Perhaps it was just me, but it seemed nearly every bill debated in Louisiana’s House and Senate Monday left me scratching my head over one argument or another, beginning with Sen. Mike Walsworth’s SB 178, a bill to allow parents to equip their children with bulletproof backpacks.
“I never thought in my wildest nightmares that I would have to bring a bill like this, the West Monroe Republican said, “But our laws currently prohibit students wearing body armor . And we just saw 17 young people gunned down, with nothing to protect them.”
Walsworth explained there are currently two options: an insertable metal plate that costs about $50, and Kevlar backpacks reinforced with metal plates, that run about $200.
“I can’t imagine a parent who couldn’t financially afford that,” Senator Gerald Long (R-Winnfield) nodded approvingly. But then he asked a logical question: “These are backpacks, correct? How will it protect the front of a student’s body?”
“They can put the backpack in front, and sit with their back to a wall,” Walsworth explained. “The teacher can have them do that. And these can provide protection from a handgun or a shotgun, but not an AR-15.”
Say what?
“This is not a Captain America shield,” Sen. J.P. Morrell argued against passing the bill. “My two brothers are police officers, and they’ve explained to me how Kevlar works. The tight weave stops a bullet, and the heat of the bullet hardens the Kevlar. But grown men who get shot while wearing it still suffer bruising, broken bones and even ruptured organs. Children’s bodies are more fragile, so this would be giving parents a false sense of security.
“Someone will make money from this, but it’s not a life saver,” Morrell concluded.
“I hope we never have to prove it works,” Walsworth responded, as he urged a yes vote on the bill. “But let’s give parents a chance to have this tool for protecting their children.”
And with a 34-2 vote, the Senate sent the bill to the House for consideration.
Then the Senate approved creating two new TOPS award categories, expanding the scholarship program that’s currently slated to take an 80% funding cut when the new fiscal year begins July 1.
Right.
It wasn’t long after that when Sen. Morrell’s bill criminalizing bestiality came up for final passage in the upper chamber.
Explaining that part of Louisiana’s “crimes against nature” statute was made unconstitutional by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, Morrell said the Humane Society had requested this bill, detailing what particular sexual acts with and involving animals could be considered criminal acts.
Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) offered an amendment which would remove the unconstitutional “sodomy between consenting adults from the old “crimes against nature” law, to which Morrell objected.
“I fully support repealing that part of the statute, but not with this bill,” Morrell argued. “If we pass it in Sen. Claitor’s format, the bill will die in the House. And a ban on bestiality is needed.”
Senators listened, rejecting the amendment.
“This law may be awkward to discuss, but it is necessary,” Morrell said in his closing. “On the internet, there is a huge market trafficking animals for sex acts. That is not currently covered in law. Webpages, many based here in Louisiana, are filled with ads from men looking for a dog to copulate with wife, for a puppy ‘ready to play’.
“In New Jersey, a man was arrested for oral copulation with a farm animal. Yet he couldn’t be prosecuted because – quote– ‘the animal was not harmed’. Yet research has shown there’s a direct correlation from abusing animals to abusing people, and those who abuse animals often wind up being serial killers.
“This is not a joke. God forbid you vote against this bill, for if you do, good luck explaining that to your constituents,” Morrell concluded. 25 said yea, 10 voted nay.
That last comment was a direct jab at the Louisiana Family Forum, which brands itself as “an organization committed to defending faith, freedom and the traditional family.” The group had sent floor notes to all the Senators, urging them to vote against the bill.
Really.
Some of the least logical arguments of the day were raised in the House, however, in response to Rep Julie Emerson’s (R-Carencro) bill to eliminate the state occupational licensing exam for florists. Louisiana is the only state to require this.
“Isn’t this an argument against going to school to learn your trade?” asked Rep. Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport). Aren’t we sending the wrong message here?”
“There currently is no education requirement for being a florist,” Emerson replied. “Just testing. So this is not eliminating education, just testing.”
“This is doing away with quality,” Rep. Steve Pugh (R-Ponchatoula) complained.
“This will cause us to lose mom and pop florist businesses,” Rep. Clay Schexnayder (R-Gonzales) insisted.
That was in direct contradiction to the social media campaign supporting the bill, which had been waged by Americans for Prosperity, LABI, and NFIB — the group comprised of small business owners.
“And we won’t be safeguarding the consumers back home,” Schexnayder pressed.
“Has anyone actually been injured or harmed by poorly arranged flowers?” Emerson responded.
Good question.
The House approved the bill 60-29.
Yet, as I said at the beginning, maybe it’s just me. After all, I found myself shaking my head at a laundry detergent commercial – advertised “for their sensitive skin” – when it showed a little girl jumping in mud puddles and rolling in the grass, all while wearing a white dress. Mom was watching it all, blissfully unconcerned.
What the?
Perhaps the inaction toward a solution for Louisiana’s imminent decline in revenue are the words we’ve all adopted to describe it: “the fiscal cliff.” Certainly, it’s a precipitous drop, but that imagery also brings with it an underlying message of solidity. A cliff is, after all, a geological formation of earth or rock. With that in mind, House leadership can logically say we’ll just put up barricades. We’ll end – cut — the road here.
But listening to the words used to describe the effects of such inaction – “devastating” and “catastrophic” were both used frequently during Sunday’s Senate Finance Committee meeting on the upcoming budget – we might have be better to call it an “economic hurricane,” as we’ve watched its slow motion development and approach.
“Inaction risks the health and lives of too many of our citizens,” Gov. John Bel Edwards said, using words reminiscent of hurricane evacuation orders.
This particular hurricane season began with the 2007 and 2008 legislative repeals of the revenue growth measures that were part of the Stelly Plan.
“The imbalance of expenses versus revenue has been an on-going problem since then,” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne reminded the committee.
And as budget storms formed repeatedly, lawmakers found ways to wait them out as they deflected away – mostly through use of one-time money. It was a lot like using cardboard to barricade the windows: inexpensive, temporary, and not very effective, but postponing the need to invest in solid boards or storm shutters.
Meanwhile, the economic storm gathered force. Unemployment in Louisiana surged, the growing fiscal crisis was further fueled by downward pressures on the oil and gas industry. By the time Gov. John Bel Edwards and the current legislature took office, it had reached hurricane status.
We acknowledged the predictions and made some half-hearted preparations – slimming down some tax credits and increasing sales taxes “temporarily”. And we prepared our game plan – our “to-do list” of comprehensive tax reforms needed — but we kept arguing over whether each item on the list was absolutely necessary. We ended up making no actual preparation.
And now landfall is near.
“The simple fact of the matter is the clock is running out,” Gov. Edwards told Senate Finance Sunday. “The solutions do not change, but the time to make needed changes is dwindling down quickly.
“The entire economic stability of our state is at risk. This is not a scare tactic. It is reality.”
Impacts of the hurricane are already being felt.
“We are losing our best and brightest students,” the governor said. “They and their families are already committing to attend out-of-state universities – not just because of the uncertainty over TOPS, but because of our chronic cutting of overall higher education funding.”
The public-private hospital partners in Lafayette and New Orleans have served the state with contract termination notices. Once all the other partners follow suit, that means, according to a Senate budget analysis, the state will have an additional $168-million hole blown in the next budget, due to the loss of lease payments.
Layoff notices for those hospital employees will be going out soon, the governor reminded.
“It’s not optional,” he said. “Federal law requires these notices.”
And when those folks are not working, they’re not paying income taxes. That’s another revenue hole.
