Attempts to derail Amendment 2 on Louisiana’s March 29 ballot come in two forms: a disingenuous legal strategy, as previously mentioned, and a more principled opposition that ultimately fails on the merits—with the former trying to scare the latter into agreement.

One dubious approach tries to have the entire measure thrown off the ballot for alleged infractions, on technical grounds. Soon to be tested in court, this effort is backed by the political left, which opposes the measure on ideological grounds—mainly because it shrinks government’s redistributive power by granting income tax relief to middle-class earners and above while making it easier to eliminate favoritism in the tax code.

A more thoughtful thoughtful tack against focuses on the amendment’s paring of tax exceptions in the Constitution. The thinking is that not only would this make for a less-unwieldy document, but also create greater flexibility to reassess tax breaks that may no longer make sense in the future, which by then may be determined to make less sense as exceptions and then can be altered or abandoned more easily.

This argument has sounded the alarm among some wishing to preserve some specific breaks, particularly those dealing with sales and property taxes. That concern has been stoked by the less-scrupulous ideological opponents who, reading the room of the state’s political culture, have targeted citizens’ religious sentiments, pointing in particular to one passage of the amendment.

Opponents claim the amendment threatens churches and nonprofits by altering Article VII, Section 21, now renumbered as Section 35. The key wording in question:

“Property owned by a nonprofit operated exclusively for religious purposes as a house of worship, residential housing for clergy, priests, or nuns, or a seminary or other educational institution training individuals for religious ministry.”

They argue that because of the word “exclusively,” properties partially used for non-religious purposes—such as a building which is rented out by a religious nonprofit for uses other than “religious purposes”—could lose their property tax exemption. One breathless, sensationalist headline even claimed the amendment “Threatens Churches, Nonprofits with Massive Property Taxes.”

The supposed “threat” stems from replacing the more inclusive current language of Art. VII Sec. 21(B)(1)(a)(i):

“Property owned by a nonprofit corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, dedicated places of burial, charitable, health, welfare, fraternal, or educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or member thereof and that is declared to be exempt from federal or state income tax.”

However, the protection, in that exact language, would be replicated into existing R.S. 47.1703 by passage of the amendment, therefore making no difference in the exemption.

The only real difference is that in the Constitution, at present, altering this would require another amendment of a two-third majority of each legislative chamber and a majority of a subsequent popular vote. If just in statute, the two-thirds majorities requirement still stands to abolish it, but without the popular vote.

Frankly, such fears are entirely misplaced. Given Louisiana’s political culture, it would take an overactive, if not paranoiac, imagination to think that a two-thirds majority would suddenly decide to turn on religious groups and lift this exemption. Even if lawmakers changed their scruples that grant maximal deference to religious practice, they would know they would be pummeled at the ballot box next election cycle.

And if Louisiana ever elects such a supermajority willing to strip religious exemptions, you can bet, even if in the Constitution, that amendment would garner majority popular support from a public clearly comfortable with it as indicated by their support of such candidates.

Indeed, the “exclusivity” standard is widely used across other states for basic exemption and in some states statute doesn’t provide additional exemptions as in Louisiana. In fact, Louisiana’s are some of the most extensive.

This isn’t an argument to reduce those exemptions—only to remove unnecessary clutter from the Constitution. Louisiana’s governing document has grown into a cautionary tale about government overreach, but that’s due more to fiscal mismanagement than religious policy, poor choices that could be viewed as kleptocracy at times.

Let’s put it this way: if that aspect of Louisiana culture ever changes so drastically as to demand broader property taxation of religious organization assets, Constitutional placement won’t stop it. So, in the interest of a simpler governing document, statute is appropriate.

Those who wish to have as few hindrances on religious worship as possible, in the genuine spirit as intended, shouldn’t let themselves be duped by fearmongers pushing a broader anti-tax reform agenda. Their testimony and faith will be enough to ensure that such exemptions–as long as these don’t end up part of widespread abuse–remain in force. Amendment 2 therefore deserves support on its merits, not rejection based on misinformation.