The “one object” rule and the “title-object connection” requirement apply to all legislation except the annual general appropriation bill (Act 11 (HB 11)).   The State’s general appropriation bill is not limited to one object as because of its nature as the general appropriation bill of the State, it tells the public that its object is the State’s budget and the appropriation of State funds.

            These dual mandates make sure that the People know what a bill involves from its title.  Equally, the public is assured that no other “object” can be addressed.  These three constitutional mandates are the cornerstones of transparency during the legislative process.  These mandates must be complied with to allow the People to oversee and control our legislature while its in session.   

            The value of legislative transparency has been recognized for decades by the Louisiana Supreme Court.  In Orleans Parish School Bd. v. New Orleans, 410 So. 2d 1038, 1982 La. LEXIS 10296 (La. 1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court identified the purpose of the constitutional “one object” requirement as follows: “The purpose of the one-object requirement of Art. III, §§ 15(A) is to restrict a legislative act so that the Legislature does not have to consider the validity of two unrelated objects in deciding how to vote on a bill. State v. Cooper, 382 So.2d 963 (La.1980).” The one-object requirement mandates that the legislature consider each object of legislation, on the merits, one at a time.  No omnibus or “Christmas Tree” legislation is constitutionally permitted in Louisiana.

            The Louisiana Supreme Court went on to describe the constitutional purpose of the “title-object connection” as follows:  “The primary purpose of Art. III, §§ 15(A)'s requirement that every bill contain a brief title indicative of its object is to give the Legislature and the public fair notice of the scope of the legislation. The requirement is designed to prevent the deceptive practice of misleading the Legislature into the passage of provisions not indicated by the title of the bill.”  The dual transparency of open disclosure to fellow legislators, and the voters of Louisiana provides the mechanism by which our legislators learn from their constituencies the many unrecognized effects that legislation has.  This disclosure mandate helps minimize the every present threat of unintended consequences.   In short, one-object, and affirmative title disclosures a fundamentally important to informed legislation and governance.

            And now, for the bad news, or the sad news.  It is undeniable that the 2010 Legislature chose to run roughshod over these fundamental Constitutional protections of the People.  A review of Act 803 (HB 787) and Act 633 (SB 711) provides two extraordinary examples of bills with unconstitutional (i) multiple objects, (ii) inadequate titles, (iii) special appropriations with multiple appropriation objects, and (iv) appropriations that originated in the Senate and not the House of Representatives.  We, the People of Louisiana, deserve a more honorable effort by our legislature to abide by their constitutional responsibilities. 

            That is why a group of citizens are arising, lead by the Taxpayers Union of Louisiana, to challenge these unconstitutional acts. If you are interested in joining fellow Citizens in this challenge, e-mail your name to Mr. John Roberts, Taxpayers Union of Louisiana; \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This challenge will be expensive, but with lots of modest contributions, we can stop these unconstitutional Legislative high jinx. 

            This Constitutional failure of our Legislature denied the public the constitutional right to know what legislation was being considered before it was enacted.  Compliance would have provide the People with the opportunity to lobby against Act 633 and Act 803.  These unconstitutional Acts epitomize political profiteering and midnight conference shenanigans that serve no one but the politically connected and the constitutionally challenged.  A review of these two Acts reveal clearly that a little public debate would have stopped both of these Acts in their legislative tracks.   Unfortunately, that also explains why this legislature could not afford to give the public notice of its closed door deal making.

            The next time you see your legislator, ask: “What is wrong with a little legislative transparency?” And then ask: “Did you really vote for Act 633 and Act 803?  Really?

CLICK THE BLUE LINE BELOW TO KEEP READING

A DETAILED REVIEW OF ACT 633:

            The following is a  review of Act 633.  This review exposes the unconstitutional nature of Act 633.  Act 633 does not have one “object”, but instead there are more than 100 objects, funds and definitional instructions mixed into this single piece of unconstitutional legislative mess.  The title to this act should say simply “Multiple Objects.”  A valuable article to review is the column by Robert Travis Scott, released July 5, 2010, New Orleans Times Picayune.