Those same unemployed workers will be needing to access more governmental services to help keep their families afloat. That’s additional fiscal pressure on the system.
The intersection of looming cuts to higher education and health care services is already affecting LSU’s medical schools in Shreveport and New Orleans.
“We’ve already lost a handful of faculty over these funding uncertainties,” said LSUHSC dean Steve Nelson. “They took $42-million in research grants with them.”
The storm surge, like any flooding event, won’t be selective in its inundation. It’s not only impacting the public university medical schools. Closure of University Hospital in New Orleans will also affect Tulane’s medical education program.”
“If UMC in New Orleans is not funded, we have no backup plan for training our doctors,” Tulane Medical School dean, Dr. Lee Hamm, stated.
Balancing the state budget through a cuts-only approach will also disproportionately affect health care coverage for the elderly and disabled, the governor reminded.
“Forty-six thousand seniors will lose services, while the elderly and disabled in nursing homes will be forced to find new places to live. Do we really want to make our elderly and disabled homeless?” he asked.
“It’s relatively easy to talk about cutting spending, until you realize it means cutting services our people depend upon. And there continues to be a reluctance on the part of too many in the House, particularly in leadership, to recognize or deal with the budget at all.”
House leadership does seem to be embracing the few computer models predicting a deviant hurricane track, while the majority expert consensus shows the storm’s path headed directly our way.
“What you’ve been hearing for many months now from Gov. Edwards is that the budget is terrible, we have a massive budget deficit and the only way to fix this deficit is to raise your taxes. I’m here to tell you that is completely false,” Appropriations Chairman Cameron Henry (R-Metairie) says in a recent video.
It’s not coming here.
“Despite what you may hear or read, we do not have a billion dollar budget deficit. That’s a fact,” House GOP Caucus Chairman Lance Harris (R-Alexandria) says in another video.
“I believe we can get the budget deficit down to $380-million,” Henry says.
In other words, the economic hurricane – at worst – is only going to give us a glancing blow, if it hits us at all, so let’s just hunker down and wait it out.
Meanwhile, there’s surplus money left over from the prior fiscal year, and House Republican leaders are saying that should be used to cover a portion of the projected revenue shortfall.
Let’s use the supplies we’ve brought in to throw a hurricane party!
Never mind that this is one-time money, and that the state constitution prohibits using a surplus this way.
And never mind that the governor has warned, “These tactics from some in House leadership take us back to irresponsibility and gimmickry. And I promise I will veto any budget that tries to use those tactics.”
The hurricane is coming straight at us. What will the body count be?
Last week, we reviewed the Saints’ free-agent signings and how they might plug various holes currently on the roster. Several important positions were left unaddressed, though, and Sean Payton admitted as much in a recent press conference.
I don’t believe in using the draft to fill short-term needs: You ought to be looking for the best players possible to be the foundation of your team, and you shouldn’t expect much from draft prospects in their rookie years. The Saints got extraordinarily lucky landing the all-time great draft class they did in 2017. That said, Saints pick late enough in the draft that the tiebreaker between prospects may, in fact, be need, or more specifically, how likely the player is to receive playing time more immediately.
Here are the three positions Payton mentioned where the team could still look at moves to add talent, particularly in the draft:
Maryland wide receiver D.J. MooreWIDE RECEIVER
The Saints still haven’t tendered an offer to either Willie Snead or Brandon Coleman, both restricted free agents. That means, beyond starters Michael Thomas and Ted Ginn, the depth chart consists of Tommylee Lewis, more of a return man and gadget player, and Austin Carr, a productive college player the Saints claimed at the 53-man cutdown from the Patriots, but who saw no offensive action last year (and was only active for one game). If the Saints aren’t planning to bring back Snead or Coleman, they’ll need to add talent somewhere.
They made a move in this direction on Friday, signing Bears restricted free agent Cameron Meredith to a two-year, $9.6 million offer sheet. Meredith had a productive 2016, leading the Bears in receiving with 888 yards on only 97 targets, despite being saddled with the less-than-impressive quarterback play of Jay Cutler, Brian Hoyer, and Matt Barkley. Meredith was expected to take an even bigger leap forward in 2017, but tore his ACL in the preseason. While this certainly set back his development, he’s still only 25, so the chances of him recovering are good, and he could be very productive with quality quarterback play.
The Bears have until Wednesday to match the offer sheet, and it’s not clear what they’ll do. They already handed out a big free-agent contract to Allen Robinson, signed speedster Taylor Gabriel to a four-year deal to man the slot, and still have former first-round pick Kevin White to man the other outside receiver position. If the Bears decide they already have enough at the receiver position, Meredith could provide a significant boost to the Saints’ receiving crew, and could wind up being a bargain.
If the Bears match Meredith– and perhaps even if they don’t– it seems likely the Saints could target wide receiver with their first-round pick. While no receivers really stand out as slam-dunk locks for high draft picks, a number of them could be worthwhile selections at #27, depending on what the Saints are looking for. SMU’s big-bodied and agile Courtland Sutton will likely be gone by that pick, but the Saints may have their selection of other top receiver prospects: Alabama route-running technician Calvin Ridley; Oklahoma State’s James Washington, terrific at tracking the ball in the air and winning contested catches; or D.J. Moore, a one-man passing offense for Maryland last year who is young, extremely athletic, and highly productive after the catch.
Given a choice, I prefer the latter two, with a slight lean to Moore. Ridley’s athletic testing greatly concerns me; I worry he will pan out to be a poor man’s Amari Cooper, who was productive early on due to his own route-running abilities, but who failed to take the leap forward in 2017 you want to see from top receiver prospects, perhaps due to his lack of top-level athleticism. Ridley’s athleticism is significantly worse, he wasn’t as productive as Cooper in college, and he’s also an old receiver prospect, which historically does not bode well for success. (Cooper has been in the league for three years, and he is only six months older than Ridley.) The bust factor on Ridley is simply too high for my tastes.
North Carolina State tight end / running back Jaylen SamuelsTIGHT END
While the Saints patched up this position a bit by signing the ageless Ben Watson, they could still use a top-level talent at the position. (And I think they know it, having attempted to sign Jimmy Graham in free agency but being unwilling to meet his price.) Unfortunately for the Saints, none of the tight ends really seem to merit a first-round pick. South Dakota State’s Dallas Goedert is considered a potential athletic mismatch in the Graham mold, but it’s hard to tell for sure given the low level of competition he faced and the fact that he didn’t do any of the athletic drills this draft season. Too much risk for a first-round pick. Penn State’s Mike Gesicki is an athletic marvel who was moderately productive, but not enough so to warrant a first-round pick, especially given the other players who should still be available. Both of these players are likely to go in the second round, where the Saints don’t have a selection.
It’s more likely the Saints try to address the position in the third or fourth round in the draft, or perhaps even later. (They currently have two fifth- and two sixth-round picks, owing to the midseason trades of Stephone Anthony and Adrian Peterson, respectively.) Some potential names are South Carolina’s Hayden Hurst, though many believe he’ll be gone before then, or Oklahoma’s Mark Andrews, who was very productive and considered a potential first-round pick until athletic testing revealed a more limited ceiling than expected. Do-it-all Jaylen Samuels, who played more of an H-back role at North Carolina State, lining up both at tight end and in the backfield, could be a fit with the kind of versatility Sean Payton often covets in players.
