November 3, 2026 Constitutional Amendments

 

Source: Public Domain

For nearly a decade I have attempted to write a layman's guide to the LA Constitutional Amendments that appear regularly on our ballots here in Louisiana. I pull from several resources, including the LA Secretary of State, Public Affairs Research (PAR) Council of Louisiana, Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL), and a very nice writeup by Ball Alderwoman Charlotte Williams Smith. 

I've done a lot of reading and my goal is to provide a simply summary of what the amendments propose to do, and what a YES or NO vote does. I try to be completely unbiased but it's possible that a little bias creeps in from time to time. However, I do not offer recommendations, just explanations, trusting you to choose how to vote. 

So, without further adieu, here are my descriptions of the 10 Constitutional Amendments on the November 3, 2026 ballot:

• Amendment 1: Property Tax Exemption Transfer for Disabled Veteran’s Spouse.
  This would allow for the widow(er) of a disabled veteran who was eligible for a special exemption from property tax to move to a different home and keep the exemption after the veteran’s death. This is a one-time transfer, proposed to help surviving spouses who may be downsizing for financial reasons to retain the exemption they already have.
• A YES vote means a surviving spouse of a disabled veteran can move to a new home and keep their special property tax exemption.
• A NO vote means the exemption stays tied to the original home, and the spouse loses it if they downsize or move.
  
  
• Amendment 2: Local Authority Over Property Taxes.
  Properties are reassessed every four years and if the values increase, taxing authorities must vote to accept a lower millage that will collect the same revenue as before or can vote to “roll forward” the millage back to the level the voters authorized. While this allows them to collect more tax revenue, some say this is a necessary step to keep up with inflation. However, they must roll that millage forward before the next assessment period or lose the voter-approved maximum rate. This amendment would allow them to use the lower rate for a longer period of time without losing the ability to roll the rate back to the previously authorized maximum any time before that tax expires.
• A YES vote lets local taxing authorities keep tax rates lower for longer without permanently losing their voter-approved maximum rates.
• A NO vote keeps the current system, forcing local authorities to "roll forward" tax rates within four years or lose that revenue capacity.
  
  
• Amendment 3: Post-Conviction Bail for Certain Offenders.
  Currently judges have the option to grant bail in many cases even after conviction for a wide variety of reasons. This amendment would remove that option for anyone convicted of certain aggravated offenses against anyone younger than 18, including crimes of rape, sexual battery, kidnapping and human trafficking.
• A YES vote removes bail as an option for people convicted of certain aggravated offenses against children.
• A NO vote retains current law which allows people convicted of certain aggravated offenses against children to receive bail.
  
  
• Amendment 4: Term Limits for Governors.
  Current law allows a person elected governor to serve two back-to-back 4-year terms. If they want to run again, they have to sit out at least one term before running again. (Serving over ½ of a term counts as a full term.) This amendment would limit anyone serving as governor to only serve 2 terms (or over 1 ½ terms). They would not be eligible to ever run for governor again. (Currently this amendment would only affect Bobby Jindal and John Bel Edwards. If Gov. Landry were re-elected in the next election, it would apply to him as well.)
• A YES vote limits anyone serving as governor to two four-year terms in a lifetime.
• A NO vote retains current law, allowing those serving as governor for two terms to run again after sitting out a term.
  
  
• Amendment 5: Retirement Debt Payments.
  Current law states that 25% of any budget surplus must be dedicated to four state retirement systems that have “unfunded accrued liability” or retirement debt, and it must be applied to the oldest debt first. This amendment would give the retirement boards the authority to apply the surplus funds to debt that may have a higher interest rate, even if newer, or a debt that is nearer being paid off, giving them flexibility to perhaps get out of debt faster.
• A YES vote allows the retirement systems more flexibility to determine which debt to pay off first, delivering savings for taxpayers with the state’s surplus funds.
• A NO vote retains the current model of paying the oldest debts first.
  
