 |
 |
    |
     |
|
Little interest in proposed amendments
BY ALAN SAYRE
The Advocate
Associated Press writer
In sharp contrast to the debate before an anti-gay marriage amendment was approved by voters in September, four proposed changes to the Louisiana Constitution on the Nov. 2 ballot have stirred up little interest. The topics: the right to hunt, fish and trap; trying to bring uniformity to certain aspects of the homestead exemption; extending veterans' preference in state hiring to those serving during the Iraq war era; and creating special funds to boost agriculture and fishing.
Unlike Sept. 16, when the marriage amendment was the only statewide issue on the ballot, these propositions are taking a back seat to the presidential race and elections for the U.S. Senate and Congress
"I would rank these pretty low in public interest," said Jim Brandt, head of the Public Affairs Research Council, a private think-tank. "These are not issues that are on most people's radar screens."
Amendment No. 2, the most complicated of the four proposals, deals with what proponents contend are modern changes to the $75,000 homestead exemption -- some of which already are accepted by many tax assessors, while rejected by others.
The homestead exemption would be extended to a surviving or former spouse in various situations, unmarried people who share ownership in a home, people who put their ownership in a home into an irrevocable trust and people with use-value land -- such as farm land or timberland.
Supporters say the amendment simply recognizes reality. For example, many unmarried people jointly own homes and elderly people often hand off their residences to a trust in order to qualify for medical assistance.
But critics of the amendment say affluent homeowners could abuse the trust provision -- and in parishes where assessors have refused to grant exemptions for the situations in the amendment, property would fall off the tax rolls.
Critics also question the fairness of the amendment's handling of homestead exemptions for those with homes under lease-purchase agreements. Those currently with the exemption would get to keep it, but future lease-purchase agreements would not be eligible.
Amendment No. 4 is aimed at boosting lagging sectors of the Louisiana farm and fish economy. Its origin comes from unsuccessful legislation pushed this year to put fees on retail sales of dairy products and use the proceeds to boost the Louisiana dairy industry.
The Legislature would be allowed to create and fund special programs to help farmers and fishermen. Specifically, the amendment would create the Agricultural and Seafood Products Support Fund. Money for the fund would come from grants, gifts, donations, state appropriations and money from the licensing of state-owned trademarks.
Backers say the amendment is needed to help farmers and fishermen in business, but critics question the wisdom of adding another constitutionally protected fund. About 23 funds for such purposes as college scholarships, wetland restoration and state budget stabilization already exist -- money that generally cannot be touched for any other purpose.
Amendment No. 3 would extend veterans' preference for state and local government hiring and state police jobs to veterans who served after Sept. 11, 2001, in essence pulling in veterans from the time of the terrorist attacks through the Iraq war.
Currently, the constitution only covers veterans of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam era and Desert Storm.
Amendment No. 1 would constitutionally protect the right to hunt, fish and trap, with exceptions falling under the state's duty to protect natural resources and landowners' rights against trespass.
Although no anti-hunting and fishing drives have popped up in Louisiana, backers consider the amendment a preventive step against such campaigns that have been successful in other states. Some have said the amendment is unnecessary.
Since the 1974 constitution went into force, voters have approved 123 out of 185 proposed amendments, many lengthy in detail. Following a time during the 1990s when "no" often prevailed on proposed constitutional changes, voters in 2003 approved 11 of 15 amendments and six of 12 amendments in 2002.
"We're seeing more careful voting analysis instead of voting `no' on everything," Brandt said.
