A few thoughts on Tuesday’s extraordinary results in Louisiana’s U.S. Senate race, which should force a serious reassessment of longstanding assumptions about Louisiana politics.

1. National Democrats missed a grand opportunity.

As the returns stand, Democrat Jamie Davis lost to Republican Julia Letlow by fewer than 26,000 votes out of nearly 1.5 million cast. A shift of roughly 13,000 votes would have made Louisiana’s first Black U.S. senator.

For months, I and others argued that Davis had a shot to win. Most national political forecasters dismissed that. Louisiana was thought to be so reliably Republican that a Democratic victory was unimaginable. But Davis almost did it.

Imagine what $3 million from national Democrats could have accomplished in advertising, voter registration, organizing, and turnout operations.

We can’t know whether that would’ve changed the outcome. But it’s difficult to believe that a race decided by such a narrow margin was beyond the reach of a well-funded campaign.

2. Julia Letlow helped make this race competitive.

Davis deserves credit for his performance, but we shouldn’t overlook his opponent's weakness.

Letlow ran a cautious campaign. She limited her exposure, avoided debating Davis, and seemed determined to reach Election Day without taking any significant political risks.

Perhaps that was a rational strategy, but it also exposed the limitations of a candidate who had never faced a serious statewide general-election challenge.

Her campaign relied on party loyalty, Trump’s endorsement, and the belief that Louisiana voters would never elect a Democrat.

She won, just barely. And although she’ll arrive in Washington with the same six-year term as every other senator, she won’t have a mandate.

3. Jeff Landry and John Kennedy should be paying attention.

If Davis remains in politics, he has two excellent opportunities: challenging Gov. Jeff Landry in 2027 or Sen. John Kennedy in 2028. Both Republicans should be troubled by Tuesday’s results.

Landry governs as though the Republican dominance of Louisiana politics gives him an unlimited mandate. Kennedy has built his political identity around his embarrassing national television performances.

But a Democrat just came within two points of defeating a Trump-endorsed Republican in Louisiana. That doesn’t mean either incumbent would necessarily lose to Davis. It does mean neither should assume that the Republican label alone guarantees victory.

4. This was also a referendum on Trump-style politics.

Two years ago, Trump carried Louisiana by more than 20 percentage points. On Tuesday, his handpicked Senate candidate barely won.

The election suggests that many Louisiana voters are tired of the political style embodied by Trump and Landry: endless confrontation, partisan loyalty tests, and a dismissive attitude toward accountability and transparency.

Davis offered something different. He talked about affordability, ordinary people’s problems, and honest government.

We’ll need more detailed voter analysis to determine exactly how many former Trump and Landry supporters voted for Davis. But the statewide swing is unmistakable and profound.

5. Davis made Louisiana history.

Whatever else happens in his political career, Jamie Davis accomplished something extraordinary Tuesday. With more than 720,000 votes, he received more votes than any Black candidate in Louisiana’s history, surpassing Cleo Fields’s previous record from the 1995 governor’s race.

That deserves much more attention than it’s received.

For decades, one of the most persistent assumptions in Louisiana politics has been that a Black Democrat can’t win statewide. That belief has shaped candidate recruitment, fundraising, campaign strategies, and national Democrats’ willingness to invest here.

Davis didn’t quite disprove the proposition, but he came very close.

He showed that a Black Democrat can build a broad, competitive statewide coalition, even in a state that national political observers dismiss as safely Republican.

6. The Democratic electorate is larger than the party’s ambitions.

Tuesday turnout was substantial by Louisiana midterm standards, but it still left roughly half of the state’s registered voters on the sidelines.

Consider how small Davis’s deficit was compared with how many people didn’t vote. Just a modest increase in Democratic turnout among younger, Black, and occasional voters might have changed the outcome.

The lesson isn’t just that Democrats need more Black voters at the polls, though that remains essential. They also must persuade white voters dissatisfied with Republican leadership that a Democratic candidate deserves their support.

Davis showed that both are possible.

The challenge now is to turn one exceptional campaign into an enduring political organization. National Democrats have treated Louisiana as a lost cause. Tuesday’s results make a compelling case that the state deserves sustained attention and investment.

7. Louisiana Democrats need a party organization worthy of their voters.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Davis’s campaign is what he accomplished despite the Louisiana Democratic Party’s longstanding dysfunction.

For years, the party leadership has been more concerned with internal disputes, titles, positions, and factional struggles than with building the organization needed to win elections.

Davis’s performance should end any tolerance for that approach. If he intends to challenge Landry next year—or to remain a serious statewide political force—he should insist on a fundamental change in party leadership and operations.

That means a party relentlessly focused on recruiting candidates, raising money, registering voters, building parish organizations, and winning elections.

Leadership positions should have measurable responsibilities, not honorary titles or political trophies.

Louisiana Democrats have spent too many years explaining why they cannot win. Davis just showed how close they can come. The question now is whether the party’s leadership can learn from his achievement.

One final thought:

Louisiana Democrats may be tempted to celebrate Tuesday’s result as a moral victory. I understand that impulse. Davis accomplished something historic, and his supporters have every reason to be proud.

But moral victories don’t elect senators.

What happened on Tuesday should produce something more useful than congratulations. It should prompt anger at missed opportunities, a serious examination of the party’s failures, and a determination to build on what Davis accomplished.

Louisiana was not nearly as unwinnable as experts insisted. The votes were there to make the race competitive. The candidate was there. The opportunity was there.

What was missing was the political imagination—and perhaps the financial commitment—to recognize what was possible before Election Day.

