Missouri November Ballot Measures: Voter Guide #SOTR


November Election Voter Guide

The Missouri Secretary of State lists the following measures up for a vote on November 4th.  I have my recommendations after each proposal in bold type.  Don’t forget to select a paper ballot when you vote!!  See you at the polls.

Official Ballot Title  Constitutional Amendment 2  [full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (First Regular Session) HJR 16]

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.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to allow evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, to be considered by courts in prosecutions of sexual crimes that involve a victim under eighteen years of age.  The amendment limits the use of such prior acts to support the victim’s testimony or show that the person charged is more likely to commit the crime.  Further, the judge may exclude such prior acts if the value of considering them is substantially outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice to the person charged with committing the crime.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding the use of evidence of prior criminal acts to prosecute sexual crimes.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Voting Yes on this one.  Juries often allow much more leeway if they think the incident is a child molester’s first offense.  This amendment would permit them to consider the totality of convictions for crimes against children.  

Official Ballot Title  Constitutional Amendment 3  [full text

[Proposed by Initiative Petition]

Official Ballot Title:

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.

Fair Ballot Language:

yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require teachers to be evaluated by a standards based performance evaluation system. Each system must receive state approval in order for the local school district to continue receiving state and local funding. Teachers will be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system. The amendment further requires teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public school districts, with exceptions. The amendment also prohibits teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and implementation of the teacher evaluation system.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding teacher contracts and performance evaluation systems.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Recommend a vote of No on Amendment 3.  This weakens local control.  Elected School Board Members and school administrators  that directly held accountable by voters should make decisions of this nature at the local level.

Official Ballot Title  Constitutional Amendment 6  [full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS SCS HCS HJR 90]

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.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to permit voters, in years when the legislature provides funding, an early voting period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before election day to cast a ballot in all general elections. This amendment does not allow early voting on Saturday or Sunday.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to provide all voters with a six-business day early voting period.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Voting No on Amendment 6.  I disagree that this measure will have no impact on taxes if passed.  The projected cost of running early voting listed in the Official Ballot Title language, will be passed on to taxpayers  necessitating additional funding measures which are — wait for it, taxes!

Official Ballot Title  Constitutional Amendment 10  [full text

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) HJR 72]

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.

Fair Ballot Language:

“yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution regarding the requirements placed on the governor for proposing a state budget and for withholding money appropriated in the budget passed by the legislature. This amendment prohibits the governor from reducing funding passed by the general assembly without receiving legislative consent, and provides certain other restrictions on the governor’s ability to increase or decrease line items in the budget. This amendment further prohibits the governor from proposing a budget that relies on revenue from legislation that has not yet passed in the general assembly.

“no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding the requirements placed on the governor for proposing a state budget and for withholding money appropriated in the budget passed by the legislature.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Yes on Amendment 10.  This is a much-needed Amendment.  Governor Nixon has made a habit of withholding funds from education leaving school districts in the lurch.  While this is essentially a battle between a governor and an opposing legislature, the amendment prevents future governors of any party using from this technique.

Facebook Comments

comments

Share this post

2 comments

Add yours
  1. dwight billingsly 31 October, 2014 at 16:27 Reply

    agree, stacy, on 2 and 10, but not on 3 and 6. on 3, you’re right about the local control effects but in failing districts where there is no accountability (or much less than in successful districts) this will be a much-needed hammer on teachers and teachers unions. i agree it is not needed in town and country or clayton or ladue but st louis city, normandy and riverview gardens (and even Kansas city) need this kind of discipline. and on 6, i think the intent was to get a minimalist early voting provision into the constitution so that attempts (by liberals and others who want to make voting “easier” have to face changing the constitution rather than only laws. when i see early voting advocates, they tend to be democrats and liberals who see an opportunity to commit more fraud in the face of ever-increasing voter i.d. requirements. enjoyed your analyses!

Post a new comment