Politics surround Mo. ballot measures

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Should Missouri residents and small businesses be denied access to affordable health care plans?

Most people probably would say no.

Yet a question similar to that could appear before voters on the November statewide ballot.

Republican lawmakers, who referred the measure about President Barack Obama’s health care law to the ballot, are hopping mad about the official summary of it prepared by Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. They claim it will bias voters against the measure. And they plan to challenge the summary in court.

It’s not the first such controversy. In fact, nearly every ballot measure proposed in Missouri ends up facing a lawsuit alleging the summary written by the secretary of state and the financial estimate prepared by the auditor are unfair and insufficient. Sometimes, judges have agreed.

The politically charged atmosphere raises the question: Is it time to remove the responsibility of summarizing ballot initiatives from the secretary of state — who is elected under a partisan label — and transfer the duty to a nonpartisan or bipartisan entity?

There is no clear answer to that. But a little comparative research shows that Missouri’s method of handling ballot measures is not the only way.

About half the states allow proposed changes in law to be placed on the ballot by the legislature or by citizen initiatives.

In nearly one-third of those states, ballot titles are submitted by the proponents of the measures, according to figures from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Attorneys general write the ballot title in nearly another third of the states. And the secretary of state writes the title for ballot initiatives in one-fourth of the states. Three states — Colorado, Michigan and Utah — use either a bipartisan state board or nonpartisan legislative staff to write ballot titles for initiatives, according to the NCSL data.

One of Missouri’s Republican secretary of state candidates, state Rep. Shane Schoeller, wants to change Missouri’s method of summarizing ballot measures to more closely resemble those three states. Under his plan, the secretary of state still could propose a summary, but the responsibility of approving ballot titles ultimately would be given to an eight-member bipartisan panel of lawmakers.

The new board would “help hold the secretary of state accountable and keep the politics out of the ballot measures,” said Schoeller, of Willard.

But is that really possible?

In Colorado, a board consisting of the secretary of state, attorney general and director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services meets in public sessions to prepare titles for ballot initiatives.

“They’re very strict in determining the accuracy of the title and how well it reflects the content of the measure,” said Jennie Bowser, a senior fellow who focuses on elections, initiatives and referendums at the Denver-based NCSL.

Yet lawsuits still occasionally challenge the titles prepared for Colorado initiatives, she said.

Schoeller’s two Republican rivals in the secretary of state’s race — state Sens. Scott Rupp and Bill Stouffer — both contend there is no need to change Missouri’s process for preparing ballot titles.

“To me, boards and commissions are just more government,” said Stouffer, of Napton.

Rupp, of Wentzville, noted that bipartisan panels responsible for drawing legislative districts have historically had trouble reaching a consensus. He added: “We’ve continually pushed off important government functions on non-elected bureaucrats.”

The Republican secretary of state candidates contend the frequent allegations of bias involving Missouri’s ballot summaries stem primarily from the person who currently is responsible for writing them. Carnahan, who is not seeking re-election, has insisted she strives for fairness.

“The main issues that come up wouldn’t be solved simply by moving the duty of writing ballot language to another spot,” said Carnahan spokesman Ryan Hobart. “I still think you’d have people filing lawsuits or doing legal challenges, because that’s become such a big part of the process over the years.”

Political science professor Jay Dow, of the University of Missouri-Columbia, said Carnahan’s summary of the ballot measure about health-insurance exchanges is not the most politically unbiased statement that could have been written. But then again, politics also played a role in the decision by Republican lawmakers to refer the measure to the ballot. And when it comes to initiative petitions, “everybody who gets something on the ballot has a very relatively narrow partisan or political ax to grind,” Dow said.

Like many political scientists, Dow is not fond of the initiative process, because it leaves little room for compromise or revision that often occurs in a legislature. But when it comes to summarizing ballot measures, “I’m not sure the Missouri process is any worse than any other,” Dow said. “At least if it’s the secretary of state, you know who’s doing it, who’s rewriting it, and you know what the partisan angle is.”