Davis didn’t merely come close to winning a Senate seat. He exposed how badly Louisiana Democrats have been underestimated, even by their own national party.

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

If you haven’t heard about the explosive report released on Monday by Democrats on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, you’re not alone.

And that’s part of the story.

A congressional committee has released a 53-page report compiling FBI records, interviews, previously released documents, and accounts involving 11 women. Five of those women accuse Trump of rape or sexual assault in Epstein’s presence or in close company. The report also accuses the Trump Justice Department of withholding evidence and shutting down investigations that might implicate Epstein’s associates.

But the report has received little attention from many of America’s largest news outlets.

There’s been some coverage. Yet given the seriousness of what it alleges about a sitting president and his Justice Department, much of the national press has responded with what some might call remarkable timidity.

I might even call it journalistic malpractice.

If you think Americans should know what congressional investigators found, please share this post with your friends and family by email and on social media. Whatever conclusions people reach, they should at least know this report exists.

Released on October 26, the report by Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is titled “‘We Have Certain Things in Common, Jeffrey’: The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging in the Epstein Files and DOJ’s Desperate Efforts to Cover it Up.”

This is a Democratic committee staff report, not a bipartisan finding, criminal indictment, or judicial determination. But the report deserves scrutiny and much wider attention.

Committee investigators focus on Trump’s relationship with Epstein in the 1990s, particularly the world of New York modeling agencies, beauty pageants, and parties through which young women and teenage girls moved.

The House investigators report that Trump, Epstein, modeling agent Paolo Zampolli, and others were part of an overlapping social world where vulnerable young women could be recruited, exploited, and sexually abused.

The most serious section concerns 11 women whose experiences, according to the committee, link Trump to Epstein. Five of them directly accuse Trump of rape or sexual assault.

Beatrice Keul, a former Miss Switzerland contestant, told committee investigators that Trump raped her in a Plaza Hotel suite during a 1993 pageant. She said Trump and associates had offered to assist with a visa and admission to New York University. She said Epstein approached her at the event and introduced himself as Trump’s close friend.

Stacey Williams said that Trump groped her at Trump Tower while Epstein stood nearby.

Jill Harth alleged in a 1997 lawsuit that Trump sexually assaulted her at Mar-a-Lago during a gathering where Epstein was present.

A woman using the name “Katie Johnson” told the FBI that Trump and Epstein raped her at Epstein’s New York home in 1994, when she was 13. The committee says documents related to her allegations have been withheld from Congress and the public.

Another woman told the FBI that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a minor in the 1980s. The committee acknowledges that it has not independently verified this allegation.

Three other women present different kinds of evidence.

One, identified as “Jane,” testified at Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trial. She told the FBI that Epstein introduced her to Trump at Mar-a-Lago when she was 14 and that he commented on her attractiveness.

Another survivor, identified as “Kate,” told investigators that Maxwell “presented” her to Trump at a New York party, much as Maxwell had introduced her to Epstein.

Maria Farmer, one of the earliest women to report Epstein to authorities, described an encounter in Epstein’s office in which she says Trump approached her sexually until Epstein intervened.

(Read more specifics about these women's individual allegations in the screenshot at the end of this post.)

The report's significance isn’t simply the individual accusations. According to the committee, the pattern that emerges when the accounts are viewed together includes similar locations, overlapping people, modeling and pageant connections, vulnerable young women, and recurring contact among Trump, Epstein and Maxwell during roughly the same period.

The report also challenges several claims Trump has made about Epstein.

Trump has maintained that he expelled Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. However, committee investigators cite a 2009 account of a conversation in which Trump reportedly said that Epstein “was never asked to leave.”

Trump has said he knew Epstein only as many Palm Beach residents did. Yet in 2002, Trump told New York magazine that he had known Epstein for 15 years, called him a “terrific guy,” and remarked that Epstein liked women “on the younger side.”

Trump has also denied flying on Epstein’s plane. The committee says flight records indicate he was aboard Epstein’s aircraft at least eight times in the 1990s.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the report concerns what happened after Trump returned to the White House.

The committee accuses the Justice Department and the FBI of closing investigations into potential Epstein accomplices and withholding relevant evidence. It focuses particularly on Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney.

According to the report, during Blanche’s 2025 prison interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Blanche—then the deputy attorney general—repeatedly stopped Maxwell from discussing “Jane,” the Epstein survivor who described being introduced to Trump at age 14. The committee argues that Blanche’s intervention warrants investigation for obstruction or witness tampering.

Those are explosive allegations that require independent investigation.

The committee’s central recommendation is to appoint a special counsel, independent of Trump’s Justice Department, to investigate Epstein’s possible accomplices, and to require the DOJ to surrender the remaining evidence and cooperate fully with state and foreign investigators.

You don’t have to accept every conclusion in this report to recognize its extraordinary nature.

Five women accusing Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault, in circumstances tied to one of America’s most notorious sex traffickers, should be news. Evidence that contradicts a president’s statements about that trafficker should be newsworthy. And allegations that the president’s own Justice Department suppressed evidence should unquestionably be news.

Americans can decide for themselves what they believe about this report. But first, they need to know about it.

Share

Summary of major allegations in U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democrats’ report

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

It’s been almost two years since Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the Louisiana Constitution.

In December 2024, when John Bel Edwards was still governor, and voters still trusted the people running our state government, the four amendments on the ballot won approval by comfortable margins. Only the first amendment passed narrowly; it gave the governor and lawmakers some say over disciplining state judges.

