In a state election cycle that looks to end up as a yawner, so do the constitutional amendments voters in Louisiana will be asked to decide on Nov. 5 and Dec. 7.
The earlier date has just an Amendment 1, which would sequester from federal government offshore areas funds from alternative energy royalties to the Coastal Restoration and Protection Fund and therefore used for reclamation and flood control purposes. That’s the arrangement dealing with these one-time dollars for fossil fuel extraction in that region, and it makes sense. YES
The other four appear on the Dec. 7 ballot, and are as equally undramatic, if not also as arcane:
#1 – would expand the Judiciary Commission and change some of its disciplinary functions. This body can recommend discipline of judges for misconduct to the state’s Supreme Court, even to the point of their removal. The Court can’t force its members, all picked by various levels of the judiciary, to investigate a judge. The amendment would give the Court that power and add five members appointed by the majoritarian branches to the nine appointed by the judiciary. This arrangement would make for a more effective, less insular body. YES
#2 – would make lawmakers wait at least 48 hours to review proposed amendments to appropriation bills before they can take a final vote. No such rule exists now, and too often legislative leaders spring final versions these bills on members right at the end of a session that forces votes with next to knowledge about what’s in the bills. This would stop that, and makes it desirable. YES
#3 – would allow extending a regular legislative session up to six days if needing more time to pass a bill appropriating money. This adds on to #2 to ensure matters aren’t too rushed, and even could be good standing alone. YES
#4 – would shift from a tax sale process to a tax lien auction process when a property owner hasn’t paid property taxes. The current system discourages any buyer from a tax sale from using the property for up to three years and becomes tremendously convoluted when multiple owners are involved that requires going through the process. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision casts further doubt on whether the existing framework even is constitutional when it involved a sale sum greater than the debt
The change would move the process from selling the property to slapping a lien on it, which acts like a mortgage worth the tax debt plus as much as 5 percent penalty and interest of 1 percent a month, the same existing standards. Other aspects of the current system would be removed from the Constitution where statute would determine how it works, where the companion legislation doesn’t allow a sale for three year and makes a lien unenforceable after seven years.
This creates greater flexibility in making a system that doesn’t violate property owner rights, simplifies the process of collection and repatriation, and induces less uncertainty for buyers. It also appears consistent with the constitutionality requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court. YES
That makes this election cycle easy to remember for amendment decisions: thumbs up on all. Which certainly doesn’t add any spice to a state cycle where it appears all incumbent members of Congress running plus a recycled member will walk into office, there’s no competition for a state Supreme Court slot, and one Public Service Commission open seat candidate seems to have a leg up on his competitors, but there always will be other election cycles.
No comments:
Post a Comment