  
• Amendment 6: Property Tax Exemptions for the Elderly.
  Current law grants a $75,000 homestead tax exemption on the primary residence of citizens, and also allows the assessed value of the home to be “frozen” for people 65 and older and some disabled veterans if their adjusted gross income doesn’t go over $100,000. This amendment would gradually increase the homestead exemption level to people 65 and over if approved by the parish and by voters in that parish. The increased property tax exemptions would increase as follows:
  
  
• Homeowner’s Age New Exemption Value
• 65-68 $135,000
• 69-72 $195,000
• 73-76 $255,000
  
• 77-80 $315,000
• 81 and older $375,000
  

The surviving spouse of someone who claimed the exemption could be eligible for the same exemption if they are no more than 5 years younger than the homeowner. These exemptions would only be allowed if the governing authority of the parish or municipality agrees to put them on the ballot and the voters approve them by majority vote.

•  A YES vote would allow parishes and municipalities to increase the property tax exemption to certain elderly homeowners as they age from 65 and older.
• A NO vote would retain the current statewide property tax exemptions available to homeowners who are 65 and older.
  
  
• Amendment 7: Public Spending on Drinking Water Utilities.
  Current law prohibits the state or its political subdivisions (including local water boards) from spending money on private property. However, the EPA has mandated that lead and certain galvanized water service lines be replaced in the next 10 years, including those on non-public property servicing private residences. There is available federal money to replace lead-based water service lines on private property. The proposed amendment would allow the state and its political subdivisions to spend public money on replacing lead pipe service lines in private residences identified as qualifying for public assistance.
  
  
• A YES vote would allow public funds to be spent on identifying and replacing lead-based drinking water lines that run from public property to a person’s home.
• A NO vote would retain current law that prohibits the use of public funds on private property except for the current exceptions that are already allowed in current law.
  
  
• Amendment 8: Expropriation of Property by Foreign Adversaries.
  Current law allows for the seizure of private property through “expropriation” (aka eminent domain) for public purposes, such as public buildings, roads, bridges, public transportation, drainage, etc. Current law also allows companies to expropriate property for things such as railroads, pipelines, power transmission, aviation facilities, etc. However, current law prohibits any entity connected to a “foreign adversary” (i.e., China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc) from expropriating property within 50 miles of a military base or from buying/leasing any immovable property in Louisiana. This amendment would ban foreign adversaries from expropriating property anywhere in the state.
  
  
• A YES vote would prohibit private entities that are foreign adversaries or their agents from expropriating private property.
• A NO vote preserves existing restrictions.
  
  
• Amendment 9: Expansion of Property Tax Freezes.
  As discussed earlier, currently law provides for an exemption of $75,000 of the market value as a homestead exemption, and provides for special exemptions for people 65 and over and for disabled military veterans, those permanently and totally disabled, and their spouses, whose adjusted gross income is less than $100,000. This amendment would increase the amount of money a person can make to $150,000 and that number would be adjusted each year for inflation.
  
  
• A YES vote increases the income levels which may help elderly people stay in their homes, especially those on a fixed income struggling with inflation. This is also considered a bill that would make Louisiana attractive to out-of-state retirees.
• A NO vote keeps the income levels where they are, which may be important as Louisiana’s population ages and there will be more retirees and fewer people paying full property taxes.
  
  
• Amendment 10: Tax Exemptions for Rehabilitated Property.
  The Louisiana Constitution governs property taxes paid by homeowners and businesses, but also provides for special property tax breaks for public lands, burial places, some medical equipment used by rural hospitals, and property owned by nonprofit organizations. This amendment would allow local governments to offer an additional property tax exemption for blighted properties that have been rehabilitated. These new exemptions would make it more attractive to investors to clean up properties declared as a public nuisance or unsafe, putting properties back into commerce, cleaning up neighborhoods, and adding more affordable housing. 
  
  
• A YES vote would allow local governments the option of offering up to 75% property tax exemptions for blighted properties that have been rehabilitated and placed back in commerce.
• A NO vote would keep the current property tax rules, which do not allow for tax breaks for rehabbing blighted properties.

May 16, 2026 Constitutional Amendments

 

Source: Public Domain

There has been some confusion about the closed primary system, along with Gov. Landry suspending the U. S. House primary elections following the Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. However, there will still be elections in Louisiana on May 16, including primary elections for both the Democratic and Republican candidates for the US Senate to determine their candidates for the general election in the fall. 

