Understanding the Amendments
Louisiana Ballot
Amendment 1
Felons in public office
CURRENT SITUATION
Under current statutes, a convicted felon is unqualified to seek elected office in Louisiana while under an order of imprisonment. A “public officer,” which includes elected and appointed positions, shall be removed from office if convicted of a felony. Although voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment to prevent convicted non-pardoned felons from seeking and holding public office for 15 years after completing a sentence, the Supreme Court in 2016 ruled the amendment null and void because the Legislature’s final enrolled version of the act left out a significant provision added during the legislative process.*
PROPOSED CHANGE
The proposed amendment would prohibit felons from holding or seeking elective public office or an “appointment of honor, trust or profit in this state” for five years after completing a sentence. This restriction would not apply to felons who are pardoned. The law does not specify the appointed positions that would be affected. A convicted felon would not be prohibited from employment by the state or a local government. This amendment differs from the 1998 amendment, which had a 15-year post-sentence prohibition and was silent as to government employment.
ARGUMENT FOR
Convicted felons should not be serving in office. This amendment is particularly needed in Louisiana with its long history of corruption. Those in public office need to be held to a high standard, and the political system should not be eager to invite corrupt individuals and their cronies into the ranks of leadership and influence. This law would not prevent felons from ever holding office, just for five years after they complete a sentence. Citizens already weighed in on this issue with the 1998 amendment, which was nullified only because the courts found the Legislature failed to properly follow requirements for amending the Constitution. This amendment would reaffirm the core intent of the previous vote of the people.
ARGUMENT AGAINST
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. Whether a felony conviction makes someone unsuitable for office should be an issue for the voters to decide. There is no prohibition for felons seeking a federal office; there is no need for this in Louisiana, either.
Legal Citation: Act 719 (Senate Bill 31 by Sen. Appel) of the 2018 Regular Session adding Article I, Section 10.1.
*Voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment to prevent convicted non-pardoned felons from seeking and holding public office for 15 years after they had completed a sentence. In 2016 the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the amendment null and void in the case of Shepherd v Schedler. The case was brought by former state Sen. Derrick Shepherd, who had pleaded guilty in 2008 to federal felony charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The Court found that the final enrolled version of the act that created the ballot item was missing a provision adopted during the legislative process. That provision authorized felons to qualify for office following completion of probation. Thus, the Court said the constitutional amendment that came before voters was not the same one the Legislature had approved. The Court held that the proposed amendment on the 1998 ballot had not conformed to state constitutional requirements.
Amendment 2
Unanimous juries for felony cases
CURRENT SITUATION
Louisiana is one of two states that allow for the conviction or acquittal of a felony defendant without a unanimous decision. This provision was instituted at the state’s 1898 Constitutional Convention where 9 out of 12 jury votes were required to reach a verdict. This provision was revised in the 1974 Constitution, as the standard shifted to 10 out 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.
PROPOSED CHANGE
The proposed amendment would require all 12 members of a jury to concur 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 a six-member jury to convict. This change would not be retroactive as it would apply to offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019.
ARGUMENT FOR
President John Adams once stated, “It is the unanimity of the jury that preserves the rights of mankind.” While this was the attitude of our founding fathers, it is not reflected in Louisiana’s fundamental law. The federal court system and all other states but Oregon require unanimous verdicts in felony cases. The reason appears rooted in the state’s racist past. The Official Journal of the 1898 Constitutional Convention states, “Our mission was, in the first place, to establish the supremacy of the white race in this State to the extent to which it could be legally and constitutionally done.” Recent research suggests that even today the law has a disparate impact on minorities. A vote in favor of this amendment would improve Louisiana’s image and signal to the rest of the nation and the world that the state is continually striving to become a more modern society with stronger and fairer values and culture. Furthermore, the current law encourages gamesmanship by prosecutors. A prosecutor 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. This distortion can make it easier to convict someone of a greater crime than a lesser one.
ARGUMENT AGAINST
The racial motive behind the origin of this law is something we can all agree that Louisiana got wrong. While there is no way to validate the racial component of the current law, we should recognize the ways that this law has been beneficial. Having a lower verdict threshold reduces the likelihood of a hung jury. In a unanimous system even if 11 jurors think one way, a single juror can create a mistrial. This type of inefficiency and ineffectiveness is exactly what delegates had in mind when this law was revisited in Louisiana’s 1973-74 constitutional convention. The current law is more efficient as it prevents hung juries and saves time and taxpayer money on potential retrials. The non-unanimous jury law has withstood the test of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1972 the Supreme Court heard Johnson v Louisiana as well as Apodaca v Oregon. In these cases, the Supreme Court justices noted they did not believe three dissenting votes assumed an inaccurate decision and pointed out that nine jurors could satisfy the burden of “beyond reasonable doubt.” 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.
Since the amendment would not apply to verdicts before 2019, there could be an issue of fairness. While future convictions could not happen unless there was a unanimous verdict, there would be no relief for those already convicted.
Legal Citation: Act 722 (Senate Bill 243 by Sen. Morrell) of the 2018 Regular Session amending Article I, Section 17 (A).
Amendment 3
Allow local governments to share resources
CURRENT SITUATION
The state Constitution prohibits donations or loans by state or local government entities except in cases of emergency. The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that governmental entities may make agreements to share with each other but has ruled that this authority does not relieve entities of the requirement to receive at least equivalent value in exchange for services or assets provided.**
PROPOSED CHANGE
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. This amendment would not allow borrowing between the state and local entities.
