All four, including the most consequential in decades, amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on the Mar. 29 ballot deserve voter approval. Let’s see why.
#1 – would clarify disciplining of out-of-state lawyers and creation of multi-parish specialty courts. Essentially, a loophole exists that inhibits disciplining this cohort for some matters, which the change would close. Specialty courts, existing presently in areas such as drug cases, family matters, and for veterans, are confined to the 64 parishes or 42 judicial districts. Proponents say a regional approach could help in matters such as these and for potentially new kinds of courts, such as a business court seen in the majority of states. This would have the disadvantage of adding more elected judges in a state that seats a surplus of judges, but on the whole there are more plusses than minuses. YES.
#2 – would reduce the maximum rate of income tax, double income tax deductions for residents age 65 or older, slow down a governmental growth limit, merge significant constitutional funds while moving lesser ones into statute, give parishes more severance tax dollars, provide incentive to prevent state taxpayers from subsidizing local taxpayers, move some tax breaks into statute, and prompt a salary increase for teachers while paring unfunded mandates, among other items. Lengthy and complex, it serves as the linchpin to fiscal reforms enacted by the Legislature last year.
Failure to pass it not only would keep in the Constitution certain undesirable inflexibilities that hamper economic development through counterproductive tax code provisions and overly burdensome regulation, but also would trigger a substantial overall tax increase, as the statutory changes that raised sales taxes were predicted on being matched with constitutional changes that have the effect of lowering income taxation. Overall, it promises constraining the size of government while setting up a revenue collection structure that traded some of revenue acquisition through confiscation of wealth with the bounty of increased economic activity.
Critics have sniped at this at the margins, in a broad sense opposing changes that would make less punitive income taxation on the highest earners and in the more specific cases objecting to items that may make it less difficult to change certain things that favor them in the tax code. For example, with those exemptions being moved into statute now only a two-thirds vote in the Legislature could eliminate these as opposed to that supermajority and a majority of voters if these remained in the Constitution. As well, the amendment would force a three-quarters supermajority to create a property tax break in statute, as opposed to the simple majority at present.
Major items such as the homestead exemption, Minimum Foundation Program for education, and a new beefed-up Budget Stabilization Fund as a savings account will continue unweakened. As unwieldy as the state’s fiscal system was prior to the statutory changes, after that it would be worse without this amendment. YES
#3 – would remove constitutional designations of crimes where youths may be tried as adults. The 16 of these leave little flexibility for the Legislature to adjust as societal conditions change and make it difficult to add others if needed. These should end up in statute in some form where the flexibility would exist to add, subtract, and strengthen or weaken as necessary. YES
#4 – would increase the ability to call special elections to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Because the move last year to partially closed primaries for these positions, among others, given the existing restrictions on when to call elections the state now must contend with potentially an extra election involved, making the present constitutional dictate to fill a vacancy with more than a year remaining on the ten-year term depending on election dates possibly too constraining. Admittedly likely rare in happening, it’s a technical change that is unobtrusive. YES
Amendment 2 has monumental importance, so a vote in the affirmative especially is recommended. In fact, its passage probably reduces the number of times in the future amendments would be requested for a popular vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment