“To provide that only a citizen of the United States has the right to vote.”
My Vote: NO!
Why: It’s total BS. There is literally zero need for this amendment. State law already prohibits non-citizens from voting. This is just an attempt by lawmakers to look hard on immigration and perhaps feed into unfounded claims that significant amounts of illegal immigrants vote in the election.
A slew of changes to the state court system. The main one would make the director of the Administrative Office of Courts an appointee of the entire Alabama Supreme Court, not just the chief justice, as it is now.
My Vote: Yes
Why: Because we’ve had the likes of Roy Moore serve as chief justice, the more people appointing the administrative director the better, I think. And according to , many of the changes proposed in this amendment are from the Alabama Law Institute, which is tasked with simplifying and clarifying the laws in Alabama.
This takes the cake for most incoherent state amendment I’ve ever seen (and there’s some stark competition). It proposes “to provide that a judge, other than a judge of probate, appointed to fill a vacancy would serve an initial term until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election after the judge has completed two years in office.”
My Vote: Leaving it blank
Why: I don’t know what the hell it means.
Thanks to with for this explanation:
“Amendment 3 would change the time that judges appointed to fill a vacancy in circuit court or district court serve before having to stand for election in some cases. The governor appoints judges to fill those vacancies.
Under current law, appointed district court and circuit judges must stand for election at the next general election at least one year after their appointment. Amendment 3 would say that appointees must stand for election at the next general election at least two years after their appointment.”
Removing racist and outdated language to the Constitution.
My Vote: GOD YES!
Why: Our state constitution literally has language about segregating schools in it. It was written in 1901, and its framers were more than transparent about the fact that it was made to disenfranchise people of color. Efforts to change the language in the document have been going on for decades with no success so far.
Amendment 4 & 5
These two would “provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.” But this is only for Fanklin and Lauderdale counties, not the whole state (A lot of times, if the local legislators can’t agree on a bill, it goes to a statewide vote).
My Vote: ... yes ... I suppose
Why: I’m generally in favor of people having strong self-defense protections. You could make the argument that this is already covered in state law, and I would not argue with that. But I don’t see where it could hurt anything.