Lawsuit challenges Louisiana ballot measure seeking tax law rewrite
Voters leave the Bricolage Academy gym after casting their ballots in New Orleans, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Matthew Perschall for Louisiana Illuminator)
A group of Louisiana voters filed suit against Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry on Monday, seeking to halt a vote on a state constitutional amendment scheduled for next month that would drastically change state tax law.
According to the language that is scheduled to appear on statewide ballots during the March 29 election, the proposal will lower income taxes, increase tax deductions for those over 65 and provide for a permanent pay bump for Louisiana schoolteachers.
But if passed, the amendment would do much more, including narrowing certain property tax exemptions and liquidating education trust funds. And that, say the plaintiffs, is the problem.
They argue that the single-sentence description that will appear on voters' ballots — which was based on a bill that runs more than 100 pages — not only fails to fully represent the breadth of changes that would be made, but also actively misrepresents what those changes would be. Because of this, they are asking a judge to issue an injunction and stop the ballot measure from going to voters.
'Democracy only works if state officials are transparent with voters about what they are being asked to vote on. This proposed amendment flunks the basic honesty test,' said William Most, lead attorney on the case, in a press release.
Proposed ballot language
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 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? (Amends Article VII, Sections 1 through 28; Adds Article VII, Sections 29 through 42)
Gov. Jeff Landry has argued that the amendment is necessary to complete the work begun by the Louisiana Legislature in the special session last year. During the session, which the governor called in a bid to make the state's tax code more business-friendly, lawmakers lowered the state's corporate tax rate and raised the sales tax rate, among a number of other items. But the changes that will appear in the March 29 proposal require a change to the state's constitution, which can only be approved by voters.
'As the chief elections officer for Louisiana, the Secretary of State is normally named in any lawsuit relating to the administration of an election,' said a spokesperson for Nancy Landry in a written statement. 'The legislature is responsible for drafting constitutional amendment ballot language. Any questions regarding the ballot language should be directed to the legislature.'
Jeff Landry's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. In November, the governor called the proposed amendment 'a big win' for the state of Louisiana.
At the time, the Louisiana Illuminator reported that Jeff Landry hoped to motivate the public to vote for the amendment by tying it to a provision that would make permanent a $2,000 stipend for public school teachers. But the lawsuit alleges that the framing of the ballot language unfairly biases voters.
'Of the hundreds of changes to [the constitution] that are proposed, only a few of the most appealing changes are included in the ballot language,' the lawsuit states. 'None of the unappealing changes are included. The ballot language is all dessert, no vegetables.'
The lawsuit further alleges that the ballot language is factually incorrect. The ballot language for the proposed amendment states that it would retain property tax exemptions for religious organizations, provide a permanent teacher salary increase and modify certain constitutional funds, among other revisions.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Plaintiffs argue that despite the claims in the ballot language, the amendment would actually narrow property tax exemptions for religious organizations, only allowing exemptions on properties used for an explicitly religious purpose. Further, the lawsuit claims that the permanent teacher salary increase cited on ballots won't apply to all teachers – and comes at the cost of other educational funding in the state. And though the ballot language says the amendment would 'modify' constitutional funds, the lawsuit alleges that it would actually 'liquidate and drain' three constitutionally protected education trust funds that support a variety of educational programming and services.
The lawsuit further claims that the ballot measure as written violates the Louisiana Constitution, which requires that proposed amendments be confined to 'one object' or fully revise an entire article of the Constitution. The lawsuit claims that this ballot measure does neither: it proposes changes to multiple objects in the constitution's Article VII, which covers revenue and finance, but doesn't wholly overhaul that article.
'Although the proposed amendment revises less than an entire article, it contains many objects,' the lawsuit states. 'There is no 'single plan' underlying all of these changes.'
