Amendments await voters on Nov. ballot

Image
Body

Voters statewide will be asked to decide yes or no on six proposed amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on Nov. 6.
These amendments address a number of serious issues. In particular, Amendment No. 2 would require unanimous verdicts in all felony cases.
Unlike so many incidental proposals for changes to the Constitution over the years, Amendment No. 2 addresses an issue of historic proportions in that the current non-unanimous jury law is rooted in the 19th century cultural settings and sets the state apart from the rest of the nation.
In addition to the six amendments, voters will face a ballot question determining which parishes will allow fantasy sports contests.
The following explanations of the six proposals is taken from the Public Affairs Research Council’s Guide to the 2018 Constitutional Amendments. The Guide is intended as an educational source and does not recommend how to vote.
Amendment 1
Felons in public office
A vote for would constitutionally prohibit convicted, non-pardoned felons from seeking or holding public office until five years after completion of sentence.
A vote against would continue to allow convicted felons to qualify to hold office after serving a sentence.
Under current statutes, a convicted felon is unqualified to seek elected office in Louisiana while under an order of imprisonment.
The proposed amendment would prohibit felons from holding or seeking public office or an “appointment of honor, trust or profit in this state” for five years after completing a sentence. It would not apply to felons who are pardoned.
Proponents contend that felons should not be serving in office and “the political system would not be eager to invite corrupt individuals and their cronies into the ranks of leadership and influence.”
Opponents argue that convicted felons who have completed their sentence have paid their debt to society and should be allowed to seek office and reintegrate into society without undue delay.
Amendment 2
Unanimous juries for felony cases
A vote for would require unanimous jury decisions for verdicts in non-capital felony cases for offenses committed after 2018.
A vote against would maintain that at least 10 of 12 jurors must agree for verdicts in non-capital felony cases.
Currently, Louisiana is one of two states that allow for the conviction or acquittal of a felony defendant without a unanimous decision, a provision instituted at the state’s 1898 Constitutional
Convention where nine out of 12 jury votes were required to reach a verdict. This provision was revised in the 1974 Constitutional Convention to require 10 of 12.
This specific rule applies to all felony trials on charges in which the required punishment is hard labor. Capital murder trials as well as six-member juries that consider lesser felony charges require unanimous votes to reach a verdict.
The proposed amendment would require all 12 members of a jury to render a verdict in cases where the punishment would be confinement at hard labor. The unanimous vote requirement includes verdicts to convict as well as to acquit.
Lesser felony offenses still will require all members of six-member jury to convict.
This change will not be retroactive as it would apply to offenses committed on or after Jan. 1, 2019.
Proponents point to recent research that suggests that, even today, the current law has a disparate impact on minorities.
Furthermore, they say the current law encourages gamesmanship by prosecutors, who might overcharge a defendant in order to qualify for a 12-person jury needing 10 votes and thus, perhaps, an easier conviction, as opposed to a six-person jury in which unanimity is required.
Opponents argue that there is no way to validate the racial component of the current law and that having a lower verdict threshold reduces the likelihood of a hung jury, saving time and taxpayer money on potential retrials.
Also, while unanimous juries are standard in the United States, that is not the practice in many other developed nations. For example, England, Scotland, Ireland, Brazil, Belgium and Denmark all refrain from requiring unanimous juries.

Amendment 3
Allow local governments to share resources
A vote for would allow donations of the use of public equipment and personnel from one political subdivision to another under the Constitution.
A vote against would continue to require that local governments receive comparable value for any donation provided to another governmental entity.
Currently, the Constitution prohibits donations or loans by state or local government entities except in cases of emergency. The state Supreme Court has recognized that governmental entities may make agreements to share with each other, but has ruled that this authority does not relieve the entities of the requirement to receive at lease equivalent value in exchange for services of assets provided.
The proposed amendment would allow local governments or other political subdivisions to donate equipment and personnel to other local entities as long as they have a written agreement without a requirement for receiving comparable value.
Proponents say donations between governments will provide for greater efficiency. For example, if a fire district needs to borrow a bulldozer from a city, it can save the cost of purchasing a bulldozer.
They agree that the constitutional prohibition against donations is an important law that prevents governments from just giving away taxpayer dollars, but contend that it was not meant to stop local governments from sharing resources and coping with urgent needs.
Opponents argue that the amendment is unnecessary. Where one entity has an unmet need that another entity can satisfy, the agencies can simply enter into a written cooperative endeavor agreement for renting or leasing needed personnel and equipment.
The Constitution, opponents say, clearly allows for cooperative endeavor agreements between public bodies as long as there is a public purpose and comparable values are exchanged.