Since then, under Gov. Jeff Landry's leadership and the GOP supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, it’s been all downhill. Over two elections, voters have overwhelmingly rejected nine proposed amendments.

As I’ve written before, I believe it’s a sign that voters don’t trust Landry and lawmakers. And when they don’t trust the governor, they will vote no.

Now comes their next at-bat. Ten proposed amendments are on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot. I’ve written at length about my concerns with one of those amendments. I fear that confusion over the lifetime-term limits for governors amendment could unintentionally allow Landry to run for three consecutive terms.

But what about the other nine proposed amendments? Will Landry and lawmakers strike out again? Should voters give them the benefit of the doubt?

As I’ve done in the past, I won’t give you my recommendations on these amendments, but I’ll let you read what better-informed observers and experts say. Decide after considering these analyses.

First, here is the language you’ll see on your ballot:

Proposed Amendment 1: Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

Do you support an amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran with a service-connected disability, who receives the additional property tax exemption, to make a one-time transfer of the additional property tax exemption to a subsequent qualifying property? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Amends Article VII, Section 21(K)(1))

Proposed Amendment 2: Local Property Tax Rates (Millages)
Do you support an amendment to allow a local taxing authority to continue to levy a lower millage rate without losing its ability to adjust to the maximum authorized millage rate from a prior year’s reassessment? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Amends Article VII, Section 23(C))

Proposed Amendment 3: Post-Conviction Bail for Crimes Against Children
Do you support an amendment to prohibit a defendant from being released on any post-conviction bail if the defendant is convicted of an aggravated offense against a minor child? (Adds Article I, Section 18(C))

Proposed Amendment 4: Governor Term Limits
Do you support an amendment to prohibit a person who has served more than one and one-half terms as governor from being elected as governor for any future term? (Amends Article IV, Section 3(B))

Proposed Amendment 5: State Retirement Debt
Do you support an amendment to authorize a state retirement system to apply any nonrecurring state monies it receives to any of its unfunded accrued liability rather than requiring application to its oldest unfunded accrued liability? (Amends Article VII, Section 10(D)(2)(b)(iii)

Proposed Amendment 6: Additional Property Tax Exemption for Seniors
Do you support an amendment to authorize parishes and municipalities to extend an additional property tax exemption for property subject to the homestead exemption that is owned and occupied by a person who is at least sixty-five years of age and who qualifies for the special assessment level? (Effective January 1, 2028) (Adds Article VII, Section 21(P))

Proposed Amendment 7: Drinking Water Service Lines
Do you support an amendment to allow for the use of public funds by a political subdivision for the purpose of identifying, inventorying, removing or replacing drinking water utility service lines made of or affected by materials as specified or prescribed by the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, promulgated October 30, 2024, or subsequent promulgation, on property owned by utility customers? (Amends Article VII, Section 14)

Proposed Amendment 8: Property and Foreign Adversaries
Do you support an amendment to prohibit expropriation of property by a foreign adversary or an agent of a foreign adversary? (Amends Article I, Section 4(B)(4))

Proposed Amendment 9: Income Limit for Senior Property Tax Assessment Freeze

Do you support an amendment to increase the maximum amount of income a person may receive and still qualify for the special assessment level for residential property receiving the homestead exemption? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Amends Article VII, Section 18(G)(1)(a)(ii))

Proposed Amendment 10: Tax Exemptions for Rehabilitated Blighted Properties
Do you support an amendment to allow property tax exemptions for blighted or derelict properties that have been rehabilitated, and to require the legislature to enact laws providing for administration of these exemptions? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Adds Article VII, Section 21(P))

For the most straightforward examination of the amendments, the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana is a great resource. PAR has provided voters with reliable, non-partisan information about elections for decades. You can find its detailed discussion of the amendment here.

The Power Coalition for Equity & Justice offers an excellent summary of the amendments on its website. You can find it here. The Coalition recommends voting against the amendment except for number 7.

Leave a comment

Share

What would Jesus do?

Sometimes, it just takes someone who’s fed up. John Ratcliff of Shreveport got tired of House Speaker Mike Johnson supporting policies that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus. He decided to remind people of the basic teachings of the Christian faith – and every other major religion – that God wants his people to care for the poor, welcome the stranger, tend to the sick, love those on the margins.

So he started an organization he calls A Real Bottom Line and is spending a decent amount to send people text messages and internet ads—gentle reminders that Johnson and his GOP allies support policies that conflict with the faith they claim to follow.

Will it make Johnson vulnerable for reelection? When I spoke to Ratcliff, he had no illusions that his campaign could bring down the House speaker. But he does believe he’ll make people think twice before they support him. He also believes the work he and others are doing to remind people of the monstrous, unchristian policies Johnson supports will eventually make it harder for people like him to win public office in Louisiana.

Will it work? I don’t know, but I salute Ratcliff for trying.

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

Can’t decide who to vote for in Louisiana’s U.S. Senate race between Democrat Jamie Davis and Republican Julia Letlow?

Let me help.

And if you’re a Republican or an independent who is growing uncomfortable with Donald Trump and his policies, I’d ask you to consider this election without first thinking about party labels. Ask yourself what kind of senator Louisiana needs.

Do you think Louisiana could use a senator who understands farming because he farms 3,200 acres himself, someone who knows firsthand how tariffs, fertilizer prices, diesel costs, and unpredictable markets affect a family farm? If so, vote for Jamie Davis.

Do you worry that massive AI data centers could leave ordinary Louisiana families paying higher electric bills? Do you think politicians should be asking hard questions about who pays for the enormous electricity these facilities require?

