Attempts to derail Amendment 2 on Louisiana’s March 29 ballot come in two types: as previously mentioned a disingenuous legal strategy, but also a more principled opposition yet which fails on the merits – where the former tries to scare the latter into agreement.
One dubious approach tries to have the entire measure thrown off the ballot for alleged infractions. Soon to be put to the test in court, those behind it as well as supporters of the effort inhabit the political left which wants to see the measure fail by any means possible as it offends their ideological sensibilities; i.e. it makes expansive government for redistributive purposes more difficult by, in the main, granting income tax relief to middle-class filers and above and makes it easier to cut out favoritism in the tax code.
However, another more thoughtful tack against focuses on the amendment’s paring of tax exceptions in the Constitution. The thinking is not only would this make for a less-unwieldy document but also create greater flexibility to change out of items that may have protection today which in the future may be determined to make less sense as exceptions and then can be altered or abandoned more easily.
This has sounded the alarm among some wishing to preserve some of the breaks involved, dealing with sales and property taxes. That feeling has been stoked by the less-scrupulous ideological opponents who, reading the room of the state’s political culture, have targeted citizens’ religious sentiments, pointing in particular to one passage of the amendment.
That one, the former section 21 renumbered to 35 in part exempts “Property owned by a nonprofit operated exclusively for religious purposes as a house of worship, residential housing for clergy, priests, or nuns, or a seminary or other educational institution training individuals for religious ministry.” They argue that because of the word “exclusively” this could mean, for example, a building which is rented out by a religious nonprofit for uses other than “religious purposes” may become subject to property taxation which then, in the breathless words of one headline, means the amendment “Threatens Churches, Non-Profits with Massive Property Taxes.”
The presumed “threat” comes from ditching current Art. VII Sec. 21(B)(1)(a)(i) wording “Property owned by a nonprofit corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, dedicated places of burial, charitable, health, welfare, fraternal, or educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or member thereof and that is declared to be exempt from federal or state income tax,” which is more inclusive. Except that the protection, in that exact language, would be replicated into existing R.S. 47.1703 by passage of the amendment, therefore making no difference in the exemption.
In fact, the only difference would be that in the Constitution at present altering this would require another amendment of a two-third majority of each legislative chamber and a majority of a subsequent popular vote. If just in statute, the two-thirds majorities requirement still stands to abolish it, but without the popular vote.
Frankly, such fears are entirely misplaced. It would take an overactive, if not paranoiac, imagination to think, given the state’s political culture, that currently at least two-thirds majorities of elected legislators suddenly would decide to lift this exemption. Even if lawmakers changed their scruples that grant maximal deference to religious practice, they would know if they did they would be pummeled at the ballot box next election cycle. And if ever voters put in such a supermajority willing to take this step of stripping it, you can bet even if in the Constitution that amendment would garner majority popular support from a public clearly comfortable with it as indicated by their support of such candidates.
Indeed, the “exclusivity” standard in fact is widely used across other states for basic exemption and in some states statute doesn’t provide additional exemptions as in Louisiana. In fact, Louisiana’s are some of the most extensive.
That doesn’t mean just because others do it Louisiana should drop the exemptions offered up for transfer into statute. But it does mean it can and should pare its Constitution when possible, the length and breadth of which is a well–deserved tribute to skepticism about government’s actions.
But that reaction largely has been earned through its profligacy and poor choices (if not kleptocracy) on fiscal matters, not in matters regarding religious observance, as a result of its political culture. Let’s put it this way, if that aspect of the culture ever changes sufficiently to demand broader property taxation of religious organization assets, Constitutional placement won’t stop that, so in the interest of a simpler governing document statute is appropriate.
Those who wish to have as few hindrances on religious worship as possible, in the genuine spirit as intended, shouldn’t let themselves be duped by those with a much more expansive agenda whipping up fear. Their testimony and faith will be enough to ensure such exemptions, as long as these don’t end up part of widespread abuse, remain in force whether in the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment