# Louisiana amendment struck down like the "B" it was.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-amendment-struck-down-like-the-b-it-was/267725>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [October 5, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-amendment-struck-down-like-the-b-it-was/267725 "2004-10-05T20:47:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-amendment-struck-down-like-the-b-it-was/267725/21 "2004-10-07T02:14:17Z")

</div>

> [@Otto](#):
>
> Which would put the nail in the coffin of your “marriage is just _different_” shtick…

Are you talking about the point I defended but ultimately conceded was wrong in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277181)?

> [@iampunha](#):
>
> 1. Is this limitation (one topic per amendment) held for all states’ constitutions (and if so by what?), is it a federal government mandate, or is there some other binding agent? I understand the rationale behind it, certainly, as it seems for one to be designed against having non sequitur riders on amendments.

There’s a short discussion in GD [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279429). The provision at issue here is a specific Louisiana constitutional amendment. I don’t know how many other states have similar rules, but it’s not universal.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. How many times has the requirement of one topic per amendment been the cause for striking down an amendment? I do not exactly run in a circle with a bunch of ConLaw lawyers, but given the level of activity on this board I would think there’d be some mention of it if there had been any such challenge.

Off the top of my head? I can’t recall another case of an amendment passing and then being struck down for this reason.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-amendment-struck-down-like-the-b-it-was/267725/22 "2004-10-07T02:18:29Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Off the top of my head? I can’t recall another case of an amendment passing and then being struck down for this reason.

WAG on my part, but I would suspect that is due to the vetting process weeding them out before they make it to the ballot.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-amendment-struck-down-like-the-b-it-was/267725/23 "2004-10-07T02:49:55Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Off the top of my head? I can’t recall another case of an amendment passing and then being struck down for this reason.

Any idea where one that didn’t pass muster - as opposed to being passed but later repealed - might be? Just my own curiousity here:)

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-amendment-struck-down-like-the-b-it-was/267725.md?page=1)