There are two things voters to understand about ballot proposals.
- They are usually wordy and confusing — on purpose.
- There are often a backstory, details and circumstances that explain why they are on the ballot, that better informs the decision-making process.
That is the case for many of the amendments voters will consider on Saturday, Oct. 14. So we are going to give you our take on each one of them, and we will do it with out all of the superfluous and often misleading language.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Constitutional Amendment 1
NO
This amendment is an entry way to voter suppression. It is of the same ilk as the insane Georgia law that made it a crime to distribute water and snacks to voters waiting in long lines. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana have tried twice to get this passed in the legislature and failed. Now they are trying to slip it by the voters. Don’t be fooled.
Constitutional Amendment 1 would make it illegal in Louisiana to accept or use any money, good or services from non-government organizations or foreign governments to conduct elections or support any election related functions. First of all, Louisiana already has rules and guidelines governing the administration of elections. It is true that back in 2020 during the pandemic, election officials in several states across the country (Louisiana was not one of them) accepted private donations from foundations and non-profits, such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life, to help support and expand early voting, voter registration and other activities that made voting easier and more accessible. Louisiana didn’t take any of those private funds. And foreign governments aren’t donating money to help conduct elections in Louisiana or anywhere else in this country, for that matter. This language was placed in the amendment specifically to create alarm and confusion. The bottom line: This amendment is an entry way to voter suppression. It is of the same ilk as the insane Georgia law that made it a crime to distribute water and snacks to voters waiting in long lines. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana have tried twice to get this passed in the legislature and failed. Now they are trying to slip it by the voters via a constitutional amendment. Don’t be fooled.
Constitutional Amendment 2
NO
State Republicans are at it again with more reactionary foolery that stems from the pandemic. Religion is already protected by both the state and federal constitutions. The proposed amendment is ambiguous and unnecessary.
This amendment would make the freedom to worship in a church or other place of worship a “fundamental right worthy of protection of the highest order.” State Republicans are at it again with more reactionary foolery that stems from the pandemic. Religion is already protected by both the state and federal constitutions. The proposed amendment is ambiguous and unnecessary. What exactly does “protection of the highest order” mean? This proposed amendment is a direct response to Gov. John Bel Edward’s decision to shutter places of worship during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the virus was spreading rapidly, resulting in death across the state. A Louisiana pastor, Patsor Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church in Central defied the Governor’s orders by continuing to hold large church gatherings, resulting in his arrest. In May 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court sided with Spell. As we said, Louisiana already protects the freedom to worship.
Constitutional Amendment 3
NO
This amendment is another example of state leaders trying to deal with budget concerns with quick fixes. Saying “no” means elected state leaders can assess the needs of Louisiana’s residents and make decisions based on what’s critically important, not constitutionally mandated. We should keep the amount of non-recurring revenue dedicated to future payouts of the state retirement system at 10 percent, because raising it to 25 percent simply puts too many eggs in one basket in a state that has too many empty baskets.
This amendment would increase the percentage of non-recurring revenue the state dedicates to the unfunded accrued liability (the difference between what it has now and what it expects to have to pay in the future) of the state retirement system from 10 percent to 25 percent. And its a bad idea because it ties the legislature’s hands anytime the state gets one-time revenue (for example, American Rescue Plan Act dollars), forcing it to spend 25 percent of it in one place regardless of more pressing needs or priorities at any given time. Why should the state be obligated to spend a whopping 25 percent of any one-time revenue in one place when Louisiana has so many challenges — education, healthcare, infrastructure and more. This amendment is another example of state leaders trying to deal with budget concerns with quick fixes. Saying “no” means elected state leaders can assess the needs of Louisiana’s residents and make decisions based on what’s critically important, not constitutionally mandated. We should keep the amount of non-recurring revenue dedicated to future payouts of the state retirement system at 10 percent, because raising it to 25 percent simply puts too many eggs in one basket in a state that has too many empty baskets. If Louisiana does not have a better plan to meet the the retirement system’s unfunded accrued liability, it needs to one. Oh, and guess what? Not one retired state employee or teacher will miss a check if this amendment fails. This may be an expedient idea, but it is not a good one.
Constitutional Amendment 4
YES
Finally, something that makes sense. This amendment will revoke the property tax exemption that non-profit landlords enjoy if the property has been cited for at least three code violations, indicating unsafe conditions.
Finally something that makes sense. This amendment will revoke the property tax break that non-profit landlords enjoy if the property has been cited for at least three code violations, indicating unsafe conditions. State Rep. Jason Hughes of New Orleans led the effort to place this measure on the ballot as a way to hold such organizations responsible after city leaders in New Orleans faced repeated problems with one such landlord, Tennessee-based Global Ministries Foundation, which operates three apartment complexes across the metro area. We agree that non-profit organizations operating as landlords should not benefit from a break on their property taxes when that same property is in substandard conditions. A property tax exemption is not an automatic right and these landlords ought to be held accountable.
LOCAL PROPOSITIONS
PW HRC Amendment Prop. No. 1
NO
This proposition, if it passes, would change the date that the mayor must submit a capital and operating budget proposal to the City Council from Nov. 1 to Oct. 1. First the City Council wanted voters to change the charter to usurp a duly elected mayor’s ability to select his or her executive level team members because . . . well, other cities do it. Perhaps feeling buoyed by success in that effort, now they want to change the charter to push up the budget deadline by 30 days because . . . well, other cities are do it. If New Orleans wants to be a copy-cat city, there are much better ways do so without nit-picking the Home Rule Charter. We’re not saying the Council and the public could not benefit from more time to review the budget. But we have not been sufficiently convinced that 30 days isn’t enough, especially since its been this way. Bottom line, as for as we are concerned this is NOT the time to make another change to the Home Rule Charter, especially if that change involves Mayor – Council relations in any way, shape or form. City Hall has just become too politicized right now to keep putting this important document at the center of a mess.
PW HRC Amendment Prop. No. 2
NO
This proposition would create a single, stand alone Code Enforcement department in city government, which on its face is not a bad idea. Right now the City’s Division of Code Enforcement gets much of its funding and administrative support from other departments within City government. The problem is that this proposition is akin to moving furniture into space, and then building a house around it. How is the office going to be funded? What here an outline of the guidelines under which it will operate? We are saying “NO”. But we are not saying “never”. We’re just asking City leaders to return to the drawing board and show us a blueprint for this plan.
NOPW School Board Proposition – 4.97 Mills Renewal – SB – 20 Yrs.
NO
This proposition would renew an existing tax for schools for another 20 year. Our position has not changed on the issue. Unless and until true local control of public education returns to Orleans Parish, it’s a hard “NO” on all school millages — new and old!