West Newsmagazine 10-17-18

30 I COVER STORY I
October 17, 2018
WEST NEWSMAGAZINE
@WESTNEWSMAG
WESTNEWSMAGAZINE.COM
Amendment 1:
By JIM ERICKSON
What to believe?
The question is one Missouri voters will
face when they prepare to go to the polls Nov.
6, especially when it comes to how to vote
on Amendment 1 [known as Clean Missouri].
According to proponents of the measure,
the proposed amendment to the
Missouri Constitution will bring needed
ethics reforms in the state legislature and
a change in how legislative districts are
drawn after every U.S. census.
On the other hand, those opposing the
proposal say, among other things, that it’s
“a Trojan horse” with measures that sound
good but really are meant to disguise an
attempt to hijack the legislative redistricting
process.
So, what is Amendment 1 all about? Here
is a review of provisions that will become
part of the state constitution if the proposal
receives a majority of “yes” votes:
• A change will be made in the process
and criteria for redrawing state legislative
district boundaries during reapportionment
[redistricting]. More on that later.
• The limits on campaign contributions
that candidates for state senator or state
representative can accept from individuals
or entities will be reduced by $100 per
election for a Senate candidate and $500
for a house candidate.
• A $5 limit will be placed on gifts that
state legislators and their employees can
accept from paid lobbyists or the lobbyists’
clients.
• State legislators and their employees
will be prohibited from serving as paid lobbyists
for a period of two years after the
end of their last legislative session.
• Political fundraising by candidates for
the state legislature will be prohibited on
state property.
• All legislative records and proceedings
will be subject to the state open meetings
A major decision for Missouri voters
and records law [Missouri Sunshine Law].
Amendment 1 proponents earlier this
year collected more than enough voter signatures
needed to place the measure on the
ballot.
Opponents then challenged the proposal
in court, saying it violated the state constitution
by dealing with more than one
issue. A Cole County circuit judge agreed
the measure dealt with “two different
and extremely broad purposes,” namely
ethics and the state legislature’s organization,
and adjudicated the case accordingly.
However, a subsequent ruling by the Missouri
Court of Appeals overturned that
decision, thereby keeping the proposal on
the ballot.
The appeals court’s conclusion was that
the measure’s “multiple provisions all
relate to a single central purpose: regulating
the legislature to limit the influence of
partisan or other special interests.”
The Missouri Supreme Court refused
to accept the case when the appeals court
ruling was challenged. As a result, two primary
groups now are battling for the hearts
and minds of Missouri voters.
Ethics reform or Trojan horse?
Clean Missouri is the name originally
attached to the initiative petition effort
and now is linked to individuals and
organizations supporting Amendment
1. Among those supporters are former
U.S. Sen. John Danforth, a number
of current and former Republican
state legislators and
other officials. Clean Missouri
also lists editorial
endorsements from the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
the Kansas City Star
and the Columbia
Daily Tribune.
In its Sept. 26
editorial, West Newsmagazine opposed
Amendment 1.
The diverse consortium of organizations
backing the amendment proposal includes
the League of Women Voters of Missouri,
the state’s AARP chapter, Jews United for
Justice, the American Association of University
Women, Missouri Faith Voices and
a number of labor unions, among others.
According to Danforth, “Amendment 1
will ensure fair and competitive elections
so elected officials cannot take their voters
for granted and must earn their support.”
In announcing the League of Women
Voters’ support, the organization’s state
president, Kathleen Boswell, observed,
“Year after year, politicians are re-elected
with big money, in districts drawn by politicians
and party insiders. Amendment 1
limits the influence of special interests
in the legislature and ensures no party is
given an unfair advantage when redistricting
occurs after the next census.”
There are pros and cons regarding the
amendment’s ethics reforms. For example,
Missouri Sen. Bob Onder [R-Lake Saint
Louis] is concerned the provision about
opening legislative records to Sunshine
Law requests means letters and emails
from constituents no longer will be withheld
from public scrutiny.
Nonetheless, there’s little dispute that
most of the attention is on the redistricting
provision.
Onder describes that portion of
Amendment 1 as “gerrymandering
on steroids.”
“Amendment 1 is an outright
attempt to deceive by
using measures voters are
known to favor, such as
banning gifts from lobbyists,
to put in place
a bizarre, unfair
and deceptive
method of
drawing the lines for legislative districts,”
he asserted. “Clean Missouri is financed by
a group of left-wing, out-of-state liberals
determined to regain for Democrats the
seats and legislative power lost to Republicans
in recent years.”
Rep. Shamed Dogan [R-Ballwin] agrees,
labeling Amendment 1 as a Trojan horse
whose real purpose is obtaining “radical
redistricting change.”
“We will wind up in a situation where
everyone loses,” he predicted.
Politics or science?
Current law mandates that redistricting
be done by two commissions – one for the
House and another for the Senate.
For the Senate, state committees of the
major political parties each name 10 nominees
to handle the redistricting task. From
this pool of 20, the governor then selects
five members per party, or a total of 10, for
that commission.
For the House, the congressional district
committees from the major parties both
nominate two members from each of the
state’s eight congressional districts. From
this pool of 32, the governor appoints one
member from each party in each district,
yielding an evenly divided 16-member
commission.
If a redistricting plan fails to get approval
from at least 70 percent of either commission’s
members, the state Supreme Court
then appoints a panel of six appellate court
judges to draw the district lines.
Under the Amendment 1 proposal, the
state auditor would select at least three
persons judged by their applications to
be qualified to serve as a non-partisan
state demographer. The Senate majority
and minority leaders then would choose
someone from that list. If they can’t agree,
they each would eliminate one-third of the
applicants. Should more than one name
Missouri State Capitol