On a much more local level, there are also elections for my beloved City of Pineville for Mayor, and 4 of the 5 City Council seats. (Councilman Kevin Dorn, representing District 2, was reelected without opposition, which speaks to the high regard the citizens have for him.) The candidates for those elections are (in alphabetical order):

• Mayor:
• Joseph "Joe" Bishop 
• "Chris" Camp
• Russell "Rusty" Murdock
• City Council, District 1:
• "Greg" Aaron
• Danny "Dann" Eudy, Jr.
• Randy G. O'Neal
• City Council, District 3:
• Peter Ford
• Hugh Halle
• City Council, District 4:
• John Marcase 
• Celeste Mobley
• City Council, District 5:
• Mark A. Mertens
• "Tom" Murphy
  
• Samantha Stanley

There are also local elections in Creola, Colfax, and Montgomery, as well as several Rapides Parish Fire Protection District renewals and a Road District renewal on the ballot, in addition to five (5) Constitutional Amendments. Early voting has already begun and runs through Saturday, May 9 from 8:30AM-6:00PM and Rapides Parish voters can vote at the Registrar of Voters office in the Rapides Parish Courthouse or at Kees Park Community Center in Pineville.

You can get details on your ballot at the Secretary of State's website or by going to http://GeauxVote.com. 

For the past several years I have sought to provide a layman's guide to the amendments because they are (rightfully so) written in "legalese" in order to be factual, precise, and enforceable. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes they are not easily understood!

To guide my research I read as much as I can about the amendments as well as take in PAR's excellent guide to the amendments. I appreciate the work they put into explaining the issues and recommend that you take a look. However, it is a lot of reading, so below is my attempt to summarize each amendment into just a few paragraphs with a simple explanation of what a YES and NO vote would mean.

Remember that a constitutional amendment is not just a law - it's a permanent change to Louisiana's highest governing document, and our votes should be weighed by that understanding. So let's dive right in!

• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1 will make some significant changes to civil service in Louisiana. Right now, a commission (not politicians) decides which state jobs are protected under civil service rules. This amendment would give the Legislature more power to decide which jobs are "classified" (protected) and which are "unclassified" (more political and easier to hire/fire). So essentially this amendment shifts some control from an independent board to elected officials.
  
  
• A YES vote means that the legislature gains more authority over state jobs and more positions could become political appointments. However, it potentially gives more flexibility in hiring and firing.
• A NO vote means the current system stays in place and civil service protections remain more insulated from politics.
  
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 2 would allow the City of St. George in East Baton Rouge Parish to create its own public school system, separate from the EBR Parish School System. St. George became Louisiana's newest city when voters in that area voted to incorporate in 2019. Now they want to form their own independent municipal school district, like their neighbors in Baker, Central, and Zachary.
  
  Why is this on our ballot in central Louisiana? Because the Louisiana constitution established the parish school board system, so any new district has to be approved by constitutional amendment. (Besides the three mentioned, there are also independent school districts in Bogalusa and Monroe, for a total of five.)
  
  Supporters of the amendment say it gives St. George residents more control over their schools, and they believe a smaller district would be more responsive to parents and students. Opponents say it would further fragment East Baton Rouge Parish schools, duplicate bureaucracy, drain resources away from the existing parish system, and likely increase racial and economic separation between school systems.
  
  
• A YES vote would authorize the creation of the St. George Community School System in East Baton Rouge Parish (as long as it passes in East Baton Rouge as well). 
• A NO vote would keep the schools in the City of St. George within the East Baton Rouge School System.
  
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 3 would dissolve three education trust funds and use that money to pay down part of the debt in the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana. This would lower the retirement-related costs paid by local school boards, allowing them to give raises to their employees ($2,250 for teachers and $1,125 for support workers). This would replace the one-time stipends teachers and support workers have received in recent years and make the raises permanent.
  
  Locally, Rapides Parish School Board Superintendent Jeff Powell has gone on record personally supporting this amendment, an idea he had floated for several years. So here's what your vote would do:
  
  
• A YES vote would dissolve the education trust funds, pay down the retirement debt, and free up money for permanent pay raises for teachers and school support workers. 
• A NO vote would keep the education trust funds in place and continue using their investment earnings for early childhood education, K-12 schools, and college programs.
  
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 4 would give local governments the option to reduce or eliminate the business inventory tax that companies pay on unsold goods sitting on shelves, in warehouses, or in production. Louisiana is one of only about a dozen states that collect that tax, which typically goes to local governments, such as parishes, sheriffs, school boards, etc. This amendment would give local governments the option to reduce or eliminate the inventory tax in exchange for a one-time state offset payment.
  
