Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Alabama Ad Valorem Tax Amendment, Amendment 1 (2010)
| Alabama Constitution |
|---|
|
| Preamble |
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI •XII •XIII •XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII |
| Local Provisions |
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.
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) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 610,643 | 55% | ||
| 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
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 |
 |
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
- Alabama 2010 Certification of Proposed Constitutional Amendments
- Summary of 4 amendments on Alabama ballot Nov. 2
Footnotes
- ↑ Alabama Secretary of State, "Proposed Constitutional Amendments"
- ↑ Alabama Secretary of State, "Certification of Proposed Constitutional Amendments, accessed September 2, 2010
- ↑ Montgomery Advertiser, "Alabama Voices: Amendment preserves cost-sharing agreement," October 21, 2010
- ↑ Alabama Secretary of State, "HB242," accessed August 17, 2010
- ↑ Montgomery Advertiser, "Alabama Voices: Amendment preserves cost-sharing agreement," October 21, 2010
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Anniston Star, "Whoops: Alabama amendment has to be fixed — with another amendment," October 24, 2010 (dead link)
- ↑ Dekalb County Times Journal, "Statewide, Local Amendments," October 28, 2010
- ↑ Birmingham News, "OUR VIEW: The News recommends voting no on proposed constitutional amendments in an effort to force a new Alabama Constitution," October 27, 2010
- ↑ Alabama Legislature, "History of HB242," accessed August 17, 2010
 |
State of Alabama Montgomery (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
