Missouri Constitutional Amendments August 5, 2014...

[Picaro]

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.

Indeed. Not to mention if some idiot does put out infected goods people will avoid buying Missouri farm products, so it's just good business to have regulations in place. The big boys don't care if the little indie guys get hit hard and lose money for a while, since they will just buy elsewhere, but the locals will eat losses for who knows how long.

 

[Missourian]

Email from NRA-ILA:

As previously reported last month, former New York City Mayor

Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun followers made another

attempt at hindering your right to keep and bear arms in Missouri.

In mid-June, a lawsuit was filed against Senate Joint Resolution

36 (Constitutional Amendment 5 on the August 5 primary election

ballot) – with the plaintiff being St. Louis Police Chief Samuel

Dotson III and Rebecca Morgan, a member of the Missouri chapter

of a Bloomberg-funded anti-gun group. This lawsuit sought to

challenge the ballot language and had the express intention of

outright killing this ballot measure. If it were up to those who filed

this lawsuit, your Second Amendment rights would not exist.

Yesterday, a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed this

lawsuit – a small victory for law-abiding gun owners in the Show

Me State.

 

[daveman]

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.

Do you know who lawmakers work for?

 

[daveman]

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?

No one is forced to play the lottery.

 

[Missourian]

Sample ballots available for all SW Missouri counties, all parties @ KSGF Springfield New/Talk Radio website:

Sample Ballots- August 2014 elections - www.ksgf.com

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sample ballots available for all Missouri counties, all parties @ KSGF Springfield New/Talk Radio website:

Sample Ballots- August 2014 elections - www.ksgf.com

Good job to you for providing that information.

 

[Vo1ceOfReason]

Why does the state or any government try to increase taxes all the time? Aren't we already paying taxes for road and bridge repairs? If they really need more money, can't they budget for it? Take it from someplace else? NO on Amendment 7!!

 

[Missourian]

Election Tomorrow!!!

Poll regarding Amendments:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 3, 2014
Contact: Titus Bond
Email: [email protected]

Poll: Amendment 1 Too Close to Call
Turnout to Decide the Fate of Changes to Missouri Constitution

Kansas City, MO – Remington Research Group has conducted an independent survey of all Missouri Constitutional Amendments.

After millions of dollars spent to help voters decide, a couple amendments remain too close to call less than 48 hours from Election Day.

Amendment 1, also known as “Right to Farm” holds a lead but the race is too close to call. Supporters of Amendment 1 totaled 48%, with opponents at 40%, and undecided at 12%.

“Amendment 1 is going to be determined by turnout and could go either way,” said Titus Bond of Remington Research Group. “With nothing else at the top of the ballot to drive turnout it will really come down to who is more passionate about this issue. Amendment 1 supporters appear to have lost their message to Amendment 1 opponents but the ballot language may be able drive their campaign to a victory,” said Bond.

The other close race is with Constitutional Amendment 8, which seeks to create a lottery system to benefit veterans is very close with a high number of undecided voters. 41% of voters support Amendment 8, 46% oppose, and 13% are undecided. It has received far less attention than the other two races, but appears to be just as close.

There are two other proposed Constitutional Amendment appearing on Tuesday’s primary election ballot. Constitutional Amendment 5, which directs the state to protect 2nd Amendment gun rights is cruising towards victory with 60% of voters supporting, 31% opposing, and 9% undecided.

Constitutional Amendment 9, which protects Missourian’s electronic communications from unreasonable searches and seizure is strongly supported by voters according to the survey. 67% of voters support Amendment 9, only 20% oppose it, with 14% undecided.

Constitutional Amendment 7 was not tested due to a conflict of interest.




Remington Research Group conducted an automated survey of 1,115 likely primary voters July 31st through August 2nd. Responses were weighted to reflect turnout demographics of Missouri primary election. Self-described Party Affiliation breakdown is 35% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 32% Non-Partisan. The margin of error is +/- 2.98% with a 95% level of confidence. The survey was commissioned independent of any campaign or committee involved in the race.

