State Bond Commission approves placing Bossier City charter propositions on March ballot amid legal dispute

The State Bond Commission voted Dec. 12 to place three Bossier City charter propositions, including a prospective three-term limit for the mayor and council, on the March 29, 2025 ballot after hearing more than an hour of legal and public testimony.

The commission’s staff summarized the procedural history: a citizens’ coalition filed petitions in 2023 seeking retroactive term limits, the petition was certified by the registrar of voters, and a writ of mandamus followed when the city council did not add the item as required. That case is on appeal at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The charter commission appointed by the city council later submitted its own proposed charter changes, including a prospective term-limits amendment that would apply to terms starting January 2025. Staff said the propositions before the commission meet technical requirements for ballot placement.

Why it matters

The two competing approaches differ on retroactivity. The coalition’s petition would make prior service count toward lifetime limits, which backers say would prevent long-tenured incumbents from seeking reelection. The council-backed charter commission’s proposal is prospective: it would limit service beginning in January 2025 and mirror the three-term, four-year-term structure used by the state legislature. Which version — if both appear on a ballot — would prevail is an open question for voters and for the courts.

What officials told the commission

Richard Ray, assistant city attorney and a member of the charter commission, described an extensive charter-review process and argued the council’s package had been widely advertised and procedurally cured since October. "This version that is before you today is procedurally . . . in a posture where it can be passed," Ray said, urging placement on the March ballot to avoid an additional city election cost estimated at $87,600 if deferred to May.

Opponents, including members of the Bossier Term Limits Coalition, asked the commission to defer action until the appeals court resolves the retroactive petition. David Crockett, a retired colonel who identified himself as representing the coalition, said the city council had "flagrantly" fought the petition and urged the commission to let the courts and voters decide on a single, comprehensive contest. "Bossier City Council is flagrantly fighting the will of the people," Crockett said.

Legal and timing issues

Commission members questioned whether both the council’s prospective measure and the coalition’s retroactive petition could appear on the same ballot and whether statutory timing or city-charter provisions would preclude placing both measures before voters in the same cycle. Counsel explained that a writ of mandamus alleges the council had a nondiscretionary duty to place the petition on the agenda; the trial court agreed and ordered the council to do so, and that ruling is on appeal.

Some commissioners said the appeals process has taken too long and left the commission in a difficult position because the Secretary of State’s deadline to place items on the March 29 ballot is Jan. 2, 2025. Others urged deferral to avoid appearing to override the petitioners while the appeals court considers the matter.

The vote

After testimony and deliberation the commission voted to move the council-backed propositions onto the March 29 ballot. The roll-call recorded the following votes: Lieutenant Governor Nungesser — Yes; Miss Newsom — Yes; Mister Lester — Yes; President Henry — Yes; Senator Womack — Yes; Senator Foyle — Yes; Senator Edmonds — Yes; Representative McMakin — Yes; Representative McFarland — Yes; Representative Emerson — Yes; Representative Bakula — Yes; Commissioner Barra — Yes; Miss Brown — Yes; Miss Frio — Yes; Treasurer Fleming — No. The motion carried and the propositions will appear on the March 29, 2025 ballot.

What’s next

The retroactive petition remains under appeal at the 2nd Circuit, and the legal question of whether a retroactive charter amendment can be applied to current officeholders may determine whether both versions can lawfully appear on the same ballot or whether one would be mooted. The commission’s action made the council-backed, prospective charter amendments available to voters in March; challengers continue to press for timing that would allow the retroactive measure to appear on the same ballot.

The commission’s action was procedural — determining readiness for the ballot — not a judgment on the merits of either approach. The Bossier City litigation and any subsequent election campaigns will determine how voters and courts ultimately resolve the competing measures.