Const. amendments include gun control measure

Louisiana voters are faced with nine proposed amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on the Nov. 6 ballot.

State lawmakers approved the propositions for voter approval during this year’s regular lawmaking session. A simple majority is enough to enact new constitutional law.

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, an independent, non-partisan organization, reviewed the proposed amendments and presented its findings online at www.parlouisiana.org.

The propositions are listed below in the order they are posed on the ballot.

– Proposed Amendment No. 1: Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly

An affirmative vote would prohibit the Legislature or governor from taking money from the fund to help offset shortfalls in the state’s operating budget.

A vote against the proposition would leave open the possibility that money could be taken from the fund.

PAR’s argument for the amendment says that absent a constitutional amendment, the Legislature could divert the fund’s monies elsewhere. Because the fund received federal matching dollars, money that is spent on anything other than health-care support for the poor and elderly may be deemed misspent and ordered to be repaid.

PAR’s argument against says that it would add another amendment to an already “cluttered” constitution, one that may not be needed because the fund’s monies have never been used elsewhere. There is already a statute in place barring the diversion of funds, and a constitutional amendment could prompt other funds to seek similar protection, further adding to the list of constitutionally protected funds. The more this occurs, the less flexibility the Legislature has in dire times.

– Proposed Amendment No. 2: Strict Scrutiny Standard for Gun Laws

An affirmative vote would require any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms receive “strict scrutiny” in court. It would make the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. And it would delete a line in the constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.

A vote against the proposition would maintain the current language, which does not require strict scrutiny of arms laws and allows the Legislature to regulate concealed weapons.

PAR’s argument for the amendment says it would give Louisiana “the strongest protection of arms rights in the nation,” which is necessary to ensure any laws restricting this fundamental right meet the highest standard of judicial review. The state Legislature does not lose its ability to regulate concealed weapons, but these laws also must meet the rigorous review standards.

PAR’s argument against says the constitution’s current wording protects the rights of law-abiding citizens. This amendment’s passage could lead to challengers of existing gun laws, so any statute in the Criminal Code regarding carrying and possessing guns, including by existing felons, could be affected. Concealed weapon laws may not pass the strict standard if courts interpret the deletion of the constitutional language literally.

– Proposed Amendment No. 3: Earlier Notice of Public Retirement System Bills

An affirmative vote would move the deadline for bills affecting public retirement systems to be filed a month prior than that of other bills and double the public notice for prefiled retirement bills.

A vote against the proposition would maintain current filing laws for bills affecting public retirement systems.

According to PAR, Louisiana has 21 retirement systems representing nearly 350,000 people and $26 billion in assets. Bills proposing change are often complicated.

PAR’s argument for the amendment says the complexity and impact of the bills warrant more examination and a longer period for public digestion.

PAR’s argument against says useful details may not come with more time. Legislators also maintain the right to change the bills substantially as they move through the process. An earlier prefile date eliminates time needed to work toward consensus as the bill is being drafted.

– Proposed Amendment No. 4: Property Tax Exemption for Spouses of Certain Disabled Veterans

An affirmative vote allows the spouse of a deceased veteran to claim a higher homestead exemption even if the exemption was not in effect at the time the veteran died.

A vote against the proposition would mean the spouse cannot claim the exemption if the veteran died before it took effect.

According to PAR, voters in 48 parishes have approved giving 100 percent disabled veterans an extra $75,000 exemption in addition to the homestead exemption all homeowners and occupiers are allowed.

PAR’s argument for the amendment says the impact on local taxing bodies is minimal – the impact would be $2 million statewide if all parishes enacted the exemption, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of total property taxes. It also supports veterans and their spouses.

PAR’s argument against is that it would hurt the local tax base of parishes that extend the benefit.

– Proposed Amendment No. 5: Forfeiture of Public Retirement Benefits for Convicted Public Servants

An affirmative vote allows courts to impose the forfeiture of a portion of public retirement benefits as part of a sentence for a public servant convicted of a felony related to his or her office.

A vote against leaves the current system in place, which only provides to withhold retirement benefits in court-ordered restitution and other specific circumstances.

According to PAR, the sentencing court decides whether or not the convicted public servant forfeits retirement benefits, and only a portion would be affected. It would only apply to public employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 2013.

PAR’s argument for the amendment says that public officials are expected to honor the public’s trust. It would send a strong message that corruption will not be tolerated and will be punished, acting as a deterrent.

PAR’s argument against says that federal prosecutors using federal courts and laws prosecute many public corruption cases, and thus restitution is mandated to the full extent. It would also give the Legislature more control over public retirement beneifts.

– Proposed Amendment No. 6: Property Tax Exemption Authority for New Iberia

An affirmative vote would allow New Iberia to grant city property tax exemptions to any property owner annexed into the city after Jan. 1, 2013.

A vote against would not allow the city to grant such exemptions.

PAR’s argument for the amendment says it would give city officials another tool to promote economic development and that it will be better for the parish overall if it leads to property development.

PAR’s argument against says it could be applied to existing businesses who only want to be annexed for the tax breaks, the potential impact on local revenues is unknown, future leaders may not hold to current leaders’ pledges that they will focus on vacant property and it may spur other cities to take similar measures, creating a friction between cities and parishes.

– Proposed Amendment No. 7: Membership of Certain State Boards and Commissions

An affirmative vote would change the membership selection process for constitutionally created boards and commissions that have members selected based on Louisiana’s congressional districts.

A vote against leaves the system as it is now, which is based on a soon-to-be outdated number of congressional districts.

PAR’s argument for says any change in the state’s number of congressional districts means the membership selection for boards and commissions needs to be revised, or the constitution and number of districts would be in direct conflict.

PAR’s argument against says that this amendment is another example of an amendment that should not be needed – one that is strictly housekeeping. A vote against would send a signal of voter impatience with the large number of constitutional amendments that continue showing up on the ballot.

– Proposed Amendment No. 8: Property Tax Exemption for Non-Manufacturing Businesses

An affirmative vote would allow the state Board of Commerce and Industry to grant local property tax exemption contracts to a targeted group of non-manufacturing businesses in parishes that choose to participate in the program.

A vote against would mean these businesses would continue to be ineligible for property-tax exemptions.

Eligible non-manufacturing businesses are corporate headquarters, distribution centers, data service centers, research and development operations and digital media or software development centers.

PAR’s argument for says this would help position Louisiana as a destination for those types of companies. The exemption is designed to only be granted where it is necessary to give the state a competitive advantage, requiring a certain amount of new jobs and a minimum capital expenditure requirement.

PAR’s argument against says it hurts local governments’ abilities to raise their own revenues. Because the requirements are detailed in legislation, they could be changed with a simple majority. Although parish government has the option to decline participation, they have little other control – other than zoning laws – over other details of the program that would impact their revenue.

– Proposed Amendment No. 9: Crime Prevention and Security Districts

An affirmative vote would increase the number of times that bills to create crime prevention and security districts must be advertised and require stricter standards on parcel fee collection.

A vote against would maintain the current public notice requirements.

According to PAR, crime prevention districts are becoming “increasingly popular” throughout the state. Neighborhood groups can cover a parcel fee, or a tax, from every home- or property owner within a specific area.

PAR’s argument for says it supports more awareness of significant local ballot questions.

PAR’s argument against says its debatable that increased notice will have the desired effect and that neighborhood associations would have a greater cost burden and that micromanagement of this type does not belong in the constitution.