Remington Research Group is a polling firm that specializes in automated IVR technology. For more information on Remington Research Group please visit www.remingtonresearchgroup.com.


http://themissouritimes.com/12068/press-release-poll-amendment-1-close-call/

This is a press release and not subject to copyright.

 

[R.C. Christian]

If it weren't for your gay front and back plates, I'm move up the road a piece, 5 miles, and live there!

 

[Missourian]

If Corporate Farming is illegal by statute only in Missouri, would Amendment 1 make that law unconstitutional?

Corporate Farming Laws | National Agricultural Law Center - Agricultural and Food Law Research and Information

 

[Missourian]

Conversely, the largest opponent to Amendment 1 is the Humane Society of the United States, which is also the main group that the Amendment is aimed at thwarting.

"Supporters like Rep. Casey Guernsey, admits that even a few weeks ago, conventional wisdom said Amendment 1 was a lock. But opposition, like Missouri’s Food for America, re-doubled a campaign against the measure, thanks in no small part to generous funds from the Humane Society of the United States."

Both sides fighting to bitter end on Amendment 1 - The Missouri Times

 

[Agit8r]

If a right is inalienable, then it cannot be alienated from convicts etc.

In other words, the author of Amendment 5 is a fucktard.

 

[BreezeWood]

The other close race is with Constitutional Amendment 8, which seeks to create a lottery system to benefit veterans is very close with a high number of undecided voters. 41% of voters support Amendment 8, 46% oppose, and 13% are undecided. It has received far less attention than the other two races, but appears to be just as close.

good for Missouri ...

.

 

[ogibillm]

i'm voting yes on 9 and 7. the rest are a solid 'no'

 

[KissMy]

MO Amendment 1 law:

Section 537.295 of the Missouri Revised Status in 2013 provided agriculture operations with protections against nuisance suits. This right-to-farm law reads as follows:

537.295. 1. No agricultural operation or any of its appurtenances shall be deemed to be a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in the locality thereof after the facility has been in operation for more than one year, when the facility was not a nuisance at the time the operation began. An agricultural operation protected pursuant to the provisions of this section may reasonably expand its operation in terms of acres or animal units without losing its protected status so long as all county, state, and federal environmental codes, laws, or regulations are met by the agricultural operation. Reasonable expansion shall not be deemed a public or private nuisance, provided the expansion does not create a substantially adverse effect upon the environment or creates a hazard to public health and safety, or creates a measurably significant difference in environmental pressures upon existing and surrounding neighbors because of increased pollution. Reasonable expansion shall not include complete relocation of a farming operation by the owner within or without the present boundaries of the farming operation; however, reasonable expansion of like kind that presently exists, may occur. If a poultry or livestock operation is to maintain its protected status following a reasonable expansion, the operation must ensure that its waste handling capabilities and facilities meet or exceed minimum recommendations of the University of Missouri extension service for storage, processing, or removal of animal waste. The protected status of an agricultural operation, once acquired, shall be assignable, alienable, and inheritable. The protected status of an agricultural operation, once acquired, shall not be waived by the temporary cessation of farming or by diminishing the size of the operation. The provisions of this section shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural operation or its appurtenances.

2. As used in this section the term "agricultural operation and its appurtenances" includes, but is not limited to, any facility used in the production or processing for commercial purposes of crops, livestock, swine, poultry, livestock products, swine products or poultry products.

3. The provisions of this section shall not affect or defeat the right of any person, firm or corporation to recover damages for any injuries sustained by it as a result of the pollution or other change in the quantity or quality of water used by that person, firm or corporation for private or commercial purposes, or as a result of any overflow of land owned by or in the possession of any such person, firm or corporation.

4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any nuisance resulting from an agricultural operation located within the limits of any city, town or village on August 13, 1982.

5. In any nuisance action brought in which an agricultural operation is alleged to be a nuisance, and which is found to be frivolous by the court, the defendant shall recover the aggregate amount of costs and expenses determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred in his behalf in connection with the defense of such action, together with a reasonable amount for attorneys fees.

 

[Missourian]

I'm voting yes on 9 and 7. the rest are a solid 'no'

So far, I'm sticking with my initial assessment.

Yes on 1- Farm Rights.

