying she feared there might be “unintended consequences” resulting from the new law.
“It says those convicted of bestiality are thereafter prohibited from contact with live or dead animals,” Hodges said, reading from the text of the bill. “But we have no vegan jails to house these offenders.”
Morrell answered Hodges, even as he pointed out Mills’ ill-concealed motive for opposing the bill – fear that removing the animal language from the crimes against nature law is a prelude to repealing it in its entirety. Mills has previously been unequivocal in his condemnation of homosexuality.
“Our current bestiality law is in an unconstitutional statute, literally tied to the sodomy law struck down by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas,” Morrell told the committee. “I am removing bestiality from the unconstitutional statute and giving it its own statute – much more expansive, much more detailed. Some individuals want dual bestiality laws on the books, but I will not agree to not delete the previous one. If we create a new armed robbery law, we don’t keep the old one on the books while we test drive it.”
Hodges’ amendment failed, and the bill itself was reported favorably – without a single committee member objecting.
Morrell’s SB 243, a proposed constitutional amendment to do away with non-unanimous jury verdicts in Louisiana, stripped away the masks (and hoods and sheets) that often obscure Louisiana’s profound institutionalized racism.
“In our lifetime, we will never have as good an opportunity to repeal a 138-year-old law that dates back to Jim Crow days,” explained former Grant Parish district attorney Ed Tarpley. “This seeks to restore the full protection of trial by jury in Louisiana, something that was the law in this state from its founding in 1803 until 1880, when whites regained control of state government in the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction.”
Rep. Joe Marino (I-Gretna) added that Louisiana currently has a three-tiered jury system: “For less serious felonies, we require unanimous jury verdicts – six out of six. For capital punishment cases, we require unanimity from 12 of 12 jurors. But for cases in between — major felonies carrying penalties up to and including life in prison – not so much. We only require 10 of 12 to agree.”
Rep. Ted James (D-Baton Rouge) made an early motion to report the bill favorably “at the appropriate time”. He was joined, somewhat surprisingly, by the committee chairman Sherman Mack (R-Albany)
“You beat me to it,” Mack said.
But there was opposition, as two district attorneys from western Louisiana came to the witness table to make their objections known.
“You hear a lot about this being a vestige of slavery,” Calcasieu Parish DA John DeRosier said. “No doubt that is true, but it is what it is, and that was 138 years ago. We have had three constitutional conventions since then, one as recently as 1974, and they did not change this. They left it alone. The issue here is not about the way something started. Should we not have driven Volkswagens in the 60s, if we held to concept that they were ordered, designed and manufactured by Adolph Hitler? I don’t think so.
“Whenever you get ready to vote on this, just remember – one person on a jury can mess up the whole process. That is a fact. That is reality.”
DeRosier was followed by Don Burkett, who has served as the Sabine Parish DA since 1985.
“I’m going to address the white elephant in the room, straight up,” Burkett said. “Up front, I’m not a racist: I have fought racism all my life. I may be the only person in this room that put a white man on death row for killing an African-American. I prosecute criminals. They come in all flavors. I’ve tried hundreds of cases and know how difficult it is to get unanimous verdicts. Please don’t confuse unanimity with ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.”
Rep. Ted James was livid.
“Mr. DeRosier, I am so utterly offended for you to start your comments and say ‘I know that this was rooted in slavery, but it is what it is’. I wish you would look at me while I’m speaking with you, because I think I deserve that kind of respect. You know, we take a lot in here, and a lot of things don’t offend me because I have tough skin.
“But for you to admit that this started in slavery and say that ‘it is what it is’? I think you need to think about that, long and hard. You are elected to represent everybody, and I hope the people that elected you are listening because if they aren’t, I’m going to make sure that they know what you said today. I’m going to promise you that! I just cannot believe…
“And you!“ James then turned to Burkett. “You want a trophy because you prosecuted one white man for killing a black? You know, that proved the point!”
That sparked applause from some committee members and more than a few of the audience.
