Amendment 2 has received by far the most publicity,
which would introduce the “strict scrutiny” standard to
any state government attempts to restrict firearm usage. Some opponents argue
that it could make it more difficult for legal authorities to prosecute
criminals regarding gun possession, but any reasonable understanding of the
doctrine would not support that contention. Given the continuing demonstration of the salutary impact that increased gun ownership
has on the quality of life, this deserves passage.
Amendment 3 tackles the complex subject of retirement legislation by
trying to give more time to understand it by filing these kinds of bills
earlier in a legislative session. But it creates practical problems, such as
when a new Legislature is sworn in new members would have almost no time to
even introduce such bills. Further, it creates asymmetry in power relations
against those who would want to change things, as a sooner filing would allow
for more time to have specific vested interests create defensive strategies. And,
the bills can change substantially anyway throughout the process, negating
earlier revelation if that even is necessary to understand them. The Constitution, and House and Senate rules, already give retirement as a subject special
treatment meaning they must be filed earlier than other bills, which thus needs
not be expanded upon nor be allowed to become that much more difficult to
change by cluttering the Constitution further with this requirement, so this
needs to be rejected.
Amendment 4 would compound a mistake previously made by voters two
years ago that doubled the homestead exemption for veterans with a
service-connected disability rating of one hundred percent, by referendums in
each parish, by adding spouses of those deceased individuals also in
qualification. As explained then, it’s incomplete in that it does not include all
totally disabled individuals and may reduce the chances for them to get a
similar deal in the future, much less the spouses of those dead. Those so
completely disabled rarely asked for it, so why single out a special category
and now include the non-disabled? While this is feel-good, it’s better to come
back with an amendment including all for consistency sake and then debate the
merits, so passing this one might close the debate prematurely; that this
amendment was proposed and not a more complete one validates that argument and
thus should not be passed.
Amendment 5 would allow courts to use as a penalty forfeiture of state
retirement benefits. A companion law
waits in the wings that would define how this would work, which visits in very
isolated fashion the punishment on the miscreant, not his family, affecting
only state contributions, and for state job-related acts. That law can be
changed; the amendment only gives the right to legislate in this area. The
deterrent value of this might have prevented pensioners like this guy and
that guy
from committing meaningful crimes in office, much less unelected bureaucrats, and
every little bit helps in this state, so this one needs passage.
Amendment 6 would let New Iberia grant city property tax exemptions for
annexations into the city, because that activity is discouraged because of
previous decisions about whether the city or parish should perform certain
public services. A good rule of thumb is never to clutter the Constitution when
other solutions exist. Besides the fact this would allow New Iberia to play
political favorites in deciding whom to grant these to, it either could undo
the previous arrangement or by ordinance offer a tax rebate to those annexed.
Vote no to this unnecessary addition.
Amendment 7 is like taking bad medicine. It would alter the
compositions of several high-profile boards, whose compositions are set in the
Constitution, based upon six rather than seven Congressional districts, as one
was lost in the recent decennial reapportionment. Better to do this
constitutionally than not and invite trouble down the road when trying to justify an unconstitutional action by
state government, so voters should
hold their noses and swallow an affirmative vote here.
Amendment 8 also has received a small amount of attention, which would
allow local governments by unanimity in an area to dole out tax exemptions to
certain employers, as defined by a companion law
administered by the state’s Board of Commerce and Industry. This opens the door
to more erosion of local tax revenues and crony capitalism, potentially
magnified considerably by changes that could come to the implementing
legislation. Therefore, a negative vote should come to this.
Amendment 9 would address the burgeoning concept of crime prevention
districts over the past 15 years by requiring more reporting requirements
before they appear on a ballot for passage that if successful would lead to
higher taxes – in these districts, because local public safety forces aren’t
doing their jobs well enough, those living in these areas are forced to pay
more. As the confiscation of property is the most serious action a government
can take, voters need maximal awareness of this situation, which may defeat or
discourage these attempts. Liberty must be protected to the greatest extent
possible, and a vote for this would do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment