Election Dates for Filling Judicial Vacancies
POSITION: SUPPORT
What It Does: This amendment requires that when there is a judicial vacancy, or a new judgeship is created, that the position be filled by calling a special election at the earliest election date available.
Background: In the event that there is a vacancy on a state court, the constitution requires that it be filled by a special election called by the governor “within 12 months.” Over the years, that has worked fine. But last year the Legislature decided to move to a closed party primary system for the election of justices to the Louisiana Supreme Court beginning in 2026.
That creates a scenario where under our current election date cycle, it might be impossible, under certain circumstances, to have the vacancy for the judgeship filled within 12 months, as the constitution now requires.
Under our current open primary system, elections are decided through no more than two elections – a primary election followed by a general election. Under a closed party primary, it could take three elections. The first primary pits candidates from the same party in a race where, if no candidate receives a majority of votes, the top two vote getters proceed to a second primary runoff. The winner of that would then stand for election in the general election facing one or more candidates from an opposing party.
That added election creates the possibility that under our current cycle of election dates, the judgeship might not be able to be filled within the 12-month window required by the constitution. This amendment eliminates that 12-month window and simply requires that the position be filled using the earliest election dates available.
It also says that the special election should take place during the next gubernatorial or congressional election if one is scheduled within 12 months. Those are both statewide elections that will include closed party primaries for some races.
Comment: Elections can be expensive and the Legislature has tried over the years to keep the number of election dates to a minimum. Without this amendment it could be impossible to follow the mandate of the constitution to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in some instances, while also following our current election date cycle. It should be noted that the constitution allows the Supreme Court to appoint someone to fill a vacancy on a temporary basis until the election can be decided. It also prohibits that temporary appointee from running for that same seat. This amendment keeps that language.
It probably makes sense for the constitution to require a deadline for filling vacant judgeships so that it is clear that appointees cannot serve for long periods of time. But in some cases, the 12-month window currently required might no longer provide enough time to elect a new Supreme Court justice in the allotted timeframe. Admittedly, passage of this amendment could lead to situations where the window for candidates to mount campaigns could be somewhat short. But we believe it still represents a common sense solution to a very narrow constitutional problem.