Barry Ivey

An abortion should only be allowed when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Concurrently, all efforts should be made to save the life of the baby.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

I have invested several thousand hours into studying our tax code and working on reforms to improve it. In a chemical plant, a process system must be engineered, designed, and built to spec in order to take inputs and produce the desired and repeatable outputs. Louisiana's "tax system" is a complex, unstable, and unfair ad-hoc system. It is the by-product of decades of policy decisions being passed based on political influence more so than how the policy effects the people. The tax code should be completely overhauled. One guiding conservative principle on tax policy would dictate that we should broaden the base and lower the rate. Also, fundamentally, Louisiana acts as an overlord to local government through its many restrictions and direct oversight which limits local government's (the people's) ability to control their own destiny. This policy also makes Louisiana an outlier nationally in that state government is responsible for funding billions of dollars in what is considered local government's responsibility for the rest of the nation. Any reform that desires to make Louisiana competitive on tax policy must take this into consideration.

The approach/strategy should be dependent on how significant the expenditure reductions must be. A small to modest budget deficit should be able to be managed internally by the Executive Branch (if mid-year) or through the recommendations made by the budget committees after their lengthy due diligence and review with each state agency & department. If drastic budget cuts are required a completely different approach would be necessary. I would try to identify expenditures that are critical, essential, important but not necessary, not important or necessary. I would eliminate the expenditures labeled "not important or necessary", I would make deep cuts and possibly eliminate expenditures labeled "important but not necessary", I would make informed and appropriate cuts to the expenditures labeled "essential", and I would make informed and strategic cuts to expenditures labeled "critical." Ultimately, when spending must be reduced to balance the budget, all budget items that are funded by State General Funds must be on the table. This has proven to be challenging in the past because there are many state departments who receive little to zero dollars of State General Funds because they rely purely on self-generated revenues. A great example is the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Historically DWLF does not usually receive any State General Funds. That said, DWLF did receive $8.35M of SGF for FY2023 which represents less than 5% of their $171M budget. I have provided this as an example to those who think that an oversimplified approach of making "across the board cuts" is a viable approach. It isn't. If we needed to reduce the state budget by 10%, using these numbers, the most we would be able to cut from DWLF is 5% of their budget (the SGF portion). Agency/Department Self generated revenues cannot be used to balance the budget. These are typically "Fee for Service" revenues and using them to plug a hole in the budget would convert effectively convert a "Fee for Service" into a TAX. It is no secret that the two largest expenditures of state government are Health Care and Education. K-12 education expenditures cannot be reduced as required in our state constitution. In a scenario where drastic budget cuts are necessary, Health Care and Higher Education are the largest budget items. While every effort should be made to reduce expenditures everywhere possible, in the end, this is where most of the money is spent (that we can cut).

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

I cannot conceive of a practical scenario where the government should be able to close "churches" (state wide). Any closure of a church should be limited to emergencies where there is an immanent threat to loss of life and only while that immanent threat remains. In these extreme examples it is doubtful that any prudent person/pastor would require a government mandate to temporarily close their church. An example would be wildfires. Due to the nature of this threat, it may be necessary to temporarily evacuate people from an area and completely restrict ingress. In this situation, "churches" are not being directly targeted, but are directly impacted the order. In a given "effected area" (be it local, regional, or state wide) if ANY commerce is possible, no church should be closed. In addition to limiting these circumstances which a church could be shut down, it is important that legislature clarify (through legislation) its constitutional responsibility to provide for checks and balances to the executive branch with robust legislative oversight.

Ideally, I would say "C" because historically, the federal government provided a safety net option for healthcare. That said, we don't live in an ideal world, and while I didn't support the ACA, absent Congressional intervention, this is the world we live in. I believe that with additional reforms, "B" could provide a hybrid approach that would make it a win win policy approach. It is important that Private Health Insurance remain healthy and a vibrant component to the delivery of healthcare in the United States. Healthcare insurance that "offered" by the government shouldn't be completely funded by the government. Government health insurance options should be largely designed to capture the market that is priced out of the private insurance market. If properly designed, it may be possible to deliver a more affordable product due to the economies of scale at the federal government (although this is also the reason why it can cost more than it should). For the working poor who don't qualify for medicaid, it may prove to be more economical to provide some subsidization for health insurance.

