June 13, 2025 • 60 mins
The Dreaded Veto and Last Minute Legislative Battles
In this episode of 'The State of Freedom,' hosts Danielle Walker and Chris Alexander discuss the ongoing legislative session chaos in Louisiana. Walker pre-records while traveling, but Alexander remains as vigilant as ever. They share insights on various bills, the challenges of a brutal session, and personal experiences about ethics complaints. Highlights include the recent veto of an insurance reform bill by Governor Landry, significant grassroots successes, and the urgency surrounding critical bills still awaiting passage. Tune in to catch the gripping end-of-session dynamics and grassroots advocacy at its best.
SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY:
ACTION & INFO FROM TODAY'S EPISODE:
- Take action on the most critical bills needing the Governor's signature or veto now: https://www.lacag.org/action-center and send the link to friends & family.
SUPPORT US & GET CONNECTED:
- Want to support The State of Freedom?
-
- Remember to Subscribe, Like, and keep Sharing the State of Freedom podcast – it helps! Follow us on Rumble and X.
- Support the show with a financial gift if you are able: https://www.freedomstate.us/support-the-show.
- Shop our partners & help make TSOF sustainable!
-
- Order Slenderiiz today: https://partner.co/s/NmM3ZGU1NmQ2
- Shop other natural & wellness products: https://partner.co/?custid=N7183285
- Sign up for Legal Shield or ID Shield: https://tsofpodcast.legalshieldassociate.com
- For more information on investing in precious metals at the best prices on the market, email danielle@freedomstate.us. Put Metal Stacks in the subject line.
- Planning to purchase a Starlink device? Order through our referral link & we'll both get one month of service for free! https://www.starlink.com/residential?referral=RC-2291754-20667-66
- Order General Flynn's movie - Flynn - Deliver the Truth. Whatever the Cost. Click here: https://www.flynnmovie.com/tsofpodcast or visit www.freedomstate.us.
- If you'd like to advertise with the show, send an email to info@freedomstate.us and make the subject line TSOF Advertising.
- Want to help LACAG's efforts?
-
- Sign up for the action center and stay updated: https://www.lacag.org/action-center
- .css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}Mark as PlayedTranscript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Welcome everybody.
Thank you for joining us today on the State of Freedom.
I'm your host Danielle Walker along with my fearless host Chris Alexander.
And here we are close to the 11th hour.
Just to note that this is pre-recorded.
We recorded this at the end of the day on Wednesday because I have travel tomorrowmorning.
So when you're hearing this, I will be in the sky um for the last day of session.
(00:26):
But don't worry, Chris will be in place vigilant as a watchdog as ever.
And I just have to say, Chris, coming onto this show has been wavering between ecstaticjoy and uncontrolled rage.
So we know that we are still living in the state of Louisiana.
oh
(00:53):
We're gonna make it.
We're gonna make it through the finish line one more day before we let you know what'shappened in the last 24 hours.
Let me read the scripture of the day.
It's Psalm chapter 116 verse seven and this has become a recent favorite of mine.
It says this, now I can say to myself and to all, relax and rest, be confident and serenefor the Lord rewards fully.
(01:22):
those who simply trust in Him.
And isn't that beautiful?
It's a beautiful picture of our birthright to rest.
The Lord asks us for our trust.
He asks us for our diligence.
And then He wants us to leave the rest of it up to Him.
And Chris, you and I haven't talked about that in a while.
We used to talk about that all the time.
(01:43):
But we work.
This has been, this has been...
a brutal session, maybe not as brutal as last year since we had three sessions, foursessions, something crazy last year.
ah But it doesn't negate the fact that this is a whole lot of work crammed into what,eight weeks?
April 12th, yeah, eight weeks.
(02:06):
yeah.
And every time I talk to my friend who's a state senator in Ohio, she is just, she getslike stomach cramps just thinking about having a part-time legislature.
She's like, I have no idea how y'all do it.
And I'm like, well, we're, we're perhaps not the deliberative body that the Ohio StateHouse is, but it, has its pros and its cons.
(02:31):
Yeah.
And I'll tell you, Danielle, two months in the Louisiana legislature is not like twomonths anywhere else.
I can promise you it is like a year anywhere else.
So because of the utter and complete chaos, unpredictability of it.
And it is truly uh a challenge to be able to stay focused on what you have to focus on.
(02:56):
And one of the
Challenges that I've had in the last couple of weeks is trying to remember that theresults are not in our hands That we have to focus on the process because the closer we
get to the end here and the more focused I get and the more obsessed I become the more Iblur the process with the results So I have to remind myself that the results are not in
(03:21):
my hands But I also have an obligation to do everything that I can possibly do to securegood results and then leave it
in God's hands.
So that's what I'm trying to do here, and I'm very pleased about a number of things thathave happened, and I'm absolutely inflamed by one or two others that we'll talk about.
(03:41):
Yeah.
Well, you know, you think about these other legislatures that are not part time and they,can follow bills pretty easily when they're not all jammed into a tight funnel.
You know, like we've been drinking from a fire hose, especially you, especially Katie.
And it's, it's just a remarkable ah thing to behold.
(04:02):
You know, you, you do a great job.
You remember all these bill numbers.
Nobody else remembers all these bill numbers.
but you have so much of this put to memory and you have just done a fantastic job, Chris,this session.
Yeah.
that, but it's not because of me.
It's just because when you look at numbers so much, you just tend to remember them.
(04:27):
And so it's a good thing.
I mean, I'm glad I'm able to remember most of the bill numbers, but it's only because youlook at them constantly.
Yeah, but honestly, you have done a great job this session representing the people.
You've been the voice of the people and you have fought back against some pretty bigbullies in the legislature.
So um I want to honor you for that and thank you for that on behalf of the people wholistened because I know that our listeners are so grateful as well.
(04:56):
ah
you.
Coming from you, that means a lot.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
is eight weeks of continual fighting.
ah It seems like sometimes, you know, we have, and there are victories and there are somelike really ah bright spots, but you tend to remember the tough things a little bit more
(05:22):
than you remember the good things because, you know, that's just human nature.
it is.
And one thing that I've noticed about God is that you can feel for days and days and daysthat you're out in the middle of an ocean, ah just an absolute chaotic mess.
And at unpredictable moments, God will present to you a little safe harbor for a fewminutes or an hour or two.
(05:51):
And you get your regroup.
You take some deep breaths and you keep moving forward.
So God always gives us what we need.
It's not always what we want, but He always gives us what we need.
Yeah, and we have some great allies in the House and the Senate as well, some people whohave been valiant warriors at great cost to themselves, I might add.
(06:12):
You know, it's not easy to stand up there and do what's right whenever you're getting beatup, when you're getting sent nasty messages from angry constituents, or people who may not
even be constituents, right?
Because people can just be nasty.
ah
and it's always easy.
It's always easy to be nasty.
It's always easy to be bold when you're anonymous, when you don't have to put your namebehind it.
(06:38):
know, boldness comes very easy when you don't have to disclose who you are, right?
Well said.
Well said indeed.
All right.
Well, why don't we start with uh something that came as a little bit of a surprise to me.
We have a new veto by the governor and it is Senate Bill 111 by Senator Alan Seabaw.
(07:00):
It's related to insurance.
You want to talk about it?
Yeah, it's a bill that passed.
All Republicans voted for this in the Senate where it originated, except for two, SenatorConnick and Senator Miller.
No surprise, Senator Miller there voted against it.
And then it went over to the House and it passed with, know, hand-to-leaf, you know, twoto one among Republicans.
(07:24):
55 Republicans voted for it and I think 18, 16 Republicans voted against it.
But it was a very good bill.
And
Basically what it says is, Danielle, they have in insurance law on personal injury claims,sometimes claimants, people who are injured, they will make what's called bad faith claims
during the pendency of their case against an insurance company because the insurancecompany has just not dealt with them in good faith, not dealt with them honestly, not been
(07:56):
honest with them about what the policy provisions are, what the coverage.
scope of the coverages and that sort of thing.
And so it's good to have bad faith provisions in the law.
But Senator Seabal brought a bill uh that basically clarifies the law and says that youcan't hold an insurance company in bad faith and subject them to all kind of monetary
(08:19):
penalties if there's a good faith dispute about liability, about whether they'reresponsible for the accident.
If there's a good faith dispute about whether or not the accident caused the damages, theinjuries that the claimant is claiming, um whether or not the insurance company has had 30
(08:43):
days, it establishes 30 days to respond to a demand, 30 days to investigate and respond,can't hold them in bad faith before then.
And lastly,
You can't hold them in bad faith if you haven't given them a sufficient amount of time toproperly investigate the claim, conduct some discovery, and come to some informed
(09:03):
conclusions about what the claim is worth.
Okay, doesn't that seem pretty fair?
That seems like a pretty fair bill to an insurance company and would keep an insurancecompany from being subjected to all these, the hijacking and the ambushing and all the
penalties that insurance companies have to pay right now.
It's a very fair bill.
(09:23):
And Governor Landry, as I said, it passed the House passed the Senate handily.
And Governor Landry, after saying that he would sign any bill, insurance reform bill thathits his desk, uh he just vetoed a bill that was passed overwhelmingly in both houses in
the House and the Senate.
The bill that I just said that would limit an insurance company's exposure to monetarypenalties.
(09:49):
uh
under the circumstances that I just described.
And it just seems like a very fair bill.
I read the bill.
Who gets the penalty fees that they pay?
Attorneys?
The state?
absolutely.
The plaintiff attorney and the plaintiff, the person who's injured, the personrepresenting the claimant gets uh a significant percentage of anything that the insurance
(10:17):
company pays at any time while the attorney is representing the injured party.
So yeah, it goes to both.
The check would be made out to the attorney and the claimant.
Let me just play that clip of Governor Landry saying that he was going to sign anythingbecause Katie had it pulled for us.
oh
(10:43):
to my desk, I'm going to sign.
This is a very good bill.
It would save insurance companies money by not having to pay these penalties for bad faithwhen in fact they're not acting in bad faith.
And it's certainly, at least theoretically likely, and probably likely that those costsavings could be passed down to their insureds.
(11:08):
But this bill was vetoed by the governor.
I haven't looked at his veto message, but based upon what I've read in the bill, comparedto what Governor Landry said that you just read, he wasn't honest.
He just wasn't honest about this.
And I think it's just unbelievable, you know, that he would veto this bill, especiallywhen almost all the Republicans voted for it.
(11:39):
I'll be very interested to discuss this one with Commissioner Temple when we have him onin a couple weeks because this seems like a package that would, this seems like it was
probably part of uh his package perhaps.
It seems like it's part of the bills that are trying to encourage insurance companies tocome to the state uh rather than encourage more lawsuits.
(12:04):
Well, that's what it looks like.
This just looks like a very fair bill, and it's designed to give an insurance company anopportunity to engage in a real defense.
And so their responsibility, Danielle, under the law, is to pay a claim within a certainperiod of time.
(12:29):
And if they dispute it,
and ultimately the plaintiff prevails in it and the insurance company has not paid itwithin the period of time that the plaintiff lawyer demanded it, then they get subjected
to bad faith.