If so, consider this: Julia Letlow signed a nondisclosure agreement related to Meta’s massive Richland Parish data-center project. In the months afterward, her investment portfolio purchased shares of Meta and Nvidia. Maybe you’re comfortable with that. If so, vote for Letlow.

But the biggest question in this election is simple: Does Donald Trump need another senator who promises to support him, or someone willing to say no?

Letlow has already given us her answer, promising to stand with Trump and advance his agenda. After winning the Republican nomination, she called Trump “the greatest president this country has ever had.” If you agree with her, vote for her.

But suppose you think Trump is sometimes wrong. Suppose you think Congress should have had more say before our country became embroiled in another war in the Middle East.

Suppose you believe Trump’s war and his tariffs have driven up costs for businesses, farmers, and consumers.

Suppose you think that presidents of either party should face meaningful congressional oversight.

Suppose you believe that senators swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a president.

Do you wonder why we’d want to send Trump another senator who has essentially promised him her unthinking, undying loyalty?

If so, vote for Davis.

Do you think groceries, electricity, insurance, and health care already cost too much? Do you want a senator who asks, “What will this do to ordinary Louisiana families?” about every proposal? If so, vote for Davis.

Do you think rural Louisiana needs hospitals, doctors, and health clinics, not policies that make health care harder to access in communities already struggling to keep hospitals open? If so, vote for Davis.

Are you a Christian who believes public service should reflect Christ’s concern for the poor, the sick, the stranger, and those living on society’s margins? Then, ask which candidate’s priorities come closer to that standard.

Do you think climate change and Louisiana’s disappearing coast are real problems that will burden our children and grandchildren if we keep pretending they don’t exist? If so, vote for Davis.

Do you want Americans to have more choices in what they drive—gasoline vehicles, hybrids, and electric cars—rather than politicians deciding which technologies deserve protection? If so, vote for Davis.

Do you believe women facing dangerous pregnancies should be able to receive emergency medical care based on their doctors’ judgment, not politicians hundreds of miles away? If so, vote for Davis.

Most importantly, do you believe the U.S. Senate should be independent? Do you believe the founders created three co-equal branches of government because presidents need restraints on their power? Do you believe that principle matters even more when a president demands blind loyalty from members of his own party? If so, vote for Davis.

If you believe Donald Trump is the greatest president in American history and that Washington needs more senators to help advance his agenda, Julia Letlow is your logical choice. She’s told you so herself.

But if you voted for Trump and now have doubts; if you’re a Republican who believes your party has become too subservient to one man; if you’re an independent exhausted by the chaos; or if you simply believe that presidents need people in Washington willing to tell them no, then you have another choice.

You don’t have to become a Democrat. You don’t have to change your political identity. You don’t even have to agree with Jamie Davis on everything. You only have to decide that Louisiana needs a senator who represents Louisiana, not Donald Trump.

If you believe that, then vote for Jamie Davis on Nov. 3.

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

Something went terribly wrong at LSU, again.

According to reporting by the Baton Rouge Advocate, the university’s Title IX process found that LSU football player Damien Shanklin, a defensive end, sexually assaulted another student in October 2025.

LSU’s finding was forcible rape. The university initially suspended Shanklin for a year, but university officials later changed their minds about his punishment.

On appeal, LSU officials upheld their finding but reduced his penalty to two years of disciplinary probation without restrictions.

Yes, you read that right: LSU determined that a football player committed forcible rape and allowed him to remain on campus and on the football team without restrictions.

According to the Reveille, the appeal decision cited the absence of “malice” or “force” and characterized the conduct as an “error in judgment.”

The obvious question is: How does LSU uphold a finding of forcible rape while deciding there wasn’t sufficient force to justify a one-year suspension?

There may be an explanation. If so, LSU owes the public one.

And that’s hardly the only question.

LSU was required to promptly notify the appropriate law enforcement agency upon receiving a report of power-based violence involving a possible felony. That notification could apparently be made without identifying the victim. Did LSU do so? If not, why not?

There also appears to have been a serious breakdown in communication within LSU. Reporting indicates that the university’s Title IX office didn’t receive a relevant police report until almost two months after the alleged assault.

Why did it take two months? Who knew what, and when did they know it? And who, if anyone, was responsible for ensuring LSU Police, Title IX officials, and university administrators communicated with one another?

Another question is whether LSU learned nothing about how to respond to students who’ve been raped or sexually abused. It appears they did not.

According to ESPN, the attorney for the student who says she was raped says “that while the university did offer [her] counseling through a local nonprofit, no one offered her academic support, dispensation on classwork or grades, or anything else to help her manage her classes. He said that she failed many of her classes last year and switched to online school because of the incident and that she is now facing a delayed graduation and financial hardship.”

If this is accurate, LSU has failed this student. University officials should explain what they did for her and, if the ESPN report is correct, why they abandoned her.

Meanwhile, in Lala Land, LSU President Wade Rousse argues that LSU handled everything perfectly. “Let me assure everyone that this incident has been handled professionally and that LSU has strictly followed our policies, procedures and best practices, including the Title IX process, to guide our actions to date,” Rousse said in a statement.

We’ve been down this road before: Presidents and other LSU administrators bury their heads in the sand, pretending everything’s fine, when it’s actually quite rotten.

LSU’s sexual-misconduct scandal in 2021 revealed an institution in which information was compartmentalized, responsibility was dispersed across multiple offices, and too many people could say, in effect, “Not my department.”

We know how that turned out.

The fact that the accused student in this most recent incident was a football player raises another question: Did anyone associated with LSU athletics communicate with anyone involved in the Title IX investigation, the appeal, or the decision and urge them to reduce the penalty?

