Here are some details as a voter service:
Ballot Questions:
* Ballot Question #1: Delegate Robert Marshall and Senator Stephen Newman have proposed the Marshall/Newman Amendment to the constitution of Virginia. We voters get to approve or reject the proposed amendment this November. The exact text of the amendment will be:
Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage
* Ballot Question #2: Delegate Michele McQuigg and Senator William Mims (no longer in office) have proposed the Church Incorporation Amendment, which would allow churches to incorporate in Virginia (one of very few states that does not permit such a thing):
Shall Section 14 of Article IV of the Constitution of Virginia be amended by deleting the provision that prohibits the incorporation of churches, a provision that was ruled to be unconstitutional and therefore now is obsolete?
* Ballot Question #3: Delegate Riley Ingram and Senators John Edwards and Charles Hawkins have proposed a Property Tax Law amendment to the Constitution of Virginia.
Shall Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation to permit localities to provide a partial exemption from real property taxes for real estate with new structures and improvements in conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation areas?
Registered voters will simply be able to vote yes or no on each proposed amendment.
More details, as they become clear to me on my Virginia Elections and Voting Guide (which is strictly non-partisan and for informing voters only).
My initial take is a strongly vehement NO on ballot question #1.
I am less clear about the other two questions. I smell a rat in question #2. I'll admit to prejudgement: anything proposed by Mims and McQuigg is automatically suspect in my book. This also looks an awful lot like it's tied to Mims' infamous attempts to make it easier for Virginia Churches to break off from their more liberal national denominations. There is a good deal about this in the Roanoke Times from regarding a different law (also sponsored by Mims), and I do not know that the two are related, but it looks suspect. On the other hand, Governor Kaine signed this one, a U.S. district court already struck down the prohibition on Churches (or any group) from incorporating, and the plain text looks reasonable enough... I am wavering, but may vote yes on ballot question #2.
Question #3 looks like a permission to allow local governments (county/town/city) to provide tax breaks/exemptions to property owners who are doing improvements in areas that need some work. Seems straightforward enough. Tentatively voting yes on ballot question #3 pending further research into why the constitution prohibited this in the first place (probably an issue of fairness).
I'd love to hear feedback on any of these.
#2 - As you point out, smells of rat. Normally a group would incorporate for the purposes of business structure, tax, and liability. The structure of churches is well defined so it's not that. Taxes? Maybe - but sounds funny given their special status. Liability? So they can't be held accountable for something? Perhaps - but also seems a bit far fetched. I dunno either. Odds are that it'll pass easily because no one is really against it. So unless a rat is uncovered, YES is likely the answer.
#3 - I'm really not sure about this one. It sounds like the legislation is transferring authority to local jurisdictions in regard to taxing new and improved properties. It's the "conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation" that troubles me. What are they really after with that? Are these tax breaks for improving poor neighborhoods or tax breaks for upscale urban renewal? Will a tax break in conservation areas push new development into those areas? And are options such as these bad?
Unless there is something these sponsors are going after it probably is what it appears - a simple move to give local authorities more say over their tax structures. There's potential for good and for abuse. I have no idea how to vote for this.
From the wording in the proposal, it sounds as though a court has ruled that prohibition of church incorporation may violate the US Constitution. I don't really know, but if that's the case, then this is kind of a moot point and they just need a poplular vote to take an archaic item off the Virginia constitution.
Ok, this isn't a new idea, but what you just said "need a popular vote" - in order to address unnecessary items in the VA constitution - really makes a strong point. The VA constitution should not be used as a device to write what amounts to simple laws if a statewide vote is required to modify/remove it.
And this also brings up another related point - are we voting on item #3 because there is an existing VA constitutional amendment that restricts how local authorities manage property taxes? Again, wouldn't this sort of tax management issue be better handled using other means than the VA constitution?
In a cynical move, Senator George Allen proposed the Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution. He knew it had 0% chance of success, but could use it as a divisive tool. The amendment would hamstring Congress severely, but any Democrat who dared oppose him could be derided as a "tax and spend liberal." Nice. This manipulative act helped Allen rise as a Presidential contender, and looks like a calculated move to fulfill personal ambition at the expense of the country.
Meanwhile, Allen voted consistently with Bush administration policy, spending recklessly and leading us into an $8.5 trillion deficit! That's nearly $30,000 of debt for each and every citizen of the US, and the debts are piling higher, at an average of $1.77 billion per day since September 30, 2005.
How can Allen propose a Balanced Budget Amendment and vote consistently for deficit spending? This deficit spending hasn't gotten us anywhere. I don't feel safer, more hopeful, or more prosperous after 6 years of Allen/Bush leadership. No fiscal conservative can support Allen in good conscience!
So many Episcopalian congregations wanted to split off from the main national Episcopalian institution and form their own smaller and more conservative churches. Problem with that is that the buildings and property belonged (mostly) to the national Episcopalian church. Or so I gather (I am certainly no expert on Christian church and property law, I am a Buddhist so it's not my bag, man!).
Apparently some local churches are independent (a lot of Baptist churches are) and some belong to the larger organization. It may be that incorporation has something to do with that.
Is it possible that an organization incorporated outside the state is/was viable, but this old constitutional ban prevented the schisms because they could not incorporate new churches in the state? Just guessing here.
It certainly looks like the federal court made this all moot anyway, and our legislature may just be trying to show something for their really long and un-productive session.
Where are all the lawyers who specialize in laws covering the separation of church and state?
I do not understand this stuff - but perhaps a lawyer or at least someone smarter than me can translate this into layman's terms.
I am not sure I agree with #2, but I am glad there are people establishing a position on #3 with reasons.
Here is the link to the PWC Dems reasons:
http://www.pwcdems.c...
So far as I know the Republics have no positions on anything but the first ballot question (at least nothing I could find by scouring their insidious websites).
Please Help Protect Our Historic Districts
On the Ballot on 7 November are three constitutional questions. Question #3 is a proposed Constitutional Amendment of Article X. Taxation and Finance. Section 6. Exempt Property:
“Shall Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation to permit localities to provide a partial exemption from real property taxes for real estate with new structures and improvements in conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation areas?”
Click here, and then please go to Ballot Question #3.
While the objective of the constitutional amendment is laudable in that it will allow localities to reward the redevelopment of blighted or vacant land, we are concerned that by now including new construction to qualify for partial tax relief, this amendment will pave the way for more demolitions within and adjacent to historic districts. The tax incentive for new development rather than for historic rehab may be more compelling. Already we see in communities, like Fredericksburg, Danville, and Norfolk, that local governments and some private organizations are addressing the issues of blight by recommending the demolition of vacant downtown historic structures rather than encouraging the reuse of these structures.
We encourage you to vote “NO” on Ballot Question #3, the proposed amendment of Section 6 of Article X, until language to protect historic districts is added.
Thank you for your support!
Please forward this announcement to anyone you think might be interested.
APVA Preservation Virginia | 804.648.1889 | www.apva.org
But seeing here the APVA's reason for recommending a NO vote is exactly what I was looking for. The APVA's recommendation is good enough for me -- thanks so much for posting it!