For schools, under current LA RS 17:170, vaccine "requirements" do exist; however, LA RS 17:170(E) also provides for an exemption to this requirement that only requires a written dissent from the student or parents. I oppose any and all vaccine requirements that would supersede the student's or parental rights to choose not be vaccinated. This is my position for all Public Institutions. Employer's fall into a different category. In Louisiana, an employer (a business) is a juridical person, and as such possesses many of the rights as an individual person. This questionnaire previously asked the following question: "Individuals and businesses should be required to provide services even if it would violate their moral and/or religious beliefs." The fundamental principle for each question is "Individual Liberty." It would be inappropriate for Government to regulate which services and to whom a business should provide those services for. With a focus on "Individual Liberty" being applied to a business (juridical person), I believe that if the government were to be allowed to regulate that businesses should NOT be allowed to require employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment, we could easily find ourselves on a slippery slope where government decides to regulate that businesses require their employees get vaccinated. If the latter would violate the rights of a business, how could the former not also violate the rights of that business?

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Immigration policy is not something I have ever had to address in the state legislature, and as such, I will not attempt to be too prescriptive in my response. People who can pass a rigorous background check, demonstrate a basic understanding of our laws and a commitment to abide by them, demonstrate a basic understanding of our culture and a commitment to respect its diversity, and be capable of supporting themselves financially through resources or employment should be eligible to apply for immigration into the US. We must also take into consideration the need for limitations on the annual number of people who should be allowed to immigrate into the US, otherwise, the number of people who could qualify for and who desire to immigrate to the US would far surpass our capacity to receive them.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

I am a non-denominational Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I grew up in a home where faith in God was at its center. My mother and father taught us the Bible, exemplified the love of Christ in their daily lives, and took us to church several times a week. This is also how my wife and I have raised our children. I believe much of Christianity can be summed up in this: Love God and Love People.

Strongly Disagree

I support all legislation that helps to ensure our elections are secure and maintains the highest standards of integrity. I have authored several bills that were incorporated into a colleagues bill (which became ACT 480 of the 2021RS) that increased election integrity, election security, and election oversight. Upon procurement of our new voting machines (voting system), the Secretary of State is required to promulgate rules and procedures that ensure compliance to the law for election integrity and election security. This is where legislative oversight becomes very important. During the transition period, it is possible that the Secretary of State presents issues or concerns that could necessitate additional legislation.

Did not answer

Neither. "Stricter" environmental laws is too broad of a statement. Clearly the federal government's environmental policies can become so onerous that it can injure businesses, citizens, and even delay or completely prevent construction of public infrastructure. Environmental laws are important, but they should be tempered with prudence and common sense. An example would be environmental laws that protect our drinking water. Most people would agree that a "stricter" approach to protecting our drinking water from dangerous toxins would be appropriate.

Strongly Agree

I believe the preamble to the US Constitution says it best: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Very Conservative

Unfortunately, the term "Conservative" has become more of a political slogan than a Principle based Mindset. I have witnessed many times principled conservatism being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, all the while being told it was the "conservative" thing to do. Russell Kirk wrote The Conservative Mind which is an invaluable resource for those who want to understand the nature of Conservatism. I am a "Practicing Principled Conservative" not a "Political Conservative."

