A LITTLE CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSPARENCY WOULD BE NICE. Neither the Louisiana Taxpayers, nor our many tax dollars paid to Baton Rouge are protected from political and wasteful expenditures by the Legislature if the Legislature itself does not abide by their own procedural rules established in the Louisiana Constitution. Our Constitution mandates legislative transparency, even if you can not tell it from the backroom, last minute legislation that emerged from the most recent legislative session. Constitutional transparency is a good thing. It informed the public, and open debate in the legislature to all the People in Louisiana. Transparency engenders public oversight and legislative accountability during the session. The constitutional mandates that demand transparency arises from three fundamental restrictions imposed on our legislative process. Functionally, these requires make sure the People get a clear advance notice of the intentions of the legislature to change the law. These mandates were included in the Constitution as a procedural restraint on the constitutional grant of broad legislative power. These three constitutional restrictions on the legislative process are well known to those who deal with the legislature. To assure the People of Louisiana of an open, honest and orderly legislative process, the Louisiana Constitution mandates that all bills, and legislative acts, conform to these three fundamental restrictions: (1) Except for the State’s General Appropriation Bill, each piece of legislation shall have only one “object” (La. Const. Art. III, Sect. 5.A.) and no amendment to a bill can add a second or new object to the original “object” of the bill (La. Const. Art. III, Sect. 15,C.). (2) Every bill shall contain a brief title, indicative of its single object (La. Const. Art. III, Sect. 15.A.). (3) All Appropriation Bills must originate in the House of Representatives (La. Const. Art. III, Sect. 18.B.) and all special appropriation bills shall be limited to a specific purpose and a specific amount (La. Const. Art. III, Sect. 18.D). The “one object” rule and the “title-object connection” requirement apply to all legislation except the annual general appropriation bill (Act 11 (HB 11)). The State’s general appropriation bill is not limited to one object as because of its nature as the general appropriation bill of the State, it tells the public that its object is the State’s budget and the appropriation of State funds. These dual mandates make sure that the People know what a bill involves from its title. Equally, the public is assured that no other “object” can be addressed. These three constitutional mandates are the cornerstones of transparency during the legislative process. These mandates must be complied with to allow the People to oversee and control our legislature while its in session. The value of legislative transparency has been recognized for decades by the Louisiana Supreme Court. In Orleans Parish School Bd. v. New Orleans, 410 So. 2d 1038, 1982 La. LEXIS 10296 (La. 1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court identified the purpose of the constitutional “one object” requirement as follows: “The purpose of the one-object requirement of Art. III, §§ 15(A) is to restrict a legislative act so that the Legislature does not have to consider the validity of two unrelated objects in deciding how to vote on a bill. State v. Cooper, 382 So.2d 963 (La.1980).” The one-object requirement mandates that the legislature consider each object of legislation, on the merits, one at a time. No omnibus or “Christmas Tree” legislation is constitutionally permitted in Louisiana. The Louisiana Supreme Court went on to describe the constitutional purpose of the “title-object connection” as follows: “The primary purpose of Art. III, §§ 15(A)'s requirement that every bill contain a brief title indicative of its object is to give the Legislature and the public fair notice of the scope of the legislation. The requirement is designed to prevent the deceptive practice of misleading the Legislature into the passage of provisions not indicated by the title of the bill.” The dual transparency of open disclosure to fellow legislators, and the voters of Louisiana provides the mechanism by which our legislators learn from their constituencies the many unrecognized effects that legislation has. This disclosure mandate helps minimize the every present threat of unintended consequences. In short, one-object, and affirmative title disclosures a fundamentally important to informed legislation and governance. And now, for the bad news, or the sad news. It is undeniable that the 2010 Legislature chose to run roughshod over these fundamental Constitutional protections of the People. A review of Act 803 (HB 787) and Act 633 (SB 711) provides two extraordinary examples of bills with unconstitutional (i) multiple objects, (ii) inadequate titles, (iii) special appropriations with multiple appropriation objects, and (iv) appropriations that originated in the Senate and not the House of Representatives. We, the People of Louisiana, deserve a more honorable effort by our legislature to abide by their constitutional responsibilities. That is why a group of citizens are arising, lead by the Taxpayers Union of Louisiana, to challenge these unconstitutional acts. If you are interested in joining fellow Citizens in this challenge, e-mail your name to Mr. John Roberts, Taxpayers Union of Louisiana; \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
This challenge will be expensive, but with lots of modest contributions, we can stop these unconstitutional Legislative high jinx. This Constitutional failure of our Legislature denied the public the constitutional right to know what legislation was being considered before it was enacted. Compliance would have provide the People with the opportunity to lobby against Act 633 and Act 803. These unconstitutional Acts epitomize political profiteering and midnight conference shenanigans that serve no one but the politically connected and the constitutionally challenged. A review of these two Acts reveal clearly that a little public debate would have stopped both of these Acts in their legislative tracks. Unfortunately, that also explains why this legislature could not afford to give the public notice of its closed door deal making. The next time you see your legislator, ask: “What is wrong with a little legislative transparency?” And then ask: “Did you really vote for Act 633 and Act 803? Really? CLICK THE BLUE LINE BELOW TO KEEP READING |