Even if there was a legitimate dispute about liability, even if there was a legitimatedispute about the nature of the damages, even if they really didn't have time to fully
(12:55):
investigate a claim, I mean, it's a hijack and it's unfortunate and this was a good bill.
that would have reformed that part of bad faith penalty provisions in the law.
And, you know, obviously the plaintiff's lawyers don't want it.
Of course they don't want it.
The trial lawyers don't want it.
But it's a fair bill.
(13:16):
to ask you.
I was going to say, does this have anything to do with his close friendship with some bigname trial attorneys?
um I don't know, Danielle, but I've heard through our exceedingly effective TSOF grapevinethat it might.
Yeah, I think it might.
All right, well, we'll keep an eye on this veto column over here, but so far there areonly two.
(13:41):
ah The first one was Senate Bill 89 by Senator Bowie.
That was the Board of Port of Commissioners.
ah He's refusing to have Senate approval of his nominees to that.
And now...
39-0 vote in the Senate and a 99-0 vote in the House.
Yeah, the people's governor right here for you folks.
(14:04):
All right.
Okay.
Another, well, we do have some bright spots to talk about today.
So we won't dwell in a bad attitude here.
uh Senate Bill 244 by Senator Bob Hinskins.
This one we uh didn't really follow, but then it had a total transformation and uhSenator, rather Representative Brett Gaiman.
(14:28):
was able to get some incredible provisions in it that protect property owners.
ah And kind of, think we'll do some good work, Chris, to stem the tide of the carboncapture racket in the state of Louisiana.
ah You want to talk about, ah I know we were waiting on uh yesterday for it to make itthrough concurrence.
(14:50):
We were nervous that maybe they would try and strip out some of the provisions that wereadded in.
but it made it through nice and clean.
Yeah.
And you remember a week or two ago, Danielle, when I said that there are some good thingscoming down the pike to protect property owners in Louisiana against carbon capture
sequestration, but I couldn't really talk about it.
(15:12):
But this is what it was.
So what uh Representative Guymon did was essentially insert uh a number of the provisionsthat he had in his HB 601, his imminent domain bill, into uh
Senator Henskin's SB 244, and he did that on the House side.
(15:33):
And when it came over for amendment, the core of the most important amendments were one,he inserted the common carrier doctrine for carbon capture sequestration, which basically
means that you have to be performing a public service, a public utility, in order to get apermit for carbon capture sequestration, which is a very, very tall order.
(15:55):
If you look at South Dakota, you look at the law on common carrier.
I think that's going to be a tall order for the companies that want to engage in CCS.
And secondly, the other very important amendment repealed the legislative finding from2020 that carbon capture sequestration is a, quote, public good, public utility for
(16:20):
purposes of eminent domain.
That is completely gutted out of the bill.
So both of those amendments provide great
protection for property owners in Louisiana against CCS.
And so the Senate bill was, those were the amendments on the House side of the Senatebill.
So then it had to go back over to the Senate to be concurred in, and we were worried aboutwhether or not on the Senate side, those amendments were going to be gutted out.
(16:46):
And they were not.
They remain intact in the bill.
The Senate concurred, I believe, unanimously in SB 244.
So now
That bill is going to the governor.
And if it passes, I mean, if he signs it, we're going to have some very significantprotections for property owners in Louisiana against carbon capture sequestration.
(17:09):
And I've got to give some great credit to Representative Brett Gaiman and also to SenatorHensgans for not only thinking in a very creative way about how to get this across the
finish line, because they didn't really have the votes directly for HB 601.
And they knew that.
but they weren't willing to give up.
They took a different route and achieved largely the same results.
(17:33):
So Henskins and Guymon, congratulations to you for getting this done.
ah And I'm just absolutely thrilled to death.
And I want to give a shout out to all of our listeners and all of our LCAG members for allof the phone calls and for all of the emails that were sent uh to the Senate demanding
that you concur
(17:55):
in SB 244 with no further amendments.
ah And they did, 44-0.
This is going to the governor.
And from what you told me a few minutes ago, pre-show, Danielle, the governor himself, Ibelieve, has lauded the passage of this bill.
Is that right?
He has, yes, not necessarily for the same reasons we have, but that's neither here northere.
(18:18):
He was very happy to see it pass the Senate, uh no, pass the House and what, it was aSenate bill.
So pass the Senate and go to the House.
ah And so I have every reason to believe ah that he will.
apparently he seems happy ah that the amendments were not gutted, the House amendmentsover the since.
(18:39):
So I think it's a very good thing.
And I have to tell you, I'm pleasantly surprised because based on what Governor Landry hassaid in the past about carbon capture sequestration, at best, he was neutral on the issue.
And at worst, he actually was a proponent of CCS.
So for him to come out and applaud the passage of this,
(19:02):
ah with the amendments intact indicates to me that he's probably going to sign this bill.
What do you say?
think he will.
Now, he was definitely not talking about CCS when he was lauding the bill.
He was talking about legacy lawsuits, which you took a look at very briefly and said, youknow, it may be not all it's cracked up to be what he was championing it for.
(19:27):
you know, a win is a win.
And we're just going to take the fact that he's on the same side on the right side of thisbill and move forward.
Yeah, yeah.
And again, we are just absolutely thrilled to death because nine times out of 10,Danielle, in a situation like this, particularly with all the opposition that existed on
(19:47):
the House side to any constraints on carbon capture sequestration, uh you know, it'ssurprising, pleasantly surprising that the Senate did not mess with this.
And I guarantee you it was because of grassroots pushback.
There's no question about it.
there's absolutely no question about it.
And another one made it through concurrence that you were a little concerned about.
(20:10):
That's House Bill 64 by Representative Mike Johnson.
And this is uh the bill that gives the attorney general officially the power to representthe interests of the state at the localities in the case of federal overreach.
Absolutely.
it requires uh the, well, it allows the governor and the attorney general to have uhpredominant authority uh over agreements that are entered into between local jurisdictions
(20:44):
or municipalities and the federal government.
If those agreements implicate uh
our, the state's sovereign rights and the citizen sovereign constitutional rights in ourstate.
Uh, and the, and I think it's extremely important, particularly in an age when, eventhough we have president Trump as our president, and I think, I know he understands
(21:07):
principle of federalism and I know he's trying to return power to the states, but it'salways important to assert and codify anytime we can, uh, our sovereign
constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment as a state.
And this bill does just that.
And it requires oversight and participation by the attorney general and government andallows them to rescind or nullify any agreement, any consent agreement by any public
(21:39):
official in state of Louisiana if it implicates our rights or in any way encroaches uponour rights ah as a state.
And so I think it's extremely important.
Hats off to Mike Johnson, hats off to Liz Murrell.
And, you know, it's just really, really important that we got this done.
(22:00):
So this is going to the governor's desk, right, Danielle?
Yeah, it's going to his desk.
And Chris, just for the sake of our listeners, also for my sake, you've talked a lot thissession about consent agreements.
This is kind of the first time this has been bubbling up in the legislature over the lastcouple of years, that term.
Would you talk a little bit about what a consent agreement is?
(22:22):
Sure.
uh I'll give you one example.
uh Under Biden, the Department of Justice uh engages in an investigation of a policedepartment, okay, in a given city.
Let's take Baton Rouge, just hypothetical, just an example.
(22:47):
They come in, they investigate, and they...
And they're looking for any kind of pattern of what's called deliberate indifference tothe rights of defendants, to the rights of inmates, to any constitutional deprivation that
they can find.
(23:07):
And they will come to their conclusions and they will say, we're going to we're going toinvestigate you into the ground.
going to we're going to.
pound you like there's no tomorrow perpetually unless you enter into this consentagreement, agree to pay this money and agree to do all of these things under our
(23:33):
jurisdiction and supervision for the next 10 years.
And so these local police departments and municipalities are locked into these consentagreements where it's really
the state, it's state tax dollars who are paying all this money to the federal government.
uh And to be honest with you, the federal government does not have the primary authorityto come in and investigate.
(24:00):
That's the primary responsibility of state government to go in and determine whether ornot they are following the Constitution.
The federal government just comes right in and trespasses right over us and does whateverit wants to do.
And these local municipalities are so intimidated by the federal government that theyenter into these agreements that lock them in for years, basically being a slave to the
(24:27):
federal government.
That's the kind of thing this bill would guard against.
And it would require the attorney general and the governor to approve those agreements andto engage in litigation against the federal government on those issues.
it's a hugely
important issue.
Awesome.
That's super helpful.
(24:47):
And I'm going to ask you for another example for our next bill.
So House Bill 206 also um was concurred.
And that is Representative Michael Melloran's bill.
This is one that we hated with the fire of a thousand suns because it was going to givethe Secretary of State's office and all of the basically the election apparatus, the
(25:10):
election bureaucracy of the state, the ability to uh break the law.
and then have the legislature retroactively paper over it and say, know what, it's okay,no big deal, just by sending an email.
So that was uh completely transformed in the last couple of days.
We talked about it on the last show, but there was some concern also on this, Chris,about, there was some language in this regarding a consent agreement as well.
(25:40):
And that was what led, I believe Paul heard,
to say this is about getting Cleo Field to seat, uh regardless of what the outcome of theSupreme Court ruling on the gerrymandering case is.
Exactly and Paul Hurge, the one who brought our attention to this.
I was initially perplexed by this bill, Daniel, HB 206.
(26:03):
First of all, because it was completely unnecessary.
ah You know, the bill basically said that, know, originally if you go out there and you,uh know, a municipality or an election official in Louisiana enters into an agreement, a
consent agreement with any third party that
(26:23):
that violates the law, that's illegal, then they can enter into the agreement and comeback and just get it ratified in the legislature through a concurrent resolution, which is
a streamlined process.
It's not like passing a bill.
It doesn't require governor's review or judicial scrutiny.
And it didn't even require them to convene originally.
(26:45):
ah And so it was just extraordinary that they would be taking such a uh step.
in such a streamlined way and in probably a way that's unconstitutional.
And so we were looking at it I was very concerned and like, why are they doing this?
Why are they doing this?
Why are they doing this?
And then Paul Hurd called us, who is probably the most accomplished redistricting lawyerin the state, if not the country, who's handled so many redistricting cases, all the big
(27:14):
ones.
And he called and said, Chris, let me tell you what I think is going on here.
They're doing this because they're going to try to use this
as a mechanism to enter into a consent agreement with uh Cleo Fields or people who aresimilarly situated to Cleo Fields to create another district for him so he can serve a
(27:36):
second term in Congress after the US Supreme Court vacates his current congressionaldistrict.
And they can do that, present that to the federal court, and the federal court would haveto accept that.
because it was a consent agreement entered into between the Secretary of State and CleoFields.
And so we were like, wow, so that is what this is all about.
(27:58):
And so we began to raise the red alarm about that and said, this is what they are tryingto accomplish here.
We had a major call to action on this.
And ultimately on the Senate floor, Senator Seabal, who carried this bill on the Senatefloor, specifically said,
that this bill, this law may not be used uh for any purpose of redistricting orreapportionment at all, cannot be used for that.
(28:28):
So that was our huge concern.
That's now out.
It's in the bill.
You can't use it.
So hopefully, bye bye, Cleo.