Amendment 4
Diversions of dedicated transportation funding to state police
A vote for would remove the authority to use money in the Transportation Trust Fund by state police for traffic control purposes.
A vote against would continue to allow a portion of the Transportation Trust Fund to be used by state police for traffic control purposes.
Proponents claim the amendment will provide more confidence to taxpayers by guaranteeing that tax dollars will be used on much-needed infrastructure projects and not diverted to pay for the operating costs of state police.
Opponents argue that traffic control is a needed and legitimate use of transportation funds and that traffic patrols help with public safety by reducing accidents, which slow traffic flow.

Amendment 5
Tax exemptions for property in trust
A vote for would extend eligibility for certain special property tax treatments to property held in trust.
A vote against would keep eligibility for certain special property tax treatment restricted to the owner of the property.
Proponents of the amendment argue that Louisiana voters have already made it clear that they want groups such as the disabled and the elderly to received special tax treatment and that these exemptions should apply to property in trust, just like the homestead exemption already does.
They say there is no good policy reason to discriminate against those trying to provide for a smooth succession for their family.
Opponents argue that enough is enough: While the various property tax exemptions help worthy groups, it begs the question of when does the state draw the line for property tax exemptions.
Although this expansion of exemptions to trusts is a relatively minor loss of revenue form the local government standpoint, the combination of this and other special homestead exemptions has a cumulative impact on the local tax base.

Amendment 6
Large tax increases on homes
A vote for would require a four-year phase-in of tax liability for homes subject to the homestead exemption when a reappraisal increases assessments by more than 50 percent.
A vote against would continue to require all homeowners to pay taxes owed on the same basis according to the assessed values.
According to the legislation, if a reassessment of a primary residence is greater than 50 percent of the prior assessment, the tax collector will phase-in the additional liability over four years. The assessor’s job does not change; the assessor will register the higher assessment on the books as the new value of the home. It would be the tax collector who implements the phase-in for lower taxes by artificially calculating the appraisal at a lower rate, raising the additional tax liability 25 percent for four consecutive years.
The reduction only applies to dwellings that qualify for the homestead exemption and this phase-in would cease if the property is sold to another owner.
Proponents say the amendment gives owners time to adjust to higher tax payments when, through no fault of their own, assessments increase drastically because the surrounding neighborhood has shot up in value or other reasons.
Opponents argue that the amendment is unfair to homeowners with assessment increases of less than 50 percent and further compounds a fundamental problem and inequity in the property tax methods of the state.
Under the proposed system, a homeowner with a 40 percent increase in assessment would be paying approximately 8 percent more in taxes over four years than a homeowner with an increase of just over 50 percent. In fact, for homes valued at more than $75,000, a 31 percent assessment increase would result in about the same amount of tax over four years as a 50 percent assessment increase.
PAR has issued a Ballot Language Advisory for Amendment 6: Voters should be aware that the ballot proposition for Amendment No. 6 that will appear on the statewide ballot does not completely match the content of the legislation. A House floor amendment was adopted to Senate Bill 1645 to switch the responsibility for the phase-in from the assessor to the tax collector. The House floor also changed the bill to limit the special tax reduction only to properties subject to the homestead exemption.

BALLOT ITEM
The Louisiana Fantasy Sports Contests Act
Although not a constitutional amendment, this item will appear on all ballots statewide on Nov. 6.
A vote for would permit online fantasy sports betting contests in the voter’s parish.
A vote against would not allow online fantasy sports betting contests in the voter’s parish.
Fantasy sports games are legal in Louisiana if no wagering is involved. Several websites, such as ESPN and Yahoo, allow people to sign up for fantasy sports for no charge and without any related prizes for winning.
Certain other online fantasy sports sites like DraftKings or FanDuel charge entry fees and give out cash prizes.
People in Louisiana are not allowed to use those sites and others like them to compete in fantasy sports where winners receive prizes. Currently, such activities are expressly prohibited by law in Louisiana and would be a crime punishable by a fine up to $500 and imprisonment for up to six months.
Under this act, Internet and mobile device fantasy sports contests would be permitted in any parish that votes for it. However, even in those parishes, it would not necessarily happen immediately.
Such contests would continue to be illegal until state laws and regulations are adopted. These laws and regulations would include, among other things, how the fantasy sports contests would be taxed.
Proponents say people already bet on fantasy football and similar games that this bill would just legalize it and allow the state and local government to regulate and tax it.
Opponents argue that this represents an expansion of gambling in Louisiana and, according to a recent analysis by Wallethub, Louisiana is the fifth most gambling addictive state in the country.