The Indianapolis Star today has coverage today of the three proposed amendments to the Indiana Constitution that will be on the Nov. 2 ballot. Some quotes:
The topics: property taxes, when some county elected officials begin their terms in office and a line of succession in state government.Re question #1, the Star's Michele McNeil writes that it is the most controversial and provides more extensive background information than earlier stories I've quoted from:Deciphering these ballot questions won't be easy: They're confusing; they're long (one is 63 words). But if a simple majority of voters say "yes," the state's supreme legal document will change.
Its purpose is to affirm and simplify the legislature's decision to stop requiring businesses, such as car dealers, to pay an inventory tax. The Indiana Constitution requires it, although the legislature has gotten around this by continuing to charge the tax but refunding it in the form of another tax break. The amendment also would exempt business "personal property" from property taxes, such as business machinery.As for the other two amendments:The Indiana Farm Bureau opposes this because it fears farmers would continue to see their property tax burden increase as others get tax breaks. It's not enough that farmers would somewhat benefit, said Bob Kraft, the bureau's director of state government relations. Livestock and grain would be considered inventory, while tractors would be considered personal property and thus be exempt from property taxes. But farmland would not be exempt, he said.
In addition, the amendment gives the legislature sweeping authority to make property tax decisions, he said.
"It's too broad and it's too long-lasting," he said. "Changing the constitution and then trying to get that reversed is extremely difficult. That's part of the apprehension."
But if the state is going to seriously reform property taxes, the legislature is going to have to have more latitude, said Pat Kiely, president of the Indiana Manufacturers Association and a former Republican lawmaker.
His organization offers the amendment "lukewarm support."
"There are inherent dangers in giving the General Assembly this broader power," he said.
The amendment would also eliminate constitutional questions around property tax breaks, such as the homestead credit, or the deduction for military veterans. Since property is supposed to be taxed uniformly, there's some question about whether granting property tax breaks for some -- but not all -- is fair.
County officials are the subject of the second question on the November ballot. Voters will be asked to approve establishing a uniform date for the beginning of the terms of county elected officials. This would correct an anomaly in which some counties elect officials who don't take office until 14 to 16 months after their elections.In an earlier entry, I said I had been unable to locate the text of these amendments. I hope to have this information later today and, if so, will post it here.The third amendment is a post-9/11 effort to create a smoother transfer of power if the governor and lieutenant governor are both unable to continue in office. The constitution now requires the General Assembly to pick a new leader, but it is silent on who is in charge if lawmakers can't get together.
The line of succession, as proposed by lawmakers, would be: House speaker, Senate president pro tempore, state treasurer, auditor, secretary of state and superintendent of public instruction. The replacement would need to belong to the same political party as the governor.
[More] Here we go. A friend has sent me these links: SJR 5 (property tax); HJR 7 (county officials' terms); HJR 8 (line of succession). As the Star story points out, "Two separately elected General Assemblies must approve the change. Then, it's put on the ballot in the next general election." The 2003 and 2004 sessions, for instance, constituted the same elected General Assembly, the 113th. The 114th will begin with the upcoming election.
The entire wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is generally not put on the ballot, instead it is described. The language to be placed on the ballots in the upcoming election was established by a bill passed in the last session, SEA 36-2004, available here.
Posted by Marcia Oddi at October 21, 2004 12:41 PM