|
I agree with these assessments all except number 10. Contained within the MO Constitution is the following A4S27 whhich spells out a governor *may* withhold funds from any appropriation *whenever* revenues are lower then what had been projected, you'll notice there is NOTHING that says the governor can just do it to be spiteful but if revenues are not what had been projected.
By with holding funds not prescribed above the governor has violated A5S2,
November 2014 election pre-view for Missouri ballot
It's time to prepare for the November elections - just 2 weeks away.
As we consider the ballot issues (all constitutional amendments), please think about these questions;
- Will this new law take away freedom or liberty?
- Or will it help protect your freedom and liberty?
- Will the law work as promised?
- Is it appropriate?
- Is it well written or ambiguous?
- Is this the appropriate way to make the desired change?
- What are the potential unintended consequences?
View all the ballot issues here;
Missouri SOS page with ballot issues
(you will need to scroll down to see November because August and November are both on this page)
Constitutional Amendment 2
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that it will be permissible to allow relevant evidence of prior criminal acts to be admissible in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age?
If more resources are needed to defend increased prosecutions additional costs to governmental entities could be at least $1.4 million annually, otherwise the fiscal impact is expected to be limited.
No on Amendment 2.
Few things can make us angrier than a story of a child being sexually abused. It makes me want to bring back the hanging tree on the courthouse lawn. Castration should not just be for livestock. Emotions run high.
I do not want to see a child abuser go free, but in making laws we need to be extra careful of unintended consequences. If this law passes, it is almost certain that at some time an innocent man will be convicted of a heinous crime he did not commit. Our current system is in place with safeguards to protect the innocent. This law dangerously removes some of those safeguards.
In politics, things are often not as they appear. This can be true in front of a jury too. In a recent Columbia Daily Tribune article a defense lawyer said;
The argument that a new law is needed to protect children is hard to oppose... Propensity evidence of prior crimes against children would prejudice a jury against any defendant and make it almost impossible for an innocent person to win acquittal." "It is truly the bell that cannot be unrung," she said.
Think about that statement... An innocent person is accused and people are brought in to testify - about previous accusations - does not have to be prior convictions - and now the jury has a new level of suspicion of guilty.
"It is truly the bell that cannot be unrung,"
I do not want any child abusers loose on the street, but we must make sure that innocent folks are not accused, tried and convicted vigilante style by mob rule or someone seeking revenge.
Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are opposing amendment 2 because of the potential unintended consequences from a poorly written law.
Hank Waters wrote this in today's editorial;
"Even though sex abuse of children is awful, so is conviction of innocent people. Amendment 2 advocates believe the greater chance of convicting a guilty person is worth the greater risk of convicting an innocent person.
Of course we want convictions of parties guilty of child sex abuse, but if constitutions exist primarily to protect the individual against the awesome power of the state, Amendment 2 has no place. I'm torn, but I think we should vote "no."
Read the full editorial here;
Columbia Daily Tribune editorial
Rudi Keller's article here presents the pro and con of the case;
Rudi Kellers article
NWMO children's advocacy is promoting passage of the amendment. Read their statement here;
NWMO Child advocate center
I am voting No on amendment 2
Read the full text here;
Full Text of amendment 2
Constitutional Amendment 3
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
*require teachers to be evaluated by a standards based performance evaluation system for which each local school district must receive state approval to continue receiving state and local funding;
*require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
*require teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public school districts; and
*prohibit teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and implementation of the teacher evaluation system?
Decisions by school districts regarding provisions allowed or required by this proposal and their implementation will influence the potential costs or savings impacting each district. Significant potential costs may be incurred by the state and/or the districts if new/additional evaluation instruments must be developed to satisfy the proposal's performance evaluation requirements.
No on Amendment 3
I agree with some of the goals of amendment 3, but this is the wrong way to go about change in Missouri schools. It is a poorly written law meddling with our education system by changing the Missouri constitution.
Education reform should NOT be done by changing the Missouri constitution.
It should be done in the local school boards and in the state legislature. - Paul Hamby
I am voting No on 3
Read the full text here
Full Text of Amendment 3
Constitutional Amendment 6
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay for the increased costs of such voting?
State governmental entities estimated startup costs of about $2 million and costs to reimburse local election authorities of at least $100,000 per election. Local election authorities estimated higher reimbursable costs per election. Those costs will depend on the compensation, staffing, and, planning decisions of election authorities with the total costs being unknown.
No on amendment 6
It seems that different folks oppose this for different reasons, but I have found liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Republican and Democrats all who oppose this bill. - but for different reasons.
I am voting no on 6
Read the actual amendment here;
Full Text of amendment 6
Constitutional Amendment 10
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the governor to pay the public debt, to prohibit the governor from relying on revenue from legislation not yet passed when proposing a budget, and to provide a legislative check on the governor's decisions to restrict funding for education and other state services?
State governmental entities expect no direct costs or savings. Local governmental entities expect an unknown fiscal impact.
Yes on Amendment 10
This bill is really about restoring / strengthening the checks and balances between the legislative branch and the Governor's office.
Our founding fathers were weary of King's rule. So the federal government was set up to prevent concentrated power in one branch. Missouri echoed that policy in our own constitution and it has worked well in our state for the most part. Still Governor's from both parties have tried to use their power to influence the legislative process by withholding money to put pressure on legislators to get their way. Amendment 10 adds a new twist; withhold all you want Governor, but the legislature can overrule you if state income is as predicted for the budget, and the legislators can get 2/3 to agree.
I have witnessed this first hand.
It's not a Republican vs Democrat issue.
It's not a conservative vs liberal issue.
It's a power struggle between the Governor and the legislature. Amendment 10 restores the balance of power.
Furthermore it protects school districts, local governments and other entities that have had a nightmare budgeting in the past few years, because Gov Nixon refused to release their state funds - even though the state of Missouri had the money in the bank and those funds had been approved and passed in the state budget.
Mike Ferguson interviews folks from both sides here;
Mike Ferguson show on amendment 10
David Lieb of the AP has a story here with Republican Todd Richardson and Democrat Chris Kelly
AP article on amendment 10
Read the actual amendment here;
Full text of amendment 10
The opinions expressed above are my own personal views and do not represent any organization.
Paul Hamby
Maysville Missouri
816 632 0602
Paul Hamby
Maysville Missouri
816 632 0602 cell
Permission granted to forward, post, broadcast or publish this message.
GO ROYALS!
| 
