the state constitution. Two amendments involve taxes — capping income tax rates at 3.5 percent, and mandating state lawmakers to put limits on local property tax increases. The third would add absentee mail-in ballot voters to the constitution’s voter ID requirements. Followers of this editorial board know where we stand on capping income tax rates, state lawmakers meddling in local governance and the dangers of photo ID. It should be no surprise that we recommend voting against all three amendments.

Elections have consequences, and so will these referendums. Although their language is enticing – who wouldn’t like lower taxes? – the reality is these amendments will draw down the tax rate to dangerously low levels while trapping municipalities and state government with fewer avenues to raise revenue. To riff on an old parable, it’s akin to allowing the fox to not only guard the henhouse but raid its contents with few options to compensate for the loss.

The wording on the ballot is bare bones, asking voters to say whether they are for or against a “constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments.”
… It’s hypocritical for state legislators to go this route when they’re quick to scream states’ rights when they feel the federal government is overreaching. If local elected officials agree they need a tax increase to, for example, put more police officers downtown, that’s their call. And if we, as their constituents, feel they should have made cuts elsewhere instead of increasing taxes, we already have recourse.