“I want to know why the DA’s Association hasn’t taken an official position on this bill,” Rep Nick Muscarello (R-Hammond) then said. “Are you aware why they haven’t done so?”
“Yes, sir,” Burkett replied. “We as an organization never take positions when we have one or two members, three of four that are opposed. When we don’t have 100%, we don’t take a position.”
“So, the DA’s Association did not take a position because y’all couldn’t get a unanimous decision, is that what you’re saying?” Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) asked pointedly.
She was rewarded by nearly unanimous laughter and applause, as well as the decidedly uncomfortable expressions on the very red faces of DeRosier and Burkett.
Once the chuckles subsided, Rep. Royce Duplessis (D-New Orleans) commented, “This law obviously has a huge racial component. I’ve not heard there’s one good reason to keep it, other than that the purpose it serves is to make your job easier.”
And after noting that there were 164 cards submitted in support of the bill, Chairman Mack called on Senator Morrell to close.
“Under the current system, allowing 10-2 verdicts, I would argue that one sixth of a jury differing in opinion is the definition of ‘reasonable doubt’,” Morrell said. “You shouldn’t get to benefit from something that was born in racism — in hate – not when our country is founded on liberty, and unanimous juries are the protection of that liberty. We seldom have the chance to make history. I ask for your favorable report.”
There was no objection, but there was applause.
Seven-Round New Orleans Saints Mock Draft
In two days, the draft will begin, and all the mystery and intrigue surrounding what teams might do will give way to the drama of what will actually happen.
The Saints are in a spot where, as a team that was a serious contender last year and that doesn’t seem to have any pressing needs, might well just let wait and take whoever grades as the top player regardless of position. On the other hand, the team still has a few identified need areas, and while it’s not worth reaching for a prospect at any of them, I still suspect they’ll try to add some talent at those positions during the draft.
Some transactional updates first: The Saints signed Brandon Coleman from his restricted free agent tender to a one-year, $1 million deal. In addition, the team declined to match Willie Snead’s two-year offer sheet from Baltimore; Snead is now a Raven. It looks like the receivers on roster next year will be Michael Thomas, Ted Ginn, Cameron Meredith, Brandon Coleman, Tommylee Lewis, and Austin Carr. This, of course, doesn’t mean the Saints won’t draft a receiver, but it looks like most of the team’s roles there are fairly set, barring an injury or something like Meredith being unable to return to form. Recent reports also indicate that Meredith is recovering well and may be healthy enough to get some practice reps in at the June minicamp, a positive sign for his ability to contribute in 2018 fully.
Now, with two days until the draft, let’s take a look at one possible draft scenario. Here’s your seven-round mock draft, with a few alternate possibilities at each selection.
ROUND 1, PICK 27
Josh Sweat, EDGE, Florida State
In a press conference Tuesday, Sean Payton identified three remaining areas of need: Tight end, sixth offensive lineman, and “pressure player,” a reference to needing more pass rush– but not specific as to whether he wanted an exterior or interior pass rusher. Given the flexibility of someone like Sheldon Rankins, who lined up at end at times in 2017, and the potential breakout seasons for players like David Onyemata and Trey Hendrickson, I don’t think it matters specifically where he gets that additional help, as long as the team gets players who get after the quarterback.
Sweat is not a name I’ve heard linked here, but I like his athleticism, ability to turn the corner, and variety of moves, even though he wasn’t always asked to rush the passer at Florida State. He could be a more effective rusher in the NFL than he was in college, if he lands on a team willing to turn him loose. This might even be a high projection for him, based on what I’m seeing else where. I’d say someone like UTSA’s Marcus Davenport is more likely, but there’s a solid chance he’s gone before the Saints’ selection.