The suit was filed in state court in Baton Rouge.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
This article first appeared on Verite News New Orleans and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Louisiana ethics board wants state Senate to reject bill that lifts complaint confidentiality
The Louisiana Board of Ethics is pushing back against legislation that would eliminate confidentiality for people for provide tips about misconduct. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator). The Louisiana Board of Ethics expressed alarm Friday that the Louisiana Legislature is just one vote away from eliminating confidentiality for people who provide tips about government misconduct. 'This is all just abusive. It's just trying to dissuade someone from filing a complaint,' said retired attorney William Grimley, a Louisiana Senate appointee to the ethics board since 2022, about House Bill 160 sponsored by Rep. Kellee Hennessy Dickerson, R-Denham Springs. Other members of the 15-person board nodded in agreement with Grimley. As a last-minute effort to stop the legislation, they instructed their staff to send a letter from the board expressing their concerns about the bill. The board members also said they intended to personally contact their own senators and Gov. Jeff Landry's office to warn about the legislation. 'I think it will have a drastic chilling effect on the number of complaints you receive,' Ethics Administrator David Bordelon told board members. 'We often receive complaints that are asking not to be disclosed because there's some sort of relationship or some sort of fear of retaliation.' Under the bill, investigations into ethics law violations would still be kept private and shielded from the public unless the board votes to bring charges. But the name of a person who provides a tip about alleged wrongdoing would be revealed to whoever they accused of misconduct. Currently, the identity of someone providing a tip to the ethics board is never shared with the target of an investigation. Dickerson said she is bringing the bill to protect government officials from political retaliation similar to what she experienced personally. In 2023, the ethics board voted to fine Dickerson $1,500 when she was a member of the Livingston Parish School Board and running for state representative. The members concluded she had broken state ethics laws by inappropriately helping a public school teacher get paid for doing construction work at the high school where the teacher was employed. State law doesn't allow public employees to perform contract work for their employers. 'I believe this is a fight for truth and justice and to give you the knowledge to know who is fighting against you,' Dickerson said of her legislation. Her bill would likely encourage 'witness tampering and documents not being provided,' Bordelon said. The tipster might experience harassment and intimidation from the subject of the investigation even before the probe gets underway, he added. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Dickerson said she has guarded against intimidation in her bill by allowing any tipsters to sue the accused for damages if they experience harassment. Critics of the legislation said those lawsuits would be expensive and not financially feasible for many members of the public. The ethics administrator also reiterated that the board – not the person providing the tip – decides whether to charge someone with ethical misconduct. Even if the person who submitted the complaint to the board is politically motivated, the board is not. 'It's the board that is the accuser,' Bordelon told members. 'You make your decision based on the facts and the evidence that we present to you as staff.' Dickerson included another barrier to ethics investigations the board found troubling. It requires people submitting tips to the board to either have them signed by a notary, which costs money, or to deliver them personally to state ethics administration headquarters in downtown Baton Rouge. Currently, the public can submit tips via mail and sometimes electronically. 'Imagine somebody in Grand Isle complaining about their local councilman. They would have to either pay a notary to notarize a statement … or drive to Baton Rouge and file it with us in person here,' Bordelon said. Dickerson also wants to limit materials the ethics board can use to launch an investigation to just tips from the public and reports from state officials. The board has no existing limits on the sources it can use to launch an investigation. For example, it undertook 18 investigations from 2020-23 based on news reports that resulted in a discovery of wrongdoing. Under the bill from Dickerson, a former broadcast journalist, they would no longer be able to use a news story as the basis for an inquiry. This year, Landry and legislative leaders have gotten behind a few bills that would dramatically curb the ethics board's authority to pursue investigations. Lawmakers said the effort is a response to overzealous enforcement by the ethics board that crossed the line into harassment. Still, it's not clear whether Landry supports Dickerson's legislation. His staff hasn't endorsed it during public hearings like they have other ethics bills. Recent ethics board appointees from Landry and lawmakers are also among those worried about Dickerson's bill. 'I would love for 100% compliance and to put us out of business. But you know, that's not happening,' said Jason Amato, a former St. James Parish Council member who Landry picked to lead the ethics board earlier this year. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE 'I'd love to be able to cancel our monthly meeting because we didn't have any items on the agenda. But I'm only six months in, and that isn't happening anytime soon,' he added. Lawmakers have until Thursday to decide whether to send Dickerson's proposal to Gov. Jeff Landry's desk to be signed into law. The House voted 88-7 for the bill last month, and it is scheduled for Senate debate Sunday.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Broader campaign spending with less public disclosure still looms in Louisiana
