Explanation of Proposed Amendments

    There are nine proposed amendments to the Louisiana Constitution this election.  There is also a proposal on the ballot that would implement three-term limits for School Board members.  The amendments below are first quoted in their shortened form from the Secretary of State’s website, then summarized, then simplified into what each “YES” or “NO” vote would mean.    References for these explanations include the Louisiana Secretary of State (www.sos.la.gov) and Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana (www.parlouisiana.org).  Voters will cast a “YES” or “NO” vote for each of the following:

 

Proposed Amendment No. 1 – Act No. 873, Senate Bill No. 82

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to prohibit monies in the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly from being used or appropriated for other purposes when adjustments are made to eliminate a state deficit? (Adds Article VII, Section 10(F)(4)(g))

The Summary:    This amendment deals with the use of money in the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly.  The amendment seeks to prohibit money from this fund from being used for other purposes as adjustments are made to eliminate a state deficit.  This trust fund was established using federal money to support health care programs and assistance for the poor and elderly in the state.  According to our state constitution, when the state seeks to cover a deficit in the budget, it can take money from other government trust funds to help balance the budget.  At this time, no money has been taken from this trust fund to balance an annual budget.  This amendment has been proposed as a preventative measure in case the situation should ever arise.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment will protect the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly from having money taken from it to cover state budget deficits if the situation should ever arise.

A “NO” vote for this amendment will keep this fund available to help cover projected state budget deficits if the state sees the need to do so.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 2 – Act No. 874, Senate Bill No. 303

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court? (Amends Article I, Section 11)

The Summary:    This amendment addresses Louisiana citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.  Under current law, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but the state legislature is permitted to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons.  The amendment would more strictly uphold the right to bear arms, stating that and potential laws that restrict that right would be subject to “strict scrutiny,” meaning that the law would have to be reviewed by the highest level of the judicial system.  The amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms as a “fundamental right.”  Furthermore, the amendment would remove a line in the Constitution that currently allows for the passage of laws prohibiting or regulating the carrying of concealed weapons.

    Note: Even if this amendment passes, the state can continue to keep guns out of schools, government buildings, and similar places where public safety is an issue.  The passing of this amendment would also not mean that the Legislature would forfeit its right to pass concealed carry laws.  It simply holds those laws up to greater scrutiny by the judicial system.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment will require that any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms to be held up to strict scrutiny.  It would also hold concealed weapon legislation up to greater scrutiny by deleting the current provision relating to the passage of laws to prohibit carrying a concealed weapon.

A “NO” vote will keep the current language that says that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged, but that right does not require strict scrutiny of gun laws.  The current constitutional wording also gives the Legislature the authority to pass laws regulating concealed weapons.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 3 – Act No. 872, Senate Bill No. 21

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to require legislation effecting any change to laws concerning retirement systems for public employees that is to be prefiled to be filed no later than forty-five days before the start of a regular legislative session and to require the completion of public notice requirements regarding legislation effecting such a change no later than sixty days before introduction of the bill? (Amends Article III, Section 2(A)(2), Article X, Section 29(C), and Article XIII, Section 1(A))

The Summary:    This amendment deals solely with bills brought before the Legislature concerning retirement systems for public employees.  Currently for all bills, the bill must be filed 10 days before the start of the legislative session, at which point the bill will be heard by the Legislature.  Two public notices are also currently required, in the state’s official journal of record, with the second notice being printed no later than thirty days before the start of the legislative session.  This amendment extends the number of days ahead of time that each of these things must happen, for legislation related to public employee retirement only.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment will make the deadline for filing a proposal to change the state’s public retirement systems 45 days before the first legislative session rather than the current 10 days.  A “YES” vote would also change the final public notice time frame to no later than 60 days before the start of the legislative session rather than the current 30 days.

