Louisiana Content of Fiscal Legislative Sessions, Amendment 3 (2015)
| Amendment 3 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Type | Amendment |
| Origin | Louisiana Legislature |
| Topic | Legislature |
| Status | Defeated  |
The Louisiana Content of Fiscal Legislative Sessions, Amendment 3 was on the October 24, 2015 ballot in Louisiana as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have broadened what fiscal-related issues may be addressed during a fiscal legislative session.[1][2]
Specifically, the amendment would have replaced the Legislature's ability to "dedicate revenue" during fiscal legislative sessions with the broader "legislate with regard to the dedication of revenue" and the power to "levy or authorize a new tax, increase an existing tax, and legislate with regard to tax exemptions, exclusions, deductions, reductions, repeals, or credits" with the broader "legislate with regard to taxes... [and] rebates."[1]
Fiscal legislative sessions are sessions that take place during odd-numbered years. For instance, the 2013 session, 2015 session, 2017 session and 2019 session are all fiscal legislative sessions.
The measure was introduced into the Louisiana Legislature by Rep. Julie Stokes (R-79) as House Bill 518.[3]
Election results
| Louisiana Amendment 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 537,391 | 54.3% | ||
| Yes | 452,260 | 45.7% | ||
Election results via: Louisiana Secretary of State
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot text was as follows:[1]
| “ | Do you support an amendment to allow any legislation regarding the dedication of revenue, rebates, and taxes to be considered during a fiscal legislative session? (Amends Article III, Section 2(A)(4)(b))[4] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article III, Louisiana Constitution
The proposed amendment would have amended Section 2(A)(4)(b) of Article III of the Louisiana Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted by the measure's approval:[1]
§2. Sessions
Section 2.(A) Annual Session.
(4)(b) During any session convening in an odd-numbered year, no matter intended to have the effect of law, including any suspension of law, shall be introduced or considered unless its object is to enact the General Appropriation Bill; enact the comprehensive capital budget; make an appropriation; levy or authorize a new tax; increase an existing tax; levy, authorize, increase, decrease, or repeal a fee; dedicate legislate with regard to the dedication of revenue; legislate with regard to tax exemptions, exclusions, deductions, reductions, repeals, or credits taxes; legislate with regard to rebates; or legislate with regard to the issuance of bonds. In addition, a matter intended to have the effect of law, including a measure proposing a suspension of law, which is not within the subject matter restrictions provided in this Subparagraph may be considered at any such session if:
- (i) It is prefiled no later than the deadline provided in Subparagraph (2) of this Paragraph, provided that the member shall not prefile more than five such matters pursuant to this Subsubparagraph; or
- (ii) Its object is to enact a local or special law which is required to be and has been advertised in accordance with Section 13 of this Article and which is not prohibited by the provisions of Section 12 of this Article.[4]
Support
Rep. Julie Stokes (R-79) sponsored the measure in the Louisiana Legislature.[5]
Arguments in favor
The Council for a Better Louisiana, or CABL, argued:[6]
| “ | Louisiana has two kinds of regular legislative sessions. In a general session, held on odd-numbered years, a bill can basically be introduced on any subject except most issues dealing with raising taxes or fees. The fiscal session is the opposite.
"But over the years, as issues and terminologies have changed, the constitutional language restricting legislation in fiscal sessions has sometimes grown too restrictive itself," CABL says. "For instance, lawmakers could be dealing with a package of changes in one area of the law dealing with taxation, only to find that that a certain item that clearly fits into that discussion is not explicitly mentioned as one of the subject matters allowed in a fiscal session." Amendment 3, which the group supports, would clarify the rules in an effort to avoid such problems.[4] |
” |
The League of Women Voters of Louisiana published an analysis with the following arguments supporting the measure:[7]
| “ |
|
” |
The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana found the following arguments supporting the amendment:[8]
| “ | The current system is fraught with confusion and even litigation due the lack of clarity in definitions. It frustrates the efforts by some legislators to improve the state’s administration of taxes and other tax-related issues. This amendment would clear up a part of the Constitution that imposes highly technical impediments. Currently, legislators in a fiscal session might want to propose a bill that deals with tax administration or collections, only to learn that it counts as one of a legislator’s five pre-filed general bills. By extending and clarifying the category of tax and revenue-related bills, the amendment would give the Legislature greater flexibility to deal with a broader set of fiscal policy and management issues during a fiscal session. Greater flexibility to handle fiscal issues can be handy when the state is facing a budget crisis and can help lead to long-range reforms. Greater clarity is needed about whether fiscal sessions may consider rebates, which can assist the state’s economic development strategy; this amendment provides that clarity.[4] | ” |
Opposition
Arguments against
The League of Women Voters of Louisiana published an analysis with the following argument against the amendment:[7]
| “ | Potential to file more legislation/bills[4] | ” |
The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana found the following arguments against the measure:[8]
| “ | The process of legislating is more streamlined when legislative sessions are limited by the number and types of bills that can be introduced. By loosening the limits on the types of fiscal bills that can be considered, the Legislature could become less efficient. Legislators would have greater opportunity to introduce bills creating intrusive tax collection or administration measures. If anything, the fiscal sessions should be more restricted to prevent a host of general, local and special bills from turning a fiscal session into a de facto general session. The amendment does not prevent legislation on rebates in general sessions, which some lawmakers in the past have sought to restrict. This amendment might contribute to confusion rather than alleviate problems. Voters should not have to deal with this level of minutia with constitutional amendments.[4] | ” |
Media editorials
The New Orleans Advocate argued:[9]
| “ | Amendment No. 3 broadens language in the constitution regarding fiscal sessions of the Legislature. The current law is thought by lawmakers to be unduly restrictive. Fiscal sessions are those dealing with budget and tax matters, but as the state’s long list of tax breaks and business incentives have grown – including rebates of taxes via credits – the existing language has caused confusion about what bills can be filed in the short sessions.
