Constitutional Amendments 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10: About Tax Policy

We wish we could say it is simply that time of year, but for the second time this year, Louisiana voters will be asked to amend the state constitution. This time, ten separate propositions will appear on the November 3rd ballot, and many voters may instinctively default to “no.”

Five of Louisiana’s ten proposed constitutional amendments this fall deal in some way with taxation. But they are not all doing the same thing. Some would expand existing tax preferences. One would create an entirely new class of property tax exemptions. Another would change the incentives local governments face when setting millage rates after reassessment.

Taken together, they raise a larger question than whether any particular taxpayer deserves relief: What principles should guide Louisiana’s tax system, and how much of that system should be built around exemptions, classifications, and the government’s retained taxing authority?

That question is important because a proposal that sounds like a simple tax break may also establish a broader policy principle. As we have done in the past, we can encourage you to evaluate them using a very simple framework:

• Does it limit the powers of the government and government officials?
• Does it decrease the size and scope of government?
• Will it reduce government spending?
• Is it likely to prevent abuse by current or future officeholders?

If a proposal does not meaningfully limit government, reduce its reach or cost, prevent abuse, or accomplish some other clearly justified constitutional purpose, voters should ask why it belongs in the Constitution at all. Now let’s look at the five proposed tax amendments.

Proposed Amendment One: A Portable Exemption for Surviving Spouses

Proposed amendment one is the product of Senate Bill 180 brought by Senator Franklin Foil (R 5/10) during the 2026 Regular Session, which became Act 39. The bill passed both the Senate and the House unanimously. The proposed amendment would allow the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran with a qualifying service-connected disability who has already received the additional property-tax exemption to transfer it once to another qualifying homestead. The transferred exemption could not exceed its value during the final year it was claimed on the previous property.

On its face, the change is narrow and sympathetic. A surviving spouse who already qualifies for the exemption would not lose that benefit simply by downsizing or moving to another home. But the larger issue is how government chooses to provide tax relief. Rather than reducing the property-tax burden generally, the amendment expands an exception available to one class of taxpayers. Once government decides that particular groups deserve relief from a tax imposed on everyone else, the system naturally tends to accumulate more classifications and demands for similar treatment.

There is also a constitutional question. The amendment would place another detailed tax preference directly into the Constitution, specifying who qualifies, when the benefit transfers, and how much may be carried forward.

Ask Yourself: If the property tax burden is too high, should Louisiana continue to expand narrowly tailored exemptions, or should it address the burden itself? Many voters may support this amendment as a show of support for veterans and surviving spouses. But a “no” vote does not imply the opposite. It could instead be a message from voters to fix the tax system rather than continue creating additional carveouts.

Proposed Amendment Ten: A New Exemption for Rehabilitated Blighted Property

Do you support an amendment to allow property tax exemptions for blighted or derelict properties that have been rehabilitated, and to require the legislature to enact laws providing for administration of these exemptions? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Adds Article VII, Section 21(P))

Proposed amendment ten is the product of House Bill 214 brought by Representative Chance Henry (R 7/10) during the 2026 Regular Session, which became Act 272. The bill received some opposition in the House and Senate from the more conservative legislators.

The proposed amendment would authorize property-tax exemptions for certain blighted or derelict properties after they have been rehabilitated. The objective is straightforward enough: encourage owners and investors to restore neglected properties by reducing their tax burden afterward.

However, the Legislature has already provided a glimpse of how this would work. House Bill 217, which became Act 422 of 2026, establishes the implementing rules, contingent upon voters approving Amendment Ten.

Under that legislation, qualifying residential properties could receive an exemption covering up to 75% of their assessed value for as long as twenty years. Certain unimproved properties could receive smaller exemptions lasting up to ten years. Parish governments would establish the procedures and standards for determining which properties qualify.

But there is an interesting exception. The legislation also permits local governments to depart from those limitations for properties within designated redevelopment areas operating under an adopted redevelopment plan. Those areas could potentially encompass an entire parish or municipality. The legislation also contemplates using property-tax revenues to support redevelopment financing arrangements.