Florida State defensive end Josh SweatEDGE RUSHER
The Saints missed out on the top defensive linemen in free agency, eventually settling on bringing back Alex Okafor. While Okafor and second-year player Trey Hendrickson should constitute a capable rotation opposite Cameron Jordan– especially if Okafor recovers from his Achilles injury and Hendrickson takes the expected step forward in his second year– there’s no guarantee either one will provide the level of performance the Saints want at the position.
There’s an outside chance the Saints could use their first-round pick on an edge rusher, although only two players on my board are slam-dunk first-round talents– Bradley Chubb and Harold Landry– and they’ll almost definitely be gone by the time the Saints pick. Chubb is widely considered a lock top-ten selection, perhaps even the first non-quarterback off the board. Landry is projected a bit lower, generally anywhere from 15-25, but I think he has tremendous talent and production and is mostly lower because he played through injury last year. (He might even be worth trading up for, if he slips far enough and the cost isn’t prohibitive.)
Beyond that, though, there are a number of athletic prospects with questions around them, some of whom might be worth the Saints’ selection at 27. UTSA’s Marcus Davenport is considered a raw athlete with tremendous potential, though I think he’s a little overrated in that regard. There’s a handful of other names who could be considered there, among them Georgia’s Lorenzo Carter, Florida State’s Josh Sweat, Ohio State’s Sam Hubbard, and Oklahoma’s Ogbonnia Okoronkwo. Of these options, I like Carter and Sweat the best.
More likely, the Saints may try to find value in the third round at the position, as they did with Hendrickson last year. In this draft, there may be a wide range of evaluations on players, so it’s possible one of the players in the above group falls. (Sweat seems most likely, as I haven’t heard much buzz from teams about him, which surprises me given the talent he shows on film.) Among those names are Ohio State’s Tyquan Lewis and Jayln Holmes, USC’s Rasheem Green and Uchenna Nwosu, Missouri’s Marcell Frazier, and Washington State’s Hercules Mata’afa. I’m partial to athleticism in my pass rushers, so Lewis is my favorite from this group. (Plus, the Saints have had quite a bit of success drafting from Ohio State in recent years.)
A name to be on the watch for on day three is Tulane’s Ade Aruna. Like his teammate Tanzel Smart, a defensive tackle drafted last year, he may be underrated because of his school, but has shown the talent and athleticism both on film and in testing to be a productive player at his position. Keeping him in New Orleans might be a good way for the Saints to bolster their pass rush cheaply.
Next week: Will the Saints look for their quarterback of the future in this draft?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the first guarantee in the Bill of Rights — states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.“
But the Louisiana Legislature isn’t Congress, and despite a similar guarantee in the state Constitution, one House committee chairman decided last week that free speech is only for those he deems worthy.
The House Criminal Justice committee was considering HB 271, which would allow teachers and administrators to carry concealed weapons on school grounds. Proponents had already spoken, and those who filed red cards in opposition were called to the table – among them, Sam Peter.
He came forward, and before he could take a seat at the witness table, committee chairman, Rep. Sherman Mack (R-Albany) said, “Ummm, we’re probably not going to do that.”
Sam Peter, you see, is a ten-year-old boy. He was accompanied by his mother, who protested, “He’s directly impacted by this.”
“I understand, but he’s a child and we’re just…we’re not going to do that,” Mack said. “Ma’am, if you want to speak, you can.”
“Please let me speak,” the boy asked.
“We’re not going to do that, young man, okay?” Mack said sternly. “Alright?”
“Thank you, Representative,” Sam said, hanging his head and backing away from the table.
“He’s very well-spoken, and children are directly impacted by…” his mother said again, only to be interrupted by Mack saying, firmly, “Yes, he is. Well-mannered and a nice-looking young man, but no, he cannot speak.”
Many were taken aback at the chairman’s decision, for Louisiana’s Constitution says, “Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject,” and further, ”No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations.”
Once the bill had been voted down, Rep. Ted James (D-Baton Rouge), a member of the committee, sought out the boy and his mother. He had another committee room opened for them, and proceeded to get Sam Peter’s testimony on record, after all. You can view it here.
Subsequently, the young man was invited to the 4th floor, to deliver his testimony directly to Gov. John Bel Edwards.
The next day, Mack against showed he considers himself the arbiter of free speech, during his committee’s debate over HB 727 – which opponents argued was itself an attack on both free speech and the right to assemble.
“This bill deals with pipelines, adding them to the list of ‘critical infrastructure’,” explained the measure’s author, Rep. Major Thibaut (D-New Roads. “This bill just adds pipelines to, like, nuclear plants or our refineries.”
But it also establishes criminal penalties — imprisonment at hard labor for not less than 6 years, nor more than 20 years – for interfering with construction of a pipeline.
Environmental activists who’ve been actively engaged in trying to halt construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline – through protests and court actions – lined up to speak against the bill.
“The federal government defines critical infrastructure as follows: ‘systems and assets so vital to the United States that the incapacity of them would have debilitating impact on security, national public health, or safety’,” explained Kathleen Patton, the widow of Abita Brewery’s founding partner. “Pipelines like Bayou Bridge don’t fit that definition. All of the oil is for export. It’s to benefit private investors, not the public sector, while the public threat is people dying from environmental pollutants.
“The real reason for this bill’s assault on constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly is to effectively change the reach of government to include private profitability,” she concluded.
“Critical infrastructure? Critical for who?” questioned Margaret Logue, with 350.org. “It’s being built for a Texas company. The oil is for export. And most of the 2500 construction jobs are going to out-of-state workers.
“This bill was written by the oil and gas industry. This state is very beholden to that industry, but it’s not providing the jobs it once did, and we’re left with the damages, despite Louisiana’s constitution saying we are supposed to protect natural resources and the environment. This bill would make it criminal for us to do that. The conspiracy portion of this bill would make it criminal just for us to talk about engaging in civil disobedience.”
However, it was Michael Broussard from Youngsville who pushed Chairman Mack’s buttons.
“The history of this state and the petrochemical industry is one of corporate ‘do as we say’. This time they have overstepped. The Bayou Bridge Pipeline is passing directly behind my home, and this is clearly an attack on free speech by threat of imprisonment and fine.
“You can smirk, sir, but that is the case,” he said, addressing Mack who had hidden his smile behind his hand.
“I’m not smirking,” Mack replied. “And you’ve got 30 seconds.”
“When we’ve tried to stand up at the public hearings about this pipeline, they got as long as they wanted to speak, and then the head of the Houston office for the pipeline company accused us of being non-patriotic!” Broussard said, his volume increasing. “I’m a Vietnam veteran!”
And as Broussard paused for breath, Mack said, “We thank you for your visit to the Capitol.”
“I’m not finished!” Broussard exclaimed.
“Well, yes you are,” Mack said firmly, as he gestured to House security to escort the man out. “You’re done.”
What’s a citizen to do when the right to speak to lawmakers in the people’s House is quashed by an autocratic committee chairman? You can’t take legal action for infringement of your civil rights, because the Louisiana Constitution grants legislators immunity “during attendance at sessions and committee meetings…for any speech in either house.”
That’s why it’s okay for Senator John Milkovich to tell his fellow senators that his bill permitting public school staff to pray with public school students during school hours (SB 253) is “completely constitutional” – with no repercussions.
And it’s why Rep. Dodie Horton could insist during a hearing on expanding the illnesses allowable for medical marijuana treatment that, “To make the statement that no one ever died from marijuana is not accurate. That is not accurate. The Daily Currant, in January 2014, thirty-seven people died of overdoses the first day Colorado legalized recreational marijuana. It is fact.”