Compounding the confusion is that the fiscal sessions do allow five more general bills to each legislator. Those are precious slots for lawmakers, who want to be able to make specific proposals during the fiscal session; they also want to be able to generate bills that provide for tax administration or other matters not now explicitly authorized. If a fiscal session bill is ruled a general bill, that would take away one of those important slots for a lawmaker’s other purposes. If this sounds like insider baseball, it is. Does it fundamentally alter the dynamics of fiscal sessions? We don’t think so, so it seems safely a “yes” vote.[4] |
” |
Rolfe McCollister, publisher of the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, urged a vote in favor of the amendment:[10]
| “ | This simply addresses what is considered a fiscal bill during a fiscal-only session. Currently, PAR points out, bills that deal with administration of taxes or credits are considered “general bills” and not fiscal. (Legislators are limited to only five general bills in a fiscal session.) This would reclassify such bills as “fiscal.” It makes sense.[4] | ” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Louisiana Constitution
The proposed constitutional amendment was filed by Rep. Julie Stokes (R-79) as House Bill 518 on April 3, 2015.[3]
The measure needed to be approved through a two-thirds vote in both legislative chambers to be placed on the ballot. Louisiana is one of sixteen states that require a two-thirds supermajority for constitutional amendments.
The Louisiana House of Representatives passed the amendment on May 13, 2015. However, the Louisiana Senate amended the House's bill on May 26. The House disagreed with the amendments, and a conference committee was designated to resolve the disagreement. The conference committee had six members, three from the House and three from the Senate. The members were Rep. Julie Stokes (R-79), Rep. Timothy Burns (R-89), Rep. Barry Ivey (R-65), Sen. Jody Amedee (R-18), Sen. Jean-Paul J. Morrell (D-3) and Sen. John Alario (R-8). Both chambers of the legislature unanimously agreed to the conference committee's recommendations on June 10, 2015.[3]
House vote
June 10, 2015, House vote
| Louisiana HB 518 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 95 | 100.00% | ||
| No | 0 | 0.00% | ||
Senate vote
June 10, 2015, Senate vote
| Louisiana HB 518 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 38 | 100.00% | ||
| No | 0 | 0.00% | ||
State profile
| Demographic data for Louisiana | ||
|---|---|---|
| Louisiana | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 4,668,960 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 43,204 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 62.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 32.1% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 1.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.6% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 1.8% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 4.7% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 83.4% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 22.5% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $45,047 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 23.3% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Louisiana. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Louisiana
Louisiana voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More Louisiana coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Louisiana
- United States congressional delegations from Louisiana
- Public policy in Louisiana
- Endorsers in Louisiana
- Louisiana fact checks
- More...
See also
External links
- House Bill 518
- Louisiana Constitutional Amendments For Consideration for October 24, 2015 Ballot
- Public Affairs Research Council Guide to the 2015 Constitutional Amendments
- League of Women Voters of Louisiana's 2015 proposed constitutional amendments analysis
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Louisiana Legislature, "House Bill 518," accessed June 10, 2015
- ↑ Louisiana Legislature, "House Bill 518 Digest," accessed May 22, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Louisiana Legislature, "House Bill 518 Info," accessed May 22, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Louisiana Secretary of State, "2015 Proposed Constitutional Amendments," accessed September 16, 2015
- ↑ Dailycomet.com, "Government watchdog group weighs in on proposed amendments," October 13, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 League of Women Voters of Louisiana, "Analysis of state constitutional amendments on October 24, 2015 ballot," accessed September 16, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, "PAR Guide to the 2015 Constitutional Amendments," accessed October 14, 2015
- ↑ The New Orleans Advocate, "Our Views: On proposed amendments to Louisiana Constitution, we say 'yes' to No. 3 and 'no' to No. 4," October 4, 2015
- ↑ Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, "Publisher: Endorsements for the Oct. 24 election," October 13, 2015
 |
State of Louisiana Baton Rouge (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 |
