By Debbie Glover

Pontchartrain Newspapers

Aside from the election of the country’s president Nov. 6, there will be nine amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on the ballot.

Since the amendments are often wordy and confusing, an explanation of the first five amendments follows, including the effect a “yes” or “no” vote will really mean. Some of the information has been gathered from the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, a non-partisan, non-profit, non-political group.

Since the implementation of the Louisiana Constitution in 1974, it has been amended 167 times.

The first proposed amendment as worded on the ballot states:

“Do you support an amendment to prohibit monies in the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly from being used or appropriated for other purposes when adjustments are made to eliminate a state deficit?”

The Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly currently has a market value of $519.5 million and provides a permanent source of support for health care for the state’s poor and elderly.

A vote for would prohibit the legislature or governor from taking money from the Trust Fund for the Elderly to help balance the state operating budget.

A vote against would leave the possibility that money could be taken from the fund.

The second proposed amendment states:

“Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?”

A vote for will say that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental one in Louisiana and would give the state the strongest protection of arms rights in the country and protects the rights of law-abiding citizens. It would also delete a line in the Constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.

A vote against will keep the existing language, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged but does not require strict scrutiny of arms laws and expressly allows the legislature to regulate concealed weapons.

Proposed Constitutional amendment number three states:

“Do you support an amendment to require legislation effecting any change to laws concerning retirement systems for public employees that is to be pre-filed to be filed no later than 45 days before the start of a regular legislative session and to require the completion of public notice requirements regarding legislation effecting such a change no later than 60 days before introduction of the bill?”

A vote for would mean that bills affecting public employee retirement systems would need to be filed a month earlier than any other bill and would double the public notice period for these pre-filed bills.

A vote against would mean no changes to the present requirements for these bills.

Amendment proposal number four states:

“Do you support an amendment to exempt from ad valorem taxation, in addition to the homestead exemption, the next $75,000 of value of property owned and occupied by the spouse of a deceased veteran with a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent who passed away prior to the enactment of the exemption?”

A vote for will allow the spouse of a deceased veteran to claim a homestead exemption of $150,000 even if the veteran died before enactment of the exemption. The veteran would have had to have a 100 percent disability connected with his service.

A vote against will still allow the spouse to claim a higher exemption if it was in effect before the veteran died.

The fifth proposed Constitutional amendment asks:

“Do you support an amendment to provide for the forfeiture of public retirement benefits by any public servant who is convicted of a felony associated with and committed during his public service?”

A vote for allow the courts to include forfeiture of the publicly funded portion of public retirement benefits as part of the sentence for a public servant convicted of a felony related to his or her office.

A vote against would leave the current system in place, which means a public servant convicted of a felony related to his or her office would be allowed to keep whatever public retirement benefits he or she has earned, except for court-ordered restitution and other specific circumstances already described in law.

In this amendment, only the publicly funded contribution to the retirement would be affected. Forfeited amount could go toward reducing the unfunded accrued liability of the specific retirement system through which the public servant has accrued benefits.

This amendment would apply only to those elected to office after Jan. 1, 2013. Those currently in office would be affected beginning their next elected term.

In an argument for, PAR states, “When someone takes a position of public trust, he or she is expected to honor that trust, not abuse the position for personal gain. When such abuse does occur, the person should suffer the consequences, including the loss of any retirement benefits earned.”

In an argument against the amendment, PAR states, “There is really no reason to take away retirement benefits because current state law already provides other penalties such as garnishment for crimes associated with public office. Also, most public corruption cases are in federal court which mandates restitution to the fullest extent possible for the losses of a victim, such as the state or other government entity.”

Look for an explanation of amendments six through nine in Friday’s edition.