Here are the constitutional amendments Louisiana voters will decide on Tuesday. The information is from teh Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana. Their Web site is www.la-par.org/index.cfm.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 1:

Term limits for members of state boards and commissions

Advertisement

CURRENT SITUATION: There are more than 500 appointed boards and commissions in the executive branch of government. Some are established in the Constitution and most are established by statute. A few of them already have limitations on the number of terms a member can be appointed or elected to serve, but there are no term limits that apply generally or that prevent appointment to a separate board following a term limit being reached.

PROPOSED CHANGE: The amendment would limit to three the number of consecutive terms a person could appointed to serve on the following boards commissions: Public Service Commission; state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education; Board of Regents; Board of Supervisors for the University Louisiana System; Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University; Board of Supervisors of Southern University; Board of Supervisors of Community and Technical Colleges; Forestry Commission; State Civil Service Commission; State Police Commission.

If a person serves more than two and onehalf consecutive terms, he or she could not be reappointed or re-elected to any board or commission on the list for a period of at least two years following completion of the terms.

Current members of boards and commissions would be allowed to finish out their terms and their next term would count as their first for the purposes of term limits.

YOU DECIDE:

A VOTE FOR would impose term limits for members of certain state boards and commissions.

A VOTE AGAINST would continue to allow members of certain state boards and commissions to be elected or appointed for an unlimited number of terms.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 2:

Time limits for calling special legislative sessions

CURRENT SITUATION: The constitution prescribes the methods by which the Legislature can be called into special sessions held in addition to the regular annual sessions. They can be called by either the governor or a majority vote of the Legislature. Legislation during special sessions is limited to the specific topics listed in the call, which determines the length of the session not to exceed 30 days. The call must be issued by the governor or presiding officers of the Legislature five days prior to convening the session.

PROPOSED CHANGE: This amendment would change the required advance notice for calling a special session from five days to seven calendar days.

YOU DECIDE:

A VOTE FOR would require that the call for a special legislative session be issued at least seven calendar days prior to the start of the session.

A VOTE AGAINST would continue the requirement that the call for a special legislative session be issued at least five days prior to the start of the session.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3:

Temporary successors for legislators ordered to active military duty

CURRENT SITUATION: The Louisiana Legislature currently has one member at risk of being called away to active duty. Unless he resigns and a special election is called for his replacement, his district will without representation in his absence. The Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) provides job protection and rights of reinstatement to service members who are deployed and must take a leave of absence from their civilian jobs. Employers are required to allow service members to return to their positions with full benefits and compensation as they would have accrued if the service member had not been deployed. However, the Department of Defense prohibits service members called to active duty (for more than 270 days) from exercising duties of elected state office. They are allowed to continue holding their elected office.

PROPOSED CHANGE: The amendment would require that the Legislature provide for a method of appointing a temporary successor for legislators who are called to active military duty. Companion legislation outlines further details, including a prohibition on a temporary successor from qualifying to run for the office while serving as a replacement for a legislator on active duty. Immediate family members would not be allowed to serve as temporary successors. Immediate family is defined as children, the spouses of children, siblings and their spouses, parents, spouse, and the parents of the spouse. The statute would require that the elected legislator’s order to active duty must be for a period of 180 days or more for a successor to be appointed. All applicable qualifications for eligibility to serve in that district would be required of the successor. The appointment procedure is described in the companion legislation. The process would require that potential temporary successors identified in advance of a legislator being called away. Legislators who might be called to active duty during their term of office would submit a list of at least three qualified nominees to either the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate. Those nominees then would be vetted in hearings by the governmental affairs committee of the appropriate house. That committee would make a recommendation for appointment, but the presiding officer of the appropriate house would make the appointment if and when the legislator were called to duty. Temporary successors would serve only for the duration of the elected legislator’s term of office or until he/she returns from active duty. Successors would be required to comply with the same ethics laws governing all elected legislators, except financial disclosure statements would be required only of those who serve six months or more.

YOU DECIDE:

A VOTE FOR would allow the Legislature to appoint a temporary successor for any legislator called to active military duty that prevents performance of the duties of office.

