AMENDMENT 1 – Non-Compete Clauses in Contracts

This is how the amendment will read on your ballot: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”

Doesn’t that just sound so warm & fuzzy? After all, “more economically competitive” kinda says “Golly, let’s make this a fairer environment so we can have more competition and bring in lower prices and higher quality…”, RIGHT?

Yeah. It “kinda” sounds like that is what this amendment will do, but, like watching Penn & Teller do their stage show, there are carefully concealed things that your eye/mind just cannot catch unless you know where to look.

Before we get to the “magic” of the legislature’s trick, let’s study one more phrase: “…to uphold reasonable competitive agreements”

Wowwww…everyone wants to be “reasonable” in their approach to agreements, right? You have your opinion, I have my opinion, but reasonable people can come together and agree on something, RIGHT? Otherwise, we wouldn’t be a “reasonable people”, would we?

Just for your information, the wording of this amendment went through several iterations as it went through the committees. Here’s Version #1:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide for contracts that limit competition during or after the term of employment or of a commercial relationship and to authorize the courts to cure legal defects in such contracts in order to protect legitimate interests and achieve the intent of the parties?”

BUT….that apparently was too informative to the voter as to the actual purpose of the amendment, so…we can look at Version #2:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that authorize contract provisions restricting or regulating competitive activities and enable courts to ensure the reasonableness of such contracts?”

Well, apparently the House committee wasn’t pleased with the concept of the wording that used “restricting” as that pretty much is a word no true “pro-competition” amendment would ever use…so, we have Version #3, which passed the House:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that authorize contract provisions regulating competitive activities and to enable courts to ensure the reasonableness of such contracts?”

When the bill got over to the Senate, those folks weren’t too keen on the use of the word “regulating”, so they revised the amendment language to be Version #4, and it passed the Senate as this:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that authorize contract provisions regarding competitive agreements to enable courts to uphold the agreements and to enable courts to ensure the reasonableness of such contracts?”

Since the Senate’s version changed the House’s version, differences got “worked-out” in conference committee to be the most blatantly-deceptive language they could possibly come up with, Version #5/Final Version:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”

YEAH, that’s the ticket! That’ll fool ALL the voters into voting for this!

FOR more to read as to why this is a bad amendment, please visit our e-mailed edition that provided a lot more detailed analysis: Special Research Report on Ballot Amendment #1

PV Recommends: Vote NO On Amendment 1

This entry was posted by Bill Simon, on Saturday, October 16th, 2010 at 5:43 pm and is filed under Law and Justice, Odds and Ends and Tagged: Amendment 1, AT&T, Deceptive Advertising, Democrat, Employee-Employer, Georgia, Georgia Legislature, Kevin Levitas, Non-Compete, Vote NO on Amendment 1
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.