Urban Review’s Voter Guide
I’ve already voted, via absentee ballot. Why? I’m in Chicago attending a rail transit conference which continues through Wednesday. Below are all the items on the City of St. Louis ballot with the exception of the cigarette tax — that post will follow. Below I’ve indicated how I have voted or in a few cases left it open how I might vote (I started this a few weeks ago).
You may well vote differently than me or the same but for different reasons. All is good as long as you vote!
U.S. Senator
Jim Talent – Rep
Claire McCaskill – Dem
Frank Gilmour – Lib
Lydia Lewis – Prg
I can’t let Jim Talent return to office so while I’d like to cast a vote for the Libertarian or Progressive candidate I must go with Claire McCaskill by default. Not that I like Claire or what the Democrats are doing on the National level (or local for that matter) they are my only alternative to the bible-pushing, constitution trashing right wingers that have overtaken the Republican party.
State Auditor
Sandra Thomas – Rep
Susan Montee – Dem
Charles W. Baum – Lib
Terry Bunker – Prg
I loved to for Montee because a Democrat will do a better job auditing things when a Republican is in the Governor’s Mansion. As a side note, is it true that Blunt lives in Springfield and has an expensive motorcade drive him to Jefferson City while someone relative lives in the Governor’s Mansion?
U.S. Representative District 3
David Bertelsen – Rep
Russ Carnahan – Dem
R. Christophel – Lib
David Sladky – Prg
Everyone says this is a “safe” democratic seat so I’m inclined to vote Libertarian or Progressive on this one.
State Representative District 59
Jeanette Mott Oxford – Dem
Kevin C. Babcock – Lib
JMO has been an outstanding rep. She is both responsive to inquiries I’ve made she also goes a great job sending out email communications to let us know what she is working on and to solicit input. We need more elected officials like JMO.
Collector of Revenue
Gregory F.X. Daly – Dem
Audrey (Hasmine) M. Ruiz-Smith – Grn
Audrey Ruiz-Smith gets the award for the longest name on the ballot. I’ve met her as well as Mr. Daly. She isn’t really campaigning at all and frankly she said flyers were too expensive. Sorry, if you can’t I can’t bring myself to vote for her even out of rebellion to the establishment favorite. I likely will not cast a vote in this race.
License Collector
Pat Herod – Rep
Mike McMillan – Dem
No secret here, I’m voting for Pat Herod. His experience in both the military and in civilian life demonstrates an ability to lead groups. Furthermore, he has pledge to not accept the city vehicle as well as work for charter reform to consolidate the office. And just in case someone forgot or you are just finding this site, I have been a very minor consultant to Pat Herod so my view here is a bit biased.
Recorder of Deeds
Sharon Quigley Carpenter – Dem
Jerry (J’asa) S. McCaleb – Grn
I voted for the Green knowing Carpenter is going to win.
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Mariano V. Favazza – Dem
Sorry Mariano, without a challenger you don’t get my vote. Not that you need it…
Missouri Supreme Court Judges (retain each yes or no?)
William Ray Price
Mary Rhodes Russell
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
Typically we know nothing about Judges up for reappointment to the courts. In this case one name stands out — Limbaugh. This one is cousin to conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. Do I say no to him simply by association to Rush? Probably not. Still, I don’t want to blindly say yes.
Missouri Court of Appeals Judges – Eastern District (retain each yes or no?)
Kenneth M. Romines
Nannette A. Baker
More judges I don’t know.
Circuit Judges – 22nd Judicial Circuit (retain each yes or no?)
Jimmie M. Edwards
Robert H. Dierker, Jr.
Michael P. David (Div. 6)
Margaret M. Neill (Div. 9)
Edward Sweeney Div. 16)
Donald L. McCullin (Div. 20)
Jack Garvey (Div. 30)
Joan L. Moriarty (Div. 31)
Still more?
Associate Circuit Judges – 22nd Judicial Circuit (retain each yes or no?)