(In Rep. Horton’s case, there were repercussions – public ridicule, as the publication she cited is satire, and The Advocate’s Elizabeth Crisp tweeted that fact. Crisp also wrote an article about it, and that story has been widely repeated, in state and nationally.)
One could complain to the Speaker, but as we’ve seen, Taylor Barras is unwilling to discipline members – for offensive speech to other members, and certainly not for overstepping their authority and treading on constituents’ rights.
And in the case of HB 727, which criminalizes pipeline protests, fifty-one of the 105 House members have already signed onto the bill as co-authors.
What could that mean for young Sam Peter’s future right to speak – much less speak freely? What might it mean for us all?
“This is Pro Life Day at the Louisiana legislature,” chairman Frank Hoffman proclaimed proudly on Wednesday morning. Then the House Health and Welfare Committee proceeded to discuss and approve four anti-abortion measures.
The first three bills were “clean-up measures”, attempting to alter laws passed in 2016 that have been embroiled in a federal lawsuit.
“This lawsuit was filed right after all these bills were passed in 2016, and it challenged seven different new laws,” explained Liz Murrill, with the Louisiana Attorney General’s office. “These are just some good ideas we think, to clean up and tighten up these bills. We think it makes them better, and will make it clear for the court that the case can be dismissed.”
The first bill heard, HB 273 by Rep. Hoffman (R-West Monroe), affects the requirement that aborted fetuses be buried or cremated.
“Sadly, the current practice is to dispose of unborn children as human waste, and Rep. Julie Stokes courageously brought the bill in 2016 to provide for burials,” Hoffman explained. “This clarifies that it doesn’t pertain to miscarriages or drug-induced abortions which take place in the home.
“It will take the challenge out of the federal courts, and keep the law on the books, as we intended,” he concluded.
That measure was sent to the House floor, without objection.
“This is the same concept,” Hoffman then said of HB 338. “I authored this one in 2016, which is the prohibition of public funding for entities that do abortions – Planned Parenthood, in particular.
“This bill’s intention was, and still is, not to allow those who perform abortions or share facilities with abortion providers to receive Medicaid funding, based on the fungible nature of money that can be misappropriated to subsidize abortion services. We’ve added a ‘legislative intent and findings’ section to make clear that this policy is consistent with current law requiring us to combat fraud and abuse committed by some healthcare providers.”
There were no questions and the bill was approved without objection.
“By the way, did I announce that this is Pro Life Day in Louisiana?” Hoffman gloated.
Next up was HB 287, by Rep. Rick Edmonds (R-Baton Rouge), a change to his 2016 bill that prohibits aborting a fetus diagnosed with genetic abnormalities. That law imposes fines and a jail sentence of up to two years for the physician who performs such a procedure.
“This is a simple bill: it just cleans up what we did then,” Edmonds said. “It states there’s no penalty on abortion providers until LDH has made the relevant information available in the appropriate booklet for women, giving them the list of resources available for children diagnosed with genetic conditions such as Down’s syndrome.”
“How far is the state along in developing that booklet?” Rep. Harvey LeBas (D-Ville Platte) wanted to know.
“I’m not sure, but I think it’s in the process of being developed and printed,” Murrill responded.
“If the law was passed in 2016, why wasn’t the booklet produced before this?” LeBas asked.
“The law is currently enjoined in litigation, so there’s not going to be anything that happens until we get this clarification done,” Murrill replied.
“I want to make sure we make this tight and not give them leeway to avoid penalties,” LeBas pressed. “I’m just trying to make sure we don’t let somebody off the hook. “
“No, no, no – we’re not doing that,” Murrill reassured him. “This just makes it explicitly clear that the penalty doesn’t apply until the booklet is available.”
This bill also advanced, without objection.
The fourth abortion-related bill on the agenda was also authored by Edmonds. HB 449 will add a list of adoption agencies and counseling services to the state-produced booklet, “Women’s Right to Know”. Louisiana law mandates the book – now 24 pages in length before adding the information from Edmonds’ two bills – be given to and signed for by each woman inquiring about an abortion. (At various times over the past two decades, the document has included – at the behest of the legislature – medically spurious information, such as a statement that having an abortion increases a woman’s chance of contracting breast cancer. The state lost a lawsuit challenging that inclusion.)
HB 449 was approved, prompting Edmonds – who was vice president of the Louisiana Family Forum before his election to the House in 2015 – to declare, “This is an exciting day at the Capitol because it’s about life. I appreciate when we can stand for those who can’t stand for themselves. Life is always the right choice.”
Over the past two decades, Louisiana has spent tens of millions of dollars going to court to defend its ever-increasing restrictions on abortion. Our officials want to be part of the case that succeeds in overturning Roe v. Wade. The proof can be found in Act 467 of the 2006 regular session (SB 33) – a prospective law which prohibits abortion entirely, except to save the life of the mother, should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. It would impose a ten year prison sentence on anyone performing such a procedure.
Yet one bill which could have done much toward precluding the need for abortion failed to get past its initial committee hearing. HB 499 by Rep. Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) would require the teaching of comprehensive sex education in public schools.
“Whether you like it or not, kids are sexually active,” said proponent Nicolette Gordon. “And knowledge is important to making good decisions.”
Speaker Pro Temp Walt Leger concurred. “The facts are the facts: they speak for themselves. We have some of the nation’s highest rates of HIV transmission, of STDs, and of teen pregnancy. It’s clear that what we’re doing now isn’t working.”
And while there were a stack of green cards and witnesses speaking in support of the measure, there were also several of the proud right-to-life contingent members lined up to speak in opposition.
“Purity and abstinence should be the message, not sex education,” insisted Elizabeth Demarest, who was speaking on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum. “This bill says teach abstinence, but it also will teach about contraception. This will rob them of innocence.”
“Sexuality is a gift from God, and it’s the parents’ responsibility to teach children about sexuality. It’s not the state’s job,” protested Rev. Brian Gunter, pastor of First Baptist Church of Pollock. “Why should my religious beliefs be violated? In Grant Parish, we don’t believe in it. We don’t want it!”
Several of those speaking in opposition insisted the bill was based on “propaganda legislation from Planned Parenthood.” But Rep. Smith wasn’t about to let that go unchallenged.
“I need to correct some misinformation,” she said, on closing. “The language in my bill comes directly from the CDC. It’s the same language and the same bill I’ve been trying to get passed since I came to the Legislature.
“You can’t say you are ‘pro-life’ if you’re not going to take care of children after they’re born – if you’re not going to educate them on how babies are conceived,” Smith insisted. “When does the cycle stop? When do we as lawmakers take responsibility and fix the problem?”
Not this year, since the House Education Committee voted 8-5 to kill the bill.
One thing Louisiana’s legislature can’t be accused of is consistency. Do we raise the age to purchase weapons, or lower the drinking age? Do we raise the age of criminal adulthood? Do we increase parole time back to what it was before we lowered it last year? All those questions and more were encapsulated in bills state lawmakers considered on Tuesday.
Sen. Eric LaFleur (D-Ville Platte) brought his bill to certify drinkers under the age of 21 to a Senate Committee. HB 429 would require 19 and 20 year-olds to take classes on alcohol consumption, which would be offered through the state Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, and upon completion, earn a certificate enabling them to purchase and consume alcohol.
Louisiana reluctantly raised its drinking age to 21 in 1986. Then in 1996, the state Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional age discrimination, since 18-year-olds are legal adults. Later that same year, the Court reversed that decision, due to federal notice the state would lose highway funding.