  Supporters say the inventory tax is outdated and discourages business investment so eliminating it could help attract jobs and growth. Opponents say that local governments rely heavily on this revenue and the state's one-time payment doesn't replace long-term funding, so other taxes may have to be raised. So here's what your vote would do:
  
  
• A YES vote would allow (but not require) local governments to reduce or eliminate the business inventory tax. 
• A NO vote would keep the current system of inventory taxes.
  
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 5 would raise the mandatory retirement age of judges from 70 to 75. That sounds pretty simple! Supporters say that judges gain valuable experience over time and since people are living and working longer, 70 is no longer what it used to be. Opponents say that mandatory retirement ensures regular turnover and fresh perspectives, keeping opportunities for younger attorneys to become judges, and avoids concerns about declining mental or physical capacity. Here's what your vote would do:
  
  
• A YES vote would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 and keep the current rule that judges can finish their term even if they reach the age limit mid-term. 
• A NO vote would keep the current retirement age at 70 (although they can finish out their current term if they hit 70 while in office).

As both a pastor and a public servant, I’ve learned that stewardship isn’t just about what we do in church -- it’s also about how we engage in our community. The privilege to vote is something many around the world never experience, and it carries both a civic responsibility and a moral weight. These amendments may seem technical, but they shape the future of our state, our schools, our courts, and our communities. And just as importantly, so do the candidates we elect to lead and represent us. So take a few minutes, seek wisdom, get informed, and then go make your voice heard with your vote. Our state will be better for it.

March 29, 2025 Constitutional Amendments

Source: Public Domain

The first statewide election date of 2025 is upon us and once again the Legislature is asking citizens to amend the Louisiana Constitution. On March 29 citizens will be asked to determine the fate of 4 proposed Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution. There are also a several local items on the ballot, including:

• Clerk of Court (Karan Corley or Thomas David III)
• Police Juror-District B (Kevin Sasser or Randy Wiggins)
• Justice of the Peace-Ward 2 (Brian Hickman or Kevin Kitchen)
• Mayor-Town of Cheneyville (Ronny Green, Jr or Francis Mitchell)

You can get details on your ballot at the Secretary of State's website or by going to http://GeauxVote.com. 

For the past several years I have sought to provide a layman's guide to the amendments because they are (rightfully so) written in "legalese" in order to be factual, precise, and enforceable. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes they are not easily understood!

To guide my research I read as much as I can about the amendments as well as take in PAR's excellent guide to the amendments. I appreciate the work they put into explaining the issues and recommend that you take a look. However, it is a lot of reading, so below is my attempt to summarize each amendment in one or two paragraphs. Let's dive right in!

• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1 has two major components. One would clarify the authority the LA Supreme Court has to discipline out-of-state lawyers who engage in unscrupulous or improper conduct which goes against professional standards. The second part would allow the Legislature  (by 2/3 vote) to establish specialty courts that are not limited to parish and judicial district boundaries. One idea that has been floated is to create a "business court" to deal with complex litigation involving securities laws, corporate governance, and antitrust issues. There could also be specialty courts for larger territories than is currently allowed, thus spreading the financial load over a larger base and providing drug courts or behavioral health courts for rural areas that are currently underserved.
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 2 is by far the most complex amendment we've seen in awhile. The bill itself is 115 pages long with multiple companion bills that spread the effects through various provisions in state law. (Even PAR's simple explanation is 14 pages long!) This amendment is part of Governor Landry's Louisiana Forward* initiative to update the state tax code. (The link is to the Pelican Institute's explanation, which supports the initiative.) To be honest, there's no simple explanation of this bill, but here are just a few of the things it covers:
• Requires 2/3 vote for lawmakers to give new tax breaks.
• Requires that any new sales tax exclusions apply to both state and local sales tax.
• Doubles the standard income tax deduction for those over 65 and lowers the maximum rate from 4.75% to 3.75%.
• Removes the cap on severance tax revenue collected by local governments.
• Limits the annual growth in state general fund spending, tying the limit to population and inflation changes.
• Merges two state trust funds, Budget Stabilization Fund (aka "rainy day fund") and Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund.
• Use money in education trust funds to pay down retirement debt for teachers and provide a permanent pay raise to teachers and support workers.
• Removes several trust funds from the constitution, placing them in state law where legislators would have more flexibility on their rules and use.
• Incentivizes parishes to stop charging business inventory tax and allows parishes to give partial exemptions to businesses by reducing the assessed value of the property.
• Prohibit parishes from charging property tax on prescription drugs.
• Makes it harder for legislators to pass new property tax breaks.
• These are significant changes to the constitution that I can't fully address here. I STRONGLY encourage you to take a look at other resources, such as Balotpedia's explanation, as well as the explanation from Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL) in addition to the aforementioned PAR document. All of these are non-partisan organizations that don't take a stand, simply offer commentary. The New Orleans Fox affiliate (Fox8) offered one of the better news overviews I've read. The Louisiana Illuminator ran a story that the major teacher unions are endorsing the amendment while WGNO ran a story that civil liberties groups are opposing all 4 amendments! There's even a NoToThemAll website set up to oppose all 4 amendments. Needless to say the debate is fierce and we all need to educate ourselves!
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 3 would allow juveniles under the age of 17 to be more easily charged as adults. The list of 16 crimes that currently exists would be removed from the Constitution and placed in state law, allowing lawmakers the flexibility to make changes by 2/3 vote without going back to the voters. 
  