And secondly, uh it said, it was admitted and said that uh these agreement, that thisratification of any
Agreement any illegal election agreement has to be approved by the legislature before it'sentered into and it has to be done in the normal Methodology in the legislature just the
(28:59):
way if they were passing a bill so they have to convene they have to be present they can'tdo it remotely and so these are significant improvements to this bill, I don't at this
point other than having just a
a general concern about or perplexity about why the legislature would even be passing abill that would give them the authority to ratify something that's illegal without passing
(29:29):
a bill to cure the illegality.
I'm still a little perplexed by why they're...
To be honest with you, Danielle, now that it's been amended in this way and it can't beused for redistricting, I don't think it means anything anymore.
I think they're going to have to push it across the finish line.
You know why?
Because if they don't, if they just let it down the vine right now, what's the messagethat that will send?
(29:54):
We were only doing it for the exact reason that you suggested.
We can't do that now, so who cares?
So they have to push it through to the end.
Amazing, absolutely amazing.
It's stunning what some people in the Secretary of State's office are willing to pushforward with.
Absolutely stunning.
absolutely.
So they're going to push it through to the end, even though it doesn't really meananything at this point.
(30:18):
And it could still be challenged as unconstitutional.
And it may be.
And Chris, I'll be looking out on the Secretary of State's website to see when shepublishes what actions she's going to take and what this is going to mean for the law
going forward as it relates to her office.
You know what?
Let's see.
Let's see what she puts up, right?
But I don't think she's particularly happy about it.
(30:40):
No, I hope she's not happy about it.
I'm not happy about her right now.
So we can have a little mutuality there.
All right.
And then the rest of the bills that we have on the docket today are still awaiting final,final passage.
I'll just run through them and Chris, em you can remind folks what they're about.
(31:02):
The first one is House Bill 160 by Representative Kelly Dickerson.
This is her ethics complaints bill.
It's been hung up for a while.
yeah, it's been hung up on the Senate floor for a while.
There was a letter that was sent by, I believe, the chairman of the State Ethics Board andsaid that, you know, a law requiring a complainant to disclose their identity at some
(31:23):
point would have a chilling effect on their willingness to file complaints againstpowerful public officials, ah even though the bill has very strong
whistleblower protections in it, anti-retaliation protections in it, just like in otherparts of Louisiana law.
but their position is that these complainants can still remain anonymous throughout aninvestigation, leave an accused completely in the dark about who's accusing him or her.
(31:52):
And it's just, it's extraordinary.
So, that's probably why the bill has not been called yet, Danielle, but I am going tocontinue to beat this drum.
uh relentlessly, because just on an instinctive level and as a matter of basic fairness,it is completely unjust for an American citizen to be accused of an ethics violation and
(32:17):
never be able to determine who his accuser is.
I just find that fundamentally un-American, you know, and I understand the fear ofretaliation.
I get that, believe me, but that's why the whistleblower protections are in there.
And they've got to strike a balance here.
Look, if they call HB 160 tomorrow on the Senate floor, they could.
(32:42):
They could vote for it.
It could pass and it could go to the governor's desk.
But according to what Representative Hennessy says, she's very disappointed.
Dickerson says she's very disappointed about this, by the way, that the Republicans arenot standing up and energetically pushing this bill.
But they're not.
And Chris, a couple of points on that.
(33:03):
One, I find it very interesting that an appointed, the president of the ethics board is anappointed position.
What is, okay.
So that an appointee would ah wield enough power to run roughshod over the entirelegislature.
Are you kidding me?
Is that a proxy is a question.
(33:24):
It can be rhetorical.
And then the second point is,
uh How does the ethics board get paid?
Do they get paid by the hour by the case?
I mean, are they incentivized to have more cases rather than fewer?
ah I think most of the members of the ethics board, that's a good question.
I guess they get paid a salary.
(33:46):
don't think they're paid by the hour, but it's certainly job security.
There's no question about that.
It's job security.
The more complaints that come in, the more job security they have.
No uh question about that.
Can you imagine if people started having to identify who they are when they make acomplaint?
(34:08):
and therefore there are 30 or 35 or 40 percent fewer frivolous ethics complaints filedagainst people.
Let me tell you what, maybe they'd have to downsize a little bit.
Maybe some people wouldn't have a job.
I would love it if the ethics board as a screening requirement mandated that people who,only people who hate gossip can be added to the board, can be nominated to the board.
(34:31):
People who love gossip, because that's what this is about, right?
I mean, this is essentially he said, she said, except the one of the saids doesn't get tosay, right?
Like you can only speculate what your side of the story is if you have no idea who is, um
sending a complaint against you.
Exactly.
(34:51):
That's exactly right.
He said, she said.
Now there are times, Danielle, when the cases are document intensive, uh you know, and youcan kind of tell what happened by looking at the documents.
But my argument to Senator Miller was, Senator Miller, the complainant's credibility, justlike in any criminal case, just like in any civil case, is always an issue.
(35:17):
the history of the relationship between a complainant and an accused, the possible motivethat a complainant may have to file an ethics complaint.
All of those things are relevant.
And how are you going to get that information except from the person who's being accused?
And how can they give it to you if they don't know who's accusing them?
So this is really a matter of due process.
(35:38):
It's a matter of fundamental fairness.
And look, you know what they could have done, Danielle?
They could have, if you don't think the whistleblower protections are strong enough in thebill,
amend the bill and make the whistleblower protections and the anti-retaliation provisionsstronger.
Just do whatever you feel like you need to do to protect a complainant.
(35:58):
That's fine.
But you have to let the accused know who is accusing them.
Representative Dickerson, you know, is so right about this issue.
But you know why she feels so passionate about this, Danielle?
Because she herself was a victim of this.
exactly what we're talking about right now.
(36:20):
And I guarantee you, if there were people up on that Senate Governmental AffairsCommittee, or enough senators who had been through what she's been through, I guarantee
you they would look at this through a different prism.
Yeah, are people, when someone files an ethics complaint, are they able to do soanonymously or does the board know who filed the complaint but they don't disclose it to
(36:45):
ah the person that's being complained against?
The board, I believe, knows who's filing the complaint, ah but a copy of the complaint issent to the accused redacted.
The board redacts the identifying information of the complainant.
So if it's currently redacted, that tells me that they're the ones doing the redaction.
(37:10):
And then they're sending it on to the accused.
But the accused doesn't know who it is.
I would certainly hope that they do at least some basic online research about thecomplainant before taking the case.
Well, I would hope so too.
You know, you would hope so.
And they probably can get some relevant information by doing that.
(37:30):
But there's certain information that may be very relevant, critically relevant, that theycan only get from the accused.
And the thing about it is, another thing, Danielle, why is it fair that ethicsinvestigators can talk to a complainant about the credibility
(37:52):
of an accused and find out whatever they want to find out about the accused partially froma complainant, but they can't talk to the accused about the complainant.
That doesn't make any sense either.
No, no, agree with you.
All right.
Well, next up is House Bill 603 by Representative Dixon McMakin.
(38:14):
This is his bill to give more power to Governor Landry by uh making it so that he doesn'thave to uh adhere to any of the recommendations for nominations to certain boards,
committees, and other authorities.
And it has been sitting for a while now.
(38:34):
I'm surprised, Danielle, that oh HB 603, which would eliminate the requirement, themandatory requirement that the governor choose the heads of all of these powerful
regulatory boards, about 31 mentioned in the bill, that he would have to choose thoseappointees from the list provided to him by trade associations.
This bill would eliminate that requirement and give him just authority to appoint whoeverhe wants.
(39:00):
So I'm surprised if Governor Landry
wants this bill, why it's still sitting on the Senate floor?
Why it hasn't been voted on?
Well, I hope it's because some senators are digging in their heels and saying, I ain'tgonna go this way.
Well, you know what, would be a pleasant development if that were to happen.
(39:21):
because, and you and I have talked about this, and we understand that there are, you know,there's corruption on both sides.
No matter who is appointing ah the heads of these regulatory boards, there's always, youknow, a dual motive.
You know, sometimes, you know, partially they want to appoint someone good, but alwaysthey want to appoint someone that they can control or influence or is going to...
(39:44):
do things that favor them.
It's human nature, I think.
And our position was simply that, yes, there's corruption on both sides, but I like thefact that there are more people participating in the corruption rather than just all the
power being vested in one person.
And you know, Chris, what just occurred to me, and I'm not sure why it didn't occur to meall session, but this is going up against some pretty big lobbies.
(40:12):
So, you know, the referring authorities would be pretty big lobbyists ah that areproviding the recommendations, if I'm not mistaken.
So you're saying that one of the reasons, maybe the main reason why this is stalling onthe floor is because these lobbyists for these trade associations are sitting there
(40:33):
saying, uh-uh, we're not going this way.
Yeah, that's a great point.
So we'll see what happens on 603.
But again, it's been pending in there for a week or so now, huh, Danielle?
At least.
Okay, next up, this is one of the ones that has you hot under the collar, HB 685 byRepresentative Emily Shenevere.
(41:00):
This is the bill that would get DEI out of state agencies.
It is languishing.
I know you've done a strong call to action.
Lots of people have called the pushing Senate president.
ah Cameron Henry to call the bill and as of yet he has not.
(41:21):
He's not called the bill.
This bill is stuck on second reading in the Senate.
This is a critical bill to purge public agencies and our colleges from, uh you know,diversity, equity and inclusion.
This Marxist concept that teaches us basically to hate another person if they're not yourrace or your gender, teaches everybody to view the country, view the history of the
(41:46):
country and the Constitution through the prism of
victimhood and race and gender, it's an absolute poison that permeates our publiceducation system, particularly our public colleges, and even our public agencies with
regard to the hiring criteria that they use.
It's essentially a form of cultural affirmative action is what it is.
(42:10):
And so it's a dangerous cancer.
And why is this bill not being called in the Senate?
It makes absolutely no sense.
It enrages me that we sit here day in and day out.
We got one day left in the session and we can't get a Republican dominated state Senate topass this bill and send it to the governor.
(42:33):
And nobody will give us an explanation for why they won't do it.
And that's the thing that makes me even more angry about it.
When we reach out to them and say, look, can you just give us an explanation for this?
Maybe there's a good reason why you're not calling the bill.
But I don't like being ignored.
I don't like reaching out and asking these people these things, especially when there arecitizens across the state reaching out and wanting to the same thing and being ignored.
(42:59):
These people work for us.
We don't work for them.
And this is a very, very important issue, critically important, and we shouldn't bewaiting another year to get this passed and get it to the governor's desk.
There's no reason for that.
And that's the reason why I'm in a foul mood when it comes to this bill.
You are and I'll say that my best guess Chris is the same as the last bill.
(43:21):
There's some big powerful lobbies that would be against this ah and I won't name names butI have some suspicions of who could be behind this ah stalling this bill.
Well, and you're okay.
Well, and I'm not going to coerce you to name any names, but the bottom line is I don'tgive a tinkers damn who's opposing the legislation.
(43:44):
These people were these people were elected by us.
70, 80 percent of the citizens of Louisiana understand how dangerous these concepts are,how they've.
how they've crept into our institutions over the last 50 years.
They all understand that.
And these Republicans, I guarantee you, there's not a senator in that chamber who, if hewere running for his office and someone asked him, if you get elected and you get a bill
(44:11):
on the Senate floor that it will eliminate this garbage from our public institutions andour colleges, will you vote for it?
