Missouri Constitutional Amendments August 5, 2014...

[Missourian]

SOS, Missouri - Elections: 2014 Ballot Measures


2014 Ballot Measures

The following ballot measures have been certified for the August 5, 2014 primary election.


Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 1


[full text]

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (First Regular Session) CCS#2 for SS for HCS HJR Nos. 11 & 7]


Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?
The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.
​

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to guarantee the rights of Missourians to engage in farming and ranching practices, subject to any power given to local government under Article VI of the Missouri Constitution.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding farming and ranching.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
​

-----------------------


Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 5


[full text]

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR 36]
Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?
State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.
​

Fair Ballot Language:

A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to expand the right to keep and bear arms to include ammunition and related accessories for such arms. This amendment also removes the language that states the right to keep and bear arms does not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. This amendment does not prevent the legislature from limiting the rights of certain felons and certain individuals adjudicated as having a mental disorder.
A "no"; vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding arms, ammunition, and accessories for such arms.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
​

---------------------------



Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 7


[full text]

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS HJR 68]

Official Ballot Title:

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges?
This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state's Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.
​

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to increase funding for state, county, and municipal street, road, bridge, highway, and public transportation initiatives by increasing the state sales/use tax by three-quarters of one percent for 10 years. This amendment further prohibits a change in gasoline taxes and prohibits toll roads or bridges. This amendment also requires these measures to be re-approved by voters every 10 years.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to increase funding for state, county, and municipal street, road, bridge, highway, and public transportation initiatives.
If passed, this measure will increase the state sales/use tax.
​

---------------------

Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 8


[full text]

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) HJR 48]


Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket" and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans?
The annual cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown, but likely minimal. If sales of a veterans lottery ticket game decrease existing lottery ticket sales, the profits of which fund education, there could be a small annual shift in funding from education to veterans’ programs.
​

Fair Ballot Language:

A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket." This amendment further provides that the revenue from the sale of these tickets will be used for projects and services related to veterans.
A "no" vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket."
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes
​

----------------

Official Ballot Title
Constitutional Amendment 9


[full text]

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR 27]


Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects?
State and local governmental entities expect no significant costs or savings.
​

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to specify that electronic data and communications have the same protections from unreasonable searches and seizures as persons, papers, homes, and effects.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding protections for electronic communications and data.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.


​

------------------------
READ FULL TEXT HERE! SOS, Missouri - Elections: 2014 Ballot Measures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


See them as they will appear on sample ballot Christian County PDF format...http://www.christiancountymo.gov/election/sample%20ballots/August14primary/St.%20Joseph%20Church%20%28Polk%29/BS19.PolkALL.Rep.pdf

....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's problematic when lawmakers abdicate their responsibilities to legislate in the context of a republican form of government, and instead use referenda to address issues best left to elected officials to resolve with codified law.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I find amendment 8 to be interesting.

And it looks like amendment 9 is just an extension of the 4th amendment to the US constitution (search and seizure).


Is something going on in Missouri that is prompting proposed amendment 1?

Thanks for making the thread, [MENTION=11800]Missourian[/MENTION].

 

[Missourian]

I find amendment 8 to be interesting.

And it looks like amendment 9 is just an extension of the 4th amendment to the US constitution (search and seizure).


Is something going on in Missouri that is prompting proposed amendment 1?

Thanks for making the thread, @Missourian .

Well, there are two opposing schools of thought regarding Amendment 1.

The first regards the Humane Society of the United States and their successful 2010 Prop B initiative to limit dog breeding facilities. Many see Amendment 1 and a proactive step to secure protection for livestock farms.


The second school of thought is that this is a Monsanto Protection Amendment...guaranteeing forever the right to GMO crop production in Missouri.

The ORIGINAL wording of the amendment stated "No state law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern and traditional livestock production and ranching practices, unless enacted by the General Assembly."

The phase "agricultural technology and modern and traditional" has since been removed.

What do I think?

I think it is likely both, but I am still researching.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] Happy Independence Day.



Further reading:

Missouri Right-to-Farm, Amendment 1 (August 2014) - Ballotpedia

Missouri Farming Rights Amendment - Everything You Need To Know | Protect the Harvest

Vote ?no? on Missouri ?right to farm? amendment in August | The Kansas City Star

Amendment 1 Will Protect State Farmers, Says Missouri Farm Bureau President | Protect the Harvest

Action Alert - Stop Missouri's Monsanto Protection Act

Missourians Urged to Vote No on ?Right to Farm? Measure : The Humane Society of the United States

 

[Statistikhengst]

I find amendment 8 to be interesting.

And it looks like amendment 9 is just an extension of the 4th amendment to the US constitution (search and seizure).


Is something going on in Missouri that is prompting proposed amendment 1?

Thanks for making the thread, @Missourian .

Well, there are two opposing schools of thought regarding Amendment 1.

The first regards the Humane Society of the United States and their successful 2010 Prop B initiative to limit dog breeding facilities. Many see Amendment 1 and a proactive step to secure protection for livestock farms.


The second school of thought is that this is a Monsanto Protection Amendment...guaranteeing forever the right to GMO crop production in Missouri.