And upon testimony from DOTD Secretary Shawn Wilson that passage of this new bill would cost the state at least $67-million in federal highway funds, LaFleur withdrew his measure from consideration.
Across the hall, another Senate committee discussed a bill to delay implementation of some juvenile justice reforms. The “Raise the Age Act”, passed in 2016, requires 17-year-old offenders in Louisiana – who have been treated as adults – to be shifted into the juvenile justice system, beginning July 1 of this year. Sen. Ronnie Johns’ (R-Sulphur) SB 248 would delay that implementation to 2020. He cited impending budget cuts to the state’s juvenile justice system as the main reason.
“We made this decision, and we need to stick by it,” argued Sen. Jay Luneau (D-Alexandria). “I oppose delaying the changes simply because we don’t have enough money. Every year we permit millions of dollars in tax breaks for corporations, even though we can’t afford that. Why should we treat 17-year-olds differently than those corporations?”
Ultimately, Sen. Johns chose to defer his bill for a week, and try to work out some changes urged by the administration.
Another Senate Committee grappled with SB 274, by Sen. Troy Carter (D-New Orleans). That measure would prohibit the sale of assault-style weapons to any person under the age of 21.
“I fully support the Second Amendment,” Carter explained, “but federal law prohibits the sale of handguns to those under the age of 21 – and as we’ve seen, these weapons are far more deadly. And I support preserving lives.”
Carter enlisted the aid of New Orleans Police Chief Michael Harrison, who testified, “Never in the history of our city has an assault rifle been used for defending oneself or one’s home. In every instance, it’s used to attack other people. There’s no really good reason to purchase one at all, much less by those who are not fully mature.”
The NRA, not unexpectedly, opposed the bill. It’s representative, Erin Louper, said, “This deprives law-abiding young adults of their constitutional rights. It’s punishing law-abiding citizens for the acts of criminals.”
That was a sentiment echoed by Sen. Bodi White.
“With a .357, which I’ve carried for over 40 years, and a speed loader, I could take out a lot of people here in less than a minute,” he said.
Carter argued, “That speaks to the larger problem. This is a small step toward that. We give up a little bit to assure the greater good.”
“I know you believe that,” White replied, “but the vast majority of our citizenry are not criminals, and we’re tired of having to keep giving up our rights because of these bad actors, while everybody keeps citing ‘the greater good’.”
Yet it was the testimony of Mary Wanda, a teacher and the parent of a teenage son, that seemed to have the greatest impact on the committee.
“I am a lifelong Republican, but I’m here to say the time has come for you to step up,” the lady said, with her voice breaking repeatedly as she continued. “I’m tired of being afraid. I’m afraid to go to the mall, to the movies. I’m afraid for my son when he’s at school. I’m afraid for myself when I’m at work at school. If I wanted to live in a place where guns are everywhere, I could move to Afghanistan. But this isn’t a third world country. It’s Louisiana, and it’s my home. I say again, the time has come.”
“This is a basic measure that could save lives,” Sen. Carter said, in closing. “Protect the lives of those going to a movie, a concert, to school, to church. We know it won’t solve all the violence problems, but if it saves one, or two, or three lives, it’s worth it.”
The committee voted 4-3 to send the bill to the Senate floor for debate.
Yet the same committee voted unanimously to move another bill forward – one proposed by Sen. Bodi White, who had not so obliquely threatened to shoot up the entire room just minutes before.
SB 410 would require the state Department of Corrections to submit annual reports to the legislature, detailing who had been released early as part of the criminal justice reforms passed last year.
The reports have to include names, offenses, and, White says, “Most important to me is whether got a GED, literacy classes, or job skills training. There’s little chance not to recidivate if they don’t do that.”
But because the bill also asks for the details on juvenile offenders, Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) asked, “Do you think this could be a breach of confidentiality?”, while Sen. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge) wondered if the report would be published, as a public record.
And while they ultimately amended the bill to allow redaction of confidential details on juveniles, no one asked how this might backfire on last year’s law passed to “Ban the Box”. That bars colleges and universities from asking about criminal history on admission applications. It wouldn’t take much to cross-check names from the White bill’s required reports, and use that info to deny admission – despite the law.
Further, by demanding the detailed reports from the Department of Corrections – an agency under the executive branch, legislators are nibbling away at the separation of powers, even as they try to undermine the governor’s authority.
The full House also endorsed a bill with a similar purpose. HB 734 by Rep. Jack McFarland (R-Jonesboro) requires the state Department of Health to submit a quarterly data report on Medicaid to lawmakers, enumerating claims paid, denied, adjusted, adjudicated, rejected, pending – and the dollar amounts of each – from all of the managed care providers.
The vote was 97-0 to approve this micromanagement scheme.
The full House also considered Rep. Sherman Mack’s (R-Albany) HB 195 on Tuesday. The measure, opposed by the Louisiana Association of Probation and Parole Officers and by criminal justice reform advocates, raises the cap on parole time back to five years, after it had been lowered to three years under the Criminal Justice Reinvestment package passed last year.
“This will return discretion to the judges, after we tied their hands by limiting probation to three years,” Mack explained. “The judges want this, and the DAs Association wants this.”
Rep. Joe Marino (I-Gretna), who coordinated the reform bills passed in the House last year, cross-examined Mack at length about the bill.
“The changes we passed took effect in November. We don’t even have a year’s worth of results to evaluate how it’s working. How can we determine success of failure in just four months?” Marino asked.
“The judges and the DAs say it’s not working,” Mack replied.
“Do you have any numbers on that?” Marino pressed.
“No numbers,” Mack responded.
A motion was made to quell debate, by limiting the questions to five minutes. Requiring a 2/3 vote, it failed to achieve even a simple majority. And the debate continued.
Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) asked, “What is the cost attached to holding the hearings required by your bill, at 18 month, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?”
“There is no fiscal note,” Mack responded.
“I oppose your bill, did you know?” Marcelle informed him. “I want time, and I want numbers before agreeing to this rollback of what we’ve done.”
That’s when Rep. Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport) asked the question of the day.
“What type of message do you think this sends to the citizens, that we are going back on what we did — that we can’t make up our minds?”
Mack’s response? “I didn’t agree with it last year.”
And Marino, in his final plea to turn down this bill, exposed the previously unspoken motivation behind it.
“I am carrying the bills that make the needed changes to the criminal justice reforms. This is not one of them, and four months in is not the time to pull the plug.
“The old law is what they’re proposing we go back to – the old way, that wasn’t working: the way that gave us the highest incarceration rate in the world!. And we hope that it will work now?
“Why are people jumping ship?” he asked. “Re-election. But the reality is, you voted for something, and now you’re against it. And that gives your opponents more ammunition against your re-election.”
But with a vote of 62-38, the bill passed the House, and is now sent to the Senate.
It initially appeared both the House and Senate were going to take up multiple bills involving animals, but the Senate opted for the “Bagneris Rule” Monday, instead. Made an official part of the Senate rules in 2014, it allows that body to pass over any bill deemed controversial, and automatically return it to the calendar for the next business day.
That meant debate on Sen. Troy Carter’s (D-New Orleans) bill to grant immunity from prosecution for those gratuitously offering aid to injured children or animals (Good Samaritan Act) was postponed, along with discussion on Sen. J.P. Morrell’s (D-New Orleans) SB 236, which criminalizes sexual abuse of animals.
