Tag: Missouri

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders

A Representative

Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke is a hero … just for listening.

Senator Lembke helped protect his state’s initiative and referendum process by defeating legislation passed by the House with several restrictive provisions, some already ruled unconstitutional in other states. One provision aims to restrict citizens from petitioning for more than one initiative at a time, which would effectively block eminent domain reformers working on two separate measures.

That same unconstitutional legislation just passed the House again. And again, citizens need the help of Lembke and the Senate.

But the senator has also introduced Bill 818, which would do three simple things. First, it protects voters from having their petition signatures discounted for minor technical errors. Second, it makes it unlawful to purposely mislead signers or to harass or intimidate those signing or circulating a petition. Third, it provides judicial deadlines so that opponents could no longer challenge an initiative’s ballot title and hold it up in court so long that the time to gather signatures is exhausted.

On Monday, a Columbia, Missouri, radio station interviewed Sen. Lembke. The host asked him why he introduced his bill. He said people had talked to him about their experiences with the petition process, and he listened.

Sounds simple, really. More legislators should try it.

We at Citizens in Charge Foundation gave Lembke the April 2010 Lilburne Award. We hope it encourages Lembke and his colleagues to continue to fight for initiative rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

But Not ‘By’ the People

Our ability to vote directly on the chief issues of our time is a vital political power, a right. I think so, and most Americans agree. 

But for some reason some of those elected to “represent” us don’t.

Last year, Missouri State Rep. Mike Parson introduced legislation to restrict petitioning to place initiatives on the ballot. Parson himself admitted that there might be unconstitutional parts to his bill. Thankfully, it failed. 

Now, this year, he’s back. Parson wants to double the number of petition signatures citizens must gather to place an issue on the ballot. Presently, citizens turn in more than 200,000 signatures to meet the state’s requirement. Parson wants to make that 400,000.

Why? Did voters really elect Mike Parson to block them from having a say-​so in their own government?

In Nebraska, Citizens in Charge is suing to overturn unconstitutional restrictions on the initiative process. Amy Miller with the ACLU, which is handling the case, said, “It’s hard not to see the restrictions as a deliberate effort on the part of legislators to keep independent candidates and grassroots initiatives off the ballot.”

Now Nebraska State Senator Bill Avery has introduced legislation to further increase the signature requirement for a constitutional amendment by 50 percent.

It all makes me realize how important it is to have a process whereby we citizens can overrule our so-​called representatives.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Domain of Eminent Irony

You reap what you sow.

That’s the lesson being taught to developers in Ozark, Missouri. A few years ago, a company called Hagerman New Urbanism benefited from Ozark’s use of eminent domain power to trample on the property rights of local citizens. The city shoved residents off their property. Hagerman got the stolen land.

But Ozark is unhappy with the progress of redevelopment. The city wants to pull the plug and give the land to somebody else. How can they, though? After all, Hagerman now “owns” the land. Right? Yeah, right.

The parties are in court fighting about whether the city owes money for the work done so far and other contractual matters. But judicial processes are long-​winded and messy. And spending money is expensive. So the city is threatening to use eminent domain yet again. This time against the very developer who benefited from the first land looting.

Local activists like Jane Carpenter, who fought the original use of eminent domain, may appreciate the poetic justice here. But as a matter of principle they don’t support a new eminent domain grab. They say it would signal to businesses thinking of coming to Ozark to stay the heck away.

Good points. Still, I doubt that many folks in Ozark or elsewhere would shed any tears over Hagerman being forced to glug down its own poisonous medicine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

Arresting Developments

Gustavo Rendon was arrested in broad daylight — right in front of his two boys. One St. Louis policeman threatened that his boys would be sent into foster care.

Rendon’s crime? He passed out fliers in his neighborhood. He spoke out on public policy — in this case, opposing an eminent domain land grab and promoting a petition effort to put the city’s development plan to a vote. 

Dave Roland, an attorney for the Show-​Me Institute, says this outrageous behavior is part of “an unsettling pattern” … of squelching free speech.

Roland also points to St. Louis’s attempt to force Jim Roos to take down a sign protesting the city’s abuse of eminent domain — a case still in court. He mentions a recent instance where the Northeast Ambulance and Fire District actually sought to ban citizens from public meetings. 

Roland’s “most disturbing” example concerns the Missouri Municipal League. The League has filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot titles for two anti-​eminent domain abuse measures, effectively putting both petition drives on hold.

At a recent meeting of the Missouri Bar Association’s Eminent Domain Committee, Municipal League attorney Carrie Hermeling admitted that their “main objective” is “to delay the gathering of signatures.” Adding, “[H]opefully we’re accomplishing that.” 

Thwarting the people, denying their basic rights — quite an accomplishment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency judiciary

The Judges, the Lawyers, and the People

In legal circles, when folks think of Missouri, they think of the “Missouri Plan.” Seventy years ago, Missouri instituted a new method of selecting judges, especially the judges that sit on the state’s supreme court. The plan was copied by many other states. 

It is beloved by the insiders.

A few years ago, I wrote at Townhall​.com: “[T]he Missouri Bar has something of a lock on the whole process.… It’s supposed to be non-​partisan. Bottom line is that lawyers are in control.”