Alternate Possibilities:
DL Maurice Hurst, Michigan, or Taven Bryan, Florida— As mentioned, Payton is interested in pass-rushing pressure and less concerned at what position on the defensive line it comes from. Hurst was considered the top interior penetrator, although rumors are that he’s slipping on team’s boards, as a heart condition (which eventually checked out) prevented him from most workouts. Bryan is a tremendous athlete with an outstanding first step but not much idea of what to do after that. Still, though, that raw disruption is a rare trait, and if it can be harnessed, the upside is an interior sack-master capable of making multiple Pro Bowls. (Stanford’s Harrison Phillips, perhaps the only player to get the best of guard Quenton Nelson, widely considered the best non-QB in the draft, is also a possibility along the defensive line.)
C/G Frank Ragnow, Arkansas – As Ragnow’s athletic testing measured out as among the tops at his position, matching his tape, he started moving up on media boards, as teams began to make their interest known. Ragnow would be a great sixth offensive lineman for this year (the team does have Jermon Bushrod for that role this year, but at Bushrod’s age, it’s clear they need to take precautions and build for the future). Center is Ragnow’s natural position, but he should project to guard well. Max Unger is 32, and the team will need a long-term replacement for him by 2020 at the latest; he can also fill in at either guard position, and both Larry Warford and Andrus Peat missed time last year. (Peat also moved to left tackle at times when Terron Armstead was hurt, though it’s not clear if that arrangement will continue.)
WHAT IF THE SAINTS TARGET A QUARTERBACK?
Despite the rumors of certain players (particularly Lamar Jackson and Josh Rosen) sliding in the draft, it’s unlikely they’ll slide all the way to 27. It might take a big move to get a quarterback, so if they go this route, I’m predicting something like this…
TRADE: New Orleans sends #27 and their 2019 1st-round pick to Green Bay for the #14 pick, and selects Lamar Jackson, QB, Louisville
Given the costs of trading up for quarterbacks last year, this seems reasonable. (The Chiefs gave up their #27 pick, their 2018 first, and a third-round pick to move to #10 for Patrick Mahomes; the Texans gave up the #25 pick and their 2018 first to move up to #12 for Deshaun Watson.) Arizona picks at 15, and if there’s still a top-5 QB on the board, there’s a strong chance they take that player. Green Bay is supposedly most interested in one of the top three defensive backs– Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, or Denzel Ward– and likely would be willing to trade down if none were available, a strong possibility. This trade seems like it has a realistic chance of happening– unless the Patriots also have interest in Jackson; their ability to offer two first-round picks this year might mean they can outbid the Saints. Jackson and Rosen are currently projected as the two quarterbacks most likely to slide; both would do so for specious reasons and I think they’re the two best prospects in the draft, so it would make sense if they ended up on perennially strong, functional franchises.
ROUND 3, PICK 91
DaeSean Hamilton, WR, Penn State
While the addition of Cameron Meredith answers some questions on the receiver crew, Michael Thomas could still use a long-term running mate. Hamilton is a potentially underrated receiver in this class who shows a lot of high-end traits on film, though his college production didn’t live up to that potential.
Alternate Possibilities: Martinas Rankin, OL, Mississippi State; Kemoko Turay, EDGE, Rutgers; Jaylen Samuels, TE/RB, North Carolina State; Genard Avery, LB, Memphis
ROUND 4, PICK 127
Shaquem Griffin, LB, UCF – I’m skeptical he’ll last this long myself after his workouts showed many of the same traits on film, but Griffin, twin brother of Seattle cornerback Shaquill Griffin, was born with only one hand, and that alone might be enough to make teams wary of taking him. New Orleans is always looking to add athleticism to their linebacker crew, and Griffin would be a major boost there and another potential long-term starter.
Alternate Possibilities: Marcell Frazier, EDGE, Missouri; Kameron Kelly, CB/S, San Diego State; Foley Fatukasi, DL, Connecticut
ROUND 5, PICK 147 (from Miami for Stephone Anthony)
Troy Fumagalli, TE, Wisconsin – Another identified need area addressed.