The player’s status as an athlete proves nothing. We shouldn’t accuse anyone of protecting him without evidence. But LSU officials should tell us what happened and explain why a student they determined had committed forcible rape received unrestricted probation.

This isn’t about demanding that LSU put someone in jail. LSU can’t do that. A Title IX proceeding isn’t a criminal trial, and it uses a different standard of proof.

This is about whether LSU learned anything from one of the ugliest scandals in its history, because an institution lacks accountability when everyone can say, “I followed the procedures of my office.”

Someone must be responsible for the entire university. Someone must ask what happened, why it happened, and whether LSU protected its students.

So, who was that person? What the heck really happened?

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

Louisiana voters will decide on November 3 whether to amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit governors from serving more than two lifetime terms. That sounds simple, right?

My original understanding was just about that simple: If voters ratify the amendment, former governors Bobby Jindal and John Bel Edwards could never run again for governor. Two weeks ago, I wrote that “a proposed constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot would limit Louisiana governors to two lifetime terms. If that amendment passes, Edwards could not run.”

But now I’m not so sure I understood this correctly. At the very least, I’m now persuaded that the amendment’s wording creates a serious potential problem: Depending on how the courts interpret it, it could allow Gov. Jeff Landry to seek a third consecutive term.

Here’s how that might happen:

Louisiana’s Constitution now prohibits governors who have served two consecutive terms from immediately seeking a third. They must sit out four years before they can run again.

That’s why Jindal and Edwards, both of whom served eight years as governor, could run again in 2027.

The proposed constitutional amendment, House Bill 225, would seem to eliminate that possibility by removing language that limits the prohibition to consecutive terms and the immediately succeeding term.

The revised Constitution would say: “A person who has served as governor for more than one and one-half terms shall not be elected governor.”

But the amendment doesn’t specify whether gubernatorial service completed before its adoption counts toward the new lifetime limit. That omission could have unintended consequences.

At issue is what lawyers call prospective versus retrospective application.

Put simply, when legislators enact a new law or change an existing one, do the new provisions apply only going forward, or do they also apply to what happened before the enactment date?

Louisiana law generally does not favor retroactive application of substantive legal changes. But this is a constitutional amendment, not an ordinary statute, and there appears to be no Louisiana Supreme Court decision answering this question. Courts might begin with the amendment's text and the understanding reasonably attributable to the voters who adopted it.

Consider Jindal and Edwards. Both served two full terms but completed their service before this proposed amendment would take effect. They could argue that the new lifetime restriction should apply only to service occurring after voters adopt it.

A counterargument is that counting prior service doesn’t necessarily make the law impermissibly retroactive. Under that interpretation, Jindal and Edwards would be permanently ineligible.

Which interpretation of this amendment would prevail? The amendment’s language doesn’t help us much. Ultimately, the courts might have to decide.

And that brings us to Jeff Landry.

Landry took office in January 2024, and his current term ends in January 2028. Suppose voters approve this amendment in November and Landry wins reelection in 2027. Under one interpretation, his first term would count toward the lifetime limit, and his second term would exhaust his eligibility to serve as governor.

But imagine that a court rules that the amendment applies prospectively and counts only terms beginning after its effective date. Landry’s first term began in 2024, before the amendment took effect, so it wouldn’t count. His second term, beginning in 2028, would become his first counted term under the new constitutional restriction.

In 2031, Landry could argue that he has served only one term under the new rules and is eligible for another. That would allow him to seek a third consecutive term. He could remain governor until January 2036.

Louisiana law adds another wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the law favors candidacy and that doubts about whether someone is qualified to run should generally be resolved in favor of allowing the candidate onto the ballot. That doesn’t mean Landry would win such a case. But if he tried to run for a third consecutive term in 2031, ambiguity in this amendment could work in his favor, not against him.

None of these outcomes is guaranteed. A court might hold that all previous service counts, eliminating the confusion entirely.

But another potential problem remains: The amendment would remove the existing prohibition against governors serving three consecutive terms. If Landry’s first term is excluded, the old restriction would no longer independently prevent him from seeking another. In other words, the Legislature may have created a loophole while attempting to close one.

There was an easy way to avoid all this confusion. When Louisiana adopted legislative term limits in 1995, the amendment identified which legislative terms would count.

The Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which limits presidents to two elections, also contains transition language that protected the incumbent president.

The lawmakers who drafted those amendments understood something fundamental: When changing term limits, we should specify whose prior service counts. Louisiana lawmakers didn’t do that. They could have written that all gubernatorial service counts, regardless of when it occurred. Or they might have explicitly exempted former governors while counting Landry’s current term.

Either approach would have made the transition clear. Instead, voters are being asked to approve language that leaves big questions unresolved.

Could the Legislature fix this with an ordinary law? Perhaps it could clarify a genuine ambiguity. But it can’t enforce a statute that contradicts the Constitution. If a court determines that the amendment means something different from what legislators intended, we might need another constitutional amendment to fix the problems and confusion the first one created.

That raises the possibility of litigation over candidate eligibility, potentially during an election campaign.

The legal dispute isn’t simply whether Louisiana should impose lifetime gubernatorial term limits, but whether this amendment clearly establishes them.

The Legislature could have specified precisely how it would treat prior service. It could have included a transition clause. It could have drafted an amendment that voters could understand without consulting constitutional lawyers.

Instead, it gave us language that may generate competing interpretations with very different political consequences.

