A lawsuit that was filed against the complicated Amendment 2 on the March 29 statewide ballot may not succeed. However, the attorneys who filed the suit have accurately described the amendment that rewrites the financial section of the state constitution.

The Advocate’s report quoted from the lawsuit where it says, “There is no person in the state of Louisiana — including the legislators who passed HB 7 — who understands all of the proposed changes to the constitution.”

It adds that the 91 words in the ballot description of the amendment include only the sweeteners in the proposed amendment — language aimed at drawing favorable votes.

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, as it has done for many years, does a superb job of explaining the amendment. However, only someone seriously interested in finding out exactly what is in the amendment will devote the time necessary to fully understand it.

I spent over 82 minutes Thursday watching PAR’s webinar on the four amendments on the ballot. When I looked at PAR’s website at www.parlouisiana.org, I found the webinar and “PAR Guide to the 2025 Constitutional Amendments.”

The one-page guide offers a brief description of the arguments for and against the four amendments. Then, there is the longer description of each amendment that will require some lengthy reading.

Steve Procopio, president of PAR, moderated the webinar along with Melinda Deslatte, PAR’s research director. Participants were Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute for Public Policy; Jan Moller, executive director of Invest in Louisiana; and Barry Erwin, chief policy officer of Leaders for a Better Louisiana.

Knowing their backgrounds, I expected to hear some opposing views and wasn’t disappointed. Erspamer expressed primarily conservative views, and Moller can always be counted on to handle the liberal responses. Erwin was probably there for balance.

Procopio divided Amendment 2 into six parts that make it easier to understand. They are general taxation, government growth, state savings accounts, trust funds, other fund changes and property taxes.

The Legislature approved a 3% flat individual income tax, a 5.5% flat corporate income tax and raised the state sales tax from 4.45% to 5% until it becomes 4.75% on Jan. 1, 2030. Those three tax changes became effective on Jan. 1 and aren’t affected by Amendment 2.

Moller during the webinar called legislative passage of Amendment 2 a bad process. He said the last time lawmakers changed the constitution it was a two-year process, not two weeks. Voters had a much longer time to digest what they were voting for.

Erspamer defended the government growth section of the amendment. He said state government has grown 88% over the last decade. He also liked the idea of combining two state savings accounts into one.

The Revenue Stabilization Fund will eventually be eliminated and become part of the Budget Stabilization Fund that lawmakers can use as rainy day funds.

Amendment 2 also removes a number of special property tax exemptions out of the constitution and into the state statutes. There are also tougher restrictions on adding new property and tax exemptions.

Two major tax exemptions are staying in the constitution — the $75,000 homestead exemption and sales tax exemptions for food used for home consumption, residential utilities and prescription drugs.

One of the sweeteners in the amendment that some people are talking about is the elimination of education trust funds to help provide teachers with a permanent $2,000 pay increase and school support workers with a  permanent $1,000 pay increase.

Those in K-12 and higher education have benefited from the education trust funds and some of their spokespersons have complained about their elimination.

Amendments 1 and 4 on the March 29 ballot deal with creating special regional courts, which isn’t possible under current law, and setting up earlier election dates for judges.

Amendment 3 would allow legislators to increase the types of crimes that would make it possible to try juveniles under 17 in adult courts. The judicial amendments are questionable and Amendment 3 is definitely one that deserves overwhelming rejection.

Funds are being raised to both support and oppose Amendment 2, so we will be hearing much more about its pros and cons between now and the March 29 election.

Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than six decades. Contact him at 337-515-8871 or jim.beam.press@gmail.com.

ReplyForward Add reaction