Alternate Possibilities: Tegray Scales, LB, Indiana; Bradley Bozeman, C/G, Alabama; Mike White, QB, Western Kentucky
ROUND 5, PICK 164
Riley Ferguson, QB, Memphis – A developmental player from a productive offense.
Alternate Possibilities: Lowell Lotulelei, DL, Utah; Durham Smythe, TE, Notre Dame; Keke Coutee, WR, Texas Tech
ROUND 6, PICK 189 (from Arizona for Adrian Peterson)
Kevin Toliver, CB, LSU – These late picks will primarily be used for depth and special teams, assuming the team doesn’t trade them to move up elsewhere.
Alternate Possibilities: Ade Aruna, EDGE, Tulane; Kurt Benkert, QB, Virginia; Alex Cappa, OL, Humboldt State
ROUND 6, PICK 201
Jordan Wilkins, RB, Ole Miss
Alternate Possibilities: Tyrone Crowder, G, Clemson; Byron Pringle, WR, Kansas State; Azeem Victor, LB, Washington
ROUND 7, PICK 245
Siran Neal, S, Jacksonville State
Alternate Possibilities: Coleman Shelton, C, Washington; Christian LaCouture, DL, LSU; Ja’Von Roiland-Jones, LB, Arkansas State
Halftime Report
We’re just past the halfway point of the regular session, with 43 of the 85 days complete. Only three of the nearly 1500 bills filed have made it to the governor’s desk. The partisan divides seem deeper than ever, and each chamber is complaining about the other’s work ethic. The Senate seems to be on track toward early adjournment, in accord with the governor’s wish for a swifter start for another special session, while the House is giving increasing indications that they’re not inclined to rush toward conclusion.
The full Senate has managed to debate and vote on several House bills, but the full House isn’t scheduled to debate the first of Senate-originated measures until Thursday.
Senate Finance chairman Eric LaFleur has indicated he’s inclined to run out the clock, by sitting on the House-passed budget bill to help force a do-over in a special session, although Republican members of his committee said Sunday that they fear that would leave the state budgetless, in the face of House intractability.
Senate President John Alario continues to focus on clock-management, urging the upper chamber to keep up their pace in accord with the plan to end the regular session by mid-May. However, as reported by the Times Picayune’s (nola.com) Julia O’Donoghue, House Speaker Taylor Barras is now backing further away from the early adjournment plan, saying “he thought a special session probably would occur, but mostly because the governor wants to call one. But he didn’t think the Senate was necessarily moving fast enough to start that special session in the middle of May.”
And for the past two days, the full House has halted their floor debates, adjourning right around 5 p.m.
None of this should come as any surprise to Bayou Brief readers, since we predicted – even before the regular session started – that this was part of the House leadership’s playbook.
Bills that rollback provisions of last year’s criminal justice reforms continue to advance, as lawmakers succumb to pressure from district attorneys and judges, who have had second thoughts about shortening probation and parole, even as deeper budget cuts tighten the fiscal noose on the Department of Corrections. Undoubtedly many of them also fear next year’s voters in state elections will look askance at the lightening of penalties for non-violent violations of “law and order”.
Despite the steady drop in the oil and gas industry’s contributions to Louisiana’s revenue streams over the past several years, with the downturn in prices, drilling activity and fossil fuel-related jobs, industry desires continue to dominate lawmakers – especially when legislators can be drawn offside by bills baited with the boogeymen of “terrorists”.
One such measure is HB 727, which would designate pipelines as “critical infrastructure”, and prohibit trespassing on pipeline routes, calling it “unauthorized entry” and making it a criminal offense. The official reason given is fear of “domestic terrorists”.
“This was influenced by what happened at Standing Rock in North Dakota,” acknowledged the bill’s primary author, Rep. Major Thibaut (D-New Roads), effectively admitting the purpose is to quash protests over the Bayou Bridge pipeline, now under construction across 163 miles of south Louisiana. Thibaut was accompanied by the general counsel for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association
“I am one of the property owners forced to surrender right-of-way for this pipeline,” Pat Trahan of Lafayette Parish told a Senate committee Tuesday. “Not one of the vehicles currently working on the pipeline on my property has a Louisiana license plate. They start work before 7 a.m., and my neighbors call the police on us for the disturbance. Meanwhile, I allow protesters to come onto my property, and now – today, in fact – the pipeline people are trying to have the police arrest them, even though I have given them permission to be there.”
