Two Constitutional Amendments Georgia Voters Will Be Considering For The General Election

October 2, 2012 11:00 am

by Nathan · 13 comments

The Georgia Secretary of State’s office has released a summary of the two constitutional amendments that will be on the ballot in November (or earlier if you pull an absentee ballot):

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today announced the release of the summaries of proposed general amendments to the Constitution of Georgia that will be voted on in the November 6, 2012 General Election. The summaries of the Constitutional amendments in their entirety are available at www.sos.ga.gov/elections, and also on the Secretary of State’s MVP website.

Interested individuals may obtain printed copies of the summaries from their county elections superintendent or the Secretary of State. To obtain a printed copy of the summaries from the Secretary of State, please call 404-656-2871.

For your convenience, here’s a link directly to the PDF file on the Secretary of State’s website.  You can also check your voter registration on the MVP site as well as view a sample ballot.  Not registered to vote?  You have until October 9th to fill out a voter registration card and send it in to your county’s election registrar or the Secretary of State’s office.

Calypso October 2, 2012 at 11:28 am

I believe I understand the amendment for multi-year obligations, but how, exactly, is it being handled now without this proposed provision in place?

Buzz Brockway October 3, 2012 at 9:53 am

There are no leases longer than 1 year.

Max Power October 3, 2012 at 9:40 am

As we’ve seen Amendment 1 is debatable. But anyone who votes yes to Amendment 2 needs to have their head examined.

Calypso October 3, 2012 at 9:42 am

Please elaborate.

Max Power October 3, 2012 at 9:51 am

Given the level of graft and corruption at all levels in state government this would undoubtedly become another avenue to move money around.

Here’s an outrageous but not totally unbelievable example. Let’s say I’m in the properties commission and I want to funnel a few bucks to my unemployed ne’er do well brother. Well I enter into an agreement to lease his swamp, for 100 years at $10,000 per year. Under the current system we would have to obligate a $1 million to the swamp rental, which would probably get noticed by those budget guys. But $10,000 that’s the kind of chump change that’s easily overlooked.

This wouldn’t be a bad amendment if we had an efficient and clean state government. But we don’t.

Buzz Brockway October 3, 2012 at 9:55 am

If there’s corruption root it out but this amendment will help save the taxpayers money.

Max Power October 3, 2012 at 9:59 am

Ah, but once you’ve got an agreement then the state has to jump through legal hoops to break it. Here come the lawyers and the next thing you know there’s a settlement. No offense Buzz but for too long our state government officials have treated state coffers like their own private piggy bank. I’m not giving them a bit more discretion until they prove that party of our history is over, even if it costs a few bucks in the meantime.

bowersville October 3, 2012 at 10:30 am

I love all these amendments and measures we are seeing that save the taxpayers money at the front door and and open the back door on the local level to get in your wallet. These amendments are brought to you by the same folks that brought you TSPLOST. They’ll cost you.

waitaminit October 30, 2012 at 9:19 am

amazing that folks don’t see Amendment 1 and 2 being hand-in-glove.

Robin Wheeler October 30, 2012 at 9:30 am

I am so conflicted on Amendment 1. I keep wavering on how I’m going to vote.

Charlie October 30, 2012 at 9:32 am
Calypso October 30, 2012 at 9:41 am

But preferably, NO.

Lea Thrace October 30, 2012 at 9:49 am

My approach, with regards to Constitutional Ammendments, is when in doubt, vote NO.

I would rather have to go back to the drawing board than have to do an after the fact change (which is much more difficult) because of unintended consequences or issues.

This why I am voting no on CA 1. (I am also voting no on CA2 but because I firmly stand against it.)

Comments on this entry are closed.