Michael F. Stelzer
Paula Perkins Bryant (Div. 24)
Michael K. Mullen (Div. 25)
Elizabeth Hogan (Div. 28)
Barbara T. Peebles (Div. 29)
I ended up voting against all of the judges, most people will vote yes or leave blank.
Constitutional Amendment No. 2 (Initiative Petition)
Stem Cell Research?
Passage of this amendment will royally piss off the religious right so this is a big yes for me! One has to wonder, if the amendment passes, what the backlash will be? Will social conservatives continue to battle this they way have have reproductive rights? Will they turn their attention back to gay right issues?
Constitutional Amendment No. 6 (Legislature)
Veteran’s organization tax exemption?
Sure, they fought for my freedom so I can let them have some tax exemption.
Constitutional Amendment No. 7 (Legislature)
Forfeit state pensions up felony conviction, impeachment?
Oh hell yes!
State Proposition B (Initiative Petition)
Increase minimum wage to $6.50 or to federal (higher), and adjust to CPI?
Some say increasing the minimum wage will actually hurt workers as some jobs may get scaled back. I’m not convinced of this argument. I voted for this measure and would gladly support a “living wage” measure which would work to lift those working about a poverty level.
City Proposition P
1/8% sales tax for recreation centers?
I voted against this measure. I don’t think we need fancy rec centers, especially not two taking away park space. What our youth need is a reason to be optimistic about the future and an indoor water slide just doesn’t cut it.
City Preferential Proposition R
Police Residency – non binding
Yes, but will they listen?
City Charter Amendment – Proposition I
Increase maximum fine to $1,000
Fines are not always a deterrent to crime but it may well increase revenues.
City Charter Amendment – Proposition II
Remove mayor’s office staff from civil service.
Yeah, why not?
City Charter Amendment – Proposition III
Consider 6 top candidates for jobs, not just 3.
I voted for it.
City Charter Amendment – Proposition IV
Preference to existing city employees
A hiring within policy can boost moral, an incentive to work hard and move up the ladder.
Additional Resources:
Well, lead members of the Board of Aldermen said they’d bring us charter reform.
Now we see what we get…
A previous failed effort to make it more difficult to recall aldermen…
And now a few charter amendments dealing with city employees…
Great for aldermen and city workers!
Crumbs for the rest of us.
I agree with you on most, but disagree with you on two . . . Amendment 6 and Proposition 4. First the easy one – giving a preference to existing employees is not an incentive to work harder, it’s an incentive to know what to kiss and when, since the universe of potential employees is much smaller when insiders get a preference (plus it’s harder for an outsider to get hired in the first place since they don’t know the system or players as well as an insider) – bottom line, it’s just another way to preserve and enhance the lifetime employment structure for current employees and their relatives and friends, with no guarantees for better performance in their jobs or the delivery of services!
Amendment 6 is trickier. I have no quarrel with veterans or their organizations. I do have a problem with expanding tax exemptions, since it takes money to run any government. The more entities receiving a free ride, the more the rest of us (who aren’t exempt) pay individually to make up for the shortfall in revenue. I have the same problem with TIF’s – nothing in life is “free” – it needs to be paid for with money from somewhere, and I’d prefer that it wasn’t coming out of MY pocket . . .
Does anyone remember which aldermen were saying they’d be bringing forth charter amendments?
J-Flo presented the idea to limit recalls.
Who else made public statements saying they’d present important charter reforms?
here is link i reference for finding out more information on judges which allows me to determine if they should be retained.
http://www.mobar.org/data/judges06/index.htm
I will vote FOR ammendment #2. Then I will leave.
Talent is an idiot, McCaskill is a phony, so neither gets my vote. I know nothing about the third party candidates, other than Libertarians always run metally ill nuts (at least at the National Level – see Michael Badnarik), and the Greens run retards (See Cobb(?) in the last election), so none of those candidates get my vote.