Despite more than a dozen testifying in opposition to the bill – including the director of the Loyola Law Clinic, who called the bill “over broad” and cautioned it will produce “considerable exposure to the state through challenges to its constitutionality” – the committee advanced the House-approved measure to the full Senate.
Flagging plays by raising questions of constitutionality continues to do little to dissuade Louisiana lawmakers from advancing bills – especially those that concern abortion – so, lawmakers have turned to the abortion restriction playbook in an effort to put some points on the scoreboard. SB 181, a ban on all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, was approved by the full Senate, 31-3 on Tuesday.
There was a nod to the constitutionality question – or more precisely, to the cost of the inevitable court battles over the constitutionality question – in the form of an amendment added by Sen. Danny Martiny (R- Metairie).
“This amendment says the 15-week ban will only go into effect after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Mississippi’s 15-week ban,” Martiny explained.
The bill’s author, Sen. John Milkovich (D-Shreveport) objected.
“We need to put this into effect right now. It will save some babies!” insisted Milkovich, who has developed a reputation for petulance among his fellow senators. “And even if it saves only one baby from being killed by the brutal torture of abortion, the cost of going to court will be worth it!”
The amendment was adopted, and the measure heads now to the House.
No halftime report would be complete without looking at the star players, and thus far, the quarterback of querulousness has to be Rep. Tony Bacala (R-Prairieville). The retired sheriff’s deputy is certainly confident at calling out the play numbers, even when those numbers don’t add up to scoring as he’d expected.
“It’s simple math,” Bacala said Tuesday in House Appropriations, as he tried to argue that his team’s budget scheme really didn’t mean a loss for healthcare, despite what the scoreboard said. “We budgeted $100-million for an LDH program last year, and they only spent $80-million. So when we budget $90-million for that this year, it’s not really a cut at all!”
“Could you go over that again?” asked committee chairman Cameron Henry.
“Look, LDH had a $13.6-billion budget last year, but the real number we need to look at is $13-billion. If we continue at the current rate we are today, appropriating $12-billion gives you 11 months of operating cash,” he said during the House Appropriations committee meeting Tuesday. “You can continue all services at their current levels for 11 months, so you don’t need to send out letters telling nursing home residents they have 90 days to find another place to live.”
“That is not accurate,” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne informed him. “It is not 11 months – it’s not enough to even get through six months, because you did not fund long-term care at all. And you did not fund the public-private hospital partners anywhere close to what is contractually required.”
“I just think we have to decide if we’re for the public-private partner system or not,” Bacala said., going off on that tangent.
“It’s not a matter of being ‘for’ or ‘against’. It’s the system we have,” Dardenne responded.
“But if it’s the wrong thing, should we keep it?” Bacala asked.
“We have to keep it,” Dardenne told him. “We cannot recreate the Charity Hospital system, nor can we do without public hospitals at all.
“I just don’t like that we keep being told we can’t change it,” Bacala replied.
That’s a fair summary at this point. They’re playing the game, but nobody likes it.
Chief Justice: A Scolding, And Food for Thought
It was a wonder any House members could take their seats Monday afternoon, following Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson’s biennial address to the joint session of the Legislature. You see, she gave them an ass-chewing.
Justice Johnson was civil in her tone and words, but there was no doubt the House had earned her disapproval, as she gave them a thorough scolding over their tight-fisted approach to budgeting in general– and the Judicial branch’s budget, in particular.
“We are cognizant of today’s budgetary challenges and competing priorities. And let me stress to you that we do not deem ourselves immune from the financial difficulties facing our state. Our budget was not created in a vacuum or without regard for the needs of other government entities,” Justice Johnson said.