The Louisiana Legislature is advancing legislation that would allow politicians to spend their campaign funds on a broader group of expenses, including country club memberships and gym fees, while providing less transparency about who provided the money. (Photo by Julie O'Donoghue/Louisiana Illuminator) The Louisiana Legislature is advancing legislation that would allow politicians to spend their campaign funds on a broader group of expenses, including country club memberships and gym fees, while providing less transparency about who provided the money. House Republican Caucus Chairman Mark Wright, R-Covington, is the sponsor of House Bill 693 and said several elected officials and campaign finance experts had input on the proposal. The 101-page legislation makes 'little to no change in substantive law' and mostly brings 'practices that have been followed for decades' into the state code, Wright said at a Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee meeting Wednesday. Louisiana's Ethics Administration David Bordelon, who is in charge of enforcing the state's campaign finance laws, had a different take. While the legislation reinforces some of the state ethics board's guidance on campaign finance, it also 'undoes' previous instruction the board has issued about political spending, he said at the same meeting. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry is the driving force behind this massive campaign finance rewrite. Two private attorneys for Landry, Stephen Gelé and Charles Spies, helped draft the proposal. Gelé and Spies are representing the governor in charges he faces from the ethics board over failing to disclose trips he took on a political donor's private plane to Hawaii in 2021. That case isn't affected by Wright's legislation. Gele said the bill is meant to correct over-enforcement of campaign finance laws. The ethics board's aggressive posture has impeded on the public's right to free speech and political expression, he said. 'That right is burdened when you have to pay lawyers and accountants significant amounts of money to make sure you are complying with the law or to fight ethics complaints over the law,' Gele told lawmakers in the committee hearing. Landry, as governor, stands to benefit more from the loosening of campaign finance restrictions than any other elected official in the state. He has more money in his campaign accounts, and his reelection campaign in 2027 will likely be the most expensive. Wright's legislation makes it easier for politicians to raise money and curbs existing public disclosure of that fundraising. It also explicitly permits politicians to spend their campaign cash on expenses the ethics board has been scrutinizing. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Spending more freely As one example, the bill would enshrine the right to spend campaign money on 'events related to the Mardi Gras celebration in Washington D.C.,' a five-day celebration that takes place every year in January. Lawmakers have complained in recent months that the ethics board was questioning their Washington Mardi Gras expenses. But who the board might be scrutinizing hasn't been disclosed publicly because its investigations are confidential. Senate committee members pushed back on other carve outs for campaign spending in the bill. On Wednesday, the committee removed a provision that would have allowed political funds to go toward paying parts of candidates' home mortgages and utility bills. They also tweaked language in the bill permitting politicians to cover their country club dues, gym memberships and Louisiana Mardi Gras krewe fees with campaign funds. The Senate committee replaced the words 'country club' and 'health club' with 'private club' in the legislation. They also added a clause requiring politicians who want to use their money for club memberships to produce 'a preponderance of evidence that the expense was not for personal use.' This means dues for country clubs, gyms and Mardi Gras krewes could still be covered with campaign cash, but the politician might be asked to justify the expense. 'Be very careful about using campaign funds for subsidizing your lifestyle,' said Sen. Greg Miller, R-Norco, who offered the amendment at the committee meeting. 'I don't think we want to encourage that.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Less disclosure on campaign spending While allowing candidates to spend more freely, the bill includes provisions that would lessen the amount of information available to the public about political donations and spending. Wright's legislation raises the dollar-amount threshold at which a political donation or expense has to be included on a public campaign finance report more than 20 times. For example, the current law requires campaign contributions and expenditures that are over $200 and given within 20 days ahead of an election to be reported on a public campaign finance report within 48 hours. The proposed law would increase that threshold to $5,000. Individuals who are not political candidates or explicitly with a political committee could also spend money on an election without disclosing contributions they accepted for the politicking under the legislation. These nontraditional political campaigns would also only have to disclose campaign spending if it was over $1,000 and included 'express advocacy.' In the bill, 'express advocacy' is defined as political communication that features phrases like 'vote for' and 'defeat' or that includes the candidate's name and the office they are seeking. More subtle campaign expenditures – those that don't mention an election or involve public advertising – wouldn't have to be disclosed by sources that aren't overtly political. Initially, this legislation also eliminated all campaign finance reporting requirements for ballot proposition campaigns, such as state constitutional amendments and tax millages. Wright backed off those changes when they proved unpopular. The bill needs at least three more votes to pass, including from the full House and Senate. Those must be taken before the legislative session ends Thursday.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Louisiana state employees could lose jobs under Civil Service amendment
