A group of voters in Louisiana has initiated legal action against Secretary of State Nancy Landry in order to prevent a vote on a state constitutional amendment set for the upcoming election next month, which could significantly alter the state’s tax regulations.
On the March 29 ballot, the proposed amendment aims to reduce income taxes, increase tax deductions for seniors aged 65 and older, and ensure a permanent salary increase for teachers in Louisiana. However, the plaintiffs assert that the amendment includes more profound implications, such as narrowing specific property tax exemptions and dissolving education trust funds.
The voters in the lawsuit contend that the brief description provided on the ballot does not adequately convey the extensive changes proposed in the amendment, which spans over 100 pages. They argue that it not only inadequately represents the scope of modifications but also misleads voters regarding their implications. Consequently, the plaintiffs are requesting a judicial injunction to prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot.
William Most, the leading attorney in this case, expressed in a press release, “Democracy functions effectively only when state officials maintain transparency with voters concerning the issues at hand. This amendment fails the basic test of honesty.”
Governor Jeff Landry supports the amendment, asserting it is essential to further the work initiated by the Louisiana Legislature during a special session last year. This session, which the governor convened to enhance the state’s tax system for businesses, included alterations such as a reduction in the corporate tax rate alongside a rise in the sales tax rate, among other modifications. However, the forthcoming proposal requires a constitutional amendment, which necessitates voter approval.
A spokesperson for Nancy Landry remarked that as the state’s top election officer, the Secretary of State is typically named in any litigation relating to election management. They emphasized that it is the legislature that is responsible for drafting the wording of constitutional amendment ballots and directed any inquiries regarding this language to the legislature. The governor’s office did not provide immediate feedback on the matter. In November, Landry referred to the amendment as “a big win” for Louisiana.
Reports indicated that Governor Landry is attempting to rally public support for the amendment by highlighting a provision for a permanent $2,000 stipend for public school educators. However, the lawsuit claims the ballot language is crafted in a way that unfairly influences voter perception.
“Out of numerous proposed constitutional changes, only a handful of the more appealing ones are represented in the ballot summary,” states the lawsuit. “The less attractive changes are omitted. The ballot summarization showcases only the attractive elements with no acknowledgment of the less favorable aspects.”
Additionally, the lawsuit contends that the ballot wording contains inaccuracies. It states that the amendment would maintain existing property tax exemptions for religious institutions, guarantee a permanent salary increase for teachers, and adjust certain constitutional funds, among other tasks.
However, plaintiffs argue that the amendment would actually tighten property tax exemptions for religious entities, restricting them to only properties used for specifically religious purposes. They further claim that the promised teacher salary increase will not extend to all teachers and comes at the expense of broader educational funds in Louisiana. Although the ballot indicates a modification to constitutional funds, the lawsuit asserts that it would effectively dismantle and deplete three educational trust funds safeguarded by the Constitution, which cater to various educational services and programs.
Moreover, the lawsuit claims that the proposed ballot measure is in violation of the state constitution, which stipulates that amendments must either focus on a single issue or comprehensively revise an entire constitutional article. The complaint maintains that this ballot proposition fails to meet either criterion: it proposes revisions to multiple elements within Article VII of the constitution related to revenue and finance, without entirely revamping that article.
“While this amendment proposes less than a complete article revision, it includes various elements,” states the lawsuit. “There is no cohesive ‘single plan’ linking all these alterations.”
The lawsuit was filed in Baton Rouge’s state court.
