 |
| 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).
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!!!
3 comments:
Thanks Nathan. On Amend 4, would the potential challenge come from the Supreme Court to the LA Constitution/Congress or would that challenge come from a delinquent property owner for example? That property owner likely wouldn’t have resources to challenge. So would there even be opportunity for a challenge in that case?
That last question about Amend 4 “challenge” was from Kevin Gates.
Thanks for the comment and question, Kevin. From what I can tell the challenge would have come from the property owner. Apparently there's a question about what happens if someone purchases a tax lien and pays more than the taxes owed - what happens to that money. But that's such an obscure situation that I don't know if it's a real issue worthy of a constitutional change. But I might be mistaken.
Post a Comment