I will vote no on state amendments

There likely will be six amendments to the State Constitution on the November ballot, and I intend to vote against all of them. Not all have made it through the legislative process yet, I might not get to vote no six times, but I'll vote no as often as the ballot allows.

Part of my distaste for these amendments is philosophical; constitutional amendments should be rare and thoroughly examined and should deal with major issues that cannot be settled by a simple legislative bill. The constitution is a permanent standard, and amendments become part of that standard forever unless repealed by another statewide referendum rescinding the previous amendment.

It's not the subject matter of the proposed amendments that bother me as much as the manner in which they are being placed on the ballot and the dishonesty, vengeance, and power-grabbing that are behind these permanent changes to state law. Some of the amendments deal with topics that need examination and perhaps change, but this legislature, with it veto-proof Republican majority gained through blatant and admitted political gerrymandering, would distort the balance of power among the three independent branches of state government by allowing legislators to control all three branches.

Take, for example, the proposals to take away the governor's authority to appoint members of executive-branch boards and commissions. The governor, elected statewide, would lose that authority, handing it over to the state Senate and House. Effectively, the change would give two members of the legislature, the speaker of the House and the president pro-tem of the Senate, the power to appoint officials in the executive branch. The leaders of both chambers enjoy nearly dictatorial powers over their partisan colleagues (similar powers have been wielded by leaders in both parties over the years). The effect is that appointive power would be taken from a constitutional officer elected statewide and given to legislators elected by constituents in gerrymandered districts.

Although none of the amendments are earth-shattering, they do deal with important issues. Voters will not see a full description of the amendment they vote for or against, only a very short (and incomplete) summary. It is not a stretch to say that voters in most cases won't know what they're voting on.

Take the Voter ID amendment. It makes no sense to put this requirement in the state Constitution. A simple legislative bill would have the same impact — requiring a photo ID at the polls. The legislature's prior effort to pass this requirement was struck down by a federal court because it was found to violate voting rights laws. Putting the requirement in the state Constitution won't change the court's authority to strike down the requirement. State laws or state constitutional amendments are both subject to federal court review and rejection.

The real reason for this amendment? Republican officials think having the amendment on the ballot will bring voters out to vote for it. If the amendment passes, the legislature will have the authority to pass a law with all the details; voters won't know what's in the implementing legislation until sometime later. If you vote for this amendment, you're buying a pig in a poke. (Personally, I do not oppose a voter ID law if it provides assurances that every eligible voter can obtain an acceptable photo ID without unreasonable cost or difficulty.)

Another amendment restricts the state personal income tax rate from going above 5.5 percent. The constitution now limits the rate to 10 percent. This bill may be popular, like the voter ID bill, but it could have unanticipated consequences. The state has huge needs in infrastructure (highways, bridges, parks, schools, building repairs, etc.). By restricting the income tax, this amendment would force the state to look to property taxes, sales taxes, fees and other revenue sources to meet the state's needs. Is a 5.6 percent tax rate all that bad? How about a 15 percent sales tax?

Other proposed amendments would enshrine a constitutional right to hunt and fish in North Carolina, would install a second victim's rights amendment to the state Constitution, would upend the traditional means of filling between-elections vacancies in state judgeships through gubernatorial appointment based on recommendations from the local bar, giving legislators a role in the process; would end the governor's authority to appoint members of the state Elections Board, which would become the Elections and Ethics Board, giving legislators a role in the process.

Voting for these proposed amendments would endorse a power grab by legislative leaders, who have already grabbed all the power they could get away with.