I just reviewed our local ballot and found a proposed change to the Indiana State constitution as follows.
RATIFICATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT...PUBLIC QUESTION #1..."SHALL ARTICLE 10, SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADOPT BALANCED BUDGETS FOR STATE GOVERNMENT THAT DO NOT EXCEED ESTIMATED REVENUES UNLESS A SUPERMAJORITY OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE REQUIREMENT?"
I believe the current Article 10, Section 5 reads as follows.
"Section 5. State debt
Section 5. No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense."
It sounds like the proposed change makes it easier for them to amend Section 5 to allow the state to take on debt with a simple supermajority vote (if that is ever a simple thing).
In that politicians on both sides always seem to go for more money, I'm not sure which way to go with this.
Your thoughts?
RATIFICATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT...PUBLIC QUESTION #1..."SHALL ARTICLE 10, SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADOPT BALANCED BUDGETS FOR STATE GOVERNMENT THAT DO NOT EXCEED ESTIMATED REVENUES UNLESS A SUPERMAJORITY OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE REQUIREMENT?"
I believe the current Article 10, Section 5 reads as follows.
"Section 5. State debt
Section 5. No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense."
It sounds like the proposed change makes it easier for them to amend Section 5 to allow the state to take on debt with a simple supermajority vote (if that is ever a simple thing).
In that politicians on both sides always seem to go for more money, I'm not sure which way to go with this.
Your thoughts?