Louisiana Senate chambers during the close of the 2023 legislative session on June 8, 2023. (Photo credit: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) Louisiana lawmakers are trying to change the state constitution to wrestle power away from the Civil Service Commission to eliminate state worker protections and allow for the quick firing of thousands of employees for any reason, creating fear among critics that some dismissals could be politically motivated. Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Sen. Jay Morris. R-West Monroe, is nearing final passage in the Louisiana Legislature, though voters will get the final say on a constitutional amendment on a ballot that could have significant consequences for how state government operates. Morris' proposal would give state lawmakers power that currently rests with the Civil Service Commission, a seven-member independent review panel that oversees the hiring and firing of 28,000 'classified' state workers. The commission hears complaints from classified employees and appeals from any who want to contest their dismissal or demotion, affording them due process when it comes to discipline and terminations. In an interview Tuesday, Morris said his bill would let lawmakers 'unclassify' state employees, removing them from the oversight of the commission. An unclassified employee does not have Civil Service protections and can be fired 'at will' for no reason. The bill's current version would also apply to local civil service workers such as municipal police and firefighters, but Morris said he intends to change his measure to exclude them and restrict it to only state employees. 'If you believe in democracy or republicanism — [because] we're a republic — then the Legislature should have some ability to alter how our civil service system works,' Morris said. 'Right now we can't do anything because the constitution prevents it.' Some Democrats have taken issue with the latest iteration of the ballot language in Morris' bill because it doesn't explicitly mention classified employees and could mislead voters into thinking the amendment doesn't affect those state workers who are currently protected under Civil Service. When asked about the proposal following Tuesday's meeting of the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure, Rep. Wilford Carter, D-Lake Charles, said the ballot language doesn't align with what's in the bill. The ballot language states: 'Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to remove or add officers, positions, and employees to the unclassified civil service?' Critics have pointed to other issues that have not been addressed or debated in any of the committee hearings on Morris' proposal. One of those is the vague use of the word 'remove,' which could be interpreted to mean 'fire' or 'terminate,' said Peter Robins-Brown, who opposes the bill on behalf of Louisiana Progress, which advocates for low and middle-income people. He said lawmakers have not drafted any kind of companion measure that would establish statutes or regulations to implement the specific necessary changes. 'No one has really been paying attention to the details,' Robins-Brown said. 'I'm not sure how the average voter will be able to figure it out, especially when the bill doesn't have a statutory companion to prove the goal of this exercise.' Gov. Landry fails to remove civil service protections from 900 state jobs Rep. Nicholas Muscarello, R-Hammond, who chairs the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure, said the intent of the amendment is to give lawmakers the power to unclassify state employees, not fire employees. Hiring and terminating decisions would be left up to the executive branch, he said. The Civil Service Commission, a nonpartisan entity, has taken a neutral position on Morris' proposal. When asked about it Wednesday, commission administrators said they assume 'remove' means the act of changing an employee's classification status, but they pointed out the word is not actually defined in the bill. State Civil Service Director Byron Decoteau said Morris' civil service amendment amendment, if adopted, could technically allow lawmakers to simply 'remove' an unclassified job position with no intention of classifying it, leaving a current employee in a limbo with neither a classified nor unclassified status. Sherri Gregoire, Civil Service general counsel, said the lack of a clear definition invites different interpretations, including that the amendment gives lawmakers the power to remove governor's staff members, and creates a situation that would certainly end up in court. The more likely course of events, if voters decide to approve the amendment, would be that the legislature designates all future hires as unclassified employees — a move that would eventually end the classified civil service system altogether, Gregoire said. The Civil Service Commission, itself, would still exist under the constitution but would effectively become pointless because it would no longer have anything to oversee. 'Eventually you won't have any classified employees, so why do you need a commission?' Gregoire said. Morris said he doesn't yet have a vision for how lawmakers would exercise their new power if voters approve the amendment. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has tried repeatedly to exert authority over the commission. In February, he tried unsuccessfully to revoke civil service classifications from 900 state jobs, mostly positions for engineers, shortly after President Donald Trump made a similar move at the federal level. The state Civil Service Commission rejected Landry's request in a 4-2 decision in February. Because unclassified workers can be subject to political punishment and coercion, removing such a large number of engineers from the classified service could create ethical conflicts and unnecessary risks to the public, the commissioners said. A similar version of Morris' bill stalled on the House floor last year, but some Republicans who likely would have supported the bill were absent when the final vote took place. Morris' bill is expected to earn final passage before the regular session ends June 12 and will be placed before voters on the Nov. 3, 2026, statewide election ballot. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