Lawmakers did not share a single understanding of what the amendment meant. Its author said it would count former governors, but during Senate consideration some members concluded the opposite.

Voters deserve to know what a constitutional amendment will do before they ratify it. I don't think anyone can say with confidence how a Louisiana court would resolve the amendment's treatment of gubernatorial service completed or begun before it takes effect.

Even the remote possibility that Jeff Landry might get a third consecutive term means that I’ll be voting against it.

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

Leave a comment

Share

The Southeastern Conference’s accusation that LSU has lost “institutional control” of its football program might sound like an intramural squabble among millionaires and bureaucrats.

Who cares whether LSU head coach Lane Kiffin follows an SEC rule? Why should anyone outside the LSU football bubble care whether the athletic director answers to the LSU president, the president answers to the LSU Board of Supervisors, or Gov. Jeff Landry is pulling everyone’s strings?

Here’s why you should care: LSU has been down this road before, and we know where weak institutional control can lead.

Five years ago, an outsider, quasi-independent investigation commissioned by LSU identified serious failures in the university’s handling of sexual and domestic violence allegations, including those involving athletes.

The 2021 Husch Blackwell report found that various incidents of athletics-related misconduct had not been appropriately reported to LSU’s Title IX coordinator. It found a “clear lack of leadership” in establishing reporting responsibilities and said this was a long-recognized problem that LSU had never meaningfully addressed. It also concluded that LSU’s Title IX office had never been adequately staffed or given sufficient independence and resources.

Some allegations involving athletes were kept within the athletic department rather than being routed to the university officials responsible for investigating them. (Some would call that a cover-up.) The failures included allegations involving football star Derrius Guice.

That is what “institutional control” looks like when it fails, and that is why what is happening at LSU today matters.

After the SEC accused LSU in federal court of failing to exercise institutional control over its football program amid the confrontation over Kiffin and player eligibility, conference presidents and chancellors prepared to consider revoking LSU’s conference membership.

You can argue that the SEC was being hypocritical, if you’d like. I agree. It clearly is. Big-time college athletics is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, and its rules sometimes seem designed to preserve the power and wealth of those running it.

But the SEC’s blatant hypocrisy doesn’t answer the legitimate question it has raised about LSU: Who is really in charge?

That question predates Kiffin and Landry’s time.

Consider what happened when Scott Woodward became LSU’s athletic director in 2019.

For years, LSU Athletics had transferred millions of dollars annually to the university’s academic side. Soon after arriving, Woodward announced that the regular payments would end.

Whether that was good financial policy is beside the point. Then-LSU President F. King Alexander told me at the time that Woodward had not consulted him before making the decision.

Think about that. An athletic director implemented a major change to the financial relationship between his department and the university without consulting the university president, the man who was supposedly his boss.

Years later, Alexander described the broader problem. Woodward, he said, knew he could go directly to influential members of the LSU Board of Supervisors. “He did whatever he wanted.”

There were other warning signs.

Former athletic director Joe Alleva wanted Les Miles fired after allegations of the football coach’s troubling behavior surfaced in 2013. Board members were briefed on the investigation, yet Miles remained LSU’s coach for another three years.

In the end, Miles got fired not because he was accused of inappropriate behavior but because he didn’t win football games.

Then came Will Wade. The NCAA accused LSU of a lack of institutional control related to violations involving the basketball program. LSU nevertheless kept Wade for years as allegations about his recruiting practices mounted before finally firing him in 2022. He’s back, by the way.

These episodes aren’t identical, and that’s the point. One involved money. Another involved personnel. Another involved NCAA compliance. The Title IX scandal involved something far more important: student safety.

What connects them is a recurring question about authority.

A university's chain of command should be simple: The Board of Supervisors sets policy. The president runs the university. The athletic director reports to the president. Coaches report to the athletic director.

At LSU, that chain has too often been bypassed, inverted, or rendered meaningless. Athletic directors have wielded extraordinary independence. Board members have intervened in operations. Powerful coaches have gained enormous influence. And now Louisiana has a governor and an attorney general who openly involve themselves in decisions traditionally entrusted to university administrators.

Jeff Landry didn’t create this problem. He inherited a weak governance structure and has made it worse.

That brings us back to LSU’s sexual-misconduct scandal.

I am not suggesting that Kiffin would cover up sexual misconduct, nor am I accusing anyone currently at LSU of doing so.

I am asking a much more important institutional question: If a serious sexual-assault allegation involving an LSU football player or staff member landed on somebody’s desk tomorrow, what assurance do we have that LSU’s system is healthy enough to ensure it is handled properly, regardless of what the football coach wants?

Policies on paper aren’t enough. LSU had policies before. What failed was the chain of responsibility and the willingness and ability of people outside Athletics to enforce them when LSU football was involved.

That is why it matters when everyone begins deferring to the football coach.

Maybe the consequences aren’t serious when the dispute involves an SEC eligibility rule. But institutions form habits through these confrontations. Does the coach answer to the athletic director? Does the athletic director answer to the president? Does the president actually have authority? Does the Board govern, or merely ratify decisions made by more powerful people?

If the answer ultimately is “Not when football is involved,” LSU has a serious problem.

Institutional control sounds like bureaucratic jargon until you remember LSU’s sexual-misconduct scandal. Then it becomes a simple question: If something like that happened again tomorrow, who at LSU has enough authority over the football program to ensure it’s handled properly?

The question isn’t whether LSU Athletics is successful. Obviously, it is. The question is whether LSU Athletics serves the university or whether, for too many years, the university has served LSU Athletics.