  
• CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 4 would change the election date for special elections to fill newly created judgeships or a vacancy on the bench. This is an unintended consequence of the closed primary system Louisiana is going to in 2026 because current law could make it impossible to fill such vacancies in a timely manner. Some say this amendment is unnecessary because it truly only affects the seven Supreme Court justice seats that are required to run in closed primary in the event of a death of resignation before the end of the 10 year term. They recommend changing state law on closed primaries rather than change the constitution. You be the judge! :)

Well, there you have it, a brief look at the four amendments coming up on the March 29 ballot. I've decided to not give recommendations this time as I'm still processing them myself. I'm hoping my brief description helps people decide how to vote. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the constitutional amendments. But most of all, I hope everyone will educate themselves on the amendments and geaux vote!!!

December 7, 2024 Constitutional Amendments

 

Source: Public Domain

The final election day of 2024 is upon us and there are 4 more proposed Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution to be considered on Saturday, December 7. There are also a several local items on the ballot, including:

• Renaissance Home tax renewal
• Senior Citizens tax renewal 
• Road District 3A tax renewal 
• Fire Protection District 10 tax renewal 
• Buckeye Recreation District tax renewal  
• Rapides Parish District D Police Juror (Randy Harris or Ernest Nelson), 
• Alexandria Councilman at Large (Jules R. Green or Lee Rubin), 
• Alexandria District 1 Councilman (Malcolm Lavardain or Reddex Washington). 

You can get details on your ballot at the Secretary of State's website or by going to http://GeauxVote.com. 

For the past several years I have sought to provide a layman's guide to the amendments because they are (rightfully so) written in "legalese" in order to be factual, precise, and enforceable. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes they are not easily understood!

To guide my research I read as much as I can about the amendments as well as take in PAR's excellent guide to the amendments. I appreciate the work they put into explaining the issues and recommend that you take a look. However, it is a lot of reading, so below is my attempt to summarize each amendment in one or two paragraphs. Let's dive right in!

