Approve all but locally-oriented amendments

On both the general election date of Oct. 14 andthe its runoff date of Nov. 18 voters will be asked to approve four constitutional amendments. Louisianans should grant that approval for all but the two that address local finances.

Oct. 14, #1 – would clarify current statute prohibiting elections funding not from direct legislative appropriation, preventing election outsourcing to private funders whose targeting of dollars could influence outcomes. Its need is obvious. YES.

Oct. 14, #2 – would elevate from law into the Constitution and clarify that restrictions to constitutional freedom of religious worship operate under strict scrutiny. This would prevent any restriction unless it dealt with a compelling government interest, one narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means available. This important right deserves such a safeguard. YES.

Oct. 14, #3 – would elevate the minimum proportion of declared surplus budget dollars used to pay down unfunded accrued liabilities from 10 to 25 percent starting in fiscal year 2025, remove a 2029 sunset, and expand its application from the two to four largest pension funds. This makes good financial sense to prevent future fiscal crises. YES.

Oct. 14, #4 – would allow local authorities to yank constitutionally-granted property tax breaks to nonprofit organizations for code violations to noncommercial residential property they own. While government shouldn’t subsidize obviously dangerous living conditions even if tenants receive this assistance subsidized or free, other legal remedies exist in local ordinances to ensure safe conditions without inserting into the Constitution a provision that could encourage politically-inspired enforcement. NO.

Nov. 18, #1 – would clarify bill veto deadlines when regular, special, and veto sessions may mix among themselves. Essentially, if a scheduled veto session would fall during a regular or special legislative session, lawmakers could consider overriding the bill rejections without holding a separate veto session with the existing rule that a governor has 10 days after delivery to veto when a session continues or 20 days after it has been adjourned. The clarity is better. YES.

Nov. 18, #2 – would remove from the Constitution six protected funds added over the years, five of which haven’t had balances for decades and the other a trivial balance not used in two decades. There’s no need to load up the Constitution with trivial items. YES.

Nov. 18, #3 – would let parish governing authorities add an extra $25,000 exemption to property taxes for police, fire, and other first responder personnel living in genuine homesteads in the parish. This creates an extra financial incentive to fill those positions, but it shifts property tax burdens to other payers where that could be avoided and the whole process made simpler by paying higher wages. NO.

Nov. 18, #4 – would tighten eligibility rules for use dollars from the state’s backup reserve fund, the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund. Primarily designed for use of tenths of it at a time when it has a balance above $5 billion for capital outlay, it also can be used even to the point of emptying with a two-thirds vote. The amendment removes the anything goes option to make its use when not for capital outlay only when a budget deficit exists and the primary reserve fund, the Budget Stabilization Fund, has been tapped to its maximum to avoid a deficit, whereupon this fund could have a much as $250 million withdrawn per fiscal year. The proportion and minimum could be changed by law under the amendment. The restrictions remove the temptation to subvert the purposes of a source for capital outlay spending or for emergencies to go on spending sprees whenever a supermajority could be reached. YES.