When Louisiana voters go to the ballot later this month, they could be asked to vote on a constitutional amendment that would overhaul the state’s tax code. That amendment is the subject of a lawsuit to be heard next week by a Baton Rouge judge in the 19th Judicial District.
Attorney William Most filed the suit on behalf of a pastor and two teachers, on the grounds that the ballot language is misleading and biased.
“ The language in Amendment 2 only mentions some of the things that voters might like or find appealing. And it doesn't mention any of the things in the hundred-plus pages of rewrites that voters may not like,” said Most.
The plaintiffs want Amendment 2 to be removed from the ballot. The case will be heard March 12, three days before early voting begins for the March 29 election.
“I think one thing that all voters can agree on is that the people of Louisiana need to be told the truth about what they're being asked to vote on. That's core to democracy. Democracy doesn't work if the people of Louisiana are lied to,” said Most.
Among the plaintiffs' concerns are a description in the ballot language of “permanent teacher pay raises,” that they say is inaccurate. They also say the amendment would result in the draining of three education trust funds and a reduction in property tax protections for churches and unions.
Below is a transcript of WWNO/WRKF reporter Brooke Thorington’s interview with Attorney William Most.
Brooke Thorington: Tell us a little bit about this lawsuit.
William Most: This lawsuit comes out of an effort last year to rewrite the state constitution. And one such attempt was stopped last year by Republican legislators. But then there was another attempt to put something to the voters to decide. And what they are being asked to review on March 29 is more than a hundred pages of rewrites to the Louisiana constitution, which concern us for a number of reasons, including because the ballot language itself is.
BT: For the most part, Amendment 2 has been promoted as a permanent teacher pay raise. Tell us why this is misleading and what motivated your clients to file suit.
WM: Yeah, that is one of the three things in the ballot language that is actively false. The ballot language says it will provide a permanent teacher salary increase, which sounds great.
Except when you read the fine print, you see that isn't true at all. What Amendment 2 would do is liquidate several trust funds that have been set aside for educational purposes and then make it so that some teachers will continue to get the same pay that they have been getting for several years and other teachers may see a pay cut. So it's not true to say that teachers will get a pay raise because as far as we can tell, no teacher will get a pay raise because of Amendment 2 and many may see their pay go down.
BT: What motivated these two teachers and a pastor that you're representing to follow this?
WM: Plaintiffs in this case have several motivations, and a key issue that comes up a lot is that democracy only works if voters know what they're voting on.
So a very basic principle should be that when you put something to voters to vote on, especially for a document as fundamental and foundational as our state constitution, you have to tell voters the truth about what they're voting on. And here, Amendment 2 is not truthful with voters. It says that it's retaining a religious organization tax exemption.
But that's not true. It would narrow protection for churches and religious organizations. It would not provide a teacher pay raise as promised, and there are other things that are misleading and untruthful as well.
BT: There is a state law that requires ballot language to be concise and reflected of what the amendment would actually change or do. Is that part of what's being challenged here?
WM: That's one of the arguments. So state law requires that ballot language be “simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood.” So that voters know what they're voting on, and this language, Amendment 2 fails for several reasons. Number one, because it's just untrue in what it says it's going to do to the state constitution.
And then also because it's not unbiased. The language in Amendment 2 only mentioned some of the things that voters might like or find appealing, and it doesn't mention any of the things in the 100-plus pages of rewrites that voters may not like, such as potential for increased taxes on something, the elimination for constitutional protection for veteran property, and also other problems and the destruction of funds set aside for health and education.
BT: Tell me where this case stands now and what's next.
WM: We have moved for a preliminary injunction, which means we're asking a state judge to say, hey, let's pause this while we figure out if Amendment 2 even meets the requirements of the Constitution and state law. That motion will be heard on March 12, and then we'll see what happens before the election.
But no matter what, this case will continue even if Amendment 2 is passed, because what is being proffered to the voters is not constitutional or legal.
BT: What kind of response have you received from the lawsuit?
WM: We have heard from a range of people. In particular, we're hearing from faith leaders, representatives of churches who are worried about the impacts to their churches, and in particular all the nonprofits that provide Christian ministries other than just the church building itself.
Things like Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities -- all of which would lose their constitutional protection from taxation if Amendment 2 is passed. And if we're going to change a foundational document for Louisiana, like the state constitution, it's worth making sure we do it right.
BT: William Most, thank you so much for your time today.
WM: Thanks, Brooke. I appreciate your attention to this.