• Constitutional Amendment 1 would increase the number of members of the state Judiciary Commission from 9 to 14 and give the LA Supreme Court more authority to direct investigations into potential judicial misconduct. The current makeup of the Judiciary Commission is 3 judges, 3 lawyers, and 3 non-lawyers. The new commission would add 5 non-lawyers, for total of 8 non-lawyers and 6 lawyers. (Some say the current makeup of majority lawyers/judges means the commission is less likely to discipline one of their own, so adding 5 non-lawyers would give the commission more "backbone" so to speak.) This amendment also gives the Supreme Court the authority to direct the commission to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct and also adds "malfeasance" as an improper behavior that can be investigated. (This sounds like a good idea so I recommend a YES vote.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 2 would require legislators to wait at least 48 hours before voting on amendments to bills that spend money. The PAR report states that "In June 2023, lawmakers passed more than $52 billion worth of budget bills in the last half-hour of their two-month regular session, in a frenzied series of votes. ... Many lawmakers said they were uncertain what the spending plans contained even as they took a final vote on the bills. Legislative leaders presenting the package of appropriations struggled to explain what they contained. Lawmakers had to waive their rules to vote on the bills." This amendment would prevent that from happening, and is accompanied by Amendment #3 (below) which would allow the Legislature to extend regular sessions to comply with the new 48-hour review requirement. (This sounds like a good idea so I recommend a YES vote for both #2 and #3.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 3 would allow the Legislature to extend a regular session for up to 6 days to allow more time for voting on bills that appropriate money (see #2 above). The Constitution is very clear on how long regular sessions can last in both even and odd-numbered years. If amendment #2 passes, then the Legislature must be given flexibility to extend sessions in order to comply with the 48-hour review rules. It would require 2/3 vote from both houses to extend the session (2 days at a time) and no new legislation could be introduced during the extended period. There is a cost to extending the session, although it is not as much as a new special session. Voters need to consider amendments 2 and 3 as a package, voting for or against both. (This sounds like a good idea so I recommend a YES vote for both #2 and #3.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 4 is probably the most complex of the four on the ballot as it deals with the issue of delinquent property taxes. This is a complicated situation, made more so by a 2023 US Supreme Court ruling that *may* make some of our current structure unconstitutional. This amendment seeks to off-load some of the language from the state constitution into statutes makes it easier for the Legislature to assure that our laws conform to the US Constitution. In addition, it appears this amendment gives more time for property owners to deal with delinquent taxes. However, this is a complex situation and some say that we shouldn't mess with a working system unless there is a constitutional challenge. (While I understand the intent of the legislation is to avoid potential constitutional challenge, I would prefer waiting until such a challenge is made, so I recommend a NO vote, although I'm certainly willing to have someone change my mind.)

Well, there you have it, a brief look at the four amendments coming up on the December 7 ballot. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the constitutional amendments. Who knows, maybe you'll change my mind! But regardless of whether you agree with me or not, I hope everyone will educate themselves on the amendments and geaux vote!!!

Nov 5, 2024 Constitutional Amendment

 

Source: Public Domain

I'm writing this on the eve of the 2024 Election day, in which the United States will be electing the following across the nation:

• 1 President/Vice President
• 34 US Senators
• 435 US Representatives
• 11 Governors
• 9 Lt. Governors
• 7 Secretaries of State
• 10 Attorneys General
• 85 State Legislatures across 44 states
• 304 Local and State Judicial seats
• 147 Ballot Initiatives across 41 states
  (SOURCE: Ballotpedia)

There's a LOT of important things on the ballot on Tuesday, including one Constitutional Amendment in Louisiana that will be on ballots across the state. Over the years I have attempted to provide a layman's guide to the amendments, because they can be difficult to understand, since they are written by lawyers to be factual, precise, and enforceable. Unfortunately, sometimes that means that us NON-lawyers aren't sure what a yes and a no means when we vote for them. That's where this little guide comes in.

I'll tell you up front that I base a lot of my research on the excellent "PAR Guide to the 2024 Constitutional Amendments" put out by the non-partisan Public Affairs Research organization, an independent nonprofit research organization. But I also have spoken with  such experts as John Sabo, an expert in Coastal Erosion, and David Carmadelle, the Mayor of Grand Isle, LA for almost 30 years, who has been very effective in protecting that unique barrier island from washing away into the sea.

After reading all the material I could find and talking with the experts, I still don't have a recommendation to make for you. However, I'm going to try to explain it as best as I can, so I'll start with just quoting what will be on the ballot:

• Constitutional Amendment 1:  "Do you support an amendment to require that federal revenues received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf alternative or renewable energy production be deposited into the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund?"

So what does that mean? First a little history. Most folks understand that Louisiana is loosing its coast at an alarming rate. Since the 1930's, Louisiana has lost almost 2,000 square miles of land, and is expected to lose another 3,000 square miles over the next 50 years. (Source) One reason is the levees that were built to prevent the Mississippi River from flooding neighboring communities is no longer allowed to spread through the delta, distributing silt and replenishing the marshes and swamps. Another reason is the man-made canals and dredging that crisscrosses the swamps, making them vulnerable to erosion. All of this contributes to increased flooding, greater damage from hurricanes, loss of habitat for millions of migratory birds and wildlife, and an impact on ports and water commerce creating an additional economic strain on Louisiana.

Thankfully a lot of work has been done in the past decade to mitigate the damage. The majority of the funding has come from a settlement with BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Louisiana received billions of dollars to use in restoration and improvement projects across the coast. However, that money is running out. Which leads to this constitutional amendment.