As far as ammendment #3 goes, I’m torn – I hate cigarette smoke, and I hate stupid hoosiers, and a lot of stupid hoosiers smoke, so I want to hit them where it hurts. However, I don’t want to give lying, piece of crap politicians more money to waste. If I vote for or against this one, it will be a last minute decision. Right now I’m leaning toward abstaining.
No on Prop P, eh? While I’m not 100% sold on the idea of using parks for the north/southside rec centers, funds from this proposition will also go towards renovating existing rec centers, which I think we can all agree are in very bad shape – that’s why I’m voting yes.
The Progressive Party needs to get 2% of the vote statewide to attain provisional ballot status. Their candidates are only on the ballot due to an arduous petition drive started last year. If they don’t get 2% this year, the party will have to mount another petition drive. If the do get 2%, they will be able to automatically field candidates in the next election in each voting precinct of the state.
So, if you can’t vote for Lydia Lewis for Senator, consider voting for Terry Bunker for State Auditor.
I am appalled that we have such strict ballot access requirements in Missouri, especially with the loony candidates that the two major parties often field.
I believe “DeBaliviere” is incorrect on Prop P.
Existing Rec centers and their condition is exactly why we need to VOTE NO on Prop P.
The question on funding existing rec centers was specifically asked at the holly hills neighborhood association meeting in October to ALderman Fred Wessels and Matt Villa with the answer being a resounding NO, all funds will go towards the new rec centers only.
I don’t see an 1/8th of a cent sales tax increase for this specific purpose in two specific areas. If we are going to increase a sales tax, it should be for the general public such as increased the number of police.
In addition if we are going to biuld a Rec center can’t we find a better location than valuable non replaceable parkland?
^
You’re right – I was incorrect. My apologies!
You are very right to question voting to retain Judge Limbaugh. I’ve met the guy before and he is very nice–often making jokes at his cousin’s expense. However, he was the only Justice to dissent in the opinion that held the GOP’s Voter ID act unconstitutional. Sad to say, but in the end, he proved himself to be nothing by a Republican hack.
I’ll let someone more knowledgeable about it than me explain the details, but Amendment 7 is basically a red herring – the no pension for felons thing is already state law. What the amendment actually changes, as I understand it, is buried in the full text, and makes it easier for state legislators to increase their salaries.
I sat on a jury recently for a case presided over by Judge Michael P. David (Div. 6). He was a really good judge. Really attentive, fair, and extremely courteous. When giving the jury advice he made sure that everything he said and did was impartial. Being the only judge I know, he gets a yes from me.
Jimmie Edwards was a good judge when I was on jury duty in his court.
Claire McCaskill IS a phony. Talent- WTF?
Aren’t people already doing Adult Stem Cell research that is finding cures? Are the embryonic stem cells tastier? Who makes the money when this passes? Is it these people?
http://www.stowers-institute.org
They, after all, are funding 98% of the $40 Million advertising campaign to pass this amendment.
Do the opponents of this amendment really want to stand in the way of progress? Do they want Michael J. Fox to continue suffering from Parkinson’s Disease? (those assholes) Do THEY have something to gain from it?
Won’t this amendment require state funding that could be better used?
I think we need another few years for this one…
By the way- Bill Clinton just called me and reminded me to vote for Claire….He, however, talked AT me and not really TO me.
I’m with the no side on City Charter Amendment 4. A bigger incentive for people to work harder is knowing that someone from the outside might get their job.
Prop P is too little money put up by too many “small thinkers.” How about a plan and then a tax rather than a tax and then a plan?
It would be nice if the Board of Aldermen had to get 22,000 signatures before putting this kind of half-baked nonsense on the ballot (that’s a reference to the number of signatures a citizen’s group has to get to put a proposition on the ballot to stop the city from giving away park land).
I am gearing up for St. Louis to become litigation central in the days following this election.
IÂ’ve been reading your blog off and on for a few months and find it sometimes interesting, occasionally too detailed and at times trivial but always worth checking out.