Will you insist that it go to a vote?
Of course we will.
We agree with you 100 % on this.
We can't stand this stuff.
It's very dangerous.
What if they had said, no, no, I don't care about that.
I don't care if our kids are being taught to hate each other.
(44:34):
I don't care if they're being taught that our founding fathers are racist and that theyare at an inherent disadvantage and they're victims because they're African-American or
they're minorities or because they're a female.
I don't care about that.
I don't, that's no big deal to me.
The guarantee they would have never been elected if they had answered that way.
So do your job, represent the people who put you there, pass this bill and get it to thegovernor.
(44:59):
By the way, Danielle, you realize that about in 2004, Governor Landry himself issued anexecutive order prohibiting 24, prohibiting critical race theory from being, you know,
banning critical race theory from our public education system.
(45:20):
So Governor Landry himself has weighed in on this through an executive order.
Basically this is, and where is it, and where is his pressure?
This is one of a number of issues where Governor Landry sits there, he knows what's goingon in the Senate, he himself has weighed in on CR2, where is he?
(45:41):
Why is he not putting the weight of his authority in his office?
behind this bill.
Why is he not doing that?
It makes no sense to me.
And as far as I'm concerned, silence is complicity.
Silence is complicity.
You can't just be neutral in matters of profound moral urgency.
And that's what this is.
And that's what he's doing.
(46:01):
And that's, you just reminded me of another thing to be in a foul mood about.
Sorry.
Sorry for that.
I wanted it to be complete.
You you had to reach the fullness of the foulness.
Okay.
Yeah, a couple left.
House Bill 590 by Representative Annie Spell.
(46:22):
This is her bill that would get foreign funding for elections and election campaigns outof our state.
And the only reason this is not moving is because of corruption.
And I dare someone to try and change my mind.
And let's, I think you're right, Danielle, because I can't think of any other reason why abill that prohibits foreign governments and non-citizens of the United States from
(46:49):
donating money to Louisiana campaigns and Louisiana candidates and Louisiana ballotinitiatives and propositions, why a bill like that would be languishing on the Senate
floor.
I don't understand that.
As if there's no, as if,
We don't have foreign countries that want to influence our campaigns and our candidates.
(47:14):
I mean, they try to influence our elections all the time.
Why would that not be a way that they would try to do that?
By finding the candidate that they feel like they can mostly manipulate, the weakercandidate, the candidate who's more liberal, donate tons of money to their campaign, and
then guess what happens?
They own them.
And oftentimes,
They do not have the best interests of Louisiana citizens or even American, our country atheart.
(47:39):
So why not ban that altogether?
You know, and it's a good bill, Representative Spell, she's a new representative, but it'sa very good bill.
So why is an important bill like that sitting on the Senate floor and not being calledwith one day left in a session?
Yeah.
Well, you know where I stand.
They're looking to get their mortgages paid.
(48:01):
looking to have their Mardi Gras crew dues paid, their country club fees paid.
Chris, this bill not moving along with the way that uh the Secretary of State's office hasoperated with regard to shoving the machines down our throat this session just reeks of
(48:23):
foreign interference.
It reeks of foreign influence.
mean, we know those machines, for instance, are all assembled, all manufactured, allprogrammed in countries outside of the US.
ah So you know what?
Maybe they're listening to the Chinese on this.
Maybe it's the Chinese lobby that has stopped this bill.
(48:46):
Maybe it's their own self-interest.
Danielle, Chuck Owen has said this so eloquently, and he's 100 % right.
China has already insinuated itself into our culture, into our politics, into our economy,into our elections, into our infrastructure, with the ultimate goal of dismantling it.
(49:07):
And don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
They want to dismantle our critical infrastructure.
There's no question about it.
And we have an opportunity in this bill
to prohibit them in this facet from being able to do that with a stone wall betweenforeign donations and our campaigns and candidates and propositions in Louisiana.
(49:28):
And this bill is not moving on the Senate floor where other things that may be important,but not nearly as important as this are voted on past and sitting on the governor's desk.
I want an explanation for this.
I want an explanation for this.
I really want an explanation for it in light of the fact that the Senate president, wherethis bill is languishing on the floor, there's about a hundred percent chance that he's
(49:54):
the one who drafted the amendment in Senate governmental affairs that would haveeliminated the second Republican primary and walked Senator Cassidy back into the U.S.
in the second term when he can't win in a statewide race against a Republican.
Fortunately, we fought hard.
We've already talked about this and
that was not offered as an amendment on the floor.
(50:15):
But it's very revealing to me.
Why would the Senate president be doing that?
I'm suspicious about that.
Just like I'm suspicious about why this 590 is not moving.
So we're gonna continue to beat the drum on it, continue to move.
There's one day left, by the way, Danielle, and we're gonna make it clear that if itdoesn't move, we're gonna find out why it's not moving.
(50:38):
Well, Chris, I think you just made a very astute connection there.
And perhaps it's not necessarily the state level representatives that we need to beworried about with regard to foreign funding, although we probably should, because I don't
believe that the interest of the Chinese have left any stone unturned.
ah But is this pressure from Bill Cassidy?
(51:04):
It's a good question.
Well, it is a good question.
you know he's not fundraising very much in Louisiana and he has huge, huge amounts raised.
Although I will say, I mean, it is against the federal law already, right?
This is against federal law.
I think it is against federal law, yeah.
So I don't know if Cassidy necessarily, of course, Danielle, you know what, so what's,well, that's a conversation for another day.
(51:31):
I was thinking what's to happen to someone from kicking money here in the state and thenthey just funnel it to Cassidy.
But the point is, I don't know that he would have an immediate interest in this, but.
I know that if Cameron Henry wanted this bill called on the Senate floor, it would becalled and it's not being called.
So either he unilaterally is making this call or he's getting orders from Governor Landry.
(51:55):
One of the two.
It's got to be one of those two things.
you know, we'll we're going to see, we're going to find we're going to find out.
But, you know, our inference, if 590 does not pass and if 685 does not pass.
We're going to reasonably infer that it's because the Senate president did not have theguts and the backbone to make sure that these bills were called and voted on.
(52:22):
Yeah.
Beautiful.
All right.
Well, we shall see.
And last but not least, uh one that is still waiting to be called up, House Bill 601 byRepresentative Brett Gaiman.
A lot of rules would have to be suspended and he'd have to get a lot of votes because youreminded me, Chris, that we're in that final window where two thirds vote is required to
(52:45):
pass a bill.
on the last, I can't remember how many hours of session or how many weeks of session, butI think it's the last week of session.
last week a session.
And before we get into 601, I'm going tell you, 685 and 590 that we just talked about,both of those bills should get two thirds.
Both of those bills should get two thirds in the Senate.
They're that important.
(53:06):
Now on 601, know, Representative Gaiman has told us two or three times now that he,unfortunately, doesn't think that he will have enough Republican votes to pass 601, which
is the whole reason why he took the route that he took.
to get as much of it into SB 244 as he could, which, you know, it's just a brillianttactical move on his part.
(53:30):
But at this point, I doubt that 601 is gonna be called, but you know what?
We can continue to put pressure on him for a record vote.
Danielle, at this point, because we have 244 going to the governor, I'm less concernedabout whether or not 601 passes than I am about that there's a uh vote on it.
Yeah.
(53:50):
because we've talked about that's very, very valuable.
I want to know which Republicans are going to vote against a bill that will repealimminent domain for carbon capture sequestration pipelines in Louisiana.
I want those Republicans to have to make a record vote.
That's what's important.
Yeah, and I guess we do have a pretty good idea by now based on the way they voted for anumber of other bills in this neighborhood, none of them probably had ah the strength of
(54:23):
this bill or quite the comprehensiveness of this one.
I would say that's a very fair assessment, no doubt.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, that rounds us out.
have, yeah, like you said, Chris, T minus one day and counting.
So we'll see if any of these things make it across the finish line.
uh Did you have anything else, Chris, that we missed?
(54:43):
I just want to say that if 685 and 590 don't get voted on, the three bills that I'm goingto be absolutely obsessed about and that I'm going to make sure, we're going to make sure
that every voter in Louisiana and these districts knows what these Republicans did is 685,590, and SB 226, Valerie Hodges' bill that was gutted in Senate Jude A.
(55:06):
Those three bills right there, the rest of them turned out more or less the way we wantit.
you know, exception of 577, but we got a lot of what we wanted with a lot of hard work,but these three bills, 226 is done.
I mean, I guess there's a chance miraculously it could get voted on on the floor.
But those are the three bills that I'm gonna be focused on when the session's over.
(55:31):
Yeah, and just a reminder to our listeners, uh SB 226 was Valerie Hodge's bill that uhwould protect our critical infrastructure from foreign hands, basically, or any kind of
foreign manipulation, including uh voting machines, all of our election equipment andsoftware, and including uh the property surrounding military installations.
(55:54):
And you can stand up, Senator Miller, when you run for reelection, if you're not termedout, you can stand up and explain to your constituents why you killed a bill that would
allow the state to take property from sworn foreign adversaries if that property islocated within 50 miles of a military base.
You can explain that to your constituents if you're able to do that.
(56:15):
I would say that Senator Miller put himself in the position of being Secretary of StateNancy Landry's sacrificial lamb this legislative session.
Yeah, and guess who's not going to be standing there with Senator Miller when he has toexplain this to his constituents?
Nancy Landry.
So, you know, we'll see.
We'll see, Danielle.
But we're going to keep rocking, keep rolling and moving forward.
(56:37):
One day left and I'm excited about the last day.
I think that God does great things at the 11th hour.
I really believe that.
And I think great things can happen tomorrow.
uh you know, lot of great things are yet.
to check out the LACAG Facebook page and the X page tomorrow because if anything majorhappens, you will be updating the people there.
(57:00):
I know you and Katie will be on top of that along with others.
um And also a note that we will resume next week, Tuesday, Thursday at 10 a.m., a muchmore humane hour.
And uh we will be doing our wrap up session.
So.
We'll give you the full rundown of what happened and where we go from here.
(57:21):
Yes, ma'am, and support LCAG, support the state of freedom.
We are absolutely thrilled to be your eyes, your ears, your watchdog in the legislature.
We're thrilled to be able to bring you information.
And Danielle, at this point, I just know the feeling of inevitability that I get when itcomes to the increasing scope and reach of the state of freedom.
(57:49):
I think it's inevitable.
ah that we're going to continue to grow.
And I'm just giddy with the prospects of what we're doing.
And can you imagine, I mean, in a short period of time, we're going to be heard everywherein the state.
And not because we are, you know, anything great that we're doing, other than trying totell the truth, which so few other people seem to be doing.
(58:15):
And so I'm thrilled.
And Chris, on that note, I just want to put out uh a call to all of the listeners.
If you are part of a local group that would like for us to come and talk to you about howyour uh legislators voted this session, let us know.
Drop us a line.
You can email Chris at chris.lacag.org.
(58:36):
can email me, Danielle, at freedomstate.us.
And we would love to hear from you.
We'd love to find a way to come and address your group because I think people, Chris, likeyou said, are hungry for the truth.
And um we know that, you for instance, I'm part of We the People Bayou community.
People down here are hungry for the truth and not all of them listen to our show.
