HB 586 would call a Louisiana constitutional convention to draft an entirely new state constitution. The bill sets the convention to begin on December 2, 2025, and establishes 105 delegates: most elected by parish, with additional appointees from specified judicial, law enforcement, local government, education, and executive branch entities. It also lays out delegate qualifications, ethics and criminal-law coverage, limits on campaign fundraising, public records and open meetings requirements, vacancy-filling procedures, and compensation and expense rules for the convention.
The convention would be organized with an oath, officers, an executive committee, and 14 subject-matter committees corresponding to the articles of the 1974 Constitution, plus an executive committee. It must complete committee work by September 2, 2026, finish the full convention’s work by October 2, 2026, and submit a proposed constitution to the governor for placement on the ballot at the December 12, 2026 general congressional election. Adoption would require a statewide majority vote, and if approved, the new constitution would take effect at midnight on December 31, 2026, unless the new constitution provides otherwise.
A major structural feature of the bill is its treatment of existing constitutional provisions that are not carried forward. Those provisions would be converted into statutes in a new Title 57 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, and changes to that statutory title would require a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature. The bill also provides for judicial review in the 19th Judicial District Court, with direct appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, for disputes over the act’s validity or the convention’s compliance with the act.
The bill’s impact on state law would be sweeping because it authorizes a process to replace the current constitution rather than amend it piecemeal. It would affect the legislature, the governor, the judiciary, local officials, state agencies, voters, and the public by creating a one-time constitutional drafting body, establishing election procedures for delegates and ratification, and potentially relocating many existing constitutional provisions into statute. It also changes the legal status of convention participants by applying ethics, criminal, public records, and open meetings rules to them and by exempting their service from dual officeholding restrictions.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from formal debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a reform-oriented view that Louisiana’s constitution is too long, too detailed, and too restrictive. The main points of contention likely concern the scale of the undertaking, the method of delegate selection, the role of appointed delegates and the governor, the cost of the convention, and the risk that moving constitutional provisions into statute could make important protections easier or harder to change depending on one’s perspective.
HB 586 would authorize a constitutional convention and create a detailed legal framework for selecting delegates, conducting the convention, and submitting a new constitution to voters. If adopted, it would supersede the current amendment-by-amendment approach with a process aimed at replacing the 1974 Constitution, while preserving non-retained provisions as statutes in a new Title 57 subject to a two-thirds legislative vote for future changes. It would also impose new procedural rules, ethics requirements, public access obligations, and judicial review mechanisms on the convention and its participants.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. The bill’s findings and structure suggest a reform-minded, pro-convention sentiment among its sponsor and supporters, emphasizing simplification of the constitution and greater legislative flexibility. At the same time, the proposal is inherently significant and likely to draw caution from those concerned about the breadth of the rewrite, the cost, and the concentration of authority in a convention process.
The likely points of contention are the decision to call a full constitutional convention instead of pursuing targeted amendments, the composition of the 105-member delegate body, and the mix of elected and appointed delegates. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of existing constitutional provisions as statutes in a new Title 57, especially the requirement that future changes to those provisions receive a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber. Cost, timing, and the scope of the convention’s authority, as well as the governor’s role in calling the ratification election and the bill’s limits on private funding and proxy voting, are also likely to be debated.