Comment
Rate
Coming to your November ballot! Maybe ...
| Advertisement |
By Bob Watson
bwatson@newstribune.com
Court battles may change the final list. But for now, four measures are set to appear on the Nov. 5 general elections ballot for voters statewide to accept or reject.
Lawmakers put two of the issues before the voters, while Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's office this month announced that initiative petition drives had gathered enough signatures to place the other two items on the ballot.
But two lawsuits filed in the Cole County circuit court have challenged Carnahan's certification of the proposal to change Missouri's current casino gambling laws.
And another suit questions Carnahan's finding that two other petition proposals failed to collect enough registered voters' signatures to win spots in the November election.
Ron Calzone, the leader of the Citizens for Property Rights group seeking a statewide vote on a proposed constitutional amendment involving Missouri's eminent domain process, said he believes the secretary of state's office was wrong to reject thousands of submitted signatures.
Carnahan reported this month the eminent domain petitions fell several thousand signatures short of the 28,787 signatures needed in eastern Missouri's Second Congressional District, which covers Lincoln and parts of St. Charles and St. Louis counties.
The lawsuit asks the Cole County Circuit Court to order Carnahan to count those signatures and place the proposals on the November ballot.
Proposed constitutional amendments must gather signatures totaling more than 8 percent of the votes cast in the 2004 governor's race, in six of Missouri's nine Congressional districts.
That means at least 140,000 and 150,000 registered voters' signatures were needed.
Calzone's group wanted to bar the use of eminent domain by non-governmental entities, such as private developers. It also wanted to prevent eminent domain from being invoked for “private use.”
An article in The Missouri Municipal League's August “Missouri Municipal Review” said the proposals, if placed on the ballot and okayed by voters, “would limit (some) municipal police powers.”
As things stand now, the four issues voters are to decide in November include:
* Constitutional Amendment 1 - Official English.
[Proposed by the 94th General Assembly (in 2007)]
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated ... ?”
Missouri already has a law declaring that “English is the common language used in Missouri,” and recognizing “that fluency in English is necessary for full integration into our common American culture for reading readiness.”
But lawmakers - on the last day of the 2007 session - placed the constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot.
At one point, Sen. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, started the Senate's debate with a short speech in German: “Englisch ist der Schlüssel zur vollen Teilnahme in den Gelegenheiten des Amerikanischen Lebens.” (“English is the key to full participation in the opportunities of American life.”)
He later told reporters: “I spoke German to illustrate that, if you did official proceedings in a language other than English, people wouldn't understand it. ...
“In towns all across the (U.S.) Southwest, school board meetings are now being done in Spanish. City council meetings are being done in Spanish.
“In Missouri, we want (to use) the language that is the ‘common' language, to be the language that we have the official proceedings in.”
State Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, was among the amendment's opponents.
“It is a bad idea because it sends a message to Missourians that we do not tolerate cultural diversity in our state,” she told a reporter last year. “And, I think, that it is unnecessary and a waste of the state's time and resources.”
* Constitutional Amendment 4 - Stormwater Control
[Proposed by the 94th General Assembly (in 2008)]
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change provisions relating to the financing of stormwater control projects ... ?”
There's been virtually no public discussion of the measure.
The secretary of state's “fair ballot language” notes the state Constitution currently allows the Legislature to issue bonds, or other types of debt, so that grants and loans for stormwater control may be provided to municipalities and water and sewer districts in certain counties and cities.
The amendment limits funding to only public water and sewer districts, removes the current limitation on the amount of funds that can be made available and removes the restrictions on the method of disbursing the funds.
It also would require the loan repayment funds to be deposited into a specific fund used for stormwater control projects.
* Proposition A - Casino Gambling law changes
[Proposed in 2008 by Initiative Petition]
“Shall Missouri law be amended to:
* repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling.
* prohibit any future loss limits.
* require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old.
* restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built.
* increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%.
* create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund.”
* require annual audits of this new fund.
This proposal already has attracted two lawsuits challenging its presence on the ballot.
Both suits want Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce to rule the proposal violates a state constitutional requirement that “petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject, which shall be expressed clearly in the title. ...”
Casino Watch, an anti-gambling group, points to the seven parts of Carnahan's official ballot language as proof the measure covers more than one subject.
But Scott Charton, a spokesman for the “Yes for Schools First Coalition” which pursued the petitions campaign, said this month: “There is a single subject, and it is gaming.”
The other suit was filed by representatives of Cape Girardeau and Sugar Creek, two Missouri cities that hope to get a riverboat casino but would be blocked from getting a casino if voters okay the proposed law.
Cape Girardeau businessman David Knight, one of two named plaintiffs in the cities' suit, told The Southeast Missourian newspaper the proposal must be flawed, if two groups with opposing positions can make similar claims in their lawsuits.
* Proposition B - Independent Living
[Proposed in 2008 by Initiative Petition]
“Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council ... ?”
This measure also has gathered little discussion, so far.
The secretary of state's “fair ballot language” said the council would “ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce.”
The measure's fiscal note said the “exact cost of this proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually.”
There also may be training costs, but “matching federal funds, if available, could reduce state costs.”