A VOTE AGAINST would continue to require districts to be without representation in the case of their elected legislator being called away to active military duty and refusing to resign.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 4:

State severance taxes to parishes

CURRENT SITUATION: Severance tax revenue: The Constitution requires the state to give parish governments a portion of the severance taxes collected in each parish. It requires that 20 percent of the state severance tax on all natural resources, other than sulfur, lignite or timber, be shared with the parish of origin. But, the amount each parish can receive is capped at $850,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The current cap for the 2009 fiscal year is around $875,000. Local governments are prohibited from levying a severance tax. The sharing of state severance tax revenue, which goes back to at least the 1921 Constitution, is intended to help compensate parishes for wear and tear on roads and bridges by oil and gas drilling equipment and other related traffic. The present cap has been in place since 2007, when it was increased from $750,000. In 2007, the state collected $890 million of these severance taxes and remitted nearly 4 percent back to the parishes where the tax was generated. Oil and natural gas collections account for almost 98 percent of all severance tax collections. Parishes would have received $178 million if the full 20 percent were distributed, but the per-parish cap limited the actual distribution to about $32 million. All but one of the 64 parishes received some severance tax revenue (one received only $42), and 29 received the maximum amount of $850,000.

Atchafalaya Basin Program: Programs to protect and restore the Atchafalaya Basin are funded by annual appropriations designated for Atchafalaya Basin master plan projects identified in Act 920 of the 1999 Regular Legislative Session. That law scheduled $85 million in annual appropriations through FY 2014, but did not establish a permanent funding source or guarantee the appropriations.

PROPOSED CHANGE: Severance tax revenue: The amendment would increase the amount severance tax revenue the state is required to share with the parishes in which the severance tax was generated. The maximum amount per parish would be increased from $850,000 per year (2007 dollars) to $1.85 million for fiscal year 2009 and $2.85 million thereafter. Each year after 2010, the cap would be adjusted upward for inflation. The amendment also would dedicate 50 percent of the additional severance tax revenue parishes receive after July 1, 2009, to transportation projects eligible to receive funds from the Parish Transportation Fund.

Atchafalaya Basin Program: The amendment also would create the Atchafalaya Basin Conservation Fund to be appropriated by the Department of Natural Resources. A new dedication of 50 percent of severance tax revenue collected on state lands — up to $10 million annually — would be directed to the fund, which would be used exclusively for certain Atchafalaya Basin projects. Further restrictions on how much of the fund could be spent for specific types of projects and administrative costs are outlined in the amendment.

YOU DECIDE

A VOTE FOR would dedicate additional state severance taxes to parishes of origin, restrict the use of a portion of these funds and dedicate a portion of severance taxes collected on state lands to the Atchafalaya Basin Conservation Fund.

A VOTE AGAINST would maintain the maximum amount of severance tax revenue that has to be paid by the state to parishes at $850,000, adjusted annually for inflation.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5

Transfer of special property tax assessment level

CURRENT SITUATION: The Constitution gives a special property tax break to homeowners who are seniors (age 65 or older), permanently and totally disabled, and certain members of the military and their surviving spouses (with certain age restrictions depending on the purpose for which the special assessment level was granted). The property tax assessment is frozen at a “special assessment level,” which is the assessed value of the property when it first qualified for the freeze. The assessment remains the same as long as (1) the property value does not increase more than 25 percent due to construction or reconstruction or (2) the property is not sold. The benefit is lost if the applicant’s combined adjusted gross income for federal income tax purposes exceeds a threshold equal to $50,000 in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation. The current threshold is around $64,000. While the eligible homeowner’s assessment is frozen, the millage rates applied to that assessment are not. The tax bill on that assessed value could rise because of new or increased millage rates, but not because of an increase in local property values.

PROPOSED CHANGE: The amendment would enable certain homeowners to maintain their property tax breaks in the event they sell or forfeit their homes due to expropriation by state, federal or local authorities. The special assessment level granted the homeowner would be transferred to the replacement home unless the fair market value of the new home exceeds 200 percent of the fair market value of the home sold or expropriated. The new home would have to be acquired no later than 24 months after the expropriation or sale is final.

YOU DECIDE

A VOTE FOR would allow homeowners to transfer any special property tax assessment level to their new homes when their property is sold to or expropriated by the state, federal or local government.

