Good news everyone! Louisiana’s Judicial Compensation Commission meets Monday at the Capitol! It’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for!
Just kidding - we have probably not all been waiting for this moment. But that doesn’t mean it’s not interesting or important. Normally, it’s not big news when the Judicial Compensation Commission gets together, but this meeting isn’t quite business as usual.
The Commission - whose only function is to decide how much judges get paid and periodically decide whether or not that number needs an adjustment - is walking straight into a long-running, unusually public fight inside the Louisiana judiciary. This is a fight about money, transparency, and whether the public is getting a full picture of the system that decides judges’ pay.
Here’s the Cliff’s Notes:
Louisiana judges have already received some of the largest boosts to their compensation in decades, including a $14,000–$17,000 lump-sum stipend last year, and another supplement this year. Both count toward retirement, and both significantly increase how much money judges take home. Public records show the average base salary for Louisiana judges (and it is a demanding full-time job, to be sure) is around $169,000 at district court level and closer to $197,000 for the state Supreme Court. The stipends and supplements stack on top of that.
Now, on Monday, a state-hired economist will present a new report about whether judges should get yet another raise. But the question hanging in the air is this: Does that report actually reflect how much judges are already being paid?
This isn’t coming out of nowhere. Chief Justice John Weimer has been publicly clashing with other members of the Louisiana Supreme Court for years over various parts of judicial compensation - per diems, stipends, supplemental payments, and how transparent the system should be with all of that. He has often been the only vote pushing for tighter rules and clearer accounting on behalf of us taxpayers, while the rest of the court has, well, not voted that way.
Those disagreements have spilled over into legislative hearings, auditor reports, and, at times, some awkward public testimony where lawmakers found themselves caught between competing groups of judges. More than once, legislators have said straight up that they’re confused by how opaque the system is. On top of that, many of these legislators would like to someday become judges themselves, so it’s not only technically complex - it’s got a little "smoke-filled back room” vibe about it.
Another thing to know: Last year’s stipend wasn’t gradual, it was paid all at once at the start of the fiscal year. So judges could pocket the full amount even if they retired or stepped down the next day. Chief Justice Weimer publicly warned that could violate the state constitution’s ban on giving public funds for work not performed. If we paid a gardener $17,000 all at once in January to pull weeds year round and then he quit in February and got to keep the money, we’d be upset, right?
Monday’s meeting brings the issue back into the spotlight when the Commission meets to decide what to recommend to the Legislature. This year, members will receive a new analysis from economist Dr. Loren Scott, whose past reports on the matter have played a significant role in shaping judicial raises.
But the timing is different than in past years because judges just received a large lump-sum stipend, and they just received a taxable supplement. Lawmakers had tried to require a “workpoint study,” which is basically a workload and caseload analysis to determine whether the state even has the right number of judges for our population before judges could get another raise. But Governor Landry vetoed that requirement, meaning judges got the boost without having to show their work to anyone outside the judiciary itself. Neat trick.
For people who follow judicial politics, it’s not clear how the Commission will view the recent increases, or whether Monday’s report will fully account for them. Maybe they won’t consider them at all. This would be like having five drinks at the bar and then getting home and telling your spouse you only had one, because you’re only counting the ones you feel like counting.
So why does any of this really matter to John Q. Public? Judicial pay isn’t just an abstract accounting issue inside the courthouse. The Legislature signs off on it, and we pay for it through taxes and court fees. And when you change how judges get paid, you can end up changing how many judges the state has, where they’re assigned, how effectively the justice system runs, and how transparent the courts are willing to be about those decisions.
That’s why Monday’s meeting is worth our attention. It’s not just about whether judges get a raise or not, it’s about how the system works, who has power inside it, and how openly that power is exercised.
I’ve requested and received specific, relevant documents tied to the Commission’s work and will be checking them out over the weekend. After Monday’s meeting, when the full picture of the presentation and the discussion becomes public, let’s sort through the noise, follow the money, and explain exactly what’s at stake for everyone who isn’t wearing a robe.
Stay tuned!