Louisiana voters will consider five constitutional amendments when they got to the polls on May 16. Amendment 3, which makes permanent a teacher pay raise, is probably the most discussed—and the least understood. From heated Facebook posts to mail and texting campaigns, hyperbole about “raiding protected funds” to provide the raises has become a distraction. Let’s take a step back from the noise and look at the bigger picture—the problem of using of constitutional and statutory funds to craft a budget—through the lens of Amendment 3.
Here are the basics: Amendment 3, if passed, would liquidate three constitutionally established funds: the Education Excellence Fund, the Education Quality Trust Fund, and the Quality Education Support Fund. The money from those funds would be used to pay down the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) debt, which lowers the costs that local school systems must pay to service the debt each year. The proposed amendment and a legislative framework tied to its passage requires the savings to be used by local governments to provide permanent salary increases for teachers and other school personnel.
At first glance, one can understand why it seems like voters are being asked to sacrifice three education funding sources to finance a pay raise at a time when Louisiana public school students are showing progress in some areas. Who wouldn’t support an “Education Excellence Fund”? However, removing constitutional protections from a funding source with a narrow purpose does not mean that needs will no longer be funded. It simply means that the legislature can scrutinize public education needs and actual costs during the budgeting process before deciding how much of Louisiana’s $53.5 billion budget should be allocated, in combination with local and federal funds, towards it.
Why does that matter?
Over the years, Louisiana has created more than 400 special purpose funds, many of which are tied to specific taxes or fees. The Quality Education Support Fund, for example, diverts money from federal mineral revenue settlements into education. The constitution requires money in this fund to be used, as the name suggests, for materials, remedial programs or training that improves educational quality for students. Because the constitution requires money in this fund to be used a certain way, it is off-limits to budget cuts or reallocation. In fact, about 72% of the state’s general fund is considered nondiscretionary, leaving only 28% of the budget available for cuts or adjustments. More than half of that 72% is tied to K-12 education. The level of detail for Louisiana’s constitutional funds makes us an outlier among the states.
If the fund is removed from the constitution, does that mean that activities funded through educational excellence funds will have to be reduced or eliminated? Programming like prekindergarten and interventions for struggling students will likely continue, as other sources of funding can be leveraged. Other activities may not continue to be prioritized, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It means that the legislature—and local school systems—can evaluate the effectiveness of those programs and activities and, more importantly, if the level of funding is appropriate for the number of students in the state’s K-12 schools or whether it should be diverted to meet another budgetary need. This is especially timely in the education context as we learned recently that while public school enrollment is declining, education spending is ballooning. The same scrutiny could be applied to other, non-education funds in the constitution. If voters chose to allow it, the legislature would also be able to take a critical look at the White Lake Property Fund, or the Marsh Island Operating Fund, two other constitutionally established funds with narrow purposes.
Beyond education, an inflexible budget means that lawmakers have very little discretion when responding to changing fiscal circumstances such as hurricanes, fluctuation in oil prices, or emergencies like the COVID-19 shutdowns of 2020. Creating a budget is perhaps a legislator’s most important task when he or she arrives in Baton Rouge. In fact, the state’s budget bill is designated House Bill 1. We elect legislators to make tough decisions, but we don’t allow them to use much discretion when they’re creating a budget. If voters agree to free up the money in at least some of the constitutionally dedicated funds, lawmakers would be free (or freer) to evaluate the state’s spending and divert funds where they’re needed. Of course, there’s accountability for our elected officials at the ballot box. Voters who disagree with how their legislator prioritizes items in the state’s budget can make their voices heard at the next election.
On May 16, don’t listen to the Chicken Littles. Removing constitutional protection from a protected fund—any fund—won’t cause the sky to fall.
