Cornered in the Electoral Paddock

For the first time ever, I might find myself voting no on every statewide issue, all to stay seemingly consistent with my objections to two entities spending roughly $7 per voter coming out to the polls Tuesday.

Already I've expressed issue with Propositions A and B, owing largely to the overwhelming onslaught of campaign material funded largely (in each issue) by a singular interest who would not be directly impacted by its passage. However, there is another singular interest pushing a ballot issue – a change to the state's constitution at that – that hasn't received as much publicity.

Constitutional Amendment Three was engineered largely by the Missouri Association of Realtors to prevent the state from introducing a transfer tax on the sale of homes and property within the state. Missouri, however, is currently one of 13 states that does not have such a tax in place. Proponents frame this as preventing lawmakers from imposing a tax on Missouri homeowners when selling property on which they already pay annual taxes.

Opposition is few and far between, but the majority of the rhetoric against it has emerged from a gaggle of conservative lawmakers who see this as a wrench about to be lodged in their efforts to introduce a "fair tax" in the state. Passing a law prohibiting the imposition of a sales tax on homes would run very much contrary to the desire of these lawmakers to make consumption-based taxed (for all intents and purposed) the only form of tax implemented in the state.

Another concern raised by this statewide group of Realtors muscling this proposed amendment to the state constitution onto the ballot is the glaring ability for narrowly-tailored interest groups to do the same. Already, with the overwhelming support of the General Assembly in 2009, voters can allow two narrow exceptions to become part of our state constitution.

Constitutional Amendment One would require all counties who have a charter form of government to elect their assessor, except those whose population is between 600,000 and 699,999. Right now, the only county that would be in that population donut hole is Jackson County. In Missouri, counties can either operate under a state-prescribed structure (which calls for the election of three commissioners and all county offices, including the assessor, prosecutor, sheriff, county clerk, recorder of deeds, auditor, and even the coroner) or petition the General Assembly to establish a customized, home-rule charter. These charters are crafted by a panel of citizens within the county, with input from other citizens, and then put to a vote of the voters.

When the General Assembly passed SJR5 last year, only St. Louis County would have been affected by the passage of this law. This was as a result of concerns raised about an appointed official in Missouri's largest county determining some of the highest assessments in the state, and thus, higher taxes. However, residents there passed a change to their charter by a 3-1 margin making the assessor elected. So were Amendment One to pass, it would have no immediate effect until either Jackson County exits this population donut hole or another county attempts to pursue a home-rule charter.

While I like the idea of holding all my county-wide officials accountable, this is a terrible way of doing it, and worse that this donut hole is intentionally written into the state constitution to shield certain entities at the expense of others. The state constitution must be a bedrock of proper and stable governance at the state, county, and municipal/township levels. For lawmakers to put through a narrow yet glaring donut hole, and asking voters to also divest their ability to determine for themselves whether they should allow their elected county leaders to appoint other officials as oppose to make them elected, only serves to make this bedrock a twisted knot of special exceptions and conflicting directives.

It is this reason that makes the next amendment challenging to support, yet heart-breaking to oppose. Voters have the opportunity to grant, via Constitutional Amendment 2 an exemption from property taxes for military veterans who, during their service to country, became a prisoner of war and totally disabled. While our military veterans deserve all the accolade they can get, sadly this method is similarly dangerous in its specificity. We do not have an exact number of how many veterans would qualify, and even if we did, the manner in which the exemption is granted is potentially dangerous for the sanctity of the state constitution.

The exemption is to be added into the first clause of Article 6, Section X of the state constitution, grouping this unknown amount of total-disabled veterans alongside the state, counties, municipalities, townships, and non-profit cemeteries. To group a subset of Missourians, no matter how selfless their sacrifice to their country and the price they paid, in with government entities is like grouping a sparrow with a brood of chickens. It's not the intent of the constitution to group specific citizens with these exemptions, even if we're perpetually indebted to them for their service. Further, the fear of those who are daring enough to speak against this amendment is that were voters to overwhelmingly support granting this exception, less-deserving groups could potentially have precedent to push for their own inclusion.

In the General Assembly, all but seven lawmakers voted for HJR15 placing this on the ballot. All seven happened to be absent on the days the measure came up for a final vote in both chambers.

So here we are, in the electoral paddock, staring at the shears that seek to skew the votes we put into the ballot box Tuesday. However you vote, be sure to hold onto all the wool, and keep it out from over your eyes in the process, by researching the facts and arguments, and surveying the long-term impact your vote could have on all Missourians, from Grant City to Granby to Gray Summit.