¶¶Ņõh Gov. Jeff Landry and the Republican supermajority state Legislature got a whooping in last month's election as a higher-than-expected voter turnout overwhelmingly rejected four constitutional amendments on the ballot, including Amendment 3. Only 34% voted yes to strip the state constitution of specific youth crime cases in which a child could be tried as an adult. Sixty six percent voted no. The defeat was across geographic, party and race lines.
You might think that Republicans got the message, that they would understand that a majority of ¶¶Ņõh voters don't want more children in adult courts and adult prisons.
Obviously that's not true.
Just recently, State Sen. Alan Seabaugh introduced Senate Bill 74, which would move all felony crimes cases involvingĀ children 15 years old and olderĀ to district courts.Ā Is it Amendment 3 2.0?
There are only four juvenile courts in ¶¶Ņõh āĀ ,Ģż,ĢżĢż²¹²Ō»åĢż. They handle cases involving people who are 17 years old and younger, including adoptions, truancy, misdemeanors and crimes that might be considered felonies if the suspects were tried as adults. There are more than 40 district courts with responsibility for civil and criminal cases, including felonies. Not all youth cases should go to adult criminal courts.
Though Amendment 3 failed, this is legislative attempt to send more children to adult courts, and possibly adult prisons.
Youth advocates and attorneys aren't surprised, and they see lots of problems.
"They weren't able to win on Amendment 3, so they are going through the back door," shared Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of ¶¶Ņõh.
Alanah Odoms, the executive director of ACLU ¶¶Ņõh, answers questions outside of the Russell B. Long Federal Building on Monday, October 21, 2024 in Baton Rouge, ¶¶Ņõh. She has concerns about a bill introduced in April 2025. It would automatically send children who are 15 years old and older to adult courts for serious crimes.
STAFF PHOTO BY MICHAEL JOHNSON
"It is glaringly obvious that this was written by someone who doesn't know how juvenile courts work and how criminal courts work," Kristen Rome, executive director of ¶¶Ņõh Center for Children's Rights, told me. "This bill is a mess."
The big problem with the bill is that it would automatically assign 15-year-old and 16-year-old children to adult criminal courts without law enforcement, district attorneys and judges weighing a number of factors. Clerks, district attorneys and judges connected to district courts would have to learn how to handle ³¦“Ē²Ō“Ś¾±»å±š²Ō³Ł¾±²¹±ōĢżunderage criminal matters without the benefit of years of learning the ¶¶Ņõh Children's Code. The code governs how the state handles children who enter the judicial system for something they are suspected of doing. As a state, we've agreed that children should be treated differently from adults ā and there are very specific rules that govern how children must be handled in the judicial system.
There are so many specifics, that the latest print version of the code takes two inches of shelf space.
That's a lot to toss to clerks, DAs and judges on Aug. 1 when the law would become effective if the legislature approves it.
Kristen Rome, executive director of the ¶¶Ņõh Center for Children's Rights.
Courtesy of the ¶¶Ņõh Center for Children's Rights
As written, some children could face a juvenile court judge for a misdemeanor and a district court judge for a felony connected to the same actions.Ā
The bill would strip DAs of their discretion of moving a case forward under the children's code or the criminal code for those 15 years old and up.Ā
Since child cases must have confidentiality, on which days and during which hours would district courts be closed to other matters to protect the confidentiality of children? Most district court judges probably feel that they have enough work. The felony cases juvenile court judges oversee include children 15 years old and older, but the Seabaugh bill instead could send their district court colleagues a significant load of cases.
Seabaugh said don't judge his bill so fast.
He told me his proposal has nothing to do with Amendment 3. It was written before the March 29 election, he said. Seabaugh thinks district courts are better prepared to handle more serious youth crime cases. "Juvenile courts used to focus on misdemeanors, truancy, small things," he explained. "Juvenile courts weren't meant to handle serious crimes."
But why does he want to lower the age to 15 for youth felonies to go to district courts? "You've got to draw a line somewhere," he added.
"The bill has nothing to do with charges or where they would do time," the senator insisted. "The focus is on where the trial occurs."
If a child has a case in an adult court it is far more likely that that child's case would get fumbled because judges and others don't know the children's code, making it more likely that more children would be convicted as adults and sent to adult prisons. Where would they be housed? With people 10, 20 and 30 years older?
There are so many challenges and complications with this measure that this bill needs to be withdrawn as soon as possible.