In other words, the Legislature has not simply proposed a narrow incentive for rehabilitating abandoned property. It has created a framework that could give local governments considerable discretion over preferential tax treatment and redevelopment financing.

There is also a question of fairness. Property owners who have maintained their homes and businesses over the years would receive no benefit from this particular exemption. Meanwhile, someone rehabilitating a neglected property could receive substantial tax relief. Perhaps that is an effective incentive to eliminate blight, but it also rewards one category of property owners while leaving others subject to the ordinary tax burden.

The constitutional distinction remains important. The Constitution should establish the boundaries of government authority; statutes should provide the operating details. Although the Legislature has already written the implementing statute, voters must still decide whether the constitutional authorization provides appropriate limits on the government’s ability to grant preferential treatment.

If property taxes and other government-imposed costs discourage investment and rehabilitation, another selective exemption may address the symptom rather than the underlying burden.

Ask Yourself: Should Louisiana create another category of preferential tax treatment, particularly one that gives local governments considerable discretion over which properties receive relief?

Proposed Amendment Six: An Additional Exemption for Older Homeowners

Do you support an amendment to authorize parishes and municipalities to extend an additional property tax exemption for property subject to the homestead exemption that is owned and occupied by a person who is at least sixty-five years of age and who qualifies for the special assessment level? (Effective January 1, 2028) (Adds Article VII, Section 21(P))

Proposed amendment six is the product of House Bill 514 brought by Representative Les Farnum (R 6/10) during the 2026 Regular Session, which became Act 274. The bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously. The proposed amendment would authorize parishes and municipalities to extend an additional property-tax exemption to homestead-exempt property owned and occupied by someone at least 65 years old who also qualifies for the special assessment level.

Unlike a mandatory statewide exemption, this proposal would require local voter approval before the additional relief could be implemented. A majority of voters participating in a separate parish or municipal election would have to approve the exemption.

The amount of relief would also increase with age. Qualifying homeowners between 65 and 68 would receive an additional exemption of $6,000 on their assessed property value. That amount would increase in stages, reaching an additional $30,000 in assessed-value exemption for qualifying homeowners who are at least 81 years old. These figures represent exempted assessed value, not a direct dollar-for-dollar reduction in the homeowner’s tax bill.

The amendment also includes a protection against shifting the resulting revenue loss onto other taxpayers through subsequent reassessments or millage adjustments. That is a meaningful limitation on government authority. Still, the underlying policy question remains. Older homeowners, particularly those on fixed incomes, may have difficulty absorbing rising property-tax burdens. But the proposed solution establishes another classification of taxpayers entitled to preferential treatment.

Even with local voter approval, similarly situated homeowners could receive different treatment depending upon where they live. And while the amendment provides relief to qualifying older homeowners, it does nothing to reduce the underlying property-tax burden for everyone else.

Rather than asking whether property taxes are generally becoming too burdensome, the government identifies another group for additional protection from that burden.

Ask Yourself: Should property-tax relief depend upon a taxpayer’s age and locality, even with local voter approval, or should the underlying burden be addressed more generally?

Proposed Amendment Nine: Expanding the Income Limit for Special Assessment Treatment

Do you support an amendment to increase the maximum amount of income a person may receive and still qualify for the special assessment level for residential property receiving the homestead exemption? (Effective January 1, 2027) (Amends Article VII, Section 18(G)(1)(a)(ii))

Proposed amendment nine is the product of House Bill 300, introduced by Representative Shane Mack (R 6/10) during the 2025 Regular Session, and became Act 220. The bill received some opposition in the House and Senate from the more conservative legislators.

The proposed amendment addresses the same issue from a different angle. It would increase the income threshold for Louisiana’s special assessment level to $150,000 in adjusted gross income, with annual inflation adjustments beginning in 2028. The existing threshold is based on $100,000, with inflation adjustments beginning in 2026.

