When voters head to the polls on Nov. 4, they won’t just be electing a new president. There are also seven proposed constitutional amendments that range from the redistribution of state severance tax revenue to the establishment of term limits for members of state boards and commissions.
This guide will explain each amendment so that you can decide which way to vote come Nov. 4.
Term limits for members of state boards and commissions
There are more than 500 appointed boards and commissions in the executive branch of government. A few of those boards already have limitations on the number of terms a member can be appointed or elected to serve. However, there are no term limits that apply generally or that prevent appointment to a different board once a term limit is reached.
This amendment would limit the number of consecutive terms a person can be appointed to serve to three on certain boards and commissions.
A vote for would impose term limits for members of certain state boards and commissions. A vote against would continue to allow members of certain state boards and commissions to be elected or appointed for an unlimited number of terms.
Time limits for calling special sessions
Currently, the Legislature can be called into special session by either the governor or a majority vote of the governing body. Legislation during special sessions is currently limited to the specific topics listed in the call, which determines the length of the session.
This amendment would change the required advance notice for calling a special session from five days to seven calendar days.
A vote for would require that the call for a special legislative session be issued at least seven calendar days prior to the start of the session. A vote against would keep the five-day rule in effect.
Temporary successors for legislators ordered to active military duty
The Louisiana Legislature currently has one member who is at risk of being called away to active duty. Unless he resigns and a special election is called for his replacement, his district will be without representation in his absence.
This amendment would require that the Legislature provide a method of appointing a temporary successor for legislators who are called to active military duty.
Temporary successors would serve only for the duration of the elected legislator’s term of office or until they return from active duty.
A vote for would allow the Legislature to appoint a temporary successor for any legislator called to active military duty. A vote against would continue to require districts to be without representation if their legislator is called to duty.
State severance taxes to parishes
The Constitution requires the state to give parish governments a portion of the severance taxes collected in each parish. It requires that 20 percent of the state severance tax on all natural resources (other than sulfur, lignite or timber) be shared with the parish where the resource came from, but the amount the parish can receive is capped at $850,000.
Local governments are prohibited from levying a severance tax of their own and the sharing of state severance tax revenue is intended to help parishes pay for wear and tear on roads and bridges.
In 2007, the state collected $890 million of these severance taxes and sent nearly 4 percent back to the parishes where the tax was generated. Parishes would have received $178 million if the full 20 percent were distributed, but the per-parish cap limited the actual distribution to about $32 million.
A vote for would dedicate additional state severance taxes to parishes of origin. A vote against would maintain a cap of $850,000, adjusted annually for inflation.
Transfer of special property tax assessment level
This amendment would enable certain homeowners to maintain their special property tax breaks in the event they sell or forfeit their homes due to expropriation by state, federal or local authorities. The special assessment level, which is given to seniors, permanently and totally disabled citizens and certain members of the military, would be transferred to the replacement home unless the fair market value of the new home exceeds 200 percent of the fair market value of the home sold or expropriated.
A vote for would allow homeowners to transfer any special property tax assessment level to their new homes when their property is sold to or expropriated by the state, federal or local government. A vote against would continue to prohibit the transfer of special property tax assessment levels to new properties.
Re-sale of certain expropriated property
Properties that are taken for health and safety reasons are often considered blighted and it is estimated that there are tens of thousands of blighted properties in New Orleans alone. This amendment removes the right of first refusal for properties expropriated for health and safety reasons only. It would also eliminate the constitutional requirement that such property be re-sold through a public bid process.
Proponents say that these changes are necessary for storm recovery. Opponents say that the government should continue to give the original owner and others an opportunity to purchase their own land – no matter why the property was originally taken.
A vote for would remove the requirement that public authorities first offer expropriated property back to its prior owner before the property can be sold to a third party if the property was taken to remove a threat to public health or safety and was held for less than 30 years. A vote against would maintain the same re-sale requirements currently in practice.
Investment of non-pension benefit trusts
This amendment would permit state and local trusts for non-pension post-employment benefits to be invested in stocks.
Proponents of the change argue that to create a long-term asset, the trusts must be established and invested in such a way that they would likely grow at a fast pace. If this amendment fails, they argue, many parish governments may have to choose to discontinue benefits rather than list unfunded liabilities.
Generally, opposition to investment of public funds in equities stems from an unwillingness to take on additional risk.
A vote for would allow public funds reserved for non-pension, post-employment benefits to be invested in stocks. A vote against would continue to prohibit public funds reserved for non-pension, post employment benefits from being invested in stocks.
Be the first to comment