It’s an expansion of the state’s long-standing “Crimes Against Nature” laws, which currently simply prohibit “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with an animal”. It would now include both participants and observers of “any act involving sexual contact with an animal”, while making exceptions for veterinarians and others involved in legitimate animal husbandry.
The lone critter bill deemed uncontroversial enough for senate passage Monday was SB 451 by Blade Morrish (R-Jennings). It establishes a permanent moratorium on oyster fishing in Sabine Lake.
“Sabine Lake is home to an historic oyster reef that has not been fished since 1966,” Morrish explained. “It is the largest known, perfect, untouched, vertical oyster reef in the world.
“Louisiana and Texas share the lake, and we have an agreement in place with Texas to use the reef only for study and education from now on.”
The bill passed unanimously.
Over in the House, the featured creature bills began with HB 121, by Rep. Jean Paul Coussan (R-Lafayette), making heavy restraints on dogs a criminal offense.
“This will allow added charges to be imposed on those busted for dog-fighting,” he explained. “It’s designed to outlaw heavy chains, iron collars, weights tied to the collar – all the things dog-fight trainers use to try and build up stamina in those animals.”
There was a light-hearted question from Rep. Robby Carter (D-Amite).
“Does this apply to cats?” Carter asked. “To birds? Cows? Horses?”
“My bill only applies to dogs,” Coussan replied.
The bill was advanced to the Senate, 79-2.
And despite the seriousness of the problem it addresses, it was Rep. Kirk Talbot’s bill to prohibit the transportation of live feral swine that provided some of the most humorous discussion of the day.
Legitimate questions about the bill came first, however.
“If I go hunting in north Louisiana, and trap a hog, then I have to travel several hours home to south Louisiana, where I can get it butchered,” Rep. Kenny Cox (D-Natchitoches) began. “If it has to be dead for me to transport it, the meat will spoil. Is that right?”
“You will be able to get a permit from Wildlife and Fisheries for situations like that,” Talbot assured Cox.
“What will that cost?” Cox asked.
“I don’t know,” Talbot replied. “They’re still working on those rules, pending passage of this bill. But the main thing is that this bill will prohibit ‘catch-and-release’ of feral swine.”
Then the teasing commenced.
“Do you have a big problem with feral hogs in River Ridge?” Rep. Mike Danahay (D-Sulphur) asked, referring to the upscale suburb where Talbot resides.
“When we had the flood two years ago, a herd of feral hogs moved from the woods along the river, onto the golf course,” Talbot replied. “It was terrible.”
Rep. Greg Cromer (R-Slidell) then asked, “Do you make hot dogs out of swine?” (Talbot is the owner of Lucky Dogs, a street-food institution in the New Orleans area)
“Not wild swine,” Talbot replied.
Further questions linking pork and hot dogs ensued, with Rep. Terry Landry (D-New Iberia) finally rising to ask, “If this bill is successful, can we name it the ‘Not-So-Lucky Pig Act’?”
Laughing, Talbot responded, “Yes.”
And with that, the full House approved the bill, 59-24.
* Update: Three years after publishing this commentary, following a more thorough review of the evidence, including the transcript of the Coroner’s Inquest, the autopsy report for Carl Weiss, the Final Report on the 1992 Re-Investigation, and a set of previously unpublished photographs of Long’s clothing, and after reading more than a dozen books on Long and the subject of the assassination, I no longer hold the position that Long was accidentally killed and believe there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Weiss was, in fact, the assassin.
“The House that Huey built,” the Louisiana state Capitol building in downtown Baton Rouge, towers over the city’s skyline. If you’re traveling into Baton Rouge on Highway 190 East, the route most commonly taken by people from central and northern Louisiana prior to the construction of Interstate 10, the building comes into view several miles before you reach the Mississippi River, appearing to stand alone, in the same way the Emerald City materialized in front of Dorothy.
It is the nation’s tallest state Capitol, and as its nickname suggests, it was conceived and built by Huey P. Long, the Kingfish, a man that Franklin D. Roosevelt considered to be one of the most dangerous in America.
“It’s also the nation’s tallest tombstone,” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne once observed. The body of Huey P. Long is buried on the Capitol grounds. Atop his grave, there’s a statue of Long overlooking his building.
Photo by Rev. Charles Ward.
At 9:22PM on September 8th, 1935, Long, then a U.S. Senator, was shot while walking down one of the building’s corridors. He died two days later, at 4:06 in the morning, only 42 years old and still generally considered to be the most powerful politician in Louisiana’s history.
The official version of Long’s death is that it was an assassination carried out by a 29-year-old, well-respected Baton Rouge physician named Carl Weiss. Weiss, the story goes, was angry that Huey P. Long had orchestrated the ouster of his father-in-law, Benjamin Pavy, from a judicial seat in St. Landry Parish. The Pavy family were outspoken opponents of Long, and according to unsubstantiated rumors, Long had once claimed the Pavys had “Negro blood,” which some speculate had also driven the young physician to confront Long that night.
For the past eight decades, students of Louisiana history have been taught that Carl Weiss approached Huey P. Long, exchanged some heated words, and then pulled out a gun and shot him once in the abdomen. Long’s bodyguards immediately returned fire and killed Weiss, shooting him 61 times.
Long had initially survived the shooting and was able to walk down a flight of stairs and across the grounds of the Capitol and then hail a car to take him to the hospital. He lived for another 32 hours, and many believe that he only died because of incompetent medical care.
The assassination of Huey Pierce Long has earned a central place in the mythos of Louisiana. It ensured he would not merely be remembered as a powerful and ruthless politician but as a man who had sacrificed his own life in service to the people of Louisiana. The word assassination is reserved only for a select few, and in a macabre way, the term itself is an expression of respect for the victim.
Only a leader can be assassinated, and only when their life was taken by someone opposed to them for political or religious reasons. In that respect, an assassination is also a political statement, a way of intimidating and silencing those who supported and respected the fallen leader.
83 years after Huey P. Long’s death, we should acknowledge a compelling body of evidence that suggests the story we have told about Huey P. Long’s death is wrong, even if the true story diminishes the mystique of the Kingfish. Huey P. Long wasn’t assassinated by Carl Weiss.
More likely than not, he was killed accidentally by a stray bullet fired by one of his bodyguards, likely either Joe Messina or Murphy Roden.
The front pages of three Louisiana newspapers- The Monroe News Star, The Ruston Daily Leader, and The Alexandria Daily Town Talk. September 10th, 1935
There are bullet holes from that night still visible in the Capitol’s marble walls. But more significantly, there are holes in the government’s story about who is responsible for causing the death of Huey P. Long, and some of those holes have only come into view in the past twenty years.
Eight years ago, at a symposium held in the Old State Capitol, Dr. Carl Weiss, Jr., who was only an infant when his father died and who has spent much of his life researching the events of that night and retracing his father’s steps, spoke for the first time at length about his long-held belief that his father did not actually shoot Huey P. Long. In fact, he asserts his father wasn’t even carrying a gun that night. (Thankfully, because of the great work of Louisiana Public Broadcasting, you can watch the lecture here).
Carl Weiss, Sr. did confront Long. He was angry, though the exact reasons why are unknown and will probably always remain unknown. His son dismisses the long-standing theory that the confrontation had anything to do with defending his father-in-law. “I don’t think it makes any conceivable sense that a person would carry out an attack like that on behalf of a father-in-law who was ready to retire anyway,” his son contended.
“The other reason is equally fuzzy, but it’s suggested that Huey may have made some kind of racial slur, which my father interpreted wrong and chose to avenge himself. Again, I don’t think that’s the least bit likely.”