Technology has identified the Outer Continental Shelf as having great potential for renewable energy production, including solar, wind, tidal, wave, and geothermal energy. Companies that gain the valuable contracts will be paying new taxes to both the Federal government and the states that border the Gulf of Mexico. This constitutional amendment directs how that money would be spent in Louisiana. And here's how your vote would affect that money:

• A vote FOR the amendment would mean that the new revenues from these alternative energy technologies (think offshore windmills, etc) could ONLY be used for coast restoration.
• A vote AGAINST the amendment would mean that the new revenues would go into the General Fund and be used however the Legislature sees fit.

There are two schools of thought. 

• One says that we already restrict the Legislature too much when it comes to spending and the only things they can cut in times of economic downturn are healthcare and education. Those who feel this way would vote AGAINST the amendment.
• The other school of thought is that coastal erosion is such an important issue, and the BP money is about to run out, so this is an opportunity to capture a NEW source of revenue and dedicate it to coastal restoration. Those who feel this way would vote FOR the amendment.

I know that's a lot of words and a very long explanation. But it's necessary to explain the backstory so that you'll know what you're voting for. This is one of those years where I'm not making a recommendation. I could probably argue for both sides of the issue because I believe there is validity to both sides. Hopefully my explanation does not reveal my perspective and only informs your decision, based on your perspective, or school of thought. But whichever way you choose to vote - please VOTE!!!

You can get details on all the items that will be on your ballot at the LA Secretary of State's website or by going to http://GeauxVote.com. 

Nov 18 Constitutional Amendments

Source: Public Domain

Election day is soon approaching and with it comes another round of proposed Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution. We voted on four back on October 14 (all of which were passed), and there will be another four on the November 18 ballot (along with a few remaining statewide runoffs (Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Treasurer), and a Rapides Parish 20-year tax proposal to support the Renaissance Home. You can get details on your ballot at the Secretary of State's website or by going to http://GeauxVote.com. 

 For the past several years I have sought to provide a layman's guide to the amendments because they are (rightfully so) written in legalize in order to be factual, precise, and enforceable. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes they are not easily understood!

To guide my research I read as much as I can about the amendments as well as take in PAR's excellent guide to the amendments. However, as hard as they work to boil the language down to understandable terms, this year's guide is still 17 pages long! (Granted, that includes covering the four on the Oct 14 ballot and the four on the Nov 18 ballot.) My goal is to summarize each amendment in one or two paragraphs. So let's dive right in!

• Constitutional Amendment 1 would allow lawmakers to try to override a governor's veto without calling a separate session if they are already in a legislative session. In the past few years the Legislature has often called special sessions immediately after regular sessions to deal with pressing issues. This has caused some confusion as to the time limit requirements of veto sessions, so this amendment would clarify the language, especially dealing with special sessions. (I'm voting YES because I think the rules need to be clarified regarding special sessions.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 2 would remove six inactive funds with zero or near-zero balances from the Constitution. These six funds are not being used and no longer fulfill their original purpose. Five of the funds have $0 in them and the sixth has $604 and hasn't had a deposit in over 20 years. (The $604 would be transferred to the general fund.) (I'm voting YES because I think it helps streamline the Constitution by removing these no-longer-used funds.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 3 would allow property tax exemptions for First Responders. Most property owners receive a $75,000 property tax exemption for the home they live in, and some other specific exemptions are allowed (such as homeowners with disabilities, some military veterans, and homeowners of certain income levels who are 65 and older.) This amendment would allow parish governing authorities to approve an additional $25,000 exemption to qualified first responders who live in the parish in an effort to help recruit and retain first responders. I'm very conflicted about this because while I fully support first responders, this has the potential for confusion and abuse. And currently there is not an understanding of the financial impact so I'm withholding my recommendation until I can research it more fully.
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 4 would tighten the rules on how money from the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund could be used by the Legislature. Currently funds can be accessed by a vote of 2/3 of the legislature for undefined "emergencies". The proposed changes would make it harder to access these funds by defining which "emergencies" it can be used for and limiting it to a certain amount of usage, only after the states separate "rainy day fund" was accessed. I'm leaning towards a YES vote, but I'm still researching the potential impact of this amendment and am withholding my recommendation until I gain some additional perspective.