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

I know it may seem premature, but let’s talk about the 2027 Louisiana governor’s race. Here’s what we know:

• Gov. Jeff Landry will seek reelection.

• Landry has a ton of money to spend on his reelection.

• So far, the Democratic Party has no declared candidate to oppose Landry.

• You cannot beat Landry without an opponent.

Here’s what we can reasonably assume based on direct and circumstantial evidence:

• Landry is not overwhelmingly popular and is not a shoo-in for reelection.

• Donald Trump’s growing unpopularity and general anti-GOP/anti-incumbent sentiment are among the factors pulling Landry down in the public’s view.

Let’s address Landry’s standing with the public first:

There hasn’t been much recent independent polling on his job performance, so any assessment comes with an important caveat: We are looking at a trend rather than a recent snapshot.

But that trend line is difficult to interpret as anything but bad news for Landry.

An October 2025 JMC Analytics poll of 600 likely Louisiana voters found that only 39 percent viewed Landry favorably, while 51 percent viewed him unfavorably. Just 19 percent viewed him very favorably, compared with 39 percent who viewed him very unfavorably.

Perhaps even worse for Landry, only 26 percent thought Louisiana was headed in the right direction, while 54 percent said it was on the wrong track.

That’s a terrible number for an incumbent governor and is probably why Landry has been eager to hand over large tracts of state land and tax incentives to Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk: He needs to change the narrative about his leadership of a state that, according to U.S. News, is still first in almost everything that’s bad and last in almost everything that’s good.

A Pelican Institute poll released in March 2026 offered Landry somewhat better numbers, but it showed the same troubling trajectory.

It found 43 percent approving of his job performance, down sharply from 58 percent in the organization’s previous poll. His disapproval stood at 36 percent, while an unusually large 22 percent were unsure.

Different pollsters, questions, and samples make direct comparisons tricky—JMC measured favorability while Pelican measured job approval—but both point in the same direction: Landry was nowhere near the commanding position one might expect for a Republican governor in a state Donald Trump carried overwhelmingly in 2024.

None of those numbers are recent, so we should resist pretending we know Landry’s precise approval rating today. We don’t. But available public evidence suggests his political honeymoon ended early and that Landry’s standing with the public deteriorated substantially during his first two years.

The October JMC poll was particularly striking because independents viewed Landry unfavorably by 61–33 percent, and even in the Lafayette media market—his political home—he was underwater, 51–45.

Those aren’t merely signs of Democratic hostility toward a Republican governor. They suggest some erosion among the voters a Louisiana Republican needs to dominate.

Until a reputable new statewide public poll tells us otherwise, the defensible conclusion is not that Landry is doomed, but that his political trajectory has been downward, with polling showing no evidence he has reversed it.

Donald Trump’s current standing offers us some important additional evidence.

He remains considerably stronger in Louisiana than he is nationally, but even here, his numbers have weakened.

The October 2025 JMC poll showed Trump at 48 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable; the March Pelican Institute poll reported his job approval at 49 percent, down from 60 percent the previous year, with 47 percent disapproving.

An August 2026 survey likewise put Trump’s Louisiana approval at 49 percent. Meanwhile, his national approval has deteriorated further: a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on August 31 put his approval at just 33 percent, and an NBC poll released last weekend found 36 percent approval and 64 percent disapproval.

That makes Landry’s weakness more significant, not less. Louisiana remains one of the country’s most Republican states, yet its Republican governor and a Republican president who carried the state easily have struggled to exceed 50 percent.

Add the state’s pronounced wrong-track sentiment to a national midterm environment in which voters are sour on the president, the economy, and the party in power, and a plausible picture emerges of a broader anti-incumbent mood.

That doesn’t make Louisiana a blue state. But it does mean that voters who typically vote Republican may be receptive to voting against those in charge or simply staying home.

There’s at least one other piece of evidence about where the electorate stands: Landry and his GOP allies in the Legislature have proposed nine state constitutional amendments over the almost three years he’s been in office. Voters have rejected every one of them—by large margins.

Those decisive rejections point to a serious lack of voter trust. Granted, that absence of trust isn’t only about Landry. But nothing the governor has said or done has persuaded voters to amend the state’s constitution since he’s been in office. That’s not insignificant.

Ten more proposed amendments are on the Nov. 3 ballot.

What Landry has in his favor

He’s sitting on a huge pile of campaign dough, with roughly $10.7 million in campaign cash available for his 2027 reelection effort. A network of allied PACs, Republican Party accounts, and a nonprofit with undisclosed donors gives him access to potentially millions more in supportive political spending.

Added to his fundraising advantage is the fact that, with a year to go before he’s on the ballot, he has no declared opponent.

That’s a huge head start and a massive advantage, even for a candidate who may be underwater with the public. You can’t beat someone with no one.

So, who might run? Let’s consider the major potential suspects:

Former Gov. John Bel Edwards

First, a proposed constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot would limit Louisiana governors to two lifetime terms. If that amendment passes, Edwards could not run.

But even if it fails, there’s no evidence that the former governor is looking to make a comeback. He’s done little or nothing in public to suggest he wants another term in the governor’s mansion. He’s not speaking out on issues, as a potential challenger might. He’s not raising money. To my knowledge, he’s not making calls to line up support.

Could he beat Landry in a head-to-head match? I believe he could. In fact, I believe he would be the strongest possible opponent to the current governor.

He left office quite popular, with a reputation for competence and honesty. He could raise money quickly, and he wouldn’t have any problem building name recognition.

But for now, at least, Edwards doesn’t seem to be seriously considering a run. (If you want him to, and have his phone number, perhaps give him a call?)

