Indiana Voters Asked Three Public Questions
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
Citizens will have three amendments to the state constitution to consider Tuesday when they exercise their right to vote.
The questions appear on the sample ballot above.
Appearing on the ballot as "Public Questions," the first of the amendments has caused the most contention.
State Rep. Bill Ruppel is urging voters to mark "Public Question No. 1" with a yes. Other organizations, like the Indiana Farm Bureau and Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute want, a no next to the question.
"Here's what happens now," Ruppel said recently. "We have to have property taxes in Indiana in the constitution. We're trying to remove that language from the constitution."
The Indiana House of Representatives unanimously approved the proposal two years in a row. That's the only way amendments to the constitution can come before the public for a vote.
Ruppel fears someone may file a lawsuit indicating homestead credits, and the reduction or doing away with inventory and personal property taxes are unfair.
"If defeated, the old taxes may have to be paid back. It also means we can't do anything to change taxes. The tax abatements would be gone, the homestead credits would be gone. The inventory tax would be back. There would be no local or state controls," he said.
"If the amendment is defeated, we're back to the constitution. If someone would file a lawsuit saying homestead credits, inventory, have to pay equipment, personal property where we've already removed so much. The courts could rule we go back to collect those taxes.
"I'm under the assumption it will be passed," the District 22 representative said. "It could be very harmful to business otherwise.
"You have to trust your elected leaders to make decision about property taxes. If it doesn't pass, nothing can be done about taxes for four to five years.
"Everyone was on board with this. All of a sudden the farmers, who typically own a lot of land, realized they may have to bear the brunt of the tax burden.
"Land rates can be frozen for five to six years. What Farm Bureau is about is, they don't want legislature to make the decisions. They want things to stay as they are."
According to a recent Indiana Farm Bureau press release, the organization has changed its collective mind about Public Question No. 1.
"The proposed amendment does not direct the General Assembly to provide an alternative source of revenue for the taxes lost through the exemptions it authorizes nor does it reduce the amount of the total levy to be raised through property taxes," according to Bob Kraft, IFB director of state government relations.
Rental housing, commercial-industrial buildings, land and agricultural property would be about the only taxable property remaining.
This question is worded to indicate the General Assembly is "allowed" to make certain property exempt from property taxes. It does not read that the General Assembly "must" or "will" exempt these properties.
That's where the trust in elected officials comes in, Ruppel said.
"The question is, unfortunately, do we remove it from the constitution and let the General Assembly make taxing decisions or do we let taxes go back to the way they were? That's where the trust comes in. You don't want a tax in the constitution.
"There are problems with everything. You have to make a choice. For people that own business, a large manufacturing company, for homeowners, this could be good for them. The farmers and large landowners with rental properties could be hurt.
"My district is agricultural. I don't want to turn these guys out of business. In the House more people are engaged in agriculture than there are lawyers."
Like the Farm Bureau, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute doesn't support ratification of this amendment until it is shown that certain owners of property will not be favored over others.
In April a Property Tax Replacement Study Commission was established by Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Garton.
The commission is to study the effects of eliminating 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent of net property tax levies. The study is to identify revenue sources capable of replacing property taxes and providing sufficient revenue to maintain essential government services. The final report is due Nov. 30.
Public question No. 2
In case the governor-elect fails to assume office or in the case of the death or resignation of the governor or the governor's removal from office, the lieutenant governor would become governor and hold office for the unexpired term.
If the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are vacant, the following officeholders would assume the powers and duties of the governor, in this order: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the senate, the treasurer of state, the auditor of state, the secretary of state and the state superintendent of public instruction. [[In-content Ad]]
Citizens will have three amendments to the state constitution to consider Tuesday when they exercise their right to vote.
The questions appear on the sample ballot above.
Appearing on the ballot as "Public Questions," the first of the amendments has caused the most contention.
State Rep. Bill Ruppel is urging voters to mark "Public Question No. 1" with a yes. Other organizations, like the Indiana Farm Bureau and Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute want, a no next to the question.
"Here's what happens now," Ruppel said recently. "We have to have property taxes in Indiana in the constitution. We're trying to remove that language from the constitution."
The Indiana House of Representatives unanimously approved the proposal two years in a row. That's the only way amendments to the constitution can come before the public for a vote.
Ruppel fears someone may file a lawsuit indicating homestead credits, and the reduction or doing away with inventory and personal property taxes are unfair.
"If defeated, the old taxes may have to be paid back. It also means we can't do anything to change taxes. The tax abatements would be gone, the homestead credits would be gone. The inventory tax would be back. There would be no local or state controls," he said.
"If the amendment is defeated, we're back to the constitution. If someone would file a lawsuit saying homestead credits, inventory, have to pay equipment, personal property where we've already removed so much. The courts could rule we go back to collect those taxes.
"I'm under the assumption it will be passed," the District 22 representative said. "It could be very harmful to business otherwise.
"You have to trust your elected leaders to make decision about property taxes. If it doesn't pass, nothing can be done about taxes for four to five years.
"Everyone was on board with this. All of a sudden the farmers, who typically own a lot of land, realized they may have to bear the brunt of the tax burden.
"Land rates can be frozen for five to six years. What Farm Bureau is about is, they don't want legislature to make the decisions. They want things to stay as they are."
According to a recent Indiana Farm Bureau press release, the organization has changed its collective mind about Public Question No. 1.
"The proposed amendment does not direct the General Assembly to provide an alternative source of revenue for the taxes lost through the exemptions it authorizes nor does it reduce the amount of the total levy to be raised through property taxes," according to Bob Kraft, IFB director of state government relations.
Rental housing, commercial-industrial buildings, land and agricultural property would be about the only taxable property remaining.
This question is worded to indicate the General Assembly is "allowed" to make certain property exempt from property taxes. It does not read that the General Assembly "must" or "will" exempt these properties.
That's where the trust in elected officials comes in, Ruppel said.
"The question is, unfortunately, do we remove it from the constitution and let the General Assembly make taxing decisions or do we let taxes go back to the way they were? That's where the trust comes in. You don't want a tax in the constitution.
"There are problems with everything. You have to make a choice. For people that own business, a large manufacturing company, for homeowners, this could be good for them. The farmers and large landowners with rental properties could be hurt.
"My district is agricultural. I don't want to turn these guys out of business. In the House more people are engaged in agriculture than there are lawyers."
Like the Farm Bureau, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute doesn't support ratification of this amendment until it is shown that certain owners of property will not be favored over others.
In April a Property Tax Replacement Study Commission was established by Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Garton.
The commission is to study the effects of eliminating 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent of net property tax levies. The study is to identify revenue sources capable of replacing property taxes and providing sufficient revenue to maintain essential government services. The final report is due Nov. 30.
Public question No. 2
In case the governor-elect fails to assume office or in the case of the death or resignation of the governor or the governor's removal from office, the lieutenant governor would become governor and hold office for the unexpired term.
If the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are vacant, the following officeholders would assume the powers and duties of the governor, in this order: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the senate, the treasurer of state, the auditor of state, the secretary of state and the state superintendent of public instruction. [[In-content Ad]]