A VOTE AGAINST would continue to prohibit the transfer of special property tax assessment levels to new properties.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMEDMENT NO. 6

Re-sale of certain expropriated property

CURRENT SITUATION: Both the constitution and statutory law allow many state and local governmental entities to force the sale, or expropriation, of private property without the consent of the owner. One of the public purposes for which private property can be expropriated is to remove a threat to public health or safety. Often, property taken for this purpose is cleaned up and sold back to private interests for redevelopment. Local authorities in the state’s hurricane-affected communities depend on this authority in order to implement large-scale redevelopment plans where property is taken, cleaned up and sold back to private interests. Plans often call for sites to be cleared and sold in large tracts to specific buyers for specific development projects. A 2006 constitutional amendment placed new legal restrictions on how expropriated property can be transferred back to private interests when it no longer is needed for a public purpose. Supporters of the 2006 change argued that it was intended to protect private property rights by preventing government from essentially taking property from one citizen and selling it to another for economic development purposes. If expropriated property has been held for 30 years or less, some governmental entities (with a few exceptions) first must offer it for purchase at the current fair market value to parties with this right of first refusal, including the owner at the time of expropriation, any heirs, or if no heir, the successor in title. If the parties do not exercise their right of first refusal, the property then may be sold by competitive bid to the general public. Property that has been held for more than 30 years does not have to be offered first to these parties and may be sold or transferred according to other state laws, which in many cases require competitive bid open to the general public. Other provisions of the 2006 constitutional change were designed to remedy surplus takings, which are situations where more property is expropriated than is needed for a project. The Constitution requires expropriating authorities to declare property as surplus if it is no longer needed for a public purpose within one year after completion of the project. The Constitution also gives property owners the right to petition authorities to declare property as surplus if those authorities have not done so voluntarily within one year after completion of the project. Surplus property must be offered for re-sale to the parties entitled to the right of first refusal. If they do not exercise their right to repurchase the property, it then may be sold by public bid.

PROPOSED CHANGE: The proposed change to the property rights section of the Constitution would eliminate the right of first refusal on property expropriated to remove a threat to public health or safety. Property expropriated for other purposes would remain subject to the right-of-first-refusal requirement and still would have to be offered back to the original owner, any heirs, or a successor-in-interest if no longer needed for a public purpose. The change also would eliminate the requirement that property taken for health andsafety reasons be sold by public bid and would eliminate the right of an original owner, anheir or a successor-in-interest to re-purchase surplus property.

YOU DECIDE

A VOTE FOR would remove the requirement that public authorities first offer expropriated property back to its prior owner before the property can be sold to a third party if the property was taken to remove a threat to public health or safety and was held for less than 30 years. It also would remove the requirement that such property be sold by public bid and eliminate the opportunity for certain property owners to challenge surplus takings.

A VOTE AGAINST would maintain the same re-sale requirements for property taken to remove a threat to public health and safety as for property taken for other public purposes.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7

Investment of non-pension benefit trusts

CURRENT SITUATION: The Constitution prohibits the investment of state funds in equities, or stocks, with a few exceptions. Some exceptions include the Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund, better known as the “8(g)” Trust Fund; the Russell Sage/Marsh Island Trust Fund; the Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge Trust and Protection Fund; and the Millennium Trust Fund. The state treasurer may invest up to 35 percent of these funds in stocks; however the Legislature can increase this amount to 50 percent for the Millennium Trust Fund. The various state retirement systems, which include both public funds and employee contributions, are also exempt from the prohibition and can invest in stocks. A post-employment benefit trust provides retirees’ health care, life insurance or any other benefit not including pension payments. There are currently no non-pension, post-employment benefit trusts funded in the state. A 2007 law Act 202) was passed to authorize the creation of these funds by political subdivisions. In 2008, another law (ACT 910) authorized the establishment of a state-level fund. These non-pension benefit trust funds are meant to answer accounting issues created by a new national accounting standard that went into effect in 2008.In the absence of an exception, public funds may be invested only in low-risk and relatively low-yield investments – specifically U.S. Treasuries, U.S. government agencies, repurchase agreements for the preceding, bank certificates of deposit and investment-grade commercial paper.

PROPOSED CHANGE: The amendment would permit state and local trusts for non-pension post-employment benefits to be invested in stocks. If funded, the state-level trust would be invested by the treasurer and the local trusts would be invested by local authorities according to state law. Related legislation (Act 87) sets certain restrictions on the type and manner of investments in equities that would be allowed for the local trusts. For example, no more than 55 percent of a local post-employment benefit trust could be invested in equities and of that amount, no more than 5 percent could be invested in any single company or 25 percent in any single industry. Other rules regarding the investment of post-employment benefit trusts also are established by the legislation. Other related legislation (Act 910) authorizes investment of the state’s trust according to the rules and guidelines that govern other major state trust funds.

YOU DECIDE

A VOTE FOR would allow public funds reserved for non-pension, postemployment benefits to be invested in stocks.

A VOTE AGAINST would continue to prohibit public funds reserved for nonpension, post-employment benefits from being invested in stocks.