By Elliott Brack
Editor and publisher
OCT. 26, 2018 | Voters on November 6 will again be asked several questions concerning whether the state Constitution should be amended. Each time we see such amendments on the ballot, we get concerned, for several reasons.
There are several problems as we see it with voters making decisions on Constitutional Amendments per se.
- COMPLICATED: First, the state legislature itself should address highly complicated matters if at all possible, instead of kicking the ideas back to the people. But often the legislators don’t want to take sides on such matters, thereby making their re-election chances vulnerable, so they want the people to make such decisions.
- WORDING: Secondly, after introducing the often complicated bills, the legislature then must boil down the essence of the bill in a few words to present it to voters. Highly complicated questions just cannot be reduced to a few words, thus the provision under question is often far from understandable. And some say that in writing the exact wordage for the ballot, the government uses language that sometimes helps sway the voter for or against. That’s wrong, too.
- WHO’S BENEFITING? Next, here is a key element on questioning amendments. All too often legislation comes to the voters which on the face of it seems reasonable, only to learn that passage of such legislation will be greatly beneficial to a certain group. Often this shifts taxation in some way that only this certain group benefits, while others perhaps in the related businesses do not get this benefit. It’s more that legislation that hurts others: it is dishonest and unethical.
So, with these key ideas in mind, we often come to the conclusion on the Constitutional Amendments: vote against all of them. We hesitate making such blanket statements, but it sure is tempting.
With the above in mind, now let’s be specific about the amendments the voters will see on the ballot when they go into the voting booth on November 6. There are five amendments on the ballot in 2018.
Amendment One: Provides dedicated millions of dollars annually to fund conservation of parks, outdoor areas and waterways. Sounds good. But the legislature can do this within its annual budget. VOTE NO.
Amendment Two: Would allow the creation of a statewide Business Court, which it says will “promote predictability of judicial outcomes in certain complex business disputes.” We raise the question: why should businesses be given this special court to speed lawsuits through the system, when personal injury suits, divorces, and even murders, must slowly go through the system? Some say it will free dockets, but at what cost? We maintain other states adopted this, and now Georgia “want one of them, too.” It will also mean another level of court government, with its attendant bureaucracy, and increase the cost of the court system. We see no overriding reason for this amendment. VOTE NO.
Amendment Three: This will lower the cost of taxes on timberland. The Georgia Constitution says all property must be taxed equally. This would give timber owners a tax break. It encourages the “conservation, sustainability and longevity” of Georgia forests. This is another bill giving special consideration to a certain group. These tree farmers ought to routinely conserve, sustain and keep healthy their woodlands. VOTE NO.
Amendment Four: Mandating certain rights for victims of crimes. Known as Marcy’s Law, this would require notification before court hearings of those accused of harming them. While we understand the emotional tug of this amendment, most of these provisions are already in legislative law, and this doesn’t need the protection of the Constitution. VOTE NO.
Amendment Five: Aimed at counties with more than one public school district, this would remove the requirement that a county and city school district agree before calling for a referendum to raise sales taxes for education. If approved, a city school district could call for a sales tax referendum on its own. Seems to us an internal county school wrangling proposal which could cause more confusion. VOTE NO.
So, indeed, we are suggesting voting against ALL the amendments. While this seems harsh, we maintain the Georgia Legislature can handle these matters in other ways, and we don’t need to complicate our Constitution further.
- Have a comment? Send to: elliott@brack.net
Follow Us