In a legislative session dominated by Republican overreach—from attacks on bodily autonomy to the dismantling of diversity initiatives—Louisiana Democrats had an opportunity to offer a clear, principled counterweight. And in some cases, they did. But on too many issues that cut to the heart of progressive values—criminal justice reform, housing justice, and drug policy—Democratic lawmakers wavered, collaborated, or stayed silent. Whether it was a Democrat sponsoring legislation to dismantle homeless encampments or party leaders voting to criminalize the use of a basic natural plant, the message to voters has been anything but unified. While it’s true that Republican legislators pushed the most extreme bills, the Democratic Party’s credibility depends on more than just being slightly better. It requires consistency, courage, and a refusal to collaborate in oppression.
The Party Split on Homelessness
Two bills from this session—HB 619, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Alonzo Knox, and SB 196, authored by Republican Sen. Robert Owen—pushed a punitive approach to homelessness. HB 619 would require cities to enforce public camping bans or risk lawsuits, while also mandating nonprofits to hand over sensitive client data. SB 196 goes even further by creating a new offense of “unauthorized camping,” with repeat violations punishable by jail time and even hard labor.
Rep. Knox, who has generally been a reliable ally on progressive issues, framed his bill as a call for accountability and transparency in how homelessness funds are used. While his intentions may have been grounded in concern over outcomes and public safety, the bill still reflects a troubling shift: one that prioritizes enforcement and legal threats over investment in housing and care. In a city like New Orleans, where affordable housing remains out of reach for many, bills like HB 619 and SB 196 risk criminalizing poverty rather than solving it.
Big Easy Magazine recently reported on state‑led sweeps of homeless encampments ahead of major events—like the Super Bowl and Taylor Swift concerts—highlighting how these emergency actions prioritize optics over long‑term solutions.
Kratom Ban and the Return of Drug War Logic
Then came SB 154, a bill to ban kratom statewide. Despite years of advocacy by veterans, chronic pain patients, and addiction recovery advocates who use the plant as an alternative to opioids, the Louisiana legislature overwhelmingly voted to criminalize it. This time, Democrats didn’t just join the effort—they helped lead it. Among the supporters was House Democratic Caucus Chair, a key representative within the Louisiana Democratic Party leadership.
The move flies in the face of everything Democrats say they believe about harm reduction and criminal justice reform. Kratom, while not without risks, has a safety profile that is far less deadly than opioids or alcohol, especially when unadulterated. But rather than explore regulation or education, lawmakers embraced prohibition. This is the same logic that fueled the war on drugs, disproportionately criminalized poor and Black communities, and filled prisons while doing nothing to address root causes.
Progressives have long argued that drug use should be treated as a public health issue, not a crime. Yet here, faced with a moment to prove that belief, most of the party folded.
Where Democrats Got It Right: Opposing HB 685
To be clear, not every vote was a failure of principle. Louisiana Democrats came together to oppose HB 685, the sweeping Republican-authored bill that would have banned all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, programs, and training across public institutions in the state. The bill, introduced by Rep. Emily Chenevert, sought to erase policies that acknowledge race, gender identity, or systemic inequity. It was part of a national movement by conservatives to shut down even the mention of diversity in schools and government.
The House passed the bill 57–32, but thanks to pushback from Democratic lawmakers, student groups, and civil rights advocates, it stalled in the Senate and never became law. This was a moment when Democrats held the line—speaking out forcefully and taking votes that aligned with their values. That fight mattered. But it also exposed a contradiction: the party that rallied to protect DEI programs still saw some of its members support punitive homelessness bills that ultimately failed—and nearly all Democrats, including the House Democratic Caucus Chair, vote to criminalize kratom, a plant many use for pain and addiction recovery.
These contradictions aren’t limited to how Democrats vote in the legislature. Sometimes, the mixed signals come from inside the party itself.
When Party Platform Meets Political Reality
The Louisiana Democratic Party’s internal contradictions aren’t limited to legislation. As reported by the Louisiana Illuminator in March 2025, the party’s State Central Committee debated a resolution affirming its support for LGBTQI+ rights. The original draft included a clear accountability clause: it would have barred the party from endorsing or supporting Democratic candidates who use their votes or platforms to deny fundamental rights to LGBTQI+ citizens.
That clause was removed by a majority vote before the resolution passed. What remained was a symbolic statement—encouraging candidates to meet with LGBTQ+ constituents and align with party values—without any mechanism for enforcement. In a state where trans and nonbinary people face relentless attacks, this decision marked a retreat from meaningful action.
Jeremy Thompson, an openly queer member of the Democratic State Central Committee, later wrote in the Louisiana Illuminator that the amendment signaled a disturbing truth: “our party deliberately chose to weaken a resolution meant to hold accountable legislators and candidates who actively harm the LGBTQ+ community.” In his words, stripping out the accountability language was an implicit admission that the party is “open to endorsing or supporting Democratic candidates who deny fundamental rights” to LGBTQI+ citizens.
Even when given the chance to draw a clear moral line, Louisiana Democrats once again chose party flexibility over principle, and silence over solidarity.
The Bigger Picture: What Do Democrats Actually Stand For?
These contradictions matter. Not because Democratic lawmakers are expected to wield majority power in a Republican-dominated legislature, but because they should wield moral clarity. If Democrats say they oppose the criminalization of poverty and drug use, they can’t simultaneously vote for bills that do exactly that. If they claim to champion equity and compassion, they can’t treat those ideals as optional when it’s politically expedient.
The party’s opposition to HB 685 was a necessary stand, but it’s not enough. Voters need to see a consistent, coherent vision of justice. Right now, that vision is fractured.
Don’t Just Talk the Talk. Legislate the Walk
Progressive voters in Louisiana are not asking for perfection. We understand that compromise is often necessary. We know that in a Republican-dominated legislature, you sometimes have to take what you can get. We know that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good can stall progress.
But to be clear, voting to criminalize homelessness or incarcerate people for using a natural plant is complicity, not compromise. It’s not some fringe ideological complaint to say that housing people is better than jailing them, or that regulating kratom makes more sense than outlawing it entirely. That’s not “woke.” That’s just basic common sense backed by data, lived experience, and public health logic.
And worst of all — no one was forcing these votes. There was no urgent crisis demanding swift criminalization. No tidal wave of public pressure demanding jail time for sleeping in a tent or using kratom for pain relief. So why do it? Why go out of your way to pass bills that echo Republican priorities and abandon your own stated values?
If Louisiana Democrats want to build trust, they need to stop blurring the lines between themselves and the very forces they claim to oppose. In this moment, the question isn’t whether they’re perfect. It’s whether they’re distinguishable.
And really? Is it too much to ask that the Louisiana Democratic Party make a simple, explicit commitment not to support candidates who promote bigoted policies or attack marginalized communities? That shouldn’t be controversial. It should be the floor.
