Amendment One challenged
The Institute for Constitutional Law, a conservative-leaning legal nonprofit, is suing to stop Amendment One from becoming part of the state’s constitution.
What’s Amendment One?
Amendment One was the title of a constitutional amendment put to voters in 2004 that would allow cities and counties to use what’s broadly known as Tax Increment Financing. I wrote in a 2004 story:
Currently, cities and counties must ask voters' permission before issuing bonds repaid by property tax dollars. Amendment One, so named because it is the first of three constitutional amendments on the ballot, would allow government to bypass voter approval in some of those cases.Specifically, it would allow local governments to designate certain areas as particularly in need of redevelopment help. A business looking to relocate or expand in that area could get government help with everything from clearing environmental problems to repaving streets. To pay for those improvements, governments could issue bonds without taxpayer approval.
Ideally, the value of the property in question will go up, meaning the taxes charged on that property will go up. The increase in taxes collected would then be used to repay the bonds.
Proponents argue that there are sufficient safeguards in place to keep local governments from overspending and that cities and counties have this ability in 48 other states.
But detractors caution that if the government-funded projects fail, taxpayers will be stuck paying the debts, a line that draws objections from advocates.
It was a hard fought campaign and groups that backed the idea, like the N.C. Association of Realtors and Blue Cross Blue Shield, dumped something to the tune of $1.6 million into the effort. That money produced widely broadcast commericials that basically said voting for Amendemnet One would produce more jobs. Although there was an opposition movement, it didn't have the same kind of backing.
The amendment passed.
The Institute is alleging that the way lawmakers went about putting Amendment One on the ballot violated the state and federal constitutions. Specifically, the suit will allege:
the Text of Explanations adopted by the State to summarize the amendment was misleading and confusing, and that neither the ballot question nor the Text of Explanations clearly informed voters that Amendment One, if passed, would abolish their constitutional right to vote on certain types of local bond issues. The complaint further alleges that the submission of Amendment One to the voters violates the Voting Rights Act in that the State did not properly preclear the proposed amendment and resulting changes to voting procedure with the Attorney General as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I don't know whether the legal arguments will hold up, but it should be an interesting ride.
Neither Greensboro nor Guilford County has taken their new Amendment One powers for a spin. However, at least one North Carolina city (Kannapolis) is making noise like it plans to issue bonds under the Amendment’s authority.
More to come.