A judicial commission controlled by the state bar association picks the judges that the governor must then pick from — with the bulk of the commission’s work done behind closed doors.

Missourians are shocked when informed how the process works. So are folks in other states that have adopted the Missouri Plan. It isn’t transparent and it puts key decision-​making on judges in the hands of an unelected special interest.

But things may be looking up. A group called Better Courts for Missouri submitted paperwork to start a new petition. The group aims to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010, to open up the system, make it more transparent.

Legislative attempts to change the system have failed. Generally, politically powerful lawyers are for a plan that lets lawyers have the biggest say.

Well, now they are up against competition. The people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Special Interests of the World Unite

Wish there were an issue that would engender bipartisan co-​operation from our legislators? An idea that could bring together special interests of all stripes — from the teachers’ unions to the Chamber of Commerce?

There is: Taking away your initiative rights.

Last week, I was at the Missouri capitol testifying against several bills that would create restrictions for initiative petitions, many identical to those struck down all across the country as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.

Show-​Me state legislators also came up with something new: A bill to actually prohibit citizens from gathering signatures on more than one petition at a time. 

Very convenient. It just so happens that a campaign to stop the state’s rampant eminent domain abuse requires two constitutional changes, thus two petitions.

As a representative for the state’s League of Women Voters put it, they just want to place a few more hurdles in the way of the people. She was joined by many other big capitol lobbies, united by their desire to block the citizens from playing any role in policy.

Fortunately, a number of regular folks, representatives from several grassroots groups, as well as the state’s ACLU attended, urging their representatives to do the unusual — actually represent the people.

Special interests hate the voter initiative process. They know what we know: If there is to be reform, it has to come from the people directly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom Second Amendment rights

Show-​Me Madness

What if you were profiled by the police as a terrorist simply because of your political beliefs?

A new report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement,” prepared for law enforcement agencies by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, threatens just that.

The report doesn’t detail any current criminal activity in Missouri. It does suggest to police, however, that anyone opposing government bailouts, abortion, or the Federal Reserve is a potential militia member, possibly a terrorist, or both.

The report tells police how to recognize militia members. Look for literature that is “derogatory” toward the IRS, ATF, the CIA, and the like. And look also for people who support minor party presidential candidates, or one sitting Republican congressman.

Tim Neal told the Associated Press that he has become nervous about his Ron Paul bumpersticker. Hearing a litany of the tell-​tale signs that a person is in a militia, he said he “was going down the list and thinking, ‘Check, that’s me.’ ”

Remember, it’s perfectly legal — and peaceful — to wear fatigues. 

It is also legal to train, military-​style, on private property. So is paintball. And both probably qualify as good preparation for all sorts of emergencies. 

Governments focusing investigations and gathering “intelligence” on citizens on the basis of peaceful, perfectly legal political viewpoints is far more dangerous. And that’s happening right now in the Show-​Me state.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Nebraska

Government transparency is understandably popular. Voters want to know what their governments are doing.

So smart politicians promise us more transparency, more sunshine, more info. But, being politicians, sometimes they don’t deliver. And, when they do, they often spend a whole lot more than necessary.

That’s what is happening in Virginia. Bills to put the state budget online have passed both chambers of the legislature — unanimously.

But politicians estimate that the cost to get the job done will run over $3 million. Wow. That’s a lot. How does that compare with other states?

At the Tertium Quids blog, there’s a letter posted from Ed Martin, chief of staff to former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. Martin points out that two years ago Blunt created the Missouri Accountability Portal by executive order.

The website is a national model with a searchable database of state expenditures. It’s garnered over 17 million hits from interested citizens. And it cost less than $200,000.

Then there’s Nebraska State Treasurer Shane Osborn. As the Washington Examiner recently reported, he put Nebraska spending online without the legislature passing a law. He just did it.

“I used my staff to compile the data,” Osborn said. “I just viewed it as my job.”

The grand cost of Osborn’s excellent transparency website? Only $38,000.

Sounds like there are millions of reasons for Virginia to learn from others.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Arnold v. Tourkakis

To history’s pile of outrageous court decisions Missouri’s Supreme Court just added another whopper.

The town of Arnold, Missouri, had set its sights on an area it wants to redevelop, declared the property “blighted,” and is taking it by force. From residents who don’t want to sell. Residents like Homer Tourkakis.

Tourkakis, a dentist, stood up to fight for his business and his rights.

He thought he had a good case. After all, this land grab is not for a public use, but merely to flip over to private developers

Because of the infamous Kelo decision, he knew that the Fifth Amendment couldn’t help. But he did have the Missouri Constitution. It says government’s “chief purpos” is to secure the individual’s right to “the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry,” and that “private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner.”

But Mr. Tourkakis was saddled with something he didn’t count on: his state’s highest court. The judges one-​upped Kelo, ignored the state constitution, and overruled a lower court.

Governments, the court said, have an “unlimited and practically absolute sovereign power of eminent domain” to take our property at their whim.

Tourkakis is fighting the decision. What can he do, after his state’s highest court ruled against him?

He can change the law. He’s working with Missouri Citizens for Property Rights on two voter initiatives. And you can help: Go to 4agoodcause​.com.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.