The ORIGINAL wording of the amendment stated "No state law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern and traditional livestock production and ranching practices, unless enacted by the General Assembly."

The phase "agricultural technology and modern and traditional" has since been removed.

What do I think?

I think it is likely both, but I am still researching.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] Happy Independence Day.



Further reading:

Missouri Right-to-Farm, Amendment 1 (August 2014) - Ballotpedia

Missouri Farming Rights Amendment - Everything You Need To Know | Protect the Harvest

Vote ?no? on Missouri ?right to farm? amendment in August | The Kansas City Star

Amendment 1 Will Protect State Farmers, Says Missouri Farm Bureau President | Protect the Harvest

Action Alert - Stop Missouri's Monsanto Protection Act

Missourians Urged to Vote No on ?Right to Farm? Measure : The Humane Society of the United States

Hey, thank you for that information, I will read up on it. This is a very good argument for the upside of Federalism, for not every state has the same problems. I suspected that this was a reaction to Monsanto or Cargill.

 

[Mr. H.]

Just put a severance tax agriculture. Say, 3% per bushel sold. Off the top, before the farmer deducts his input costs.

 

[FireFly]

Just put a severance tax agriculture. Say, 3% per bushel sold. Off the top, before the farmer deducts his input costs.

Put down the bottle of ethanol & back away.

 

[Mr. H.]

Just put a severance tax agriculture. Say, 3% per bushel sold. Off the top, before the farmer deducts his input costs.

Put down the bottle of ethanol & back away.

Seriously, why not? Many states burden oil and natural gas producers with a severance tax. They tried pulling that shit here in Illinois but it went no where.

A severance isn't a tax at all. It's a direct confiscation of personal property. Just as was Carter's Windfall Profits Tax.

 

[Missourian]

I find amendment 8 to be interesting.

And it looks like amendment 9 is just an extension of the 4th amendment to the US constitution (search and seizure).


Is something going on in Missouri that is prompting proposed amendment 1?

Thanks for making the thread, @Missourian .

Well, there are two opposing schools of thought regarding Amendment 1.

The first regards the Humane Society of the United States and their successful 2010 Prop B initiative to limit dog breeding facilities. Many see Amendment 1 and a proactive step to secure protection for livestock farms.


The second school of thought is that this is a Monsanto Protection Amendment...guaranteeing forever the right to GMO crop production in Missouri.

The ORIGINAL wording of the amendment stated "No state law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern and traditional livestock production and ranching practices, unless enacted by the General Assembly."

The phase "agricultural technology and modern and traditional" has since been removed.

What do I think?

I think it is likely both, but I am still researching.

@Statistikhengst Happy Independence Day.



Further reading:

Missouri Right-to-Farm, Amendment 1 (August 2014) - Ballotpedia

Missouri Farming Rights Amendment - Everything You Need To Know | Protect the Harvest

Vote ?no? on Missouri ?right to farm? amendment in August | The Kansas City Star

Amendment 1 Will Protect State Farmers, Says Missouri Farm Bureau President | Protect the Harvest

Action Alert - Stop Missouri's Monsanto Protection Act

Missourians Urged to Vote No on ?Right to Farm? Measure : The Humane Society of the United States

Hey, thank you for that information, I will read up on it. This is a very good argument for the upside of Federalism, for not every state has the same problems. I suspected that this was a reaction to Monsanto or Cargill.

NP.

The 2010 Proposition B was a citizen submitted referendum.

What Amendment 1 will accomplish is taking that tool, the public driven referendum away when it comes to agriculture.

Citizens of Missouri may initiate legislation as either a state statute or a constitutional amendment. In Missouri, citizens also have the power to repeal legislation via veto referendum. The Missouri General Assembly may also place measures on the ballot as legislatively-referred constitutional amendments or legislatively-referred state statutes with a majority vote.

Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri - Ballotpedia
​

So there will be no more Prop Bs.

But, that means only the General Assembly can make farm and agriculture related law.

So what we are giving up is the ability to override the General Assembly when it comes to agriculture.

I am leaning toward a yes on Amendment 1, but I distrust the motivation behind this amendment, so we will call it "undecided".

Of course I will definitely vote in favor of Amendment 5.

Amendment 7 I am still considering. I really want to trust them to do the right thing and actually repair infrastructure...but the government is untrustworthy.

Amendment 8 is a no-brainer yes.

Amendment 9 is pretty much covered by the recent Supreme Court decision, but I'll vote yes.

 

[KissMy]

NO! on Constitutional Amendment 1: Right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed.

Yes! on Constitutional Amendment 5: The right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right.

NO! on Constitutional Amendment 7: Enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges?

NO! on Constitutional Amendment 8: Create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket" and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans.

Yes! on Constitutional Amendment 9: The people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects.

 

[Missourian]

NO! on Constitutional Amendment 1: Right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed.

Yes! on Constitutional Amendment 5: The right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right.

NO! on Constitutional Amendment 7: Enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges?

NO! on Constitutional Amendment 8: Create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket" and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans.

Yes! on Constitutional Amendment 9: The people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects.