A “NO” vote will leave the deadline for filing at 10 days before the legislative session and the deadline for the final public notice at 30 days before the legislative session.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 4 – Act No. 875, Senate Bill No. 337

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to exempt from ad valorem taxation, in addition to the homestead exemption, the next seventy-five thousand dollars of value of property owned and occupied by the spouse of a deceased veteran with a service-connected disability rating of one hundred percent who passed away prior to the enactment of the exemption? (Effective January 1, 2013)(Amends Article VII, Section 21(K)(1))

The Summary:    This amendment concerns homestead exemption for spouses of veterans with a service-connected disability rating of 100% according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  A 2010 amendment gave veterans in many parishes an exemption for the first $150,000 rather than the $75,000 amount it was previously.  East Baton Rouge Parish was one of the parishes to adopt the increased exemption amount.  The 2010 amendment allowed spouses of these veterans to claim the $150,000 exemption after their veteran spouses had died, provided they died after the $150,000 amendment went into effect.  This new 2012 proposed amendment would give spouses of deceased disabled veterans the ability to claim the $150,000 exemption whether or not that exemption amount was in effect when the veteran died.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment would allow the spouse of a veteran with a 100% service-related disability rating to claim a higher homestead exemption even if the veteran spouse passed away before the higher exemption took effect.

A “NO” vote would mean that spouses of these disabled veterans would only be able to claim a homestead exemption for the amount that was in effect at the time the veteran passed away.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 5 – Act No. 868, House Bill No. 9

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to provide for the forfeiture of public retirement benefits by any public servant who is convicted of a felony associated with and committed during his public service? (Adds Article X, Section 29(G))

The Summary

    This amendment would require any people in public servant jobs to forfeit their public retirement benefits if they are convicted of a felony related to, and during their time of, public service.  Should it pass, this amendment will only affect public employees hired on or after January 1, 2013.  Current public employees would be exempt.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment would allow a court to, as part of a sentence for a felony conviction, require a public servant to forfeit a portion of his or her public retirement benefits, provided the felony was related to the public servant’s office.

A “NO” vote would allow a public servant convicted of a felony related to his or her office to keep all public retirement benefits, with a few exceptions as the law states.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 6 – Act No. 869, House Bill No. 497

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to authorize the granting of ad valorem tax exemption contracts by the city of New Iberia for property annexed by the city after January 1, 2013? (Adds Article VII, Section 21(L))

The Summary:    This amendment deals with property tax exemptions for New Iberia.  Although this does not directly affect the rest of the state outside of New Iberia, it is a state-wide vote because it amends the state constitution.  Currently, an individual city or parish does not have the power to grant exemptions for property taxes.  New Iberia is, through this amendment, seeking the ability to grant city property tax exemptions for any property owner who agrees to be annexed into the city after January 1, 2013.  New Iberia hopes to use this as a means to promote economic development by encouraging nearby property owners to be annexed into the city of New Iberia without the property owner having to pay city property tax on top of the parish property tax they have already been paying.  If the amendment passes, the tax abatement contracts would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the New Iberia City Council and would be good for up to five years.  The contracts could be extended for another five years with a two-thirds vote of the Council.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment would enable the city of New Iberia to give city property tax exemptions to property owners annexed into the city after January 1, 2013.

A “NO” vote would mean that the constitution stands as is with the city not able to grant property tax exemptions to property owners annexed into the city.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 7 – Act No. 870, House Bill No. 524

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment, relative to the membership of constitutional boards and commissions that have members who are selected from congressional districts, to retain the existing number of members and to provide for implementation of membership from reapportioned congressional districts by filling vacancies first from under-represented districts and then from the state at large? (Amends Article VIII, Sections 5(B)(1), 6(B)(1), and 7(B)(1) and Article X, Sections 3(A) and 43(A); Adds Article VIII, Section 8(D))

The Summary:    This amendment addresses the way in which members are selected for constitutionally created state boards and commissions.  Our current system is based largely on Louisiana’s congressional districts, which changed from seven to six after the 2010 census when our state lost one congressional district.  Therefore, basing the membership selection process on a seven-district system is now outdated.  The amendment proposes to change how the members of these six board are selected by reducing the number of congressional districts considered to six instead of seven and to make sure that each district receives equal representation.  Specifically, the boards would keep the same number of seats (15), but they would now be elected with two from each of the six congressional districts and three elected at-large from the state.  The commissions will also keep their same number of positions (7), but each congressional district shall have at least one member.  The six boards and commissions that would be affected are the Board of Regents, the boards of supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, the Louisiana State University System, the Southern University System, the State Civil Service Commission, and the State Police Commission.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment would adjust the membership selection process for six constitutionally created boards and commissions that choose their members based largely on the state congressional districts, which changed from seven to six in 2010.