(58:59):
uh But they do go to those meetings and they do have connectedness into the community.
And I think it's really important.
So if anyone's interested in having us talk to your group, just reach out and let us know.
We'd be happy to come and talk to y'all and get your thoughts as well on what might bebehind some of the shenanigans and also how proud you are of the legislators that stood
(59:23):
strong this session, which was really hard for a lot of them, I know.
Yeah, and I derive Danielle great strength and great inspiration from from citizens ofLouisiana, because I know that even when I'm in the legislature and I feel like it's all
of these, you know, so many rhinos, so many establishment people, so many bought and paidfor by the lobbyists, I know that the citizens of Louisiana stand with us.
(59:48):
And that gives me such great hope and great inspiration.
And I have a really deep faith as you do.
in the citizens of our state, a really strong and deep faith.
So that always sustains me.
I know it sustains you.
And I'm just excited about what uh tomorrow, next week, next year will bring us.
Yeah, absolutely.
(01:00:09):
Well, thank you, Chris.
God bless and thank you all for joining us today.
We will be catching you next week with the full rundown.
Love y'all.
Welcome everybody.
Thank you for joining us today on the State of Freedom.
I'm your host Danielle Walker along with my fearless host Chris Alexander.
And here we are close to the 11th hour.
Just to note that this is pre-recorded.
We recorded this at the end of the day on Wednesday because I have travel tomorrowmorning.
So when you're hearing this, I will be in the sky um for the last day of session.
(00:26):
But don't worry, Chris will be in place vigilant as a watchdog as ever.
And I just have to say, Chris, coming onto this show has been wavering between ecstaticjoy and uncontrolled rage.
So we know that we are still living in the state of Louisiana.
oh
(00:53):
We're gonna make it.
We're gonna make it through the finish line one more day before we let you know what'shappened in the last 24 hours.
Let me read the scripture of the day.
It's Psalm chapter 116 verse seven and this has become a recent favorite of mine.
It says this, now I can say to myself and to all, relax and rest, be confident and serenefor the Lord rewards fully.
(01:22):
those who simply trust in Him.
And isn't that beautiful?
It's a beautiful picture of our birthright to rest.
The Lord asks us for our trust.
He asks us for our diligence.
And then He wants us to leave the rest of it up to Him.
And Chris, you and I haven't talked about that in a while.
We used to talk about that all the time.
(01:43):
But we work.
This has been, this has been...
a brutal session, maybe not as brutal as last year since we had three sessions, foursessions, something crazy last year.
ah But it doesn't negate the fact that this is a whole lot of work crammed into what,eight weeks?
April 12th, yeah, eight weeks.
(02:06):
yeah.
And every time I talk to my friend who's a state senator in Ohio, she is just, she getslike stomach cramps just thinking about having a part-time legislature.
She's like, I have no idea how y'all do it.
And I'm like, well, we're, we're perhaps not the deliberative body that the Ohio StateHouse is, but it, has its pros and its cons.
(02:31):
Yeah.
And I'll tell you, Danielle, two months in the Louisiana legislature is not like twomonths anywhere else.
I can promise you it is like a year anywhere else.
So because of the utter and complete chaos, unpredictability of it.
And it is truly uh a challenge to be able to stay focused on what you have to focus on.
(02:56):
And one of the
Challenges that I've had in the last couple of weeks is trying to remember that theresults are not in our hands That we have to focus on the process because the closer we
get to the end here and the more focused I get and the more obsessed I become the more Iblur the process with the results So I have to remind myself that the results are not in
(03:21):
my hands But I also have an obligation to do everything that I can possibly do to securegood results and then leave it
in God's hands.
So that's what I'm trying to do here, and I'm very pleased about a number of things thathave happened, and I'm absolutely inflamed by one or two others that we'll talk about.
(03:41):
Yeah.
Well, you know, you think about these other legislatures that are not part time and they,can follow bills pretty easily when they're not all jammed into a tight funnel.
You know, like we've been drinking from a fire hose, especially you, especially Katie.
And it's, it's just a remarkable ah thing to behold.
(04:02):
You know, you, you do a great job.
You remember all these bill numbers.
Nobody else remembers all these bill numbers.
but you have so much of this put to memory and you have just done a fantastic job, Chris,this session.
Yeah.
that, but it's not because of me.
It's just because when you look at numbers so much, you just tend to remember them.
(04:27):
And so it's a good thing.
I mean, I'm glad I'm able to remember most of the bill numbers, but it's only because youlook at them constantly.
Yeah, but honestly, you have done a great job this session representing the people.
You've been the voice of the people and you have fought back against some pretty bigbullies in the legislature.
So um I want to honor you for that and thank you for that on behalf of the people wholistened because I know that our listeners are so grateful as well.
(04:56):
ah
you.
Coming from you, that means a lot.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
is eight weeks of continual fighting.
ah It seems like sometimes, you know, we have, and there are victories and there are somelike really ah bright spots, but you tend to remember the tough things a little bit more
(05:22):
than you remember the good things because, you know, that's just human nature.
it is.
And one thing that I've noticed about God is that you can feel for days and days and daysthat you're out in the middle of an ocean, ah just an absolute chaotic mess.
And at unpredictable moments, God will present to you a little safe harbor for a fewminutes or an hour or two.
(05:51):
And you get your regroup.
You take some deep breaths and you keep moving forward.
So God always gives us what we need.
It's not always what we want, but He always gives us what we need.
Yeah, and we have some great allies in the House and the Senate as well, some people whohave been valiant warriors at great cost to themselves, I might add.
(06:12):
You know, it's not easy to stand up there and do what's right whenever you're getting beatup, when you're getting sent nasty messages from angry constituents, or people who may not
even be constituents, right?
Because people can just be nasty.
ah
and it's always easy.
It's always easy to be nasty.
It's always easy to be bold when you're anonymous, when you don't have to put your namebehind it.
(06:38):
know, boldness comes very easy when you don't have to disclose who you are, right?
Well said.
Well said indeed.
All right.
Well, why don't we start with uh something that came as a little bit of a surprise to me.
We have a new veto by the governor and it is Senate Bill 111 by Senator Alan Seabaw.
(07:00):
It's related to insurance.
You want to talk about it?
Yeah, it's a bill that passed.
All Republicans voted for this in the Senate where it originated, except for two, SenatorConnick and Senator Miller.
No surprise, Senator Miller there voted against it.
And then it went over to the House and it passed with, know, hand-to-leaf, you know, twoto one among Republicans.
(07:24):
55 Republicans voted for it and I think 18, 16 Republicans voted against it.
But it was a very good bill.
And
Basically what it says is, Danielle, they have in insurance law on personal injury claims,sometimes claimants, people who are injured, they will make what's called bad faith claims
during the pendency of their case against an insurance company because the insurancecompany has just not dealt with them in good faith, not dealt with them honestly, not been
(07:56):
honest with them about what the policy provisions are, what the coverage.
scope of the coverages and that sort of thing.
And so it's good to have bad faith provisions in the law.
But Senator Seabal brought a bill uh that basically clarifies the law and says that youcan't hold an insurance company in bad faith and subject them to all kind of monetary
(08:19):
penalties if there's a good faith dispute about liability, about whether they'reresponsible for the accident.
If there's a good faith dispute about whether or not the accident caused the damages, theinjuries that the claimant is claiming, um whether or not the insurance company has had 30
(08:43):
days, it establishes 30 days to respond to a demand, 30 days to investigate and respond,can't hold them in bad faith before then.
And lastly,
You can't hold them in bad faith if you haven't given them a sufficient amount of time toproperly investigate the claim, conduct some discovery, and come to some informed
(09:03):
conclusions about what the claim is worth.
Okay, doesn't that seem pretty fair?
That seems like a pretty fair bill to an insurance company and would keep an insurancecompany from being subjected to all these, the hijacking and the ambushing and all the
penalties that insurance companies have to pay right now.
It's a very fair bill.
(09:23):
And Governor Landry, as I said, it passed the House passed the Senate handily.
And Governor Landry, after saying that he would sign any bill, insurance reform bill thathits his desk, uh he just vetoed a bill that was passed overwhelmingly in both houses in
the House and the Senate.
The bill that I just said that would limit an insurance company's exposure to monetarypenalties.
(09:49):
uh
under the circumstances that I just described.
And it just seems like a very fair bill.
I read the bill.
Who gets the penalty fees that they pay?
Attorneys?
The state?
absolutely.
The plaintiff attorney and the plaintiff, the person who's injured, the personrepresenting the claimant gets uh a significant percentage of anything that the insurance
(10:17):
company pays at any time while the attorney is representing the injured party.
So yeah, it goes to both.
The check would be made out to the attorney and the claimant.
Let me just play that clip of Governor Landry saying that he was going to sign anythingbecause Katie had it pulled for us.
oh
(10:43):
to my desk, I'm going to sign.
This is a very good bill.
It would save insurance companies money by not having to pay these penalties for bad faithwhen in fact they're not acting in bad faith.
And it's certainly, at least theoretically likely, and probably likely that those costsavings could be passed down to their insureds.
(11:08):
But this bill was vetoed by the governor.
I haven't looked at his veto message, but based upon what I've read in the bill, comparedto what Governor Landry said that you just read, he wasn't honest.
He just wasn't honest about this.
And I think it's just unbelievable, you know, that he would veto this bill, especiallywhen almost all the Republicans voted for it.
(11:39):
I'll be very interested to discuss this one with Commissioner Temple when we have him onin a couple weeks because this seems like a package that would, this seems like it was
probably part of uh his package perhaps.
It seems like it's part of the bills that are trying to encourage insurance companies tocome to the state uh rather than encourage more lawsuits.
(12:04):
Well, that's what it looks like.
This just looks like a very fair bill, and it's designed to give an insurance company anopportunity to engage in a real defense.
And so their responsibility, Danielle, under the law, is to pay a claim within a certainperiod of time.
(12:29):
And if they dispute it,
and ultimately the plaintiff prevails in it and the insurance company has not paid itwithin the period of time that the plaintiff lawyer demanded it, then they get subjected
to bad faith.
Even if there was a legitimate dispute about liability, even if there was a legitimatedispute about the nature of the damages, even if they really didn't have time to fully
(12:55):
investigate a claim, I mean, it's a hijack and it's unfortunate and this was a good bill.
that would have reformed that part of bad faith penalty provisions in the law.
And, you know, obviously the plaintiff's lawyers don't want it.
Of course they don't want it.
The trial lawyers don't want it.
But it's a fair bill.
(13:16):
to ask you.
I was going to say, does this have anything to do with his close friendship with some bigname trial attorneys?
um I don't know, Danielle, but I've heard through our exceedingly effective TSOF grapevinethat it might.
Yeah, I think it might.
All right, well, we'll keep an eye on this veto column over here, but so far there areonly two.
(13:41):
ah The first one was Senate Bill 89 by Senator Bowie.
That was the Board of Port of Commissioners.
ah He's refusing to have Senate approval of his nominees to that.
And now...
39-0 vote in the Senate and a 99-0 vote in the House.
Yeah, the people's governor right here for you folks.
(14:04):
All right.
Okay.
Another, well, we do have some bright spots to talk about today.
So we won't dwell in a bad attitude here.
uh Senate Bill 244 by Senator Bob Hinskins.
