Early voting light for Saturday election

Early voting totals offer a hint that St. Mary residents aren’t excited about the election set for Saturday, despite a ballot controversy that went to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
In early voting that ended March 22, 1,253 St. Mary residents voted in person. Adding absentee ballots, a total of 1,774 ballots have been cast, the Registrar of Voters Office said.
The 1,774 early voters represent 5.8% of the 30,577 registered in the parish as reported by the Secretary of State’s Office as of March 1.
Polls will be open 7 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturday. Bring a photo ID when you vote.
In St. Mary, only one political race appears on Saturday’s ballot. That’s in School Board District VII.
There, interim board member Lawrence Guillory is being challenged by Carla Pellerin.
Guillory was appointed to the board in November to fill the seat left vacant by Murphy Pontiff, who resigned for health reasons.
Only District VII residents will vote in this contest. The district consists of voting precincts 4, 6A, 10, 14 and 19.
Voters parishwide will take part in passing or rejecting four amendments to the state constitution. If the early voting here indicates flagging interest, at least one proposed amendment has kicked up a legal ruckus.
That’s Amendment 2, a wide-ranging proposal involving Louisiana tax law.
Invest in Louisiana, the advocacy group once called the Louisiana Budget Project, describes Amendment 2 as “the most substantial change to the state’s constitution since it was adopted in 1974.”
The amendment would lower the constitutional ceiling on personal income tax rates to 3.75%, which wouldn’t affect what Louisiana people will pay this year. They’ll pay the 3% flat rate enacted by statute. Corporate taxes would be cut to 5.5%, and the state inventory tax would be eliminated.
The amendment would double the standard income tax deduction for people over 65.
The most controversial aspects of the amendment deal with the creation of the Government Growth Limit and the elimination of some state trust funds.
The Government Growth Limit would set a lower bar than the current Expenditure Limit. Based on population changes and inflation calculated early each year, the Growth Limit would establish a total beyond which revenue could be used only for non-recurring expenses.
Amendment 2 would also eliminate the Revenue Stabilization Fund, shifting some of the money into the so-called Rainy Day Fund. The rest, about $1 billion, would offset corporate tax cuts and provide a one-time payment for parishes that agree not to tax inventory.
Three education trust funds would also be eliminated, and the money would be used to pay into the teacher and school staff retirement system. School boards are expected to use the savings to provide a raise of $2,000 annually for teachers and $1,000 for other staffers, instead of the stipends in those amounts school employees have received in recent years.
Critics, including Invest Louisiana, charge that schools will miss the $64 million in education spending generated by interest from those funds.
Two teacher unions, the Louisiana Federation of Teachers and the Louisiana Association of Educators, have endorsed Amendment 2.
A group of plaintiffs sued to keep Amendment 2 on the ballot, charging that the ballot’s wording is misleading. They won at the state district court level, but the state Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit, asserting that the language is accurate and has been available to the public for months.
Amendment 1 would give the Legislature broader authority to create specialized courts, such as drug courts. It would also give the state Supreme Court more power to discipline misconduct by out-of-state attorneys.
Amendment 3 would give the Legislature power to determine the crimes for which juveniles can be tried as adults. The list of such crimes is currently mandated in the state constitution.
Amendment 4 generally requires the earliest possible election date for filling a judicial vacancy. Part of the motivation is that Supreme Court justices will be elected after closed party primaries beginning next year, which means a Supreme Court race could require three separate elections. The other part is to encourage judicial contests during high-turnout elections, such as congressional or gubernatorial elections.