A “NO” vote would leave the selection process for these boards and commissions as it stands, meaning that the process would still be based on the state having seven congressional districts rather than the updated six.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 8 – Act No. 871, House Bill No. 674

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to authorize the granting of ad valorem tax exemption contracts by the Board of Commerce and Industry for businesses located in parishes which have chosen to participate in a program established for the granting of such contracts? (Effective January 1, 2013) (Adds Article VII, Section 21(L))

The Summary:    This amendment affects local property taxes for non-manufacturing businesses.  Louisiana currently offers property tax breaks for some new or expanding manufacturing businesses.  This amendment would allow the state Board of Commerce and Industry to grant property tax exemptions for property owned or leased by, and used by, certain non-manufacturing businesses.  A stipulation is put on the exemption stating that the company has to have at least half of its annual sales be to any combination of the following: out-of-state customers, in-state customers for resale to an out-of-state customer, and/or to the federal government.  The first $10 million, or the first 10% of the fair market value, whichever is greater, will not be exempt, but everything beyond that will be.

    Note: Only the parishes that agree to participate in this program will have these exemptions available.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment will allow the state Board of Commerce to grant local property tax exemptions to certain non-manufacturing businesses in parishes that agree to participate.

A “NO” vote means that the non-manufacturing companies will not be eligible for property tax exemptions.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 9 – Act No. 876, Senate Bill No. 410

The Bill:  Do you support an amendment to provide that no law relative to the creation of a special district, the primary purpose of which includes aiding in crime prevention and security by providing for an increased presence of law enforcement personnel in the district or otherwise promoting and encouraging security in the district, shall be enacted unless three separate notices of the proposed law are published at least thirty days prior to introduction of the bill, which notice shall set forth the substance of the proposed law and whether the governing authority of the special district would be authorized to impose and collect a parcel fee within the district, whether the parcel fee will be imposed or may be increased without an election, and the maximum amount of such fee? (Amends Article III, Section 13) 

The Summary:   This amendment relates to security districts and the notice given concerning related legislation.  The amendment states that no local or special law to create a security district shall be enacted unless public notice is given in the official journal on at least three separate days of the intent to introduce the bill.  The amendment will also require the notice to state the substance of the proposed bill, along with whether the governing authority in the security districts has the power to impose a parcel fee in the district, whether that fee may be imposed and/or increased without an election, and the maximum amount of that parcel fee.  Every bill would have to state that the required notice had been given.

    Note: A security district is created so that a neighborhood organization can collect a parcel fee from homeowners within the area to be used toward enhancing crime prevention and security efforts.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote for this amendment would increase the number of times from two to three that bills to create security districts would have to be advertised ahead of time.  A “YES” vote would also add more required details to the notices, including whether a parcel fee would be imposed, whether that fee could be imposed without an election, and the maximum amount of the parcel fee.

A “NO” vote would leave the public notice requirements as they currently stand, stating that public notice must be given at least twice no later than 30 days before the bill is introduced.  It would not require that details about parcel fees be included in the notice.

 

Local Option School Board Question – Term Limits

The Summary:  This is a statewide vote concerning term limits for school board members.  This term limit will only be put in place in the districts where voters approve the measure, so it does not require a state wide majority to pass in some areas.  This would limit the number of terms that local school board members may serve to no more than three consecutive four-year terms, beginning with elections after January 1, 2014.  The Constitution will not be affected by this measure, whether it passes or fails, as the Constitution does not deal with school board term limits.  These term limits will not be retroactive, meaning that no matter how many terms a school board member has already served before 2014, he or she can still serve three more terms beginning in 2014.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote will implement term limits for school board members elected after January 1, 20114.  The term limits will consist of three consecutive four-year terms and will not be retroactive.

A “NO” vote will leave the school board with no term limits, meaning that they can be re-elected an unlimited number of times.

 

PW Metro Council – 1.23 Mills – MC – 10 Yrs

The Tax:  Shall East Baton Rouge Parish be authorized to renew the levy and collection and adopt an ordinance providing for such levy and collection of a special tax of 1.23 mills on the dollar of assessed valuation on all property subject to taxation within the boundaries of the parish an estimated 4.1 million is expected at the time of collection. Tenure will last from 2014 through 2023.  

The Summary:    This tax will go to cover the cost of the mosquito abatement program for East Baton Rouge Parish.  This is a renewal of an existing tax.  It is not a new tax.  The tax would last for ten years if voters choose to keep it.

Your Vote

A “YES” vote will keep the existing tax in order to keep the mosquito abatement program for the parish.

A “NO” vote will end the tax and remove funding for the mosquito abatement program.