Louisiana lawmakers this year decided to give judges a one-time pay bump, similar to what they gave public school teachers, but with one significant distinction: Teachers will get a $2,000 stipend; judges will get from roughly $15,000 to almost $17,700 each.

Lemme say right up front that I believe the vast majority of Louisiana’s judges, like the vast majority of teachers, deserve better pay.

Ah, there’s the rub.

The recent stipend that legislators gave to judges was intended to be paid out over the course of the current fiscal year, as the money is earned — similar to how teachers have received their non-recurring stipends in recent years.

But six of the seven Louisiana Supreme Court justices decided to take their stipends in one lump sum — in advance — this week. Worse, the six justices (all except Chief Justice John Weimer) decreed that all other judges must do likewise or forfeit the stipend altogether. And most galling of all, two of the justices will leave the court in the coming months, and thus pocket a full year’s stipend for no more than a half year’s work. 

The decision to jam the lower court judges came in response to a request from several of them to do the right thing and take the stipend incrementally, after it is earned, which is what common sense and the Louisiana Constitution require.

In effect, the six justices are forcing lower court judges to join their money grab in order to give themselves cover, the law be damned.

Public opinion of the judiciary is already low. The six Supremes’ decision to take the money and run will only make things worse.

One-time “bonuses” to Louisiana public employees are outlawed by our state constitution — unless the payments are made after future services are rendered. They cannot be extra compensation for past services already rendered and paid for. 

That’s not my opinion. It’s from a 2010 Louisiana Attorney General’s opinion, citing a landmark Louisiana Supreme Court decision known as the Cabela’s case. It’s why teachers get their stipends periodically, typically after each semester.

It’s also what lawmakers intended when they voted to give the judges a pay bump.

“The legislative intent was to spread it out over the year, but I guess we should have been more specific in the language,” state Rep. Jack McFarland, R-Winnfield, told The Times-Picayune | The Advocate. McFarland chairs the House Appropriations Committee and authored the bill that included the stipend.

Lawmakers also added a condition for judges receiving the stipend: participation in a “workpoint study” designed track the workloads and output of judicial districts and potentially individual judges. The study would help lawmakers decide which courts need to be expanded and which should be reduced in size.

Which explains why some judges don’t want to see such a study happen.

State Rep. Jerome “Zee” Zeringue, R-Houma, has pushed for a workpoint study for years, to no avail. Zeringue, who previously chaired the appropriations panel for four years, confirmed McFarland’s comment on legislators’ intent regarding the stipend being paid out periodically.

The justices are not the only ones flouting the clear legislative intent, however. Gov. Jeff Landry line-item vetoed the workpoint study requirement — but left the stipend intact.

That means taxpayers will foot the roughly $6 million cost of the judicial stipend, but we’ll never know which judges actually earn the extra dough. We can, however, identify some who definitely won’t earn it.

Associate Supreme Court Justice James Genovese will pocket $15,280 up front but leave the court by mid-September, when he will become Landry’s hand-picked president of Northwestern State University in Natchitoches. By leaving early, Genovese will technically earn less than 20% of the stipend. He’ll also will get a handsome pay raise at Northwestern, plus housing and other perks, on top of his enhanced judicial retirement.

Associate Justice Scott Crichton likewise will take the same $15,280 in advance but not serve past Dec. 31, when his current term expires. Crichton has already reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. He’ll earn only half of his stipend.

Several other judges likewise are set to receive the full stipend but only work half a year.

It’s a shame that the avarice of a few jurists will reflect badly on all judges, most of whom work hard to uphold the notion of an independent judiciary. They deserve better.

The Legislature, through the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, should correct this abuse by ensuring that judges who rightly decline to take the up-front money still get it periodically, as the law requires, after they’ve earned it.