The special assessment level freezes the assessed value of qualifying homestead-exempt property; it does not eliminate property taxes or prevent changes in millage rates. Homeowners must also satisfy other eligibility requirements. This amendment would expand the number of people who could qualify by raising the income ceiling.

Unlike the previous amendment, this does not create an entirely new type of relief. It expands eligibility for an existing one. The proposal also includes a safeguard prohibiting taxing authorities from shifting the resulting revenue loss onto other taxpayers through specified reassessment or millage adjustments.

Those distinctions are important, but so is the larger pattern. Once government creates a preferential tax classification, the boundaries of that classification become political questions in their own right. At some point, the income threshold is deemed too low, so it is raised, and more people become eligible. That may seem reasonable in any individual case. But the broader system continues moving toward more taxpayers receiving special treatment while leaving the underlying property-tax structure in place.

There is nothing inherently wrong with reducing someone’s taxes. We think EVERYONE should pay lower taxes. The question is why relief repeatedly takes the form of expanding the class of people protected from a tax burden rather than examining whether that burden itself needs reform.

Ask Yourself: If more homeowners need protection from rising property taxes, should Louisiana continue expanding eligibility for special treatment — or address the tax burden more broadly?

Proposed Amendment Two: A Very Different Tax Amendment

Proposed amendment two is the product of House Bill 521 brought by Representative Roger Wilder (R 8/10) during the 2026 Regular Session, which became Act 273. The bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously. This proposed amendment is different from the other four. It does not create an exemption or expand eligibility for one. Instead, it changes the incentives facing local taxing authorities after property reassessment.

The amendment would allow a local taxing authority to continue levying a lower millage rate without losing its ability to return to a previously authorized maximum before that underlying authorization expires. A later increase would still require approval by two-thirds of the taxing authority’s total membership, along with public-hearing and advance-notice requirements.

That retained authority might initially sound like an argument for greater government taxing power. And in one respect, it is. Under the existing rules, unused authority to increase millages can eventually be lost if officials do not exercise it before the next reassessment cycle.

That is a genuine restraint on government. But it also creates an interesting incentive. If local officials know that leaving a millage at a lower level today could cost them the ability to restore that capacity later, some may feel compelled to raise the rate simply to preserve the option. In other words, a rule intended to restrain future taxation could encourage higher taxes in the present.

This amendment attempts to separate those decisions. Local officials could maintain a lower rate without surrendering the ability to restore a previously authorized higher rate later. But there is an important tradeoff. Taxpayers might benefit from lower rates today, while the government retains taxing authority that would otherwise expire. And nothing in the amendment guarantees that local officials will actually keep millages lower.

A future taxing authority could exercise that retained power without obtaining additional voter approval, provided it satisfies the constitutional voting, notice, and hearing requirements. Unlike the exemption amendments, the central issue here is not which taxpayers receive preferential treatment. It is whether the rules governing taxing authority create incentives that encourage officials to impose higher taxes than they otherwise would.

Ask Yourself: Is it better to require government to surrender unused taxing authority, even if that creates an incentive to raise taxes before the authority expires, or to preserve that authority in the hope that officials will maintain lower rates?

Five Amendments, One Broader Debate

These amendments demonstrate why voters should look beyond whether a proposal appears to “cut taxes.” Four of the five largely address who receives relief: surviving spouses of certain veterans, owners of rehabilitated properties, qualifying older homeowners, or homeowners whose incomes fall below an expanded eligibility threshold.

Tax relief is generally attractive. But the method used should be an important consideration. Every new exemption creates another distinction between those who pay the tax and those who do not. Every expansion of an existing preference raises the question of where the new boundary should be drawn. And every constitutional rule governing taxing authority can create incentives that lawmakers and voters may not have intended.

The common thread is not that every exemption is wrong, nor that every limitation on government is automatically good. Rules can produce incentives that defeat their own purpose, and tax relief can be structured in ways that create ever more classifications and exceptions.

The better question is whether each amendment moves Louisiana toward a simpler, more restrained, and broadly applied system — or toward one increasingly defined by special treatment and new rules needed to correct the consequences of older ones?

###