Those who read last week’s article on the proposed

Those who read last week’s article on the proposed

amendments to the Virginia Constitution

may be wondering (the ballet aside) just what they mean. They are worded in such a way as to prevent most voters from understanding them — unless you happen to be a lawyer. Was this intentional?

Particularly perplexing are proposed amendments No. 3 and No. 4. < State Attorney General Mark L. Earley sponsored proposed amendment No. 3 two years ago when he was a member of the state Senate. He now opposes it as do Governor Jim Gilmore and former Governor George Allen. They have said, if passed, it could lead to taxation by unelected boards. Regional cooperation is fine, hut these amendments go a bit too far. ; Proposed amendment No. 1 deals with special exception for people who move overseas to be able to continue to vote. This is already provided for in the Constitution. As it stands now a person can vote by absentee ballot if they are domiciled here (if they intend to return here after living overseas) or have a place of abode here. If a person leaves the state and has no intention of returning here why should they vote on decisions which will affect those who do live here? Why would they want to? • Proposed amendment No. 2, dealing with confidentiality of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, seems okay. It provides for added disclosure of information about alleged misconduct by a judge. ; And proposed amendment No. 5 has to do with E(POL and merchants’ capital taxes. It would give the General Assembly the option to grant more power to Ideal governments so that they may grant exemptions to either the BPOL tax or merchants’ capital tax, or both. Any shift which means more control for local governments and less for the state can’t be all bad. ; Of course, a no vote would require the legislators td send them back around next election — hopefully rewritten and understandable.