I get the rest, but why no on Amendment 8? [MENTION=21241]KissMy[/MENTION]

 

[KissMy]

I am a Missouri Farmer of 1,000 acres plus other occupations. The right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed would benefit me greatly but it will be very bad for nearly everyone else.

Occasionally grain including mine will get infected with alphatoxins & must be disposed of instead of sold. I can't even grind it & sell it as cat litter because it makes cats sick when they lick it off their paws. Even selling alphatoxin to Ethanol Plants is banned, because livestock eat the DDG feed from these ethanol plants. Livestock can get a bug & I could give them multiple antibiotics to make them look good to the slaughterhouse.

It sucks taking big losses on the farm from these diseases & I would love the increased profits from selling infected food. When my alphatoxin infected grain goes to the grain terminal it is mixed into the entire food chain. I can grow my own garden, raise my own livestock & not be affected by the food-born illness I cause. The Chinese who own Smithfield foods in Missouri don't eat the food they produce either.

Medical cost & taxes will soar trying to care for all the sick people, pets & livestock. If other farmers are making money selling infected food, I will have to do the same in order to compete or risk going out of business & losing the farm to others who were willing to sell that stuff.

 

[KissMy]

Seriously, why not? Many states burden oil and natural gas producers with a severance tax. They tried pulling that shit here in Illinois but it went no where.

A severance isn't a tax at all. It's a direct confiscation of personal property. Just as was Carter's Windfall Profits Tax.

Why shouldn't oil companies pay for stealing oil from land owners? Fees must be paid when mineral rights ownership are severed from surface rights ownership in Illinois. Surface owners have to pay property tax before & if they grow crops or not. Why do you oil people believe you are special?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's problematic when lawmakers abdicate their responsibilities to legislate in the context of a republican form of government, and instead use referenda to address issues best left to elected officials to resolve with codified law.

Referendums to amend the Constitution of a state are pretty common, and sometimes the only way to accomplish a something that is desperately needed. If you were half the legal brain you pretend to be you would know that.

 

[KissMy]

I may have been wrong about amendment 8. When lottery revenue was switched from the general fund to education fund, revenue went way up because lotto ticket buyers felt they were supporting a good cause. This lowers education tax burdens on the rest of us.

So if the veterans cause drive increased lottery sales & revenue, it will ultimately help carry the tax burden.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I may have been wrong about amendment 8. When lottery revenue was switched from the general fund to education fund, revenue went way up because lotto ticket buyers felt they were supporting a good cause. This lowers education tax burdens on the rest of us.

So if the veterans cause drive increased lottery sales & revenue, it will ultimately help carry the tax burden.

That's interesting, I'm glad you shared that.

 

[Mr. H.]

Seriously, why not? Many states burden oil and natural gas producers with a severance tax. They tried pulling that shit here in Illinois but it went no where.

A severance isn't a tax at all. It's a direct confiscation of personal property. Just as was Carter's Windfall Profits Tax.

Why shouldn't oil companies pay for stealing oil from land owners? Fees must be paid when mineral rights ownership are severed from surface rights ownership in Illinois. Surface owners have to pay property tax before & if they grow crops or not. Why do you oil people believe you are special?

This is why:

765*ILCS*530/**Drilling Operations Act.

We're not special, but we're sure not to be fodder for the nonsensical whims of Liberals.

Brush up on contract law

BTW, "oil companies" pay property taxes too. Oil production is taxed as real property in this state.

 

[BreezeWood]

Official Ballot Title: Constitutional Amendment 8

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket" and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans?
The annual cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown, but likely minimal. If sales of a veterans lottery ticket game decrease existing lottery ticket sales, the profits of which fund education, there could be a small annual shift in funding from education to veterans’ programs.

as though veteran's groups should not be responsible for their own financing for their personal choices over the necessities of individuals simply beginning a life and affording their opportunities without restrictions.

.

 

[Picaro]

Lotteries are essentially taxes on the poor. They are never a good idea. They just shift tax burdens off of those able to pay to those who are desperate and in dire straits. Right wingers end up sniveling about those who spend the grocery money on gambling, while out of the other sides of their mouths get all warm n fuzzy on their supposed tax savings. Cognitive dissonance at it's most common manifestions.

 

[Picaro]

Official Ballot Title: Constitutional Amendment 8

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create a "Veterans Lottery Ticket" and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans?
The annual cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown, but likely minimal. If sales of a veterans lottery ticket game decrease existing lottery ticket sales, the profits of which fund education, there could be a small annual shift in funding from education to veterans’ programs.

as though veteran's groups should not be responsible for their own financing for their personal choices over the necessities of individuals simply beginning a life and affording their opportunities without restrictions.

.

It's all the rage to run around claiming to 'Support Our Veterans'; hey, who can criticize that, right? It's like criticizing Mom and apple pie. Never mind vets get bennies already, and they tend to vote Republican, i.e. cutting everybody else's throats? Lotteries pick the pockets the low income brackets more than any other bracket, so who cares?

Don't conservatives always claim the government wastes money, no matter how much they get? So why does more revenue from a lottery get a hearty Hi Ho?