Amendment 5Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Change retirement debt payment order
Explain it like I'm 5
The state sometimes gets extra one-time money to pay retirement debt. Instead of always paying the oldest debt first, this would let a retirement system choose which debt to pay first, like choosing which bill to pay first.
Yes vote
A state retirement system could apply qualifying nonrecurring state funds to any unfunded accrued liability instead of the oldest one first.
No vote
The oldest outstanding unfunded accrued liability would still have to be paid first.
The question to ask yourself
Should retirement systems choose which pension debt to pay first, or follow a fixed oldest-first rule?
The case for
- Lets retirement systems target the debt they believe is financially most useful.
- Could provide flexibility when liabilities have different costs or effects.
- It changes payment order, not the requirement to use the specified funds for retirement debt.
Backed by: Leaders for a Better Louisiana
The case against
- The oldest-first rule is a simple safeguard taxpayers can monitor.
- Older obligations could remain unpaid longer.
- More discretion could make the use of one-time funds less transparent.
Opposed by: No organized opposition found
- Money
- The Legislative Fiscal Office found no fiscal or actuarial impact because the amendment changes which liability is paid, not the amount used.
- Don't be misled
- It does not eliminate required retirement-debt payments or directly change benefits; it changes which liability receives the money first.