* There are five proposed amendments to the Missouri State Constitution. None of them make any sense, and none were brought forward by citizens. Former Lt Gov Maxwell gives an experienced perspective on all points. In a letter opposing Amendment 1, the so-called “right-to-farm” constitutional amendment on Tuesday’s ballot, former Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell shared a sentiment that applies to all five issues before voters: “I have always held the view that our Missouri Constitution should be amended only in the rarest and most compelling of circumstances,” wrote the former state senator and lieutenant governor. He also happens to own a hog farm near Mexico, Mo., a pertinent fact, as we shall see. Here are the two questions we suggest voters ask before voting on each of the five amendments before them: One, what is the compelling state problem requiring a change to the constitution? And two, if a problem exists, will this change provide a lasting solution? The answer to both questions as it relates to each of the five ballot initiatives, is no. We’ve already shared in detail our reasons for opposing each of them, but Mr. Maxwell’s point helps bring them all into focus. None of the ballot issues were brought forward by citizens, which is rare. They are on the ballot because the Missouri Legislature, and the special interests that control it, want them there. In most cases, the only reason they are on the ballot is political gain. Again: Just say no. Here’s why: AMENDMENT 1: This is the so-called “right-to-farm” amendment that is being supported primarily by large corporate farming interests and opposed by small farmers. So what’s the problem it is trying to solve? There isn’t one, unless you consider that groups like the Farm Bureau and the Chinese corporations that run massive hog operations in the state don’t like it when family farmers stick up for their own rights, or when pro-animal groups seek to rid the state of inhumane puppy mills. Even worse, perhaps, is the charge now being levied by some of those family farmers: that the supporters of the amendment illegally used federal pork checkoff dollars in their campaign. This week, the heads of the Missouri Farmers Union and the Missouri Rural Crisis Center asked federal Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to investigate. Something smells in hog country. Agriculture is, and always will be, a key part of the Missouri economy. Giving massive out-of-state corporations extra protection in the state constitution doesn’t help a thing. VOTE NO. AMENDMENT 5: Unless you think the Second Amendment is insufficient to protect your right to bear arms, this change to the Missouri Constitution is absolutely unnecessary, and it might do real harm. Louisiana passed a similar proposal. It would make the right to own a gun “inalienable,” making it harder to prosecute gun crimes. Missouri has always protected gun rights. Its constitution is fine the way it is. VOTE NO. AMENDMENT 7: This is the most cynical of the amendments, seeking to raise sales taxes — which disproportionately hurt the poor — to fund road improvements, even as it prohibits the Legislature from seeking funds from those who cause the most damage: big trucks. It’s the ultimate in special interest gambits. Here’s a fun game: Ask your local representative or senator, especially if he is a Republican, if he supports Amendment 7. He won’t be. Missouri Republicans put it on the ballot to fulfill promises to donors, and now won’t even support it. Make the Legislature deal with transportation needs in a more serious fashion. VOTE NO. AMENDMENT 8: This proposal, too, is high in the cynicism department. The Legislature refuses to find the money to actually fund veterans homes, so instead, they put an initiative on the ballot allowing veterans and others to buy a special lottery ticket to help pay for the homes. Meanwhile, the lottery can’t even keep pace with its responsibilities to fund schools. Missouri needs to stop gambling with its future. VOTE NO. AMENDMENT 9: This is the least bad of the five amendments on Tuesday’s ballot. On its surface, it’s a reasonable idea, protecting Missourians phones and other electronic data from unreasonable search and seizure. The reality, however, is the U.S. Supreme Court already did that, making the amendment unnecessary. We’d rather see this issue dealt with at the federal level. VOTE NO. stltoday/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-on-tuesday-vote-no-no-no-no-and-no/article_14477ca2-14a0-5e0a-8f27-dce7f93da6c9.html
Posted on: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:39:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015