Well, there you have it, a brief look at the four amendments coming up on the Nov 18 ballot. I will try to update this post later after I've had more time to take a closer look at 3 and 4. But I wanted to share this now since early voting starts Nov 3 and runs through on Veteran's Day, Nov 11 (excluding Sunday, Nov 5 and Veteran's Day holiday on Nov 10). I'd love to hear your thoughts on the constitutional amendments. Who knows, maybe you'll change my mind! But regardless of whether you agree with me or not, I hope everyone will educate themselves on the amendments and geaux vote!!!

October 14, 2023 Constitutional Amendments

Source: Public Domain

It's election season again! Louisianians will be headed to the polls Oct 14 to vote for a new Governor, Lt Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry as well as Commissioner of Insurance! Plus there are seats on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE Board), a few judges, and many state Senators and Representatives. Rapides Parish will also be voting for Sheriff, Clerk of Court, Tax Assessor, and several Policy Jury seats. You can find out what's on YOUR ballot at the Secretary of State's website or by going to GeauxVote.com.

Along with all those important statewide and local races there are four constitutional amendments. For the past several years I have sought to provide a layman's guide to the amendments because they are (rightfully so) written in legalize in order to be factual, precise, and enforceable. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes they are not easily understood!

To guide my research I read as much as I can about the amendments as well as take in PAR's excellent guide to the amendments. However, as hard as they work to boil the language down to understandable terms, this year's guide is still 17 pages long! (Granted, that includes covering the four on the Oct 14 ballot and the four on the Nov 18 ballot.) My goal is to summarize each amendment in one or two paragraphs. So let's dive right in.

• Constitutional Amendment 1 would prohibit the use of private funds to pay for elections in Louisiana. This came out of the COVID-19 pandemic era when elections were more expensive because of the need for protective equipment, expanded hours, and increased use of absentee ballots. A nonprofit funded by Facebook offered to help pay for the elections. But since Louisiana law is silent as to whether this is allowable or not, the Attorney General recommended that no private funds be used in public elections and to allow the legislature to address the issue. The legislature has twice passed legislation outlawing the practice and both times Governor Edwards has vetoed it. So the legislature has proposed a Constitutional Amendment to allow the people to speak to the issue. (I'm voting YES because I think private funding could skew the results by pouring more money into certain areas that might vote a certain way.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 2 would add additional levels of protection to the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. This also comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic era when Governor Edwards shut down churches while allowing many businesses to remain open. One pastor was repeatedly arrested for violating the restrictions and his case went to the Louisiana Supreme Court where charges were dismissed on a 5-2 vote. Some say we don't need this additional protection while others point to the fact that it took a Supreme Court decision (that actually was split) to preserve religious rights, so this amendment is needed. (I'm voting YES because I think I believe freedom of religion needs the greatest protections available.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 3 would require that 25% of any state surplus be used to pay down the retirement debt (or "unfunded accrued liability") for the four state retirement systems. Currently the state is required to pay 10% of surpluses to TWO of the four systems, but that requirement expires in 2029. Those against the amendment say the state has too many other priorities, such as unfunded bridge and road construction, water system repairs and other infrastructure issues and this would limit surplus monies from being used for those important projects. (I'm voting YES because paying down this liability in the short-term will free up money in the long term and make our state more financially sound.)
  
  
• Constitutional Amendment 4 would allow local governments to revoke property tax exemptions from non-profits that lease housing and have repeated public health or safety violations. Many non-profits, such as churches, hospitals, cemeteries, etc, receive property tax exemptions because of the benefit they provide to society, including some non-profits that provide rental housing for low-income families. However, some of them have allowed their properties to fall into disrepair and actually become a danger to the residents and the public. This amendment would allow local governments to rescind the property tax exemption on a non-profit owned entity that leases their property for housing if there have been three or more safety code violations in the last 12 months for specific health and safety issues. Their tax exemption can be restored if the health and safety violations have been fixed.  (I'm voting YES because this could help eliminate "slum lord" conditions by non-profits who take the money but don't provide for the safety and welfare of the residents they are supposed to be serving.)

Well, there you have it, a brief look at the four amendments coming up on the Oct 14 ballot. As I write this, early voting has already begun and will continue through Saturday, Oct 7. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the constitutional amendments. Who knows, maybe you'll change my mind! But regardless of whether you agree with me or not, I hope everyone will educate themselves on the amendments and geaux vote!!!