This Saturday, March 29th, voters will go to the polls to decide on five ballot items, that consist of four constitutional amendments choices and the call for renewal of the Law Enforcement District millage for the next ten years.
In an effort to give you as much information as possible in order to help you make an educated choice, shown below is an explanation of what a “yea” or “nay” vote means for each ballot item.
Continuation of PM Law Enforcement District Millage
You are being asked to agree to continue a 9.23 millage rate for the next 10 years. This is not a new tax and is vital to the Sheriff Offices across the state to continue to provide services that the public is accustomed to.
Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown hopes that local residents understand the importance of renewing this measure and will continue to support the Sheriff’s Office and their programs through their vote of continuing the millage.
“The amount of money generated by this measure is equivalent to roughly 40% of our operating budget,” said Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown. “Without these funds, not only will the public suffer as many of the services that the JPSO performs will have to be cut back but according to projections up to 60 jobs could also be lost, which would be very detrimental to many of our citizens.”
CA No. 1 (ACT No. 2, 2024-3ES – SB 1)
To provide for disciplinary proceedings over attorneys and to create courts of limited jurisdiction
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Add to the constitution the Louisiana Supreme Court’s authority to discipline out-of-state lawyers for legal work in the state and expand the Legislature’s authority to create specialty courts not limited to parish and judicial district boundaries.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Retain the current provisions governing the Louisiana Supreme Court’s oversight of lawyer discipline and keep the Louisiana Legislature’s authority to create specialty courts limited to parish and judicial district boundaries.
CA No. 2 (ACT No. 1, 2024-3ES – HB 7)
To provide with respect to the power of taxation including limitations thereon
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Rewrite large portions of the Louisiana Constitution article dealing with revenue collections, the state budget process, savings accounts and taxation rules.
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Enact new tax rules, place limits on the enactment of tax breaks, lower the cap on individual income tax rates and allow more severance tax money to flow to local government.
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Create tighter limits on annual growth in Louisiana’s state general fund spending on ongoing programs and services, with tougher rules for changing the limit.
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Dissolve three education trust funds and use the money to pay down retirement debt and give public school teachers and support workers a permanent raise.
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Increase the cap on deposits into the Budget Stabilization Fund, transfer additional cash into the account and eliminate the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund, giving lawmakers more money in the general fund to spend.
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Remove several protected trust funds from the constitution and place them in state law, giving lawmakers more ability to change the rules governing them.
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Allow local governments to lessen property taxes on business inventory or get a onetime payment if they stop charging those taxes; remove some property tax breaks from the constitution (not the homestead
exemption); and make it tougher to enact new property tax exemptions.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Continue the current provisions governing revenue collections, budgeting procedures, savings accounts and taxation limitations.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD- Keep the current rules and limitations on taxes and tax breaks and continue a cap on the severance tax money that flows to local government.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Keep the current limits on annual growth in state spending, which can be changed with support from two-thirds of lawmakers.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Keep the two state savings accounts, the Budget Stabilization Fund and the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund, with their current deposit rules and spending limitations in place.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Maintain the three education trust funds and continue to distribute their investment earnings for public school and higher education programs.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Continue to provide constitutional protections to existing trust funds, so it remains harder for lawmakers to change the rules
governing them.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Continue the current system for local governments to charge property taxes on business inventory, maintain constitutional protections for property tax breaks and avoid any new hurdles for enacting property tax exemptions.
CA No. 3 (ACT No. 3, 2024-3ES – SB 2)
To provide relative to crimes committed by juveniles and to special juvenile proceedings
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Remove the list of 16 crimes for which people under the age of 17 can be charged as adults from the Louisiana Constitution, allowing lawmakers to
more easily expand the list of felony offenses in law.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Maintain the limited list of 16 crimes for which people under the age of 17 can be charged as adults.
List of Crimes
First-degree murder.
Second-degree murder.
Manslaughter.
Aggravated rape.
Armed robbery.
Aggravated burglary.
Aggravated kidnapping.
Attempted first-degree murder.
Attempted second-degree murder.
Forcible rape.
Simple rape.
Second-degree kidnapping.
A second or subsequent aggravated battery.
A second or subsequent aggravated burglary.
A second or subsequent offense of burglary of an inhabited dwelling.
A second or subsequent felony-grade violation involving the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances as defined in the law.
CA No. 4 (ACT No. 4, 2024-3ES – SB 5)
To provide for election dates for newly-created judgeships or vacancies in office of judge
A VOTE FOR WOULD – Change the timing requirements for filling a judicial vacancy or newly created judgeship, so the special election coincides with the regular elections calendar.
A VOTE AGAINST WOULD – Keep election rules for filling a judicial vacancy or newly created judgeship that require the special election to be held and a judge to be seated within 12 months after the vacancy began.