ARGUMENT FOR
Donations between governments provide for great efficiency. For example, if a fire district needs to borrow a bulldozer from a city, it can save the cost of purchasing a bulldozer. The constitutional prohibition against donations is an important law that prevents governments from just giving away taxpayer dollars. But it was not meant to stop local governments from sharing resources and coping with urgent needs.
ARGUMENT AGAINST
The amendment is not needed. Where one entity has an unmet need, and another entity could satisfy it, the agencies could enter into a written cooperative endeavor agreement for renting or leasing needed personal and equipment. The Constitution’s Article VII Section 14 (C) clearly allows for cooperative endeavor agreements between public bodies as long as there is a public purpose and comparable values are exchanged.
Legal Citation: Act 717 (Senate Bill 263 by Sen. Erdey) of the 2018 Regular Session amending Article VII, Section 14 (B).
**The Louisiana Legislature passed Act 191 in the 2017 regular session to create a statute allowing public entities to share equipment provided that both entities enter into a contract known as a cooperative endeavor agreement. However, Article VII, Section 14, of the Constitution prohibits donations or loans by state or local government entities except in cases of emergency. Although the Constitution allows cooperative endeavor agreements for some types of transactions, questions have been raised about whether Act 191 provided a sufficient exception from the constitutional provision.
Information provided by the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, an independent non-partisan organization.
Amendment 4
Prevent state police from using transportation project funding
To ensure that state fuel tax dollars would go to transportation projects, the Transportation Trust Fund was created with constitutional protections in 1990. In addition to costs associated with construction and maintenance of roads and bridges, flood control, ports, airports and transit, a portion may be used by state police for traffic control.
If you vote YES: Money in the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, fuel tax money that is supposed to go toward road, transit and other transportation projects, could no longer be used by the Louisiana State Police to pay for traffic control services.
Argument for a yes vote: Almost everyone agrees Louisiana needs better infrastructure. This amendment will provide more confidence to taxpayers by guaranteeing that tax dollars will be used on infrastructure projects and not diverted to pay for the operating costs of state police.
If you vote NO: Money from the Transportation Trust Fund could continue to be used for traffic control, potentially taking it away from infrastructure projects.
Argument for no vote: Traffic control is a needed and legitimate use of transportation funds. Although no TTF dollars are currently being used to support state police, it is easy to imagine a time when it could be needed in the future.
Amendment 5
Tax exemptions for property in trust
The Louisiana Constitution has several special property tax treatments for various groups, including the elderly and disabled veterans. Occasionally for succession planning purposes, owners may put their home into a trust. The trust allows the former owners to use the home, but otherwise transfer ownership. Property placed in such a trust is explicitly eligible for the standard homestead exemption, but legal opinions have varied on whether other special exemptions can still apply.
If you vote YES: If a homeowner qualifies for special exemptions, this amendment would extend those tax exemptions if their property is placed in a trust, where ownership is transferred to another person, so long as the person who initially qualified for the exemption is still alive and lives at the property. Once the person who initially qualified died, then the exemptions would no longer apply.
Argument for a yes vote: Louisiana voters have made it clear that they want groups such as the disabled and the elderly to receive special tax treatment. These exemptions should apply to property in trust, just like the homestead exemption already does.
If you vote NO: The enhanced property tax exemptions will only apply when the person who qualified for them owned the property and had not placed it in a trust for someone else.
Argument for a no vote: 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.
Amendment 6
Large tax increases on homes
All property subject to taxation is constitutionally required to be reassessed at least every four years. Increases in assessments will result in the owners paying more property taxes unless the taxing authorities take action to adjust the millage rates.
If you vote YES: Citizens would see their property tax bill increase gradually over four years if the assessed value of their primary residence increases 50 percent or more. This exception would only apply to properties that qualify for the homestead exemption. New construction or additions that cause a property to spike in value would not be allowed to take advantage of the phase-in period. Any decrease in revenue that this phase-in approach could cause for the taxing entity could not be offset with another type of tax.
Argument for a yes vote: Through no fault of their own, some property owners can receive large increases in their property tax bill. This amendment gives owners time to adjust to the higher payments and eases the sticker shock of a large reassessment.
If you vote NO: Property taxes would increase to the amount determined through the assessment, regardless of whether or not the value of the property surges.
Argument for a not vote: This amendment is unfair to homeowners with assessment increases of less than 50% and further compounds a fundamental problem and inequity in the property tax methods of Louisiana. This inequitable system burdens some homeowners more than others and potentially shortchanges the local governments and schools that depend on fair and reliable tax collections.
Ballot proposition
Legalizing daily fantasy sports
Although not a constitutional amendment, this item will appear on all ballots statewide on Nov. 6.
If you vote YES: Online fantasy sports betting apps, such DraftKings and FanDuel, would be legal to play in Louisiana. People could wager on fantasy sports from their smartphones in parishes that approve this amendment.
Argument for a yes vote: People already bet on fantasy football and similar games. This vote would just legalize it and allow the state and local government to regulate and tax it.
If you vote NO: Online fantasy sports betting would remain illegal in parishes that don’t approve the measure.
Argument for a no vote: This is an expansion of gambling in Louisiana. Proponents may call it a sports fantasy contest, but this activity is in fact sports betting. Government should not encourage citizens to gamble and then force the taxpayers to pay for the financial and family problems it causes.