This one we uh didn't really follow, but then it had a total transformation and uhSenator, rather Representative Brett Gaiman.
(14:28):
was able to get some incredible provisions in it that protect property owners.
ah And kind of, think we'll do some good work, Chris, to stem the tide of the carboncapture racket in the state of Louisiana.
ah You want to talk about, ah I know we were waiting on uh yesterday for it to make itthrough concurrence.
(14:50):
We were nervous that maybe they would try and strip out some of the provisions that wereadded in.
but it made it through nice and clean.
Yeah.
And you remember a week or two ago, Danielle, when I said that there are some good thingscoming down the pike to protect property owners in Louisiana against carbon capture
sequestration, but I couldn't really talk about it.
(15:12):
But this is what it was.
So what uh Representative Guymon did was essentially insert uh a number of the provisionsthat he had in his HB 601, his imminent domain bill, into uh
Senator Henskin's SB 244, and he did that on the House side.
(15:33):
And when it came over for amendment, the core of the most important amendments were one,he inserted the common carrier doctrine for carbon capture sequestration, which basically
means that you have to be performing a public service, a public utility, in order to get apermit for carbon capture sequestration, which is a very, very tall order.
(15:55):
If you look at South Dakota, you look at the law on common carrier.
I think that's going to be a tall order for the companies that want to engage in CCS.
And secondly, the other very important amendment repealed the legislative finding from2020 that carbon capture sequestration is a, quote, public good, public utility for
(16:20):
purposes of eminent domain.
That is completely gutted out of the bill.
So both of those amendments provide great
protection for property owners in Louisiana against CCS.
And so the Senate bill was, those were the amendments on the House side of the Senatebill.
So then it had to go back over to the Senate to be concurred in, and we were worried aboutwhether or not on the Senate side, those amendments were going to be gutted out.
(16:46):
And they were not.
They remain intact in the bill.
The Senate concurred, I believe, unanimously in SB 244.
So now
That bill is going to the governor.
And if it passes, I mean, if he signs it, we're going to have some very significantprotections for property owners in Louisiana against carbon capture sequestration.
(17:09):
And I've got to give some great credit to Representative Brett Gaiman and also to SenatorHensgans for not only thinking in a very creative way about how to get this across the
finish line, because they didn't really have the votes directly for HB 601.
And they knew that.
but they weren't willing to give up.
They took a different route and achieved largely the same results.
(17:33):
So Henskins and Guymon, congratulations to you for getting this done.
ah And I'm just absolutely thrilled to death.
And I want to give a shout out to all of our listeners and all of our LCAG members for allof the phone calls and for all of the emails that were sent uh to the Senate demanding
that you concur
(17:55):
in SB 244 with no further amendments.
ah And they did, 44-0.
This is going to the governor.
And from what you told me a few minutes ago, pre-show, Danielle, the governor himself, Ibelieve, has lauded the passage of this bill.
Is that right?
He has, yes, not necessarily for the same reasons we have, but that's neither here northere.
(18:18):
He was very happy to see it pass the Senate, uh no, pass the House and what, it was aSenate bill.
So pass the Senate and go to the House.
ah And so I have every reason to believe ah that he will.
apparently he seems happy ah that the amendments were not gutted, the House amendmentsover the since.
(18:39):
So I think it's a very good thing.
And I have to tell you, I'm pleasantly surprised because based on what Governor Landry hassaid in the past about carbon capture sequestration, at best, he was neutral on the issue.
And at worst, he actually was a proponent of CCS.
So for him to come out and applaud the passage of this,
(19:02):
ah with the amendments intact indicates to me that he's probably going to sign this bill.
What do you say?
think he will.
Now, he was definitely not talking about CCS when he was lauding the bill.
He was talking about legacy lawsuits, which you took a look at very briefly and said, youknow, it may be not all it's cracked up to be what he was championing it for.
(19:27):
you know, a win is a win.
And we're just going to take the fact that he's on the same side on the right side of thisbill and move forward.
Yeah, yeah.
And again, we are just absolutely thrilled to death because nine times out of 10,Danielle, in a situation like this, particularly with all the opposition that existed on
(19:47):
the House side to any constraints on carbon capture sequestration, uh you know, it'ssurprising, pleasantly surprising that the Senate did not mess with this.
And I guarantee you it was because of grassroots pushback.
There's no question about it.
there's absolutely no question about it.
And another one made it through concurrence that you were a little concerned about.
(20:10):
That's House Bill 64 by Representative Mike Johnson.
And this is uh the bill that gives the attorney general officially the power to representthe interests of the state at the localities in the case of federal overreach.
Absolutely.
it requires uh the, well, it allows the governor and the attorney general to have uhpredominant authority uh over agreements that are entered into between local jurisdictions
(20:44):
or municipalities and the federal government.
If those agreements implicate uh
our, the state's sovereign rights and the citizen sovereign constitutional rights in ourstate.
Uh, and the, and I think it's extremely important, particularly in an age when, eventhough we have president Trump as our president, and I think, I know he understands
(21:07):
principle of federalism and I know he's trying to return power to the states, but it'salways important to assert and codify anytime we can, uh, our sovereign
constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment as a state.
And this bill does just that.
And it requires oversight and participation by the attorney general and government andallows them to rescind or nullify any agreement, any consent agreement by any public
(21:39):
official in state of Louisiana if it implicates our rights or in any way encroaches uponour rights ah as a state.
And so I think it's extremely important.
Hats off to Mike Johnson, hats off to Liz Murrell.
And, you know, it's just really, really important that we got this done.
(22:00):
So this is going to the governor's desk, right, Danielle?
Yeah, it's going to his desk.
And Chris, just for the sake of our listeners, also for my sake, you've talked a lot thissession about consent agreements.
This is kind of the first time this has been bubbling up in the legislature over the lastcouple of years, that term.
Would you talk a little bit about what a consent agreement is?
(22:22):
Sure.
uh I'll give you one example.
uh Under Biden, the Department of Justice uh engages in an investigation of a policedepartment, okay, in a given city.
Let's take Baton Rouge, just hypothetical, just an example.
(22:47):
They come in, they investigate, and they...
And they're looking for any kind of pattern of what's called deliberate indifference tothe rights of defendants, to the rights of inmates, to any constitutional deprivation that
they can find.
(23:07):
And they will come to their conclusions and they will say, we're going to we're going toinvestigate you into the ground.
going to we're going to.
pound you like there's no tomorrow perpetually unless you enter into this consentagreement, agree to pay this money and agree to do all of these things under our
(23:33):
jurisdiction and supervision for the next 10 years.
And so these local police departments and municipalities are locked into these consentagreements where it's really
the state, it's state tax dollars who are paying all this money to the federal government.
uh And to be honest with you, the federal government does not have the primary authorityto come in and investigate.
(24:00):
That's the primary responsibility of state government to go in and determine whether ornot they are following the Constitution.
The federal government just comes right in and trespasses right over us and does whateverit wants to do.
And these local municipalities are so intimidated by the federal government that theyenter into these agreements that lock them in for years, basically being a slave to the
(24:27):
federal government.
That's the kind of thing this bill would guard against.
And it would require the attorney general and the governor to approve those agreements andto engage in litigation against the federal government on those issues.
it's a hugely
important issue.
Awesome.
That's super helpful.
(24:47):
And I'm going to ask you for another example for our next bill.
So House Bill 206 also um was concurred.
And that is Representative Michael Melloran's bill.
This is one that we hated with the fire of a thousand suns because it was going to givethe Secretary of State's office and all of the basically the election apparatus, the
(25:10):
election bureaucracy of the state, the ability to uh break the law.
and then have the legislature retroactively paper over it and say, know what, it's okay,no big deal, just by sending an email.
So that was uh completely transformed in the last couple of days.
We talked about it on the last show, but there was some concern also on this, Chris,about, there was some language in this regarding a consent agreement as well.
(25:40):
And that was what led, I believe Paul heard,
to say this is about getting Cleo Field to seat, uh regardless of what the outcome of theSupreme Court ruling on the gerrymandering case is.
Exactly and Paul Hurge, the one who brought our attention to this.
I was initially perplexed by this bill, Daniel, HB 206.
(26:03):
First of all, because it was completely unnecessary.
ah You know, the bill basically said that, know, originally if you go out there and you,uh know, a municipality or an election official in Louisiana enters into an agreement, a
consent agreement with any third party that
(26:23):
that violates the law, that's illegal, then they can enter into the agreement and comeback and just get it ratified in the legislature through a concurrent resolution, which is
a streamlined process.
It's not like passing a bill.
It doesn't require governor's review or judicial scrutiny.
And it didn't even require them to convene originally.
(26:45):
ah And so it was just extraordinary that they would be taking such a uh step.
in such a streamlined way and in probably a way that's unconstitutional.
And so we were looking at it I was very concerned and like, why are they doing this?
Why are they doing this?
Why are they doing this?
And then Paul Hurd called us, who is probably the most accomplished redistricting lawyerin the state, if not the country, who's handled so many redistricting cases, all the big
(27:14):
ones.
And he called and said, Chris, let me tell you what I think is going on here.
They're doing this because they're going to try to use this
as a mechanism to enter into a consent agreement with uh Cleo Fields or people who aresimilarly situated to Cleo Fields to create another district for him so he can serve a
(27:36):
second term in Congress after the US Supreme Court vacates his current congressionaldistrict.
And they can do that, present that to the federal court, and the federal court would haveto accept that.
because it was a consent agreement entered into between the Secretary of State and CleoFields.
And so we were like, wow, so that is what this is all about.
(27:58):
And so we began to raise the red alarm about that and said, this is what they are tryingto accomplish here.
We had a major call to action on this.
And ultimately on the Senate floor, Senator Seabal, who carried this bill on the Senatefloor, specifically said,
that this bill, this law may not be used uh for any purpose of redistricting orreapportionment at all, cannot be used for that.
(28:28):
So that was our huge concern.
That's now out.
It's in the bill.
You can't use it.
So hopefully, bye bye, Cleo.
And secondly, uh it said, it was admitted and said that uh these agreement, that thisratification of any
Agreement any illegal election agreement has to be approved by the legislature before it'sentered into and it has to be done in the normal Methodology in the legislature just the
(28:59):
way if they were passing a bill so they have to convene they have to be present they can'tdo it remotely and so these are significant improvements to this bill, I don't at this
point other than having just a
a general concern about or perplexity about why the legislature would even be passing abill that would give them the authority to ratify something that's illegal without passing
(29:29):
a bill to cure the illegality.
I'm still a little perplexed by why they're...
To be honest with you, Danielle, now that it's been amended in this way and it can't beused for redistricting, I don't think it means anything anymore.
I think they're going to have to push it across the finish line.
You know why?
Because if they don't, if they just let it down the vine right now, what's the messagethat that will send?
(29:54):
We were only doing it for the exact reason that you suggested.
We can't do that now, so who cares?
So they have to push it through to the end.
Amazing, absolutely amazing.
It's stunning what some people in the Secretary of State's office are willing to pushforward with.
Absolutely stunning.
absolutely.
So they're going to push it through to the end, even though it doesn't really meananything at this point.
(30:18):
And it could still be challenged as unconstitutional.
And it may be.