David A. Lieb has covered state government and politics for The Associated Press since 1995.

More like this story

copcamaro 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I sure hope Obamma's buddie Claire, will see her last session as senator in MO. I still remember her towne hall meeting here in Jeff. She had her mind made up when she entered the school on how she was going to vote, and we the people made no difference to her. Vote her out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I sure hope you are wrong, because we will be stuck with the Cigarette Man, and one of the 3 Stooges! Rob

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't want a senator who gives in to a room of angry people. "We the people" voted for Senator McCaskill, including conservatives like me who wanted her to stand up to the noise. She's been a good senator for Missouri.

copcamaro 11 months, 2 weeks ago

So Sequoia, your saying, once in office they don't have to go by the will of the people? My hearing on all the surveys, people didn't want the Oblumma health care by over 65%to 35% wanting it. I must be mistaken, as I thought the town hall meetings were to listen to the people and what they want. The one I went too was way over the top saying, drop it.

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

No, I'm saying that the people in your town hall don't necessarily reflect the will of ALL the people. The fact is that the Democrats campaigned on health care reform, and won. Period. That also reflects the "will of the people," doesn't it? If you voted for leaders on a certain issue, YOU wouldn't want them to go back on their promises just because some people protested, right?

Bush didn't stop the Iraq invasion just because hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, did he? (Of course, Bush never campaigned on invading Iraq. He campaigned that he opposed nation-building, so its a little different).

Also, don't forget: That percentage of people who don't like the ACA include those from the left who thought it didn't go far enough. Lots of people didn't like the ACA because it didn't go for single-payer or contain a public option. Not all the opposition wants repeal.

Anyway, this is why the Supreme Court's decision on ACA was the right one. Now, people have a real choice: Keep the ACA and try to get it right, or repeal and go back to where we were four years ago. We get to vote on this.

An election IS the will of the people, cop. Not a poll or a survey or a meeting.

All those who support the old status quo on health care will be able to have their say in a few months.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"If you voted for leaders on a certain issue, YOU wouldn't want them to go back on their promises just because some people protested, right?" Right. -- Guantanamo, raise taxes on the rich, no new taxes on middle class (see SCOTUS ACA decision), unemployment under 8%, balance the budget, most transparent government in history, lower the sea levels...

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Graceful, I'm sure those hundred or so people represented the entire population of Missouri. Give me a break.

The Republican party is against ACA because the insurance company lobbyists are paying them in campaign money to be against it.

The American Government is all about money, power and greed. It's okay if the corporations and the ultra wealthy want to manipulate the system and make the rules but when it comes to the American People standing up and trying to take back the country that notion is considered absurd. Why is that?

What have the ultra rich done for you personally? Other than take your money and tilt the system in their favor?

Some of us in this country are not as blind as some of the people on this blog.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I accidentally hit the flag for removal editor. Sorry. Is it possible to have the edit button moved away from the removal button?

[Response: Sorry, not likely for an unknown while. The web hosting company with which we contract is downsizing and has suspended doing modifications at this time. -Online Editor]

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"No, the Republicans are not against the ACA because of insurance companies." So your saying that the last several months you have been secretly wanting this to pass? Even though you have posted that you abhor the ACA?

So the way that the corporations and the ultra rich have treated American workers and the environment is moral?

What planet are you from Grace?

It wasn't until 1978 that women recovering from a pregnancy could go back to work without worrying about losing their job's.

It took a democrat to pass the Family and Medical Care leave act just so a person could take off with a pregnancy or a sick relative or loved one without having to worry about their job. What is moral about having to worry about a loved one and on top of that worrying about your source of income?

How many environmental regulations are out there due to corporations dumping chemicals into our waters and poisoning our land with their garbage from their processes? But I guess the corporations dumping into the environment is moral?

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

This whole statement is laughable Graceful. So your not a Republican, what are you Grace? The way your post reads is that you are so fed up with the other Americans who live in this country that you are threatened by our very existence. Your last statement sounds like a person who has reached a point of blowing up. A little anger management needed Grace?