Weiss may have not carried out an attack on behalf of his father-in-law, but historian Ed Reed believes the most likely explanation is that he simply wanted to plead his father-in-law’s case. According to Reed, Carl Weiss had attempted to talk with Long three times, stationing himself in plain view outside of the door to the governor’s office, and each time, he was rebuffed. Several other historians agree and argue that the likeliest story is that after Huey P. Long made an insulting comment to Weiss, the young doctor punched him in the face. At that point, Long’s bodyguards opened fire.
This theory is bolstered substantially by the sworn affidavit of Jewel O’Neal, a nurse who had attended to Long that night. According to O’Neal, Long told her, “That’s where he hit me,” while she was treating his bruised lip. Another nurse confirmed O’Neal’s account.
Decades later, Carl Weiss, Jr. had his father’s body exhumed, and according to a forensic analysis, there was evidence of a small fracture in one of his hands consistent with the type of injury from throwing a hard punch.
If Weiss had planned on killing Huey P. Long that night, he made no indication of his motives to anyone who knew him. The Weiss family home, it’s worth noting, was on Lakeland Drive, very near the state Capitol. “My father’s daily route home literally took him through the parking lot of the Capitol,” his son explained.
That day, Weiss had attended to a man named Morgan, who later told police investigators that the physician was not acting unusual and did not seem disturbed at all. He also made plans to perform surgery the following morning, and at dinner that night, he tried to cool the temper of an uncle who was arguing about politics.
His actions that day did not seem like those of a man who was plotting to kill the most famous man in Louisiana.
The House that Huey Built, the new Louisiana state Capitol. 1931. Source: Louisiana Digital Library
There is also significant evidence that police engaged in a hasty cover-up in order to place a weapon in Weiss’ possession. His brother, Tom Ed Weiss, arrived at the scene within an hour and discovered that police had moved the doctor’s Buick from where it had been originally parked and had also pilfered through the car’s glove compartment, which is where Weiss kept his gun, a .32 caliber pistol he had purchased on a vacation in France.
A security guard on duty that night, Elois Sahuk, told the historian Ed Reed, “One of the bodyguards, who is now dead, told me that he felt that that gun was a throw down gun, that one of the bodyguards had gone out to the car that Carl Weiss had driven up in, had gotten that pistol and had thrown it next to the body.”
There was a gun next to Weiss’ body, but curiously, his car keys were missing.
When surgeons operated on Long, they were able to recover a .38 caliber bullet, the same caliber as the weapons carried by his bodyguards. Weiss’ .32 caliber pistol was never a match, and for decades, the weapon was nowhere to be found.
Then, in 1991, a researcher hired by James Starrs, a professor of law and forensic sciences at George Washington University, made an astonishing discovery: The weapon was owned by Mabel Guerre Binnings, the daughter of Louis F. Guerre, the man who headed up the investigation into Long’s death.
“It is submitted that there is significant scientific evidence to establish grave and persuasive doubts that Carl Austin Weiss was the person who killed Sen. Huey P. Long,” Starrs announced at a meeting of the Academy of Forensic Scientists in 1992.
A year later, in 1993, the son of Huey P. Long, the late U.S. Sen. Russell Long, met the son of Carl Weiss. Russell Long had steadfastly maintained his public belief that his father was assassinated by Carl Weiss, but privately, he wasn’t always as adamant.
Three years ago, the writer Jonathan Alter unearthed a letter that Russell Long sent to Tom Ed Weiss, Carl’s brother. “We shared a personal tragedy,” he said of himself and Carl Weiss, Jr.
“It was my fortune to know some of the eyewitnesses and respect them,” he wrote about his father’s bodyguards. “I do not want to do anything to cast doubt on what they testified under oath. Yet I remain of the view that only the Eternal could know all that happened and why it happened as it did.”
Something else happened in 1993. Colonel Frances Gravemberg, who served as the Superintendent of the Louisiana State Police in the 1950s and a man who earned a sterling reputation for his work against organized crime, stated in a sworn affidavit that he knew the identities of the men who were responsible for shooting Huey P. Long.
Two troopers who were eyewitnesses to the shooting had told Colonel Gravemberg they watched Long’s bodyguards plant a gun on the unarmed Weiss shortly after accidentally wounding Long; the fatal bullet was aimed at Weiss but ricocheted off of a marble wall and struck the Kingfish.
In the late 1990s, the Louisiana State Police reviewed their investigation on Huey P. Long’s death, an investigation which, by all accounts, was flawed from the very beginning. “On September 16, 1935, a sham inquest was held, in which only fervent Long loyalists (including a puppet judge who later admitted he hadn’t seen the shooting) were allowed to testify and no autopsy or ballistics tests were conducted,” Jonathan Alter explained.
Despite the substantial evidence that Carl Weiss was not the shooter- indeed, could not have been the shooter, the police did not change their ruling. “We believe from a law enforcement standpoint that he had motive. We believe he had opportunity. And we believe he had the means to do the job. And we know that he was there,” they wrote then, a position that, presumably, they still hold.
The story of Huey P. Long will be told in Louisiana for generations to come, but hopefully, some day soon, we will tell the truth about the final chapter.
The decennial U.S. Census it two years away, which means reapportionment – the process of redrawing district lines for equivalent distribution of voters in accordance with population shifts – is three years off. The process, controlled by the state legislature, is getting some early attention, due in no small part to the attention the U.S. Supreme Court is currently giving to decisions made in 2011 by lawmakers in other states.
The cases – one from Wisconsin, heard in October; another from Maryland, heard last week; and a pair from Texas, to be heard sometime this month – all deal with alleged “gerrymandering”, or manipulating the boundaries of an electoral district to benefit a particular class. In the Wisconsin case, the beneficiaries were Republicans. In Maryland, they were Democrats. And the Texas cases were ruled by a lower court to be “racial gerrymanders”. SCOTUS is expected to rule on all these cases by the end of June.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on the Wisconsin and Texas cases, while a grassroots group called Fair Districts Louisiana held a daylong seminar at LSU in January, discussing both the process and concerns in advance of the next round of reapportionment.
There was also lengthy discussion of a bill to try and change one part of Louisiana’s process on the state House floor last week.
Representative Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) authored HB 89, which would require the state to count prisoners at their “home of record”, rather than at the prison where they are housed.
“We allow members of the military to vote, using their ‘home of record’, even though their duty has them living on a base in another state or another country,” Smith said. “Counting prisoners – who are forbidden from voting – as residing at the prison, skews representation for districts where prisons are located.”
Here’s the math, and what she meant by “skews representation”. After the 2010 Census, the state’s 105 House districts were redrawn, allocating an average of 43,000 voting-age residents to each district. Meanwhile, Louisiana had – on average – 35,000 prisoners in state custody. 15,000 of them are in state facilities, while the other 20,000 are housed in local jails.
The most noticeable variance is the voting population reality of House District 18, which includes Angola State Penitentiary: 5100 inmates – all of voting age – but ineligible to vote. Next to House District 18 is House District 62, where the majority of Angola’s 1700 employees reside. District 62 also includes Dixon Correctional Institute, with 2500 inmates.
The first person up to speak against the bill was Rep. Kenny Havard (R-District 62).
“I rise in opposition,” Havard stated. “It’s going to affect everybody’s district. It will cause havoc. Please vote against this bill.”
Rep. Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport) had questions for Havard.