And Chris, I'll be looking out on the Secretary of State's website to see when shepublishes what actions she's going to take and what this is going to mean for the law
going forward as it relates to her office.
You know what?
Let's see.
Let's see what she puts up, right?
But I don't think she's particularly happy about it.
(30:40):
No, I hope she's not happy about it.
I'm not happy about her right now.
So we can have a little mutuality there.
All right.
And then the rest of the bills that we have on the docket today are still awaiting final,final passage.
I'll just run through them and Chris, em you can remind folks what they're about.
(31:02):
The first one is House Bill 160 by Representative Kelly Dickerson.
This is her ethics complaints bill.
It's been hung up for a while.
yeah, it's been hung up on the Senate floor for a while.
There was a letter that was sent by, I believe, the chairman of the State Ethics Board andsaid that, you know, a law requiring a complainant to disclose their identity at some
(31:23):
point would have a chilling effect on their willingness to file complaints againstpowerful public officials, ah even though the bill has very strong
whistleblower protections in it, anti-retaliation protections in it, just like in otherparts of Louisiana law.
but their position is that these complainants can still remain anonymous throughout aninvestigation, leave an accused completely in the dark about who's accusing him or her.
(31:52):
And it's just, it's extraordinary.
So, that's probably why the bill has not been called yet, Danielle, but I am going tocontinue to beat this drum.
uh relentlessly, because just on an instinctive level and as a matter of basic fairness,it is completely unjust for an American citizen to be accused of an ethics violation and
(32:17):
never be able to determine who his accuser is.
I just find that fundamentally un-American, you know, and I understand the fear ofretaliation.
I get that, believe me, but that's why the whistleblower protections are in there.
And they've got to strike a balance here.
Look, if they call HB 160 tomorrow on the Senate floor, they could.
(32:42):
They could vote for it.
It could pass and it could go to the governor's desk.
But according to what Representative Hennessy says, she's very disappointed.
Dickerson says she's very disappointed about this, by the way, that the Republicans arenot standing up and energetically pushing this bill.
But they're not.
And Chris, a couple of points on that.
(33:03):
One, I find it very interesting that an appointed, the president of the ethics board is anappointed position.
What is, okay.
So that an appointee would ah wield enough power to run roughshod over the entirelegislature.
Are you kidding me?
Is that a proxy is a question.
(33:24):
It can be rhetorical.
And then the second point is,
uh How does the ethics board get paid?
Do they get paid by the hour by the case?
I mean, are they incentivized to have more cases rather than fewer?
ah I think most of the members of the ethics board, that's a good question.
I guess they get paid a salary.
(33:46):
don't think they're paid by the hour, but it's certainly job security.
There's no question about that.
It's job security.
The more complaints that come in, the more job security they have.
No uh question about that.
Can you imagine if people started having to identify who they are when they make acomplaint?
(34:08):
and therefore there are 30 or 35 or 40 percent fewer frivolous ethics complaints filedagainst people.
Let me tell you what, maybe they'd have to downsize a little bit.
Maybe some people wouldn't have a job.
I would love it if the ethics board as a screening requirement mandated that people who,only people who hate gossip can be added to the board, can be nominated to the board.
(34:31):
People who love gossip, because that's what this is about, right?
I mean, this is essentially he said, she said, except the one of the saids doesn't get tosay, right?
Like you can only speculate what your side of the story is if you have no idea who is, um
sending a complaint against you.
Exactly.
(34:51):
That's exactly right.
He said, she said.
Now there are times, Danielle, when the cases are document intensive, uh you know, and youcan kind of tell what happened by looking at the documents.
But my argument to Senator Miller was, Senator Miller, the complainant's credibility, justlike in any criminal case, just like in any civil case, is always an issue.
(35:17):
the history of the relationship between a complainant and an accused, the possible motivethat a complainant may have to file an ethics complaint.
All of those things are relevant.
And how are you going to get that information except from the person who's being accused?
And how can they give it to you if they don't know who's accusing them?
So this is really a matter of due process.
(35:38):
It's a matter of fundamental fairness.
And look, you know what they could have done, Danielle?
They could have, if you don't think the whistleblower protections are strong enough in thebill,
amend the bill and make the whistleblower protections and the anti-retaliation provisionsstronger.
Just do whatever you feel like you need to do to protect a complainant.
(35:58):
That's fine.
But you have to let the accused know who is accusing them.
Representative Dickerson, you know, is so right about this issue.
But you know why she feels so passionate about this, Danielle?
Because she herself was a victim of this.
exactly what we're talking about right now.
(36:20):
And I guarantee you, if there were people up on that Senate Governmental AffairsCommittee, or enough senators who had been through what she's been through, I guarantee
you they would look at this through a different prism.
Yeah, are people, when someone files an ethics complaint, are they able to do soanonymously or does the board know who filed the complaint but they don't disclose it to
(36:45):
ah the person that's being complained against?
The board, I believe, knows who's filing the complaint, ah but a copy of the complaint issent to the accused redacted.
The board redacts the identifying information of the complainant.
So if it's currently redacted, that tells me that they're the ones doing the redaction.
(37:10):
And then they're sending it on to the accused.
But the accused doesn't know who it is.
I would certainly hope that they do at least some basic online research about thecomplainant before taking the case.
Well, I would hope so too.
You know, you would hope so.
And they probably can get some relevant information by doing that.
(37:30):
But there's certain information that may be very relevant, critically relevant, that theycan only get from the accused.
And the thing about it is, another thing, Danielle, why is it fair that ethicsinvestigators can talk to a complainant about the credibility
(37:52):
of an accused and find out whatever they want to find out about the accused partially froma complainant, but they can't talk to the accused about the complainant.
That doesn't make any sense either.
No, no, agree with you.
All right.
Well, next up is House Bill 603 by Representative Dixon McMakin.
(38:14):
This is his bill to give more power to Governor Landry by uh making it so that he doesn'thave to uh adhere to any of the recommendations for nominations to certain boards,
committees, and other authorities.
And it has been sitting for a while now.
(38:34):
I'm surprised, Danielle, that oh HB 603, which would eliminate the requirement, themandatory requirement that the governor choose the heads of all of these powerful
regulatory boards, about 31 mentioned in the bill, that he would have to choose thoseappointees from the list provided to him by trade associations.
This bill would eliminate that requirement and give him just authority to appoint whoeverhe wants.
(39:00):
So I'm surprised if Governor Landry
wants this bill, why it's still sitting on the Senate floor?
Why it hasn't been voted on?
Well, I hope it's because some senators are digging in their heels and saying, I ain'tgonna go this way.
Well, you know what, would be a pleasant development if that were to happen.
(39:21):
because, and you and I have talked about this, and we understand that there are, you know,there's corruption on both sides.
No matter who is appointing ah the heads of these regulatory boards, there's always, youknow, a dual motive.
You know, sometimes, you know, partially they want to appoint someone good, but alwaysthey want to appoint someone that they can control or influence or is going to...
(39:44):
do things that favor them.
It's human nature, I think.
And our position was simply that, yes, there's corruption on both sides, but I like thefact that there are more people participating in the corruption rather than just all the
power being vested in one person.
And you know, Chris, what just occurred to me, and I'm not sure why it didn't occur to meall session, but this is going up against some pretty big lobbies.
(40:12):
So, you know, the referring authorities would be pretty big lobbyists ah that areproviding the recommendations, if I'm not mistaken.
So you're saying that one of the reasons, maybe the main reason why this is stalling onthe floor is because these lobbyists for these trade associations are sitting there
(40:33):
saying, uh-uh, we're not going this way.
Yeah, that's a great point.
So we'll see what happens on 603.
But again, it's been pending in there for a week or so now, huh, Danielle?
At least.
Okay, next up, this is one of the ones that has you hot under the collar, HB 685 byRepresentative Emily Shenevere.
(41:00):
This is the bill that would get DEI out of state agencies.
It is languishing.
I know you've done a strong call to action.
Lots of people have called the pushing Senate president.
ah Cameron Henry to call the bill and as of yet he has not.
(41:21):
He's not called the bill.
This bill is stuck on second reading in the Senate.
This is a critical bill to purge public agencies and our colleges from, uh you know,diversity, equity and inclusion.
This Marxist concept that teaches us basically to hate another person if they're not yourrace or your gender, teaches everybody to view the country, view the history of the
(41:46):
country and the Constitution through the prism of
victimhood and race and gender, it's an absolute poison that permeates our publiceducation system, particularly our public colleges, and even our public agencies with
regard to the hiring criteria that they use.
It's essentially a form of cultural affirmative action is what it is.
(42:10):
And so it's a dangerous cancer.
And why is this bill not being called in the Senate?
It makes absolutely no sense.
It enrages me that we sit here day in and day out.
We got one day left in the session and we can't get a Republican dominated state Senate topass this bill and send it to the governor.
(42:33):
And nobody will give us an explanation for why they won't do it.
And that's the thing that makes me even more angry about it.
When we reach out to them and say, look, can you just give us an explanation for this?
Maybe there's a good reason why you're not calling the bill.
But I don't like being ignored.
I don't like reaching out and asking these people these things, especially when there arecitizens across the state reaching out and wanting to the same thing and being ignored.
(42:59):
These people work for us.
We don't work for them.
And this is a very, very important issue, critically important, and we shouldn't bewaiting another year to get this passed and get it to the governor's desk.
There's no reason for that.
And that's the reason why I'm in a foul mood when it comes to this bill.
You are and I'll say that my best guess Chris is the same as the last bill.
(43:21):
There's some big powerful lobbies that would be against this ah and I won't name names butI have some suspicions of who could be behind this ah stalling this bill.
Well, and you're okay.
Well, and I'm not going to coerce you to name any names, but the bottom line is I don'tgive a tinkers damn who's opposing the legislation.
(43:44):
These people were these people were elected by us.
70, 80 percent of the citizens of Louisiana understand how dangerous these concepts are,how they've.
how they've crept into our institutions over the last 50 years.
They all understand that.
And these Republicans, I guarantee you, there's not a senator in that chamber who, if hewere running for his office and someone asked him, if you get elected and you get a bill
(44:11):
on the Senate floor that it will eliminate this garbage from our public institutions andour colleges, will you vote for it?
Will you insist that it go to a vote?
Of course we will.
We agree with you 100 % on this.
We can't stand this stuff.
It's very dangerous.
What if they had said, no, no, I don't care about that.
I don't care if our kids are being taught to hate each other.
(44:34):
I don't care if they're being taught that our founding fathers are racist and that theyare at an inherent disadvantage and they're victims because they're African-American or
they're minorities or because they're a female.
I don't care about that.
I don't, that's no big deal to me.
The guarantee they would have never been elected if they had answered that way.
So do your job, represent the people who put you there, pass this bill and get it to thegovernor.
(44:59):
By the way, Danielle, you realize that about in 2004, Governor Landry himself issued anexecutive order prohibiting 24, prohibiting critical race theory from being, you know,
banning critical race theory from our public education system.
(45:20):
So Governor Landry himself has weighed in on this through an executive order.
Basically this is, and where is it, and where is his pressure?
This is one of a number of issues where Governor Landry sits there, he knows what's goingon in the Senate, he himself has weighed in on CR2, where is he?
