In a poll prior to the November 2010 elections 67% of readers approved of the proposition to regulate puppy mills in Missouri (see Majority of Readers Support Proposition B).  In the election the measure passed with 51.6% of the statewide vote.  As you can see from the graphic above it was the St. Louis and Kansas City regions plus two counties in the far southern part of the state that voted yes, enough votes to pass the measure. Here in the City of St. Louis 78.4% of voters approved Proposition B. Six months later things have changed:
Gov. Jay