Dedicated to the
Sovereignty of
Missourians
           

Missouri's Statewide Ballot Issues - November 2002

Missourians have a full ballot to consider on November 5, 2002. Please, do not heed the idiotic ads which encourage everyone to make sure they "just get out and vote"!

Only vote on that which you are informed! If you must vote on an issue about which you do not know all the facts it is usually safe to "just say no" (especially if it is a constitutional amendment or a tax!).

The following is Missouri First's position on these issues and some perspectives taken largely from an analysis by Kerry Messer of Missouri Family Network. (See side bar note on the right.)

Constitutional Amendments
Amendment #1: So Called "Home Rule" for St. Louis City - Vote NO
Amendment #2: Collective bargaining for EMT, ambulance, and firefighters - Vote NO
Amendment #3: Partial terms and term limits in the General Assembly - Vote YES
Amendment #4: Exemption of certain government from regulation by the Public Service Commission - Vote NO

Proposition A
Adds a 55 cent per pack tax to cigarettes and a 20% tax on other tobacco products. - Vote NO

Constitutional Convention
Our present constitution requires that every 20 years the people be allowed the opportunity to completely re-write the state constitution. A yes vote would permit the convening of a convention for this purpose. - Vote NO

Click here for a history of constitutional conventions in Missouri.



Constitutional Amendment #1
House Joint Resolution No. I I (Proposed by 91 st General Assembly)

Official Ballot Title
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the citizens of the City of St. Louis may amend or revise their present charter to provide for and reorganize their county functions and offices, as provided in the constitution and- laws of the state?

The estimated fiscal impact of this proposed measure to state and local governments is $0.

Analysis
(From MFN) St. Louis City is the only city in Missouri that is not also located within a county. Every other city, town and village is within a county. (A few cities are split by two adjoining counties.) This unique situation creates a wide variety of advantages/disadvantages. Constitutional Amendment #1 seeks to minimize the disadvantages while maintaining the advantages through a concept often referred to as "home rule".

In short, home rule would expand the scope and depth of independent political function to the city and further divorce St. Louis from accountability to the state.

On the surface, Constitutional Amendment # 1 seems to empower the individual citizens of the City of St. Louis to have better collective control over the governing functions of their city's administrative structure. But a nagging question begs for an answer.

-
Why would the politicians currently controlling St. Louis City go through the expense and trouble of lobbying and pushing the state legislature to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would transfer greater control back to average citizens?

While claiming that this transfer of political control would supposedly diminish the influence of their current political offices, we need to remember who is pushing this proposal. These are the same politicians who are known as the single most arrogant of Missouri's 500+ incorporated city and town leaders.


Constitutional Amendment #2
(Proposed by Initiative Petition)

Official Ballot Title
Shall Article XIII of the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit specified firefighters and ambulance personnel, and dispatchers of fire departments, fire districts, ambulance districts and ambulance departments and fire and emergency medical services dispatchers of dispatch agencies, to organize and bargain collectively in good faith with their employers through representatives of their own choosing and to enter into enforceable collective bargaining contracts with their employers concerning wages, hours, binding arbitration and all other terms and conditions of employment, except that nothing in this amendment shall grant to the aforementioned employees the right to strike?

The annual costs to paid fire departments and districts, ambulance departments and districts, and dispatch agencies to enter into collective bargaining contracts arc approximately $251,600 to $3,145,000, depending upon the number of entities entering into such contracts.

Analysis
While the value of unions in the private sector might be debatable, there is clearly no place for unionizing public employees paid with public funding - especially when essential services like ambulance and fire protection are involved.

Although the ballot language makes it sound like they won't be able to go on strike, the actual law includes a clause: "[the] right to enter into enforceable collective bargaining contracts... concerning wages, hours, binding arbitration and all other terms and conditions of employment and such contracts".

Another bad aspect of this amendment is the fact that it will not let an employee opt out of the union. All the employees addressed by this amendment will have to pay dues, or rather, the dues will be withheld from their paychecks.

-
Forced membership; automatic dues; these mean a loss of accountability of the union to its members.

The last thing we need is to use taxpayer dollars to fund unions with a history of corruption and promoting liberal causes!

If passed, this amendment will include "binding arbitration" in the bargaining process. The problem with this arises from the fact that the pool of arbitrators is comprised of folks who are often less than objective.

If this amendment passes, expect poorer service and higher taxes.