The Associated Press contributed some information used in this story.
Lawmakers put two of the issues before the voters, while Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's office this month announced that initiative petition drives had gathered enough signatures to place the other two items on the ballot.
But two lawsuits filed in the Cole County circuit court have challenged Carnahan's certification of the proposal to change Missouri's current casino gambling laws.
And another suit questions Carnahan's finding that two other petition proposals failed to collect enough registered voters' signatures to win spots in the November election.
Ron Calzone, the leader of the Citizens for Property Rights group seeking a statewide vote on a proposed constitutional amendment involving Missouri's eminent domain process, said he believes the secretary of state's office was wrong to reject thousands of submitted signatures.
Carnahan reported this month the eminent domain petitions fell several thousand signatures short of the 28,787 signatures needed in eastern Missouri's Second Congressional District, which covers Lincoln and parts of St. Charles and St. Louis counties.
The lawsuit asks the Cole County Circuit Court to order Carnahan to count those signatures and place the proposals on the November ballot.
Proposed constitutional amendments must gather signatures totaling more than 8 percent of the votes cast in the 2004 governor's race, in six of Missouri's nine Congressional districts.
That means at least 140,000 and 150,000 registered voters' signatures were needed.
Calzone's group wanted to bar the use of eminent domain by non-governmental entities, such as private developers. It also wanted to prevent eminent domain from being invoked for “private use.”
An article in The Missouri Municipal League's August “Missouri Municipal Review” said the proposals, if placed on the ballot and okayed by voters, “would limit (some) municipal police powers.”
As things stand now, the four issues voters are to decide in November include:
* Constitutional Amendment 1 - Official English.
[Proposed by the 94th General Assembly (in 2007)]
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated ... ?”
Missouri already has a law declaring that “English is the common language used in Missouri,” and recognizing “that fluency in English is necessary for full integration into our common American culture for reading readiness.”
But lawmakers - on the last day of the 2007 session - placed the constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot.
At one point, Sen. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, started the Senate's debate with a short speech in German: “Englisch ist der Schlüssel zur vollen Teilnahme in den Gelegenheiten des Amerikanischen Lebens.” (“English is the key to full participation in the opportunities of American life.”)
He later told reporters: “I spoke German to illustrate that, if you did official proceedings in a language other than English, people wouldn't understand it. ...
“In towns all across the (U.S.) Southwest, school board meetings are now being done in Spanish. City council meetings are being done in Spanish.
“In Missouri, we want (to use) the language that is the ‘common' language, to be the language that we have the official proceedings in.”
State Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, was among the amendment's opponents.
“It is a bad idea because it sends a message to Missourians that we do not tolerate cultural diversity in our state,” she told a reporter last year. “And, I think, that it is unnecessary and a waste of the state's time and resources.”
* Constitutional Amendment 4 - Stormwater Control
[Proposed by the 94th General Assembly (in 2008)]
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change provisions relating to the financing of stormwater control projects ... ?”
There's been virtually no public discussion of the measure.
The secretary of state's “fair ballot language” notes the state Constitution currently allows the Legislature to issue bonds, or other types of debt, so that grants and loans for stormwater control may be provided to municipalities and water and sewer districts in certain counties and cities.
The amendment limits funding to only public water and sewer districts, removes the current limitation on the amount of funds that can be made available and removes the restrictions on the method of disbursing the funds.
It also would require the loan repayment funds to be deposited into a specific fund used for stormwater control projects.
* Proposition A - Casino Gambling law changes
[Proposed in 2008 by Initiative Petition]
“Shall Missouri law be amended to:
* repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling.
* prohibit any future loss limits.
* require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old.
* restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built.
* increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%.
* create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund.”
* require annual audits of this new fund.
This proposal already has attracted two lawsuits challenging its presence on the ballot.
Both suits want Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce to rule the proposal violates a state constitutional requirement that “petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject, which shall be expressed clearly in the title. ...”
Casino Watch, an anti-gambling group, points to the seven parts of Carnahan's official ballot language as proof the measure covers more than one subject.
But Scott Charton, a spokesman for the “Yes for Schools First Coalition” which pursued the petitions campaign, said this month: “There is a single subject, and it is gaming.”
The other suit was filed by representatives of Cape Girardeau and Sugar Creek, two Missouri cities that hope to get a riverboat casino but would be blocked from getting a casino if voters okay the proposed law.
Cape Girardeau businessman David Knight, one of two named plaintiffs in the cities' suit, told The Southeast Missourian newspaper the proposal must be flawed, if two groups with opposing positions can make similar claims in their lawsuits.
* Proposition B - Independent Living
[Proposed in 2008 by Initiative Petition]
“Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council ... ?”
This measure also has gathered little discussion, so far.
The secretary of state's “fair ballot language” said the council would “ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce.”
The measure's fiscal note said the “exact cost of this proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually.”
There also may be training costs, but “matching federal funds, if available, could reduce state costs.”
The Associated Press contributed some information used in this story.
 |
||
| Blunt aide chosen as Dulle successor |
Article Rating |
|
Before commenting read the News Tribune Forum's policies and procedures.
Thanks.
To add your comments you must be registered and logged in |
RSS
