This joint resolution would amend Article XIII, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution to specify how a constitutional convention is composed and how proposals become a new constitution. It requires one delegate elected from each senatorial district and each representative district, requires two-thirds of convention delegates to agree on a proposed constitution or alternatives before submission to voters, and imposes a dual ratification rule: a majority of statewide voters plus approval in at least three-fourths of the parishes.
The changes reshape both the composition and the approval path for constitutional change. By tying delegate selection to legislative districts and adding a geographic ratification floor, the amendment raises the bar for constitutional replacement and shifts campaign strategy toward parish-level outreach and district contests; it also creates practical questions about delegate count, election administration, and the balance between statewide majorities and parish-level consent.
At a Glance
What It Does
Specifies that a constitutional convention must include one delegate elected from every senatorial and every representative district; requires two‑thirds of delegates to approve any proposed constitution or alternative propositions before submission to the people; and makes ratification require a statewide majority plus approval in at least three‑quarters of parishes.
Who It Affects
Voters in every state legislative district (who would elect local convention delegates), parish election officials who administer many new local contests, the Louisiana Legislature (which still must call a convention by a two‑thirds vote), and advocacy groups planning statewide constitutional campaigns.
Why It Matters
The proposal increases the number of locally elected delegates and inserts a parish‑level geographic veto into ratification, which makes passage of a new constitution more difficult and shifts campaign focus to parish majorities rather than only statewide vote totals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendment leaves intact the existing rule that the Legislature must pass a law, approved by two‑thirds of each chamber, to call a constitutional convention. Where it changes the Constitution is in how the convention is constituted and how a proposed constitution becomes effective.
The convention would be made up of delegates elected from legislative districts — explicitly one from each senatorial district and one from each representative district — meaning every legislative district would send a delegate (and the delegate count would be the sum of both types of districts unless the Legislature specifies otherwise in implementing law).
Within the convention, the text requires that any proposed new constitution or any alternative propositions be agreed to by two‑thirds of the delegates before the convention can send them to the voters. That creates a formal supermajority gate inside the convention itself: a sizable consensus among district delegates is necessary to reach the ballot.If the convention produces a proposal, the amendment changes how voters decide.
Instead of only needing a statewide majority, ratification would require a majority of votes cast statewide and affirmative votes in at least three‑quarters of Louisiana’s parishes. That adds a geographic distribution requirement — the proposal must carry broadly across parishes, not just win a statewide plurality or majority concentrated in a few populous areas.The resolution also sets the referendum mechanics: the amendment would be placed on the statewide ballot (the bill specifies the November 3, 2026 election in the draft) with a short proposition explaining the change.
Administrative details — how and when district delegate elections are scheduled, how vacancies are filled, ballot formats, and whether a delegate represents both district types for purposes of counting the two‑thirds — are left to implementing legislation and election administration, which means practical design choices will determine how the constitutional rules operate in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Legislature still must enact a law by two‑thirds of the elected membership of each house to call a constitutional convention.
The convention will include one delegate elected from each senatorial district and one delegate elected from each representative district — effectively creating delegates from every legislative district (the total delegate count would equal the sum of both district sets unless implementation modifies that).
Any proposed constitution or alternative proposition must receive affirmative votes from two‑thirds of the convention delegates before submission to voters.
Ratification requires two thresholds simultaneously: a majority of the electors voting on the proposal statewide and approval in no fewer than three‑quarters of the parishes.
The joint resolution directs that the amendment be placed on the statewide ballot for the November 3, 2026 election and includes the exact voter proposition language to appear on the ballot.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who composes the convention and internal voting rule
This is the core substantive change: the constitution would require delegate elections tied to legislative districts and set a two‑thirds approval rule inside the convention. Practically, the wording—"one delegate elected from each senatorial district and each representative district"—creates a delegate for every legislative seat unless implementing law says otherwise. That raises immediate questions about total delegate numbers, ballot structure for dozens of local races, and whether delegates from different district types have equal standing for the two‑thirds calculation. The provision makes the convention’s internal supermajority the formal gatekeeper before a public referendum.