(45:41):
Why is he not putting the weight of his authority in his office?
behind this bill.
Why is he not doing that?
It makes no sense to me.
And as far as I'm concerned, silence is complicity.
Silence is complicity.
You can't just be neutral in matters of profound moral urgency.
And that's what this is.
And that's what he's doing.
(46:01):
And that's, you just reminded me of another thing to be in a foul mood about.
Sorry.
Sorry for that.
I wanted it to be complete.
You you had to reach the fullness of the foulness.
Okay.
Yeah, a couple left.
House Bill 590 by Representative Annie Spell.
(46:22):
This is her bill that would get foreign funding for elections and election campaigns outof our state.
And the only reason this is not moving is because of corruption.
And I dare someone to try and change my mind.
And let's, I think you're right, Danielle, because I can't think of any other reason why abill that prohibits foreign governments and non-citizens of the United States from
(46:49):
donating money to Louisiana campaigns and Louisiana candidates and Louisiana ballotinitiatives and propositions, why a bill like that would be languishing on the Senate
floor.
I don't understand that.
As if there's no, as if,
We don't have foreign countries that want to influence our campaigns and our candidates.
(47:14):
I mean, they try to influence our elections all the time.
Why would that not be a way that they would try to do that?
By finding the candidate that they feel like they can mostly manipulate, the weakercandidate, the candidate who's more liberal, donate tons of money to their campaign, and
then guess what happens?
They own them.
And oftentimes,
They do not have the best interests of Louisiana citizens or even American, our country atheart.
(47:39):
So why not ban that altogether?
You know, and it's a good bill, Representative Spell, she's a new representative, but it'sa very good bill.
So why is an important bill like that sitting on the Senate floor and not being calledwith one day left in a session?
Yeah.
Well, you know where I stand.
They're looking to get their mortgages paid.
(48:01):
looking to have their Mardi Gras crew dues paid, their country club fees paid.
Chris, this bill not moving along with the way that uh the Secretary of State's office hasoperated with regard to shoving the machines down our throat this session just reeks of
(48:23):
foreign interference.
It reeks of foreign influence.
mean, we know those machines, for instance, are all assembled, all manufactured, allprogrammed in countries outside of the US.
ah So you know what?
Maybe they're listening to the Chinese on this.
Maybe it's the Chinese lobby that has stopped this bill.
(48:46):
Maybe it's their own self-interest.
Danielle, Chuck Owen has said this so eloquently, and he's 100 % right.
China has already insinuated itself into our culture, into our politics, into our economy,into our elections, into our infrastructure, with the ultimate goal of dismantling it.
(49:07):
And don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
They want to dismantle our critical infrastructure.
There's no question about it.
And we have an opportunity in this bill
to prohibit them in this facet from being able to do that with a stone wall betweenforeign donations and our campaigns and candidates and propositions in Louisiana.
(49:28):
And this bill is not moving on the Senate floor where other things that may be important,but not nearly as important as this are voted on past and sitting on the governor's desk.
I want an explanation for this.
I want an explanation for this.
I really want an explanation for it in light of the fact that the Senate president, wherethis bill is languishing on the floor, there's about a hundred percent chance that he's
(49:54):
the one who drafted the amendment in Senate governmental affairs that would haveeliminated the second Republican primary and walked Senator Cassidy back into the U.S.
in the second term when he can't win in a statewide race against a Republican.
Fortunately, we fought hard.
We've already talked about this and
that was not offered as an amendment on the floor.
(50:15):
But it's very revealing to me.
Why would the Senate president be doing that?
I'm suspicious about that.
Just like I'm suspicious about why this 590 is not moving.
So we're gonna continue to beat the drum on it, continue to move.
There's one day left, by the way, Danielle, and we're gonna make it clear that if itdoesn't move, we're gonna find out why it's not moving.
(50:38):
Well, Chris, I think you just made a very astute connection there.
And perhaps it's not necessarily the state level representatives that we need to beworried about with regard to foreign funding, although we probably should, because I don't
believe that the interest of the Chinese have left any stone unturned.
ah But is this pressure from Bill Cassidy?
(51:04):
It's a good question.
Well, it is a good question.
you know he's not fundraising very much in Louisiana and he has huge, huge amounts raised.
Although I will say, I mean, it is against the federal law already, right?
This is against federal law.
I think it is against federal law, yeah.
So I don't know if Cassidy necessarily, of course, Danielle, you know what, so what's,well, that's a conversation for another day.
(51:31):
I was thinking what's to happen to someone from kicking money here in the state and thenthey just funnel it to Cassidy.
But the point is, I don't know that he would have an immediate interest in this, but.
I know that if Cameron Henry wanted this bill called on the Senate floor, it would becalled and it's not being called.
So either he unilaterally is making this call or he's getting orders from Governor Landry.
(51:55):
One of the two.
It's got to be one of those two things.
you know, we'll we're going to see, we're going to find we're going to find out.
But, you know, our inference, if 590 does not pass and if 685 does not pass.
We're going to reasonably infer that it's because the Senate president did not have theguts and the backbone to make sure that these bills were called and voted on.
(52:22):
Yeah.
Beautiful.
All right.
Well, we shall see.
And last but not least, uh one that is still waiting to be called up, House Bill 601 byRepresentative Brett Gaiman.
A lot of rules would have to be suspended and he'd have to get a lot of votes because youreminded me, Chris, that we're in that final window where two thirds vote is required to
(52:45):
pass a bill.
on the last, I can't remember how many hours of session or how many weeks of session, butI think it's the last week of session.
last week a session.
And before we get into 601, I'm going tell you, 685 and 590 that we just talked about,both of those bills should get two thirds.
Both of those bills should get two thirds in the Senate.
They're that important.
(53:06):
Now on 601, know, Representative Gaiman has told us two or three times now that he,unfortunately, doesn't think that he will have enough Republican votes to pass 601, which
is the whole reason why he took the route that he took.
to get as much of it into SB 244 as he could, which, you know, it's just a brillianttactical move on his part.
(53:30):
But at this point, I doubt that 601 is gonna be called, but you know what?
We can continue to put pressure on him for a record vote.
Danielle, at this point, because we have 244 going to the governor, I'm less concernedabout whether or not 601 passes than I am about that there's a uh vote on it.
Yeah.
(53:50):
because we've talked about that's very, very valuable.
I want to know which Republicans are going to vote against a bill that will repealimminent domain for carbon capture sequestration pipelines in Louisiana.
I want those Republicans to have to make a record vote.
That's what's important.
Yeah, and I guess we do have a pretty good idea by now based on the way they voted for anumber of other bills in this neighborhood, none of them probably had ah the strength of
(54:23):
this bill or quite the comprehensiveness of this one.
I would say that's a very fair assessment, no doubt.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, that rounds us out.
have, yeah, like you said, Chris, T minus one day and counting.
So we'll see if any of these things make it across the finish line.
uh Did you have anything else, Chris, that we missed?
(54:43):
I just want to say that if 685 and 590 don't get voted on, the three bills that I'm goingto be absolutely obsessed about and that I'm going to make sure, we're going to make sure
that every voter in Louisiana and these districts knows what these Republicans did is 685,590, and SB 226, Valerie Hodges' bill that was gutted in Senate Jude A.
(55:06):
Those three bills right there, the rest of them turned out more or less the way we wantit.
you know, exception of 577, but we got a lot of what we wanted with a lot of hard work,but these three bills, 226 is done.
I mean, I guess there's a chance miraculously it could get voted on on the floor.
But those are the three bills that I'm gonna be focused on when the session's over.
(55:31):
Yeah, and just a reminder to our listeners, uh SB 226 was Valerie Hodge's bill that uhwould protect our critical infrastructure from foreign hands, basically, or any kind of
foreign manipulation, including uh voting machines, all of our election equipment andsoftware, and including uh the property surrounding military installations.
(55:54):
And you can stand up, Senator Miller, when you run for reelection, if you're not termedout, you can stand up and explain to your constituents why you killed a bill that would
allow the state to take property from sworn foreign adversaries if that property islocated within 50 miles of a military base.
You can explain that to your constituents if you're able to do that.
(56:15):
I would say that Senator Miller put himself in the position of being Secretary of StateNancy Landry's sacrificial lamb this legislative session.
Yeah, and guess who's not going to be standing there with Senator Miller when he has toexplain this to his constituents?
Nancy Landry.
So, you know, we'll see.
We'll see, Danielle.
But we're going to keep rocking, keep rolling and moving forward.
(56:37):
One day left and I'm excited about the last day.
I think that God does great things at the 11th hour.
I really believe that.
And I think great things can happen tomorrow.
uh you know, lot of great things are yet.
to check out the LACAG Facebook page and the X page tomorrow because if anything majorhappens, you will be updating the people there.
(57:00):
I know you and Katie will be on top of that along with others.
um And also a note that we will resume next week, Tuesday, Thursday at 10 a.m., a muchmore humane hour.
And uh we will be doing our wrap up session.
So.
We'll give you the full rundown of what happened and where we go from here.
(57:21):
Yes, ma'am, and support LCAG, support the state of freedom.
We are absolutely thrilled to be your eyes, your ears, your watchdog in the legislature.
We're thrilled to be able to bring you information.
And Danielle, at this point, I just know the feeling of inevitability that I get when itcomes to the increasing scope and reach of the state of freedom.
(57:49):
I think it's inevitable.
ah that we're going to continue to grow.
And I'm just giddy with the prospects of what we're doing.
And can you imagine, I mean, in a short period of time, we're going to be heard everywherein the state.
And not because we are, you know, anything great that we're doing, other than trying totell the truth, which so few other people seem to be doing.
(58:15):
And so I'm thrilled.
And Chris, on that note, I just want to put out uh a call to all of the listeners.
If you are part of a local group that would like for us to come and talk to you about howyour uh legislators voted this session, let us know.
Drop us a line.
You can email Chris at chris.lacag.org.
(58:36):
can email me, Danielle, at freedomstate.us.
And we would love to hear from you.
We'd love to find a way to come and address your group because I think people, Chris, likeyou said, are hungry for the truth.
And um we know that, you for instance, I'm part of We the People Bayou community.
People down here are hungry for the truth and not all of them listen to our show.
(58:59):
uh But they do go to those meetings and they do have connectedness into the community.
And I think it's really important.
So if anyone's interested in having us talk to your group, just reach out and let us know.
We'd be happy to come and talk to y'all and get your thoughts as well on what might bebehind some of the shenanigans and also how proud you are of the legislators that stood
(59:23):
strong this session, which was really hard for a lot of them, I know.
Yeah, and I derive Danielle great strength and great inspiration from from citizens ofLouisiana, because I know that even when I'm in the legislature and I feel like it's all
of these, you know, so many rhinos, so many establishment people, so many bought and paidfor by the lobbyists, I know that the citizens of Louisiana stand with us.
(59:48):
And that gives me such great hope and great inspiration.
And I have a really deep faith as you do.
in the citizens of our state, a really strong and deep faith.
So that always sustains me.
I know it sustains you.
And I'm just excited about what uh tomorrow, next week, next year will bring us.
Yeah, absolutely.
(01:00:09):
Well, thank you, Chris.
God bless and thank you all for joining us today.
We will be catching you next week with the full rundown.
Love y'all.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com