PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Alabama Ad Valorem Tax Amendment, Amendment 1 (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Alabama Constitution
Seal of Alabama.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIXIIIXIVXVXVIXVIIXVIII
Amendments
The Alabama Ad Valorem Tax Amendment, also known as Amendment 1, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Alabama as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.Defeatedd The measure would change the Alabama Constitution to state that any prohibition against collections of any new taxes levied apply only to ad valorem taxes levied under the provisions of Amendment 778, which was enacted in 2006. The amendment addressed the split of the costs of running the local tax collection offices, according to reports.[1][2][3]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Official results of the measure follow:

Amendment 1 (Ad Valorem Tax)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No610,64355%
Yes 502,726 45%

Results via the Alabama Secretary of State

Text of measure

Summary

The summary of the measure read:[4]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that the prohibition in Amendment 778, now appearing as Section 269.08 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, against the payment of any fees, charges, or commissions for assessment or collection of any new taxes levied in order to comply with the provisions of Amendment 778 applies only to the levy and collection of additional ad valorem taxes levied specifically under the provisions of Amendment 778 and shall not apply to any prior or future levy set by or renewed under the laws or constitution of the state, and to provide for an election to be held on the proposed amendment.

Background

In 2006 voters approved a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that referenced operating costs for local tax collection offices. According to reports, the wording of the 2006 measure could confuse the process for splitting operating costs among tax collecting agencies in state counties. This 2010 amendment would have altered the technical wording of the 2006 measure in order to verify the cost splitting among those agencies.[5]

Support

Supporters

  • Attorney for the Association of County Commissions of Alabama Mary Pons stated, “My concern is that the citizens will look at it, think it’s a tax and vote against it. It’s not going to affect what they pay at all...It was supposed to be a one-time thing and it was supposed to apply only to those mills that had been added again. It’s just not very clear and there has been an interpretation that education would not have to pay the administrative costs for any mills ever added.”[6]

Opposition

  • Reports showed that no opposition campaigns formed against the measure, and if there was, none had been.[6]

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Alabama ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • The Dekalb County Times-Journal was in support of the measure, stating, "While the ballot wording can be more than a little cumbersome, Amendment 1 fixes only a technical wording issue to a measure passed by voters in 2006. It does not add an additional tax."[7]

Opposition

  • The Birmingham News published an editorial on October 27, 2010 saying that each amendment on the ballot should be rejected by voters. The editorial by the publication stated, "This year, there is no compelling amendment requiring a "yes" vote. Instead, the four statewide and 33 local amendments on the ballot remind us of the 1901 constitution's biggest flaw. The lack of self-government, or home rule, hamstrings local governments. Blame the constitution's drafters, who didn't trust the people or local governments. That forces county commissions and city councils to seek the Legislature's blessing on amendments that let them do what the constitution prohibits."[8]

Path to the ballot

Taxes on the ballot in 2010
Nevada 2010 ballot measuresUtah 2010 ballot measuresColorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010)New Mexico 2010 ballot measuresArizona 2010 ballot measuresMontana 2010 ballot measuresCalifornia 2010 ballot measuresOregon 2010 ballot measuresWashington 2010 ballot measuresIdaho 2010 ballot measuresOklahoma 2010 ballot measuresKansas 2010 ballot measuresNebraska 2010 ballot measuresSouth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresNorth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresIowa 2010 ballot measuresMissouri 2010 ballot measuresArkansas 2010 ballot measuresLouisiana 2010 ballot measuresAlabama 2010 ballot measuresGeorgia 2010 ballot measuresFlorida 2010 ballot measuresSouth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIllinois 2010 ballot measuresTennessee 2010 ballot measuresNorth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIndiana 2010 ballot measuresOhio 2010 ballot measuresMaine 2010 ballot measuresVirginia 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresMassachusetts 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresAlaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (2010)Hawaii 2010 ballot measuresCertified, taxes, 2010 Map.png

The measure was read for the first time to the Alabama House of Representatives during the 2009 Legislative Session on February 3, 2009. The measure was approved for the ballot on April 21, 2009. The measure was then sent to the statewide ballot, as opposed to a local ballot, during the week of August 13, 2010.[9]

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References