Constitutional Amendment #3
Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 (Proposed by 91 st General Assembly)

Official Ballot Title
Shall Article 111, Section 8 of the Missouri. Constitution be amended to exclude, from the calculations of term limits for members of the General Assembly, service of less than one-half of a legislative term resulting from a special election held after December 5, 2002? The estimated fiscal impact of this proposed measure to state and local governments is $0.

Analysis
This is the one amendment with some positive aspects. IN 1992, Missouri voters passed a limit of eight years service in the Missouri General Assembly. The member can spend no more than eight years in either body, or no more than sixteen years if elected to both the house and senate.

That means someone elected or appointed to fill out the last year of a senate term, for instance, would only be allowed to serve a total of 5 years in that body, since he would exceed the eight year limit if elected to an additional term.

-
More than likely, most voters did not have such a situation in mind when they voted in 1992.

Amendment 3 would fix this oversight by charging no more than half of the "fill in" term. A "fill in" senator would still not be allowed to serve a full eight years, but the inequity would be minimized.


Constitutional Amendment #4
House Joint Resolution No. 47 (Proposed by 91st General Assembly)

Official Ballot Title
Shall joint boards or commissions, established by contract between political subdivisions, be authorized to own joint projects, to issue bonds in compliance with then applicable requirements of law, the bonds not being indebtedness of the state or political subdivisions, and such activities not to be regulated by the Public Service Commission? This measure provides potential savings of state revenue and imposes no new costs.

Analysis
Missouri's Public Service Commission is an advocate of the general public. It is often our first line of defence against overbearing and intrusive government agencies. These agencies have the legal "right" of eminent domain - a process by which your personal property can be "condemned" and then used for public projects.

-
Exercise of eminent domain unchecked by the Public Service Commission is one example of the problems with Amendment 4.

The agencies affected by this amendment also influence our local taxes and utility rate - they want to do so without our protection from the Public Service Commission. We need more, not less, accountability!


Proposition A
(Proposed by Initiative Petition)

Official Ballot Title
Shall Missouri law be amended to impose an additional tax of 2.75 cents per cigarette (fifty-five cents per pack) and 20 percent on other tobacco products, with the new revenues placed into a Healthy Families Trust Fund to be used for the following purposes: hospital trauma care and emergency preparedness; health care treatment and access, including prescription drug assistance for seniors and health care initiatives for low income citizens, women, minorities and children; life sciences research, including medical research and the proper administration of funds for such research; smoking prevention; and grants for early childhood care and education? An additional tax of two and three-quarters cents per cigarette and an additional tax of twenty percent of the manufacturer's invoice price for tobacco products other than cigarettes would generate net annual state revenues of approximately $342,636,000; local fiscal impact, if any, is unknown.

Analysis
Almost 350 million more dollars for the state to do mischief with - that's what this proposal is all about! While claiming to help low income families, this is actually a regressive tax. Although it claims to be about reducing smoking, do you really believe government will do much to reduce a revenue source? This tax will make the state even more dependent on tobacco!

-
The tobacco settlement money has been used for about everything EXCEPT what the lawyers claimed it would be used for when the states sued the tobacco companies. Very little of that money is being used to deal with tobacco related health costs or for smoking prevention programs.

Proposition A is nothing more than another big government tax grab.


Constitutional Convention
Submitted by Matt Blunt Secretary of State, State of Missouri
In compliance with the Constitution of Missouri, Article XII, section 3(a)

Official Ballot Title
Shall there be a convention to revise and amend the Constitution?

Analysis
Our present constitution requires this proposal to be placed on the ballot every twenty years. It is the most dangerous issue on the ballot this year!

Besides being very expensive, a constitution convention would unleash a flood of proposals that would diminish our freedoms. It is far too easy to amend the Missouri Constitution as it is (only a simple majority is needed), but at least we have the luxury of dealing with just a few issues at a time. A constitutional convention would overwhelm the handful of folks who normally act as watchmen over the documents that help to protect our God-given rights.

-
You don't have to look any further than the hundreds of bills proposed by our state legislators each year to know that a significant number of them have a perverted sense of good and evil. The sad fact of the matter is that we do not have enough righteous men and women around to prevail in a battle over the constitution.

Click here for a history of constitutional conventions in Missouri.


By: Ron Calzone
Feedback to the author


Missouri First Main Page

More Essays


Copyright 2002 Missouri First, Inc.
info@mofirst.org
Phone:

Home - - Charter - - Essays - - Projects - - MO History - - MF News -
- Messages - - Links - - Search - - Contacts - - Join - - Contribute