Former New Orleans (and former Lt. Gov.) Mayor Mitch Landrieu

His name gets batted around a lot, mostly because, after Edwards, he’s the most prominent and respected former Democratic statewide elected official on the scene. As with Edwards, I haven’t seen or heard of any activity from Landrieu. If anything, he seems to have national ambitions.

But if he chose to run, he’d be formidable. I believe he could raise money. With Landry at war with New Orleans, a former mayor might help generate a massive anti-Landry turnout across the region.

Former U.S. Rep. Garret Graves

The former GOP congressman from Baton Rouge does not appear to be a great fan of Landry, and the feeling appears to be mutual. He backed the “wrong” horse in the 2023 governor’s race—Stephen Waguespack—which may be one reason Landry and the Legislature gerrymandered him out of his district.

Graves declined to run again for the congressional seat after the Legislature largely un-gerrymandered his old district earlier this year. Could that be a sign he’s eyeing the governor’s race?

His apparent enmity with Landry—and given his reputation as a slightly more moderate and competent leader—might offer Graves some appeal among those Republicans disillusioned with the governor. Depending on the kind of campaign he runs, he could also appeal to moderate Democrats, especially if there is no major, well-funded Democrat in the race.

I’m among the Democrats who would gladly vote for Graves over Landry if that were my only choice. With no strong Democrat in the race, there could be an opening for someone in the moderate-Republican lane. And Graves might be the perfect candidate for that lane.

The problem is that the governor’s race will be fought in an open primary, meaning there would be only two runoff spots (assuming there is a runoff). With Landry, a major Democrat, and someone like Graves in the race, the top spots would likely go to Landry and the Democrat.

Graves’ best shot would probably be in a two-person race against Landry. But he may not be able to arrange that scenario.

Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser and/or state Treasurer John Fleming

These two Republican statewide elected officials aren’t Landry allies. Both have aspirations beyond their current offices. Nungesser wanted to run for governor last time. Fleming recently challenged Sen. Bill Cassidy, though I haven’t heard that he has any gubernatorial ambitions.

It’s unlikely both men would run, especially if Graves or a prominent Democrat runs. There aren’t enough GOP votes to go around—even in an open primary—with an incumbent governor on the ballot. It’s hard to see where their votes would come from in a crowded field.

The best chance for either of them would be an anemic race without a major Democrat and without any other GOP challengers. Even then, one would need to defer to the other to emerge as the real alternative to Landry. If I were forced to bet, I’d say Nungesser would be more likely to run in that scenario.

Jamie Davis

As I wrote last week, the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee is running a credible and impressive race against Republican nominee Julia Letlow. While Letlow is the favorite, I believe Davis could win if everything goes his way.

If he doesn’t prevail, I believe he will surprise many people with the level of support he earns on Nov. 3. A close or respectable finish would make Davis the odds-on favorite to run for governor under the Democratic banner in 2027.

He’ll have the name recognition, the organization, the fundraising contacts, the campaign experience, and the momentum to jump right into the governor’s race.

That doesn’t guarantee Davis will want to run.

In early 1996, I was with my then-boss, U.S. Sen. John Breaux, when he tried to persuade Mary Landrieu to run for the Senate seat vacated by J. Bennett Johnston. She’d just emerged from a bruising governor’s race and, at first, was in no mood to launch another yearlong campaign. But Breaux and others eventually persuaded her to run—and she won.

Davis may need the same kind of persuasion if he doesn’t win the Senate race. But the Democratic lane will almost certainly be his if he wants it.

For those and other reasons, keep your eye on Davis. Win or lose in November, I predict he’ll be a major force in Louisiana politics for the next year or two – or longer.

Leave a comment

Share

Share Something Like the Truth: By Robert Mann

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: Democratic nominee Jamie Davis is the underdog in Louisiana’s U.S. Senate race. U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, a Republ…

Read more

You can’t turn on a television to any broadcast station in Baton Rouge these days without seeing five or six spots touting the v…

Read more

Let’s talk about federal prosecutors. Some have been in the news a great deal lately, mostly because they are undermining …

Read more

How politically inept is Sen. Bill Cassidy? Let us count the ways.

Not content to be remembered as the senator who rescued Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination at the moment it ma…

Read more

We’ve all been so focused on the upcoming midterm elections — especially Louisiana’s U.S. Senate race — that it’s easy to forget that Louisiana will soon be in the …

Read more

Gov. Jeff Landry, Attorney General Liz Murrill, and state Sen. Jay Morris of West Monroe may win their battle against Calvin Duncan and the people of New Orleans.

They have the power and the vot…

Read more

Like most of you, I’m outraged for 12 hours a day by the damage Donald Trump and his friends in Congress are doing to our country. My anger about what Gov. Jeff Landr…

Read more

We don’t have to pretend Sen. Lindsey Graham was a political hero simply because he has died. Death doesn’t negate a public record, absolve a politician of respons…

Read more

If you’re angry about what Donald Trump and his enablers have done to our country, worried about the Supreme Court’s corruption, or concerned about voting rights, Medicare, Medicaid, public edu…

Read more

It ought to be considered a real race.

As the first Black candidate to win a major-party nomination in Louisi…

Read more

I’ll have more to say about the outcomes of the Republican and Democratic U.S. Senate primaries next week, after both parties have their nominees, but I’m sending this b…

Read more

He was perched near the top of the steps leading to the Lincoln Memorial on late Tuesday afternoon this week. The man—he looked to be in his sixties—held a simple wooden pol…

Read more