Teche Area voters pulled through in favor of Constitutional Amendment No. 4 in Tuesday’s election, but it was not enough to carry voters of the state, who voted against raising the cap on severance tax revenues by a vote of 55-45 percent.

The amendment would have more than doubled the state cap on how much parishes could receive from state severance taxes on natural resources.

In Iberia Parish, the vote was 17,055 votes, or 68.4 percent, for the amendment and 9,258 votes, or 35.2 percent, against, according to complete but unofficial election results on the secretary of state’s Web site. Iberia would have been one of several parishes to benefit from the amendment.

Advertisement

“It did overwhelmingly pass in Iberia Parish, and I thank our legislators and parish and local officials for getting the word out,” said state Rep. Taylor Barras, D-New Iberia. “I’m disappointed because I don’t think we’ve ever had the opportunity to spend $2.8 million on roads ever on parish roads.

“I talked to a couple of our other representatives, and I think there was a general misunderstanding of the amendment, which is common. I don’t necessarily think people didn’t want money for roads. I think the wording in the amendment ... could be a little misleading.”

St. Martin and St. Mary parishes also voted for the amendment. In St. Martin, No. 4 passed by a count of 10,798 votes (58.64 percent) in favor and 7,616 votes (41.36 percent) against. In St. Mary Parish 9,869 voters cast ballots in favor of the amendment (55.99 percent) to 7,756 votes (44.01 percent) against.

“It’s very unfortunate that statewide we missed the opportunity to fix our parish roads without raising taxes, and that's basically what this amendment did,” said St. Martin Parish President Guy Cormier. “We passed it overwhelmingly in Iberia and St. Martin, but it failed in 46 other parishes. I guess people just didn't really understand what it did.”

“I am disappointed,” said state Rep. Simone Champagne, D-Jeanerette. “It would have meant a great deal to infrastructure of my district, and to all the coastal parishes we represent.

“Local and parish government and our delegation did a good job explaining what it would do in our area. They saw the word tax and opposed it, which is understandable.

Basically, it would not have benefited the entire state, so it’s possible other parishes didn’t promote it like we did in the coastal areas.”

Amendment No. 1, which will place term limits for members of certain state boards and commissions, passed statewide with 1,129,711votes for, 69 percent, and 497,205 votes against,31 percent.

Amendment No. 2, which passed statewide with 951,980 votes for, 60 percent, and 641,262 votes against, 40 percent, will require that a call for a special legislative session be issued at least seven calendar days prior to the start of the session. The old law calls for five days.

Amendment No. 3 also passed statewide with 981,398 votes for, 62 percent, and 606,991 votes against, 38 percent, and will allow the state legislature to appoint a temporary successor for any legislator called to active military duty, which prevents that legislator from performing office duties.

Amendment No. 5 would have allowed homeowners to transfer special property tax assessment levels to their new homes when their property is sold to or expropriated by local, state or federal governments.

It did not pass, but was only defeated by 1,848 votes with 778,148 votes for, 50 percent, and 779,996 votes against, 50 percent.

An amendment that deals with the re-sale of certain expropriated property failed to pass with 786,884 votes against it, 51 percent, and 770,987 votes for it, 49 percent. Amendment No. 6 would have changed the requirement that public authorities first offer expropriated property back to its prior owner before selling it to a third party, if the property was taken to remove a threat to public health or safety and taken for less than 30 years.

It would have also eliminated the requirement that such property be sold by public bid and remove the opportunity for certain property owners to challenge surplus takings.

Amendment No. 7, which failed to pass with 841,869 votes against it, 56 percent, and 670,711 votes for, 44 percent, would have allowed public funds reserved for non-pension, post-employment benefits to be invested in the stock market. The vote against means that the practice is still prohibited.