All states · Louisiana

Amendment No. 5 (May 16, 2026): Act 219 (2025 Regular Session)

Act 219 (2025 Regular Session)

No official arguments Failed — Yes 188,782 (23.4%) / No 618,183 (76.6%) (Louisiana SOS results data, all 3,722 precincts reporting) Constitutional amendment Judiciary As of 2026-10-10
Data note

Louisiana SOS results portal labels itself "Unofficial Results" generically; data file is complete (3,722/3,722 precincts) and was written 2026-06-14, after the canvass. A separately published certified canvass document was not located.

Official SOS statement (Present Constitution / Proposed Amendment summaries) exists in the summaries PDF; not extracted verbatim because it is a 2-column layout.

GAP-FILL 2026-10-10: fiscal_impact quoted verbatim from Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office, Fiscal Note - HB63 Enrolled (25RS), Expenditure and Revenue Explanation sections (https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425244). Single-sourced (one official document). Five-year expenditure/revenue tables in the note are not reproduced; see URL.

GAP-FILL 2026-10-10: result replaced with official figures from Louisiana Secretary of State election-results data feed (voterportal.sos.la.gov), May 16, 2026, statewide totals; file write time 2026-06-14 (https://voterportal.sos.la.gov/ElectionResults/ElectionResults/Data?blob=20260516/Votes_Multiparish.htm). Previous value: 'Failed — 23% yes / 77% no (rounded %, WRKF; official SOS vote counts not retrieved)'.

Ballot text (Ballot proposition)

Do you support an amendment to change the mandatory retirement age for judges from seventy to seventy-five, provided that a judge may continue to serve to complete a term of office? (Amends Article V, Section 23(B))

What a YES vote means

Not published by the state

What a NO vote means

Not published by the state

Explanatory statement

Act 219 (2025 Regular Session) - Proposing to amend Article V, Section 23(B) of the Constitution of Louisiana, relative to the mandatory retirement of judges; to provide that a judge shall not remain in office beyond his seventy-fifth birthday; to provide for submission of the proposed amendment to the electors; and to provide for related matters.

Fiscal impact

EXPENDITURE EXPLANATION Secretary of State The Department of State may incur minimal ballot processing costs associated with this measure. As a regular practice, the Department of State typically budgets for up to 10 constitutional amendments and statewide propositions for the fall statewide elections. To the extent the ballot includes more than 10 constitutional amendments and statewide propositions, the Department of State may require additional SGF resources for the April 18, 2026, statewide election. Any expenditure impact would be realized in FY 26. REVENUE EXPLANATION There is no anticipated direct material effect on governmental revenues as a result of this measure.

Argument FOR

Not published by the state

Argument AGAINST

Not published by the state

Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.

Find more info