FARMVILLE – Area residents will join Americans across the state and nation next Tuesday to elect members of congress.

But Prince Edward County Voter Registrar Dale Bolt is expecting only average turnout for a congressional election.

“About normal,” he said, summing up his prediction.

And nothing like the turnout two years ago that helped sweep Barack Obama into office.

The evidence?

Absentee ballots had totaled about 65 or 70 heading into the third week in October.

“We had close to 800 two years ago,” Bolt said.

A huge difference.

Nor has new voter registration numbers shown anything like electoral excitement.

Asked about the voter turnout percentage expectation, Bolt said, “It's hard to guess but I would say maybe 35 percent” of registered voters.

Turn out will likely be just about half of what it was in the fall of 2008.

In addition to voting for members of Congress, Virginians will also decide the fate of three proposed constitutional amendments when they vote.

The election for the Fifth District's House of Representative's seat will see three men on the ballot in this order: Robert Hurt, the Republican; Tom S. P. Perriello, the Democrat; and Jeffrey A. Clark, the Independent candidate.

Turn-out is expected to be heavy when polls open at 6 a.m. until the voting cut-off at 7 p.m.

While the race for congress has drawn national attention, much less has been written, blogged, flogged or, in political terms, fogged about the proposed amendments to Virginia's constitution.

All three of them have to do with finances, with two related to tax-exemptions.

QUESTION ONE

Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation that will permit localities to establish their own income or financial worth limitations for purposes of granting property tax relief for homeowners not less than 65 years of age or permanently and totally disabled?

According to information prepared by the State Board of Elections, the explanation for this proposed amendment is that under the present law, within the Constitution, the General Assembly may give localities the power to grant full or partial exemptions from real estate taxes to persons 65 years of age or older or for persons permanently and totally disabled. The exemption applies to owner-occupied property used as the sole dwelling of such persons. The exemption is currently available only to such persons who bear “an extraordinary tax burden” in relation to their income and financial worth.

The proposed amendment removes the requirement that tax exemptions are available only to such persons who bear “an extraordinary tax burden,” and gives the General Assembly the authority to permit localities to determine their own income or financial worth limitations for tax exemptions for persons 65 years of age or older or for persons permanently and totally disabled.

QUESTION TWO

Shall the Constitution be amended to require the General Assembly be amended to require the General Assembly to provide a real property tax exemption for the principal residence of a veteran, or his or her surviving spouse, if the veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability?

The explanation for this proposed amendment is that the Constitution currently does not grant real estate tax exemptions specifically to veterans. However, the Constitution does allow the General Assembly to give localities the power to grant full or partial exemptions from real estate taxes to persons 65 years of age or older or for persons permanently and totally disabled who “bear an extraordinary tax burden” in relation to their income and financial worth. This exemption applies to owner-occupied property used as the sole dwelling of such persons.

The proposed amendment would require the General Assembly to pass a law exemption from local taxation the principal residence owned and occupied by any veteran with a one hundred percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability. The veteran's surviving spouse could continue to claim the exemption so long as he or she does not remarry and continues to occupy the home as his or her principal residence.

QUESTION THREE

Shall the Constitution be amended to increase the permissible size of the Revenue Stabilization Fund (also known as “the rainy day fund”) from 10 percent to 15 percent of the Commonwealth's average annual tax revenues derived from income and retail sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years?

The explanation for the proposed amendment is that under the present law the “rainy day fund” is used to offset shortfalls in anticipated revenues in any given year, and thus is designed to provide a cushion in the event of an economic downturn. The Constitution currently limits the Fund to 10 percent of the Commonwealth's average annual tax revenues from income and sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years.

With the proposed amendment the maximum size of the Fund would be increased from 10 percent to 15 percent of the Commonwealth's average annual tax revenues from income and sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years.