“Under our tripartite constitutional system of government, you, the Legislature, are charged with funding all three co-equal branches. Adequate funding of the judicial branch of government is your legislative responsibility, and is critical to ensuring an independent Judiciary,” she continued. “It enables the state Judiciary to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duties to apply the laws you have written, and to ensure access to justice for all.”
Last Thursday, the House failed to pass the judicial budget – HB 698. The lower chamber managed to advance the unwieldy and insufficient state (executive) budget – HB 1 – to the Senate. And House members passed the legislative budget, HB 751, by a vote of 89-11.
Yet the judicial budget, originally requested for $180-million, had been cut by the House Appropriations Committee to $164-million — $7-million under the current year’s appropriation of $171-million. And last Thursday, that budget bill could not muster the 53 votes needed for passage, so the Chief Justice let her displeasure be known.
“We asked for $180-million. It reflects years of belt-tightening, delayed filling of personnel vacancies, renegotiated contracts with vendors, restricted use of outside consultants,” Justice Johnson told the legislature. “We have been good stewards of the public fisc, effectively and efficiently operating a co-equal branch of government.”
House leadership did show they were not entirely tone-deaf to either the Chief Justice’s words or the fact that she had brought the entire complement of the state’s highest court with her. Following her address, they reconsidered the Judicial budget bill, and this time it passed, 84-1. However, no additional funding was added, leaving the state court system funded at $164-million next year.
While the lecture on legislative obligations and the rapid response to remedy the reproach was eminently satisfying, it wasn’t the sole content of the Chief Justice’s address. Earlier in the day, House Appropriations had approved the bill calling for a limited Constitutional Convention in 2020. Chief Justice Johnson suggested they might consider revamping the organization of, and funding streams for, the entire Louisiana judiciary, as well.
“Louisiana is among the minority of states in our nation with a non-unified court system. Rather than using state funds to fully fund our Judiciary, we push much of that obligation off onto local governmental entities. Those, in turn, pass much of that unfunded mandate onto civil litigants and criminal defendants in the form of court costs, fees, and fines. Funding a court system through the use of court costs paid by users of the justice systems presents many challenges that we as a state government need to confront,” Justice Johnson stated.
She went on to explain that court costs are authorized in a piecemeal fashion, requiring legislation to change them, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. There’s no uniformity to the fees or costs, and not even a complete listing of what those fees and costs are – nor any way to centrally account for how and when they’re collected.
Citing a number of federal lawsuits pending over the way the state funds its criminal justice system, Justice Johnson said, “I believe it is time for us in Louisiana to begin thinking about the toll that this type of funding mechanism takes on our justice system. Is it financially prudent and morally responsible to fund a co-equal branch of government on the backs of a few who are often the poorest and least fortunate members of our society? We simply cannot continue locking up indigents because they are too poor to pay fines for crimes often committed because of systemic poverty. Either we reform the system ourselves, or we risk having it reformed on the pain of a federal judgment or consent decree.”
Johnson said she was not immune to the irony of asking for a change to court organization and funding at the same time deep budget cuts had become necessary. But by unifying the courts into a single system, it would enable development of a fixed and predictable annual budget for the judicial branch.
It would also eliminate the perceived injustice of having a “user-pay system.”
“Some of you may think it is fair and reasonable to ask those who use our justice system to pay their share. But let us be candid: innocence, though presumed by our system, is currently bad for our bottom line,” Justice Johnson said. “Would you have faith in the system if you knew that every single actor in the criminal justice system – including the judge and your court-appointed lawyer – relied upon a steady stream of guilty pleas and verdicts to fund their offices? Would you doubt your ability to get justice?”
Senate President John Alario, in thanking the Chief Justice for her remarks, said, “You have planted a seed. It’s going to take a lot of water – and a lot of fertilizer – to nurture it until it is ready for harvest. But I believe you have given us great food for thought.”