            House bill 787, ultimately used to gather funds and became Act 633, began by identifying two funds transfers (Incentive Fund; Small Business Surety Bonding Fund) and one redefinition (Rapid Response Fund), and ended with more than twenty “Sections” with one Section having forty-three subsections.  Ultimately Act 633, which is constitutionally mandated to have only one “Object” contains the following:

Section 1:        Redefining permitted use of Budget Stabilization Fund.

Section 2:        Deals with “Motion Picture Tax Credit.”

Section 3:        Increased Legislator's right to know the details of DED projects to be funded confidentially; and allowed funds allocated for "projects" to be used for general department purposes) from Rapid Response Fund.  NOTE: SAME AS SECTION 2 OF ORIGINAL BILL.

Section 4:        Moves $3,950,000 from Incentive Fund to General Fund.

Section 5:        Excludes certain money from the calculation of "unencumbered funds" in Rapid Response Fund.

Section 6:        Moves $2,957,375 from Small Business Surety Bonding Fund to Louisiana Economic Development Fund. NOTE: SAME AS SECTION 3 OF ORIGINAL BILL).

Section 7:        Takes the money recovered from Eli Lilly & Company consent judgment and moves it to the Overcollections Fund (by off-setting withdrawals from Department of Justice Legal Support Fund).

Section 8:        Establishes three exceptions to the limitations on the State's Oil Spill Contingency Fund, if there is an "emergency or declared disaster."

Section 9:        This Section says, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the Treasurer is to move the listed sums from 45 different funds;

Section 10       Moves $4,000,000 from State General Fund to Health Care Redesign Fund.

Section 11:      Allocates the net recoveries from the State's tax amnesty program in this order $217 million Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund; $$74,711,383; and all remaining funds to the General Fund NOTE: no specific amount as required by Constitution.

Section 12:      Transfers $63 million from State Emergency Response Fund into the State General fund NOTE: THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE TRANSFER AUTHORIZED BY SB 711).

Section 13:      Transfers $115, from the Highway Program (Statewide) to the Coastal Protection and Restoration fund;

Section 14:      Transfers $242 million from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

Section 15:      Transfers $67,156,004 from State Emergency Response Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

Section 16:      Transfers $76 million from State General Fund (Direct) to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund (realized from fiscal year 2009 year end surplus.

Section 17:      Transfers $76 million from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

Section 18:      Transfers $500,000 from the State General Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

Section 19:      Transfers $8 million State General Fund (Direct) non-reoccurring revenues allocated to the Pennington Biomedical Research Center to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund.

Section 20:      Transfers $8 million from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

A DETAILED REVIEW OF ACT 803:

            Act 803 began as SB711.  Originally SB711 had one purpose: the creation of the Community Hospital Development Fund, with two Sections therein.  One specifying the legislation for Community Hospital Fund and Section 2 specifying when the bill if enacted would go into effect.

            The final version of SB711 included with minor amendment, the same Section 1 creating the “Community Hospital Development Fund,” followed by three new Sections dealing with other matters as follows:

Section 2:        Directs the Secretary of Health and Hospitals to maximize fees received from Medicare to cover ambulance services.

Section 3:        Transfers $18 million from the Artificial Reef Development Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

Section 4:        Transfers $10 million from the State Emergency Response Fund to the Overcollections Fund.

Section 5:        Addresses when the bill if enacted wold go into effect.

Again, it is more than apparent that the single object requirement and the title constitutional mandate is violated, as is the “appropriation” of funds by a bill that did not originate in the House.

            As the commentary above makes clear.  This legislature was not too concerned with the

Constitutional duties, nor their duty to act honorably within the requirements of the Louisiana

constitution.  We can always hope that just maybe next year will be better.  And then again, that

is why there are elections.