In the reality I live in Grace, everyone I talk to about what is going on in this country knows where the blames rests. The United States Government is no longer for the people. It is for a group of people called corporations. The American people no longer have a say on how this country is run. As soon as we elect someone who we think will help the American people out, the lobbyist for these corporations step in and do their magic. We are all adults here. We see what goes on. The politicians really think that everyone in the country is really that ignorant to know what is going on in Washington?

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

We didn't become a nation until 1776 Grace. How did an oppressive government come into play in the 1770's. Are you talking about the King of England when you saying this?

I'm not angry. I'm trying to keep a level head about how I live my life. I know the government is never going to change. That's the way it is. I'm maintaining the thought that I have no control over what the lobbyist are doing to the people that I elect to Washington. Simple as that. The way your posts are reading is that your blaming everyone for your troubles in life. Need to calm down there Grace. Your going to blow a gasket.

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

During the Colonist years, people did matter. It was the people of the colonies that made the rules on how they should be governed. Now, it is not the people who make the rules. It's the corporations.

And your founding father statement. All I can say is WOW!!! I don't know about that those three. If those are your idea of our new Founding Fathers you might as well throw W. in there also. He would be the brightest one of that bunch.

dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago

I will have to disagree with you on your statement that it was the left. It has been both parties. They ignored the will of the people and started paying attention to the will of the corporations. I'm not going to back down from that statement Grace.

JCLifer 11 months, 1 week ago

Graceful does not owe you any answer. I understand quite well and agree 100%. At a minimum this union needs to be broken up into 4 or 5 smaller countries to better represent the diverse citizens who live here.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

'If you voted for leaders on a certain issue, YOU wouldn't want them to go back on their promises just because some people protested, right?'

I think this the reason that Romney is in trouble. Look how he bounced on the Healthcare issue. One day it's not a tax and just because RUSH was hollering about it he changed his mind for it to be a tax.

FLIP-FLOP, FLIP-FLOP. Now that is not true leadership. That's not what this country needs.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Nope. It's the voters that are in trouble. Both candidates are fine. They are wealthy, although Romney more so than Obama.

copcamaro 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The health care poll I was talking about, was nation wide note just Missouri!

What about her having to pay back the government for trips billed on her travel, not to mention her forgeting to pay personal taxes on the plane and then paying them when found out.

It 's all our right (for now anway) to vote, and I sure will vote for anyone else. Not familiar with the cigarette man.

Paroquet 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Bush II didn't care about polls. Myself, I don't bother participating in them. Regarding Claire's tax woes, I'm not all that familiar with them. I only know that I've yet to bear witness to a politician above cheating if they think they can get away with it. As for citing the SCOTUS in your earlier response to another commentator, remember them selecting the president for whom the will of the people opposed? Notwithstanding the recent decision of the SCOTUS pertaining to its constitutionality, which was really an odd mix of justices considering the legislature under which he was so anointed.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago

What the US Supreme Court stopped was the Florida plan for an actual recount - of ballots - on the grounds that it would take too long and create too much uncertainty. The five-to-four decision was quick and very certain.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The cigarette man is Blunt, and he divorced and married a Tobacco Lobbyist, tell me who follows the MONEY. Hartzler took in more Farm Aid than I have made in my entire career she is the problem. (Hartzler/Sawer) I have been in the work force since 1972. Rob

copcamaro 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It's good we can an open discussion on this, on the site. I am glad I got it going!!!!!

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace you can put all the icing on something you wish, it is still bull, and you know it, Hey what time is Rush on? By the way do you and John plan on using MediCare? You both run from that question. Rob

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Not sure why you include me in your silly statement. I have never written anything about Medicare. You appear to be one who is just trying to stir the pot. If you think I consider Medicare, SS, medicaid, and some other programs as having a "socialist bent," you are correct. However, I have never written anything - either way - about those programs. Just for the record, I already use Medicare, thank you very much.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace, Romeny is trouble for all, including the ultra conservatives like you! Rob

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks John for the answer on Medicare. Rob

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune