Louisiana voters soundly rejected all four proposed amendments to the state constitution on Saturday, shutting the door on changes to courts, government finances, teacher pay increases, juvenile crime, and elections for judicial seats.

Read more: Gov. Jeff Landry points to ‘far left liberals’ as the reason why Amendment 2 failed

With nearly 100% of the precincts in, all four amendments had received less than 40% of the vote.

The defeat of Amendment 2, a sprawling revision of the section of the constitution that deals with state taxes and budgeting, was a loss for Gov. Jeff Landry, who had stumped across the state in support of the change. He couched it as part of his larger effort to make Louisiana’s tax system more attractive to business investment.

Landry in a statement Saturday night said, “Although we are disappointed in tonight’s results, we do not see this as a failure.”

“We realize how hard positive change can be to implement in a state that is conditioned for failure,” he said. “We will continue to fight to make the generational changes for Louisiana to succeed.”

Just 35% of voters supported the amendment, while 65% were opposed. Its defeat also means teachers will likely not get a planned pay raise, and it may disrupt state lawmakers’ plans for the state budget they will soon need to craft for the upcoming fiscal year. 

With the rejection of Amendment 3, Louisiana will not see an increase in the number of felony crimes for which teenagers can be charged as adults, a change that had been sought by some tough-on-crime lawmakers but decried by youth and criminal justice advocates. It failed 34% to 66%.

Louisiana will not see the creation of new regional or statewide specialty courts with the rejection of Amendment 1, which failed 35% to 65%. And the rejection of Amendment 4 means that the the timing of elections to fill vacant or newly created judicial seats will not change. It failed 36% to 64%.

Here is what the failed amendments sought to change in the Louisiana Constitution. 

Amendment 1

State lawmakers would have gained the power to create regional and statewide specialty courts, examples of which include drug, mental health and veterans courts. Currently, legislators can only create specialty courts within a parish or a judicial district.

Amendment 1 would have also clarified that, under the Louisiana Constitution, the state Supreme Court has authority over disciplinary cases involving misconduct by out-of-state attorneys doing legal work in Louisiana. The current constitutional language says the Supreme Court has authority over “disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.”

Proponents said the amendment would give state lawmakers flexibility to set up needed legal forums like business courts and ensure the state can punish bad actors who don’t live here. Opponents, however, said those pushing for the broader jurisdictional limits for courts hadn’t revealed exactly which kinds of courts they wanted to create nor the real reason behind the change.

Amendment 2

This amendment would have restructured one of the 14 articles of the Louisiana Constitution that governs state taxes and finance.

The legislation itself included dozens of changes. But at a broad level, Amendment 2 would have given state lawmakers more power to decide which revenue streams should fund government and how to spend those funds.

This would have been accomplished by moving some of the state’s tax and budgeting policies out of the constitution, where any policy change requires voter approval, and into state statute, which can be changed by lawmakers without a vote of the people.

Some constitutionally protected education trust funds would have been liquidated, and approximately $2 billion would have gone toward paying down a portion of debt in the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana. Savings from that debt payment would have funded a $2,000 salary increase for teachers and $1,000 salary increase for support staff.

The amendment would have made it more difficult for lawmakers to create new tax-break programs by requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature rather than a simple majority. New property tax exemptions would have needed a three-fourths vote.

Seniors age 65 and older would have been eligible to double their standard income tax deduction.

A constitutional cap on the state individual income tax rate will not decrease from 4.75% to 3.75%, nor will a constitutional limit be placed on how much state government can increase spending from one year to the next.

Proponents said Amendment 2 would streamline government and allow legislators to change economic development policies that are holding back the state. Opponents argued the policy changes would hurt the average individual taxpayer, and voters couldn’t truly understand the policy implications of the complicated amendment.

Amendment 3

This proposed amendment would have allowed state lawmakers to expand the list of crimes for which juveniles age 16 and younger could be treated as adults in the criminal court system.

Currently, juveniles can only be charged as adults for 16 specific felonies listed in the constitution, most of which are violent offenses like murder and rape. Amendment 3 would have thrown out that list and allowed lawmakers to choose to have juveniles charged as adults for any felony offense. 

Proponents said the change would help legislators respond more effectively to the state’s crime problems and make communities safer. Opponents said sending more young people to adult prisons is not an effective crime prevention strategy.

Amendment 4

This amendment would have changed the timeline for elections for vacant and newly created judicial seats.

Under the amendment, elections for these seats would have been held during a gubernatorial or congressional election happening within 12 months, or “on the election date first available pursuant to applicable law” passed by the Legislature.

Currently, the constitution says they must be held within 12 months of a vacancy.

Proponents said the change would potentially reduce the number of elections the state must hold as well as election administration costs. Some opponents said changes to election timelines should be made in statute rather than the constitution.