NEW ORLEANS — A legal challenge claims the wording used to present Governor Jeff Landry’s tax amendment proposal on the upcoming March ballot is unconstitutional. The lawsuit alleges the summary of the amendment is misleading, without fully disclosing its implications, which could affect voters’ understanding and decision-making.
The tax amendment in question arose from a two-week special legislative session in October, which led to sweeping changes in Louisiana’s tax code. Over 100 pages were revised, all requiring public approval via constitutional amendment. The proposition on the ballot attempts to condense these extensive revisions into a summary for voter consideration.
Voters in Louisiana will see the following language on their ballots: “Do you support an amendment to revise Article VII of the Constitution of Louisiana, including revisions to lower the maximum rate of income tax, increase income tax deductions for citizens over sixty-five, provide for a government growth limit, modify the operation of certain constitutional funds, provide for property tax exemptions retaining the homestead exemption and exemption for religious organizations, provide a permanent teacher salary increase by requiring a surplus payment to teacher retirement debt, and make other modifications?”
However, attorneys contesting the ballot language argue that it selectively highlights appealing elements while ignoring less favorable details which they claim breaches election codes and state constitution provisions. The lawsuit identifies three main areas of contention with the proposed language.
Firstly, the amendment is said to provide property tax exemptions for religious organizations. However, the complaint posits that this phrasing significantly narrows the scope of existing exemptions. The current constitution exempts property owned by nonprofit entities with various religious, educational, and charitable operations. In contrast, the amendment explicitly limits this tax exemption to properties used strictly for religious worship, clergy residences, or religious education.
Secondly, while the proposition mentions modifying the operation of certain constitutional funds, plaintiffs assert this is misleading because the amendment actually proposes eliminating these funds. Under the current provisions, funds like the Education Excellence and the Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund support a range of educational programs. The amendment stipulates that these funds’ assets be liquidated and transferred, drastically altering their operational structure and purpose.
Thirdly, the amendment claims to secure a permanent teacher salary increase by channeling surplus payments to teacher retirement debt—a measure that does not guarantee direct salary increases for all teachers. Critics say raises would be contingent on each school’s contribution to the retirement system, potentially excluding educators at non-participating institutions, like charter schools, from benefiting.
Governor Jeff Landry defended the amendment, asserting it was meticulously deliberated and passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the legislature. He dismissed the lawsuit as a political stunt. Secretary of State Nancy Landry, also implicated in the lawsuit, has not publicly commented on the allegations.
The complexities of the proposed amendment and the lawsuit underline the critical decisions facing Louisiana voters, highlighting the importance of accurate and transparent ballot language to ensure informed participation in the democratic process.
This article was generated automatically by OpenAI. The details, including people, facts, circumstances, and the narrative, may not be accurate. For corrections or retractions, please email contact@publiclawlibrary.org.