Having said that, IÂ’m so disappointed after reading your comments about the voting issues that IÂ’m probably a former reader now. What were you thinking? Reading “this amendment will royally piss off the religious right” and “my only alternative to the bible-pushing, constitution trashing right wingers” was a real eye opener.
IÂ’m not a Republican nor am I religious yet I was offended by your lack of good judgement. Name-calling is childish and basing your votes on emotion is immature.
I wrongly thought you were about the issues and now I see your just another version of the political process – without independence of thought and driven by emotion.
I guess the most astounding part of this whole thing is that you even commented. Again I ask, what were you thinking?
Steve, I somewhat agree with “Some Guy”.
I was surprised when I read the stuff about pissing off the religious right. I too thought you were above that. I have known your take on a lot of issues, and we agree on most things, but “pissing off the religious right” does not seem like a very good reason to vote for this amendment.
I may be speaking out of turn on this. I know that you have the same views as a lot of people that think the “religious right” has stood in the way of a lot of freedoms that people want. In some cases this faction, through the lack of an educated flock, has even breeded hate.
I do not think that this issue is the same as say “gay marriage” where “pissing off the religious right” may be the only incentive one needs for voting in favor of it.
The “Religious right” that I know are usually the nicest, most caring, and most giving people I have ever met. Maybe we go to different churches. Maybe I don’t go to church at all.
City Prop 4 reads “for the purpose of LIMITING the advantage given to current permanent city employees on competitive examinations.” Thus, it begs the question, how many points out of 100 does one get now for being an existing City employee? If it’s more than five points currently as proposed in Prop 4, then a “Yes” vote would actually reduce the advanatage currently given. Does anyone know?
Like Some Guy and Johnpaul I was surprised at this posting. Your comments were flippant. I was especially surprised with your comments about judge retention. While you continue to claim that the city’s future lies with putting a priority on bike racks and sidewalks, you shrug off a vote on judge retention as if it is meaningless. I am not sure if this is arrogance or ignorance on your part.
I agree with the earlier posts regarding your comments in the “voter guide”, they seemed very arrogant. I will comment on one not mentioned yet which is Proposition P. First have you seen the designs for the rec centers, fancy they are not. Very appropriate in both design and amenities. Second, the one thing this city has enough of is park space. It was designed to have enough park space to support 800,000 people, we now have less than half of that. Remember, providing park space for two rec centers is one thing. Providing park space for a new hospital wing is another. Additionally, the tax goes towards maintenance of existing park facilities which are in dire need. Finally your comment “What our youth need is a reason to be optimistic about the future and an indoor water slide just doesn’t cut it.” is absolutely ridiculous on so many levels.
Regarding your comments about the fundy christian retards: Right on!
And really, the anti-stem cell groups have been lying. They claim that the “ban human cloning” is a “farce” because it is the researchers who define cloning! And the process they use is also the process used to create Dolly! QED.
Of course, a person who actually KNOWS that somatic cell transfer is a process to create BOTH stem cells and clones, but ONLY IF you do the transfer to clone! Bascially, after the transfer, you can do two fundamentally different processes: stem cell creation or cloning. The former is Ok, according to the amendment and the latter is not. It is not as if researchers can just say: “Hey, let’s change the term “stem cell creation” and rename the cloning process and call it “stem cell creation”. Oh dang, we have a baby clone now. Shoot. How did that happen?”
Ridiculousness.
Comments for “H2O” – your arguments for Prop P are ridiculous. This is a pork bill that we need to vote NO.
“First have you seen the designs for the rec centers, fancy they are not.” Neither are existing rec centers which are in complete disrepair and boarded up. This should be your first clue. Use the money to fix those up but this bill does not provide for that.
“Second, the one thing this city has enough of is park space. It was designed to have enough park space to support 800,000 people, we now have less than half of that.” So you are saying we should biuld on green space. Please.. we are grown men here. You must be a developer.
