JUDGES: Provides relative to judicial salaries (EN +$6,690,757 GF EX See Note)
Summary
HB 324 enacts R.S. 13:51 to adjust judicial compensation in Louisiana. The bill converts the temporary supplement authorized by Act 390 of the 2025 Regular Session into a continuing cost-of-living adjustment effective July 1, 2026, and then sets specific salary increases for justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court, judges of the courts of appeal, district court judges, and the state-paid salaries of city and parish court judges. It also provides for an additional 2.7% increase effective July 1, 2027.
The bill ties the 2026 increase to the Judicial Compensation Commission’s recommendation and specifies dollar amounts for the major court levels, with city and parish court judges receiving the same percentage increase as district court judges. It also states that the 2026-27 cost-of-living adjustment must be funded by the judiciary itself, if the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Louisiana Judicial Budgetary Control Board certify that sufficient reserves exist. The measure was enacted as Act 793.
Impact
HB 324 changes Louisiana law by creating a new statutory provision governing judicial salaries and by making the prior supplemental payment part of base compensation. It affects the salaries of Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, district court judges, and state-paid city and parish court judges, and it shifts at least one year of the cost-of-living adjustment cost to the judiciary’s own reserves rather than the general fund. The fiscal note indicates a significant general fund exposure overall, but the bill’s text limits the 2026-27 adjustment to judiciary-funded reserves if certified available.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had strong bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 93-0, the Senate 37-0, and the House again 88-0 on concurrence, indicating broad agreement on the need to adjust judicial pay. The unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as routine or necessary compensation legislation rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, and no committee transcript excerpts were provided. The only potentially sensitive issue reflected in the bill text is funding: the 2026-27 cost-of-living adjustment is to be paid from judiciary reserves only if the Supreme Court and Judicial Budgetary Control Board certify that sufficient reserves exist. That funding mechanism may have been intended to limit pressure on the state budget, but no recorded debate or opposition is available to show disagreement over it.