HUGE Yes on 5 - Right to Bear Arms

No on 7 - Highway Sales Tax

Yes on 8 - Veterans Lottery Tickets

Yes on 9 - Electronic Privacy


Still could be swayed on Amendment 1, the rest are locked in.

If it wasn't for 1, I'd have voted already.

 

[ogibillm]

I'm voting yes on 9 and 7. the rest are a solid 'no'

So far, I'm sticking with my initial assessment.

Yes on 1- Farm Rights.

HUGE Yes on 5 - Right to Bear Arms

No on 7 - Highway Sales Tax

Yes on 8 - Veterans Lottery Tickets

Yes on 9 - Electronic Privacy


Still could be swayed on Amendment 1, the rest are locked in.

If it wasn't for 1, I'd have voted already.

my problem with 1 is mainly that farming shouldn't be any more or less special a vocation in missouri than anything else and this makes it different. i get that we're an agricultural state, but i don't see the point of taking power out of local municipalities or the people and not allowing them to regulate it like any other business.

i don't understand the point of amendment 5 - we have a federal amendment for that, no point in a state one. seems like a shit-stirring amendment.

the highway sales tax is sunset and limited to transportation - we have some roads in need of repair and expansion. this also makes sure that we can have access to federal matching funds.

i don't really care about 8 - but i do wonder what those 'veteran's' funds will go towards.

and we do agree on 9

 

[Missourian]

I'm voting yes on 9 and 7. the rest are a solid 'no'

So far, I'm sticking with my initial assessment.

Yes on 1- Farm Rights.

HUGE Yes on 5 - Right to Bear Arms

No on 7 - Highway Sales Tax

Yes on 8 - Veterans Lottery Tickets

Yes on 9 - Electronic Privacy


Still could be swayed on Amendment 1, the rest are locked in.

If it wasn't for 1, I'd have voted already.

my problem with 1 is mainly that farming shouldn't be any more or less special a vocation in missouri than anything else and this makes it different. i get that we're an agricultural state, but i don't see the point of taking power out of local municipalities or the people and not allowing them to regulate it like any other business.

i don't understand the point of amendment 5 - we have a federal amendment for that, no point in a state one. seems like a shit-stirring amendment.

the highway sales tax is sunset and limited to transportation - we have some roads in need of repair and expansion. this also makes sure that we can have access to federal matching funds.

i don't really care about 8 - but i do wonder what those 'veteran's' funds will go towards.

and we do agree on 9

I can totally see your point on Amendment 1, and I worry about the unintended consequences.

My wife is opposed to Amendment 1, and her rationale is very close to yours.

It's a double edged sword in both of our (my wife and mines) opinion.

Are we keeping the HSUS and other outside interests out of our state business, or are we handing Monsanto Inc a free pass to do as they please.

I do find it strange that The Humane Society of the United States is pour bucket loads of money in to oppose this amendment.

And on the other hand, Monsanto et al has poured in millions to get this kind of legislation passed in other states.

I have very little trust in government no matter who is holding the reigns of power...I've been burned on Constitutional Amendments before.

So, we'll see, definitely going to sleep on it one more night, and discuss it some more in the AM.

---------

Amendment 5 simply strengthen the right to bear arms by making it an inalienable right in the Missouri Constitution, and extends that right to include ammunition. Nothing nefarious as far as I can tell. I'm all for strengthening gun rights.


----------

Amendment 7, I just don't trust them to do what they say they will do. Another situation where I've voted for increased sales taxes and been burn by loopholes and excesses.

----------

Amendment 8, If you want your voluntary tax to go to veterans, more power to ya.

----------

Amendment 9, I think the Supreme Court settled this a few weeks ago, but like Amendment 5, the stronger...the better.

 

[KissMy]

It looks to me like Amendment 1 would benefit huge factory chicken, pig & cattle farms that PETA sues the hell out of most. Many other farm states now have this law. I can see it putting Missouri on a level playing field to attract giant Chinese pig producers like SmithField Foods. It may also keep other big corps like Monsanto here. So I think I'll change my vote to yes to attract jobs.

 

[Missourian]

Polls close in an hour...better hop to it!