“the tax goes towards maintenance of existing park facilities which are in dire need.” We already have a 1% tax for that and parks have improved and are continuing to improve.
This is a pork proposition, politicians see some free money (thank Gephardt and Danforth)and have an urgency to spend it. This has been in the works for several years and will be ramrodded down our throat at our expense. VOTE NO.
Steve, I don’t think you read the proposed Amendment 7. It is much more than denying state pensions to felons.
Comments for Devore:
I think your information is wrong. From the text of the proposition, “for the purpose of providing funding for local parks, and specifically, funding for the construction and maintenance of new and existing recreation centers and recreation programs in parks, including but not limited to programs for children and seniors, in addition to any and all other sales taxes allowed”
So let me try to make sense of your logic here, after all we’re grown men (not sure if that is a chauvinistic remark or if you were trying to say that we are all civilized adults and can carry on a conversation without sniping). Anyway, you say the rec centers are in disrepair and we should fix those first so that is why we should not support an additional tax to provide “funding for the construction and maintenance of new and existing recreation centers”. Even as I say it out loud it still doesn’t make sense, maybe if I sleep on it.
I believe that the City has too much park space, because it isn’t being maintained properly because it isn’t supported by a population of 800,000 people as it was designed for. I am NOT saying we need to sell off any park space, we need to do a better job of funding. Also the fact is that the City has been set in its boundaries for 150 years, we are not getting any bigger. I don’t think we should build a rec center in an industrial park, I don’t think it belongs downtown, I don’t think we should take out a neighborhood for it, so I guess maybe we should build the park facility in a park. Now as I say that aloud it does make sense. (Also, look at where they plan to build it in Carondelet and tell me that it is not a better use of the land)
I’m confused when you say park facilities are in disrepair and are boarded up and then say that parks are improved and continue to improve. I also don’t know how this is getting ramrodded down our throat when we are voting on the issue. I’m one to call a dog a dog and this may well be pork, it all depends on your perspective, but I live in South City and my kids, family and community would love to have a place like this to go to.
One more for Prop P from the Post Dispatch website:
“The city would spend $10 million for improvements to existing recreation centers.It would use $700,000 for recreation and social developmentprograms in under-served neighborhoods. The money would go for after-school and non-school hour programs for youth, the mayorÂ’s office statement says.The cityÂ’s total tax rate is 7.616 cents. A city resident purchasing a vehicle worth $20,000 would pay an additional $25 in sales tax if the proposal passes.
Money from the tax would go for park and recreation programs and facilities upkeep after the city retires the recreation center bonds, Bryson says. ”
VOTE YES
Don’t forget though that judges are appointed to their seat by the governor (in St Louis City & County and for state supreme and appellate courts). A “nonpartisan” panel provides the nominations, but the final call is made by the governor’s mansion.
So be careful who you vote out with no basis beyond “to keep them on their toes,” because Matt Blunt gets to pick the replacement.
comments for H20. I apologize for any misunderstanding, “civilized adults” was the context. We just view the value of parks differently.
Why not in an industrial park?
Why not in a neighborhood? The city owns many abandoned homes in south city.
And didn’t we just took over a neighborhood to biuld a Lowe’s?
The measure PROP P has passed. It will be interesting to see if they actually do spend money and maintain the existing rec centers. I will be excited to see the new rec centers and I will use them (I live in south city too). I am hopeful but remain skeptical about the effectiveness of this program and the long term funding to maintain it.
Judges I voted for and why:
Jack Garvey – former St. Louis alderman, SLU alum and general good guy. I hear he was a great guy at Clemens…or so my hubby tells me.
One damn good family court guy according to the lawyers, even if that wasn’t really his thing. He recently presided over the case where the lady was killed by 3 teens (minors) near Marquette park.
Sweeney – also good.
David – seen him in court (probate maybe). Kind of strange but had a decent rep amongst the lawyerly folk I know.
As long as they don’t have any felonies or weird habits (that may lead to felonies), give ’em a chance.
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.