Example 1: HB 529 of the 2023RS by Rep. Carpenter Article 1 Section 10(A) of the Louisiana Constitution states: Every person who is both a citizen of the state and of the United States, upon reaching eighteen years of age, shall have the right to register and vote, except that this right may be suspended for a person who is interdicted and judicially declared mentally incompetent or who is under an order of imprisonment for conviction of a felony. The primary purpose of HB 529 was to rectify a clear Constitutional violation that affected a very small population on people. As stated in the constitution, except for people who have had their voting right suspended for being under an order of imprisonment for "conviction of a felony", "Every person" "shall have the right to REGISTER and VOTE." The problem occurs because LA RS requires that anyone who registers to vote by mail or online (which is most people) is required to vote in person their first time (there is a lengthy list of exceptions for college students and people living outside the country). LA RS also requires that anyone who is under an order of imprisonment (in jail) Vote by Mail (for obvious logistic reasons). These are people who are either awaiting trial (and not convicted) or people who were convicted of a misdemeanor (who haven't lost their right to vote). So we have created a situation where we can statutorily disenfranchise a group of people from their constitutional right to vote. Current law also provides a process for people incarcerated to vote by mail. One of the responsibilities of the Sheriff is to submit a document certifying the identity of an inmate (non-felony). So we have a process that is being used every election cycle. We make exceptions for the requirement to vote in person the first time (like for college students who only have to submit a photo copy of their Student ID - who couldn't forge one of those), and we just needed to add to that list of exceptions for people who haven't voted in person for the first time, but are either awaiting trial or have been convicted of a misdemeanor (and haven't had their constitutional right to vote suspended). The bill failed. I even authored an amendment to bring clarity and simplicity to the issue, but I couldn't get a single colleague who voted against the bill to make a motion to reconsider the bill. I also authored a resolution that requested the Secretary of State to use his Rule making authority to address the problem, but that was also defeated. In the end, out of 70 Republicans (many who claim to be a "Conservative") only 9 Republicans supported these peoples constitutional right to vote, and because of my efforts to fight for the rights of this group of people, I get called a "RHINO" or "Moderate". This is just one of many examples where "Political Conservatism" is happy to sacrifice "Principled Conservatism" when it advances a political agenda. And NOBODY reports on it because how many people on the "Right" really care about disenfranchising people who are perceived to statistically vote "Left"? This Principled Conservative cares. Supporting documents and videos can be found on www.legis.la.gov when searching for HB 529 and HCR 138 of the 2023RS. Example 2: HB 321 of the 2023RS by Rep. Villio The title of the bill was the "Truth and Transparency in the Louisiana Criminal Justice System Pilot Program." While Rep. Villio was the author of the bill, it was AG Jeff Landry who created the program and pushed it as apart of a package of bills to address crime. Here is a brief summary of the facts: As it pertains to Juveniles, the "pilot program" was only for Caddo Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, and Orleans Parish (the 3 parishes with the highest crime rates). One of the primary purpose of the bill was to require that all arrest records and case file information for JUVENILES be uploaded to a website where all information would be made available to the general public. Problem #1: Juvenile records are sealed, by law, for a reason. Problem #2: All records of these juveniles would be made available online (aka forever) even though ZERO due process is completed. So a innocent child (example: 13 your old boy who is accused of a sexual assault by an angry ex-girlfriend), would have those records published about him where they would likely haunt him for the rest of his life. Solution #1: I personally authored one of the several attempts to amend the bill to simply require the use of initials for juveniles. That way the data can still be collected and analyzed. Because of the POLITICS surround the bill, and the fact that the bill didn't effect the kids in many of my colleagues parishes, I was 1 of only 5 of the 70 Republicans that voted for the amendments to use initials, and I was 1 of 3 who voted against the bill. Is sacrificing children's privacy for simply being accused of a crime "Conservative"? Political Opinions say, "Yes". Principled Convictions say, "No".

No.

My entire approach to making decisions as a legislator is to 1st: Understand how my decision effects PEOPLE; 2nd: Understand the PRINCIPLES that might affect my decision; 3rd: Focus on the policy itself to support policy that has a good impact on the people and to oppose policy that has a bad impact on people. I have never been bound by the collective political wisdom or political pressures. My objective has always been to do the right thing for the right reasons, and to not worry about anything else. I can be an outlier at times, particularly on votes where on the surface there seems to be an obvious political choice. Whenever I deviate from what would seem to be the obvious choice, it is because I have researched, studied, and questioned the issue, and have come to an informed principled conclusion to the contrary. It is NOT about politics for me. It's about People, Principles, and Policy.

Strongly Agree

Some may take issue with my response and claim that my support of HB 609 of the 2021RS would contradict my stated position. The qualification stated in the question, "for conduct consistent with departmental policy", is very similar to the intended limitations attempted to be placed on HB609. Even though the Sheriff's Association issued a floor note in support of the legislation, the political optics proved to be problematic. I fully support Law Enforcement.

Strongly Disagree

Mental health is a serious issue in Louisiana, and we should provide adequate funding for that need; however, it should not be at the expense of funding for local law enforcement.

People who have been convicted of a Felony and who have completed the full duration of the cleansing period and who have not undergone the legal process to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored. Fundamentally, gun restrictions are only a restriction on the law abiding citizen, not the criminals gun restrictions are claimed to be written for.

Strongly Disagree

Agree

Gambling should not be de-regulated. Any expansion should require a vote of the people.

Strongly Agree