Posted: Nov 6, 2012 11:44 AM by Melissa Canone
Updated: Nov 6, 2012 12:20 PM
Louisiana voters will be asked to decide nine proposed amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on the Nov. 6 ballot. These proposals were approved by legislators during the 2012 Regular Session. Those receiving a majority vote in the statewide election will be enacted.
Amendment 1: Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly
A VOTE FOR WOULD prohibit the Legislature or governor from taking money from the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly to help balance the state operating budget.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD leave the possibility that money could be taken from the fund.
Amendment 2: Strict Scrutiny Standard for Gun Laws
A VOTE FOR WOULD require that any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms be subject to the highest level of judicial review, known as strict scrutiny. Also, the amendment would say that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental one in Louisiana. It would delete a line in the Constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD retain the existing language in the Constitution, which a?rms that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged but does not require strict scrutiny of arms laws and expressly allows the Legislature to regulate concealed weapons.
Amendment 3: Earlier Notice of Public Retirement System Bills
A VOTE FOR WOULD require that bills a?ecting the state's public retirement systems be ?led a month earlier than other types of legislation submitted prior to a legislative session. A vote for also would double the public notice period for pre?led retirement bills.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD mean bills a?ecting public retirement systems would continue to be
subject to the same pre?ling period and public notice requirements as they are now.
Amendment 4: Property Tax Exemption for Spouses of Certain Disabled Veterans
A VOTE FOR WOULD allow the spouse of a deceased veteran who had a 100 percent service-connected disability rating to claim a higher homestead exemption even if the exemption was not in e?ect at the time the veteran died.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD mean the spouse could not claim the higher exemption if the veteran died before it took e?ect.
Amendement 5: Forfeiture of Public Retirement Benefits for Convicted Public Servants
A VOTE FOR WOULD allow the courts to include forfeiture of a portion of public retirement
bene?ts as part of the sentence for a public servant convicted of a felony related to his or her o?ce.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD leave the current system in place, which means a public servant convicted of a felony related to his or her o?ce would be allowed to keep whatever public retirement bene?ts he or she has earned, except for court-ordered restitution and other speci?c circumstances already described in law.
Amendment 6: Property Tax Exemption Authority for New Iberia
A VOTE FOR WOULD allow New Iberia to grant city property tax exemptions to any property owner annexed into the city after Jan. 1, 2013.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD mean the city would be unable to grant such exemptions to property
owners annexed into the city.
Amendment 7: Membership of Certain State Boards and Commissions
A VOTE FOR WOULD adjust the membership selection process for constitutionally created
boards and commissions that have members selected based on the state's congressional districts.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD leave the membership selection process for constitutionally created
boards and commissions as it is now-based on a soon-to-be outdated number of congressional districts.
Amendment 8: Property Tax Exemption for Non-Manufacturing Businesses
A VOTE FOR WOULD allow the state Board of Commerce and Industry to grant local property
tax exemption contracts to a targeted group of non-manufacturing businesses in parishes that choose to participate in the program.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD mean these targeted non-manufacturing businesses would continue
to be ineligible for property tax exemptions.
Amendment 9: Crime Prevention and Security Districts
A VOTE FOR WOULD increase the number of times that bills to create crime prevention and
security districts must be advertised and require that the notices of intent state whether a parcel fee would be imposed and collected, whether the fee could be imposed or increased without an election, and what the maximum amount of the fee would be.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD mean crime prevention and security district bills would continue to be
subject to the same public notice requirements as they are now.