Dual ratification: statewide majority plus parish threshold
This subsection adds a geographic check on ratification: a proposal needs a statewide majority and affirmative votes in at least three‑quarters of parishes. The mechanics are straightforward on their face—count votes by parish and statewide—but they create a structural advantage for proposals with broad parish distribution. Small‑population parishes carry equal parish-level weight in the 3/4 test, so a coalition of parishes can block statewide‑popular proposals despite losing the statewide vote, depending on turnout patterns.
Timing of submission to voters
This clause sends the amendment itself to the electorate on a specified statewide election date (the draft names November 3, 2026). That is a procedural item but matters to implementation because it fixes the referendum date and requires election officials to prepare the ballot language and logistics by then.
Ballot language
The bill prescribes the precise proposition text that must appear on the official ballot. That reduces late‑stage drafting disputes over voter notice. It also constrains how voters will see the change: the language frames the amendment as authorizing district‑elected delegates and setting minimum vote requirements for both the convention and the electorate.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters in legislative districts: Each district would elect a named delegate, giving local voters a direct role in selecting their convention representative rather than relying on at‑large or appointment systems.
- Parish governments and small‑parish constituencies: The three‑quarters parish rule increases the importance of parish‑level majorities, amplifying the influence of smaller or more numerous parishes relative to a purely statewide test.
- Groups favoring broad consensus: Advocacy coalitions that can build geographically dispersed support benefit from the two‑thirds and parish‑level rules, because those thresholds reward proposals that attract broad cross‑parish agreement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Parish and municipal election administrators: They would run numerous additional local delegate races (potentially one per legislative district), increasing staffing, ballot printing, and vote‑tabulation complexity.
- State Legislature: Although the Legislature keeps the power to call a convention, it must draft detailed implementing laws (e.g., election timing, ballot format, vacancy rules) to operationalize district delegate elections and counting rules—an unfunded drafting and oversight burden unless budgeted.
- Statewide reform advocates and campaign funders: Winning a new constitution would require both statewide vote totals and broad parish‑level buys; campaigns must budget for many parish‑level outreach operations, raising costs and changing strategy away from purely urban‑centered messaging.
- Urban majorities and heavily populated parishes: Because the parish test treats parishes as discrete units regardless of population, large‑population parishes cannot by themselves carry a proposal; urban‑centered movements may lose leverage compared with a pure statewide majority rule.
- Judiciary (potential litigation): Ambiguities about delegate composition, counting rules, and what constitutes a parish 'approval' invite legal challenges that could require court clarification before or after a referendum.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The amendment trades ease of majoritarian constitutional change for geographically distributed consent: it strengthens local and cross‑parish protections (reducing the risk of constitution‑making driven by concentrated urban majorities) but does so by raising procedural hurdles—larger delegate pools, a convention supermajority requirement, and a parish‑level ratification test—that can produce gridlock or enable minority vetoes.
The amendment is compact, but it leaves key implementation choices to statute and to election administrators—choices that will determine whether the change produces predictable results or recurring litigation. The most immediate ambiguity is the delegate count: the text requires "one delegate elected from each senatorial district and each representative district." Read literally, that creates two overlapping classes of delegates and a large convention (the sum of both district sets).
The Legislature could instead interpret the clause as meaning one delegate per legislative district generally, but the drafting gives room for challenge and for conflicting implementations across parishes.
The parish‑level ratification rule substitutes geographic distribution for population weight. That trade‑off is deliberate: it protects less populous areas by ensuring approval across the map, but it also empowers a coalition of small parishes to block a constitution supported by a statewide majority.
The result raises classic questions about democratic fairness versus local protection: does geographic parity preserve cross‑community buy‑in or entrench minority veto power? Practically, the rule will require campaigns to invest in low‑turnout parishes where a small number of votes can determine a parish outcome.
Finally, the internal two‑thirds threshold inside the convention encourages consensus drafting but risks deadlock. If delegates are numerous and locally focused, assembling a two‑thirds coalition across hundreds of district delegates may be harder than under previous conventions, pushing negotiators to trade off national issues for local concessions.
Implementation choices—how delegates are elected, whether delegates represent only one district class, and how the two‑thirds is calculated—will shape whether the amendment makes constitutional overhaul realistic or near‑impossible without extraordinary unanimity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.