“Why do you oppose this bill, really?” she asked.
“It would have far-reaching implications,” he replied. “You should be counted as living where you lay your head at night.”
“Those people who are incarcerated can’t vote,” Norton responded. “You think they should be counted as part of the numbers that make up your district, if they can’t vote?”
“The only thing I’m sure of is I’m against this bill,” Havard answered.
Rep. Nancy Landry (R-Lafayette) had a question, too, attempting to assist Havard with his opposition.
“Will this have a big impact on rural representation?” she queried.
“It will have a big impact on all our districts,” he said. “When we redistrict, we’ll have to shift all these lines, and that will shift your population.”
Rep. Katrina Jackson got up to speak for the bill.
“It is unfair to draw a district based on a large number of people who can’t vote. No one should be defending keeping those people counted as part of their district,” she said. “You’re fighting to continue to have districts that totally misrepresent how many voters you have.”
Jackson noted that the majority of state prisoners are housed in local jails, and under this bill, they would be counted as residing where they lived before being remanded, so ultimately this would balance out.
But when it comes to including entire prison populations among the voter count for single districts, “It messes up that ‘one person, one vote’ rule,” Jackson remonstrated. “That’s discriminatory!”
“I don’t like you suggesting that this is improper,” Landry protested. “This would change how rural areas are represented!”
“The majority of my district is rural,” Jackson responded, “And it is improper to dilute districts with inmates.”
“I’m worried about representation in rural areas,” Landry insisted.
“These are non-voters, so how does that affect representation?” Jackson asked, with a Cheshire cat smile, knowing she had Landry nearly cornered.
“Larger prisons are in rural areas, so it affects rural representation,” Landry replied.
But before Rep. Jackson could draw that out to its logical conclusion – that including large chunks of population known to be ineligible to vote means more ballot box clout for that district’s residents who can vote – Rep. Steve Pylant (R-Winnsboro), a retired sheriff, moved to call the question.
The bill failed, 28-71.
The lone Republican to vote for the bill was Rep.Joseph Stagni, of Kenner. Democratic Rep. Major Thibaut of District 18 – the one that includes Angola – voted against the bill.
It seems like all the major dominoes of the first round of free agency have fallen; with Ndamukong Suh officially choosing the Rams on Monday, the last major player (and the last major player the Saints expressed interest in) is off the market.
With all that behind us, let’s look at what the Saints have done so far, and how it shapes their roster going forward and what they might do in the draft and the rest of the offseason.
Kurt Coleman3 years, $16,350,000
$6,200,000 guaranteed
Now that we have the details of the Kurt Coleman contract in place, the numbers seem a lot more reasonable, another sharp job of finessing the salary cap by Mickey Loomis. Coleman is getting a $4.5 million signing bonus and a $1.7 million base salary in 2018, all guaranteed. Including his $100,000 workout bonus, that means his contract only carries a $3.3 million cap hit this year.
Coleman’s salaries balloon the next two years; if he doesn’t work out as well as hoped, the Saints could cut him next offseason and shave $4 million off their cap.
What impressed me watching some Coleman film was his speed sideline to sideline, which makes him both effective in coverage and as a back-end tackler to prevent big plays. He should be an improvement on Kenny Vaccaro in that regard, and is likely going to start over Vonn Bell, who was decent but didn’t grade particularly well by any metric I could find. Speed is the name of the game in the NFL these days, and Coleman has it.
Plus, if he doesn’t work out, he’s cheap enough to get rid of next year.
Demario Davis3 years, $24,000,000
$16,000,000 guaranteed
Davis is the biggest contract the Saints handed out this offseason, as the never-ending search for an every-down star at linebacker continues. Davis had a big breakout season for the Jets in 2017, playing every snap on defense, leading the league in solo tackles, and adding 5.5 sacks. Though he’s a bit of a late bloomer, he’s shown he can play well in every aspect of the game. Hopefully the Saints are getting that player, and not a guy who played hard during a contract year only to go back to his old level of performance.
Last year’s search for linebackers led the team to draft Alex Anzalone and sign A.J. Klein and Mant’i Teo. All three had their moments, but Te’o isn’t a three-down linebacker, Anzalone got injured early (a common theme of his college career), and Klein, whose season also ended in injury, delivered mostly solid play but didn’t particularly light up the field. Davis is most likely an attempt to upgrade on Te’o in the top three and to move Klein to the sidelines on passing downs.
Patrick Robinson4 years, $20,000,000$10,000,000 guaranteed
The Saints’ former first-round pick didn’t play particularly well on his rookie contract, and bounced around for three other teams on one-year deals afterward, but with the Eagles, he took a major step forward and played like one of the best slot cornerbacks in the league. The Saints presumably signed him with the intent to use him in the role where he excelled; like Davis, there’s a risk here that the one season was an outlier, but Robinson should shore up a position where the Saints struggled last year, while Marshon Lattimore and Ken Crawley continue to man the outside. If he regresses, the Saints can get out of the contract after two years with only $2.5 million of dead money– and the way it’s structured, they’ll save money cutting him any time after the first year.
Jermon Bushrod1 year, $1,105,000$269,118 guaranteed
The Saints couldn’t afford to keep Senio Kelemete, who was offered starter money by the Houston Texans, so they brought back an old favorite to fill the swing lineman position. Bushrod developed into a two-time Pro Bowler starting at left tackle for the Saints, before leaving for a big-free agent deal with Chicago, and then spending a couple of years in Miami. Bushrod played more guard than tackle in Miami, and that experience should serve him well as he fills in to both roles. I imagine, like Kelemete, he’ll be asked to fill in for the occasional injury at guard or right tackle, and perhaps will be used as a sixth lineman on the Saints’ heavy package (as Kelemete and Josh LeRibeus were last year).
Bushrod will be 34 this season, and so Saints fans shouldn’t expect a high level of performance from him, but his familiarity with the offense and versatility should make him a fit for his new role.
Alex Okafor2 years, $6,787,500
$1,500,000 guaranteed
Okafor played quite well last year, a bargain signing who ended up being one of the Saints’ most consistently effective players at stopping plays in the backfield, both run and pass. Unfortunately, Okafor tore his Achilles in week 11 against Washington, and missed the rest of the season. An Achilles injury can seriously sap a player’s explosiveness, and so there’s certainly concern as to whether Okafor will regain his form, even as he enters his prime at 27. The Saints signed him to another value contract, with a nearly $2 million roster bonus in year two, which gives themselves an option to get out cheaply if he doesn’t return to form, while giving them the right to retain Okafor at an affordable figure if he does. And if he does, he should slide right in as at worst one of the Saints’ top three defensive ends. (The Saints may still take a pass rusher in the draft, or Trey Hendrickson may take enough of a step forward to claim the job for himself.)
Benjamin Watson1 year, $2,000,000
$645,000 guaranteed
A late-breaking signing: The Saints have brought Ben Watson back from Baltimore on a one-year deal. Watson had a career year with the Saints in 2015 at age 34; he’s 37 now, but still posted reasonable numbers with the Ravens last year even though he tore his Achilles in the preseason in 2016. The Saints have been interested in upgrading their tight end position this offseason, and though Watson isn’t the sort of premium talent that would take the passing game to another level, he was a reliable option who finished second in targets and receptions for the Saints in 2015, and should provide steadier production than the team’s tight ends did last year. It’s probable this means the end of Coby Fleener’s time with the team.
Next time: Who the Saints let walk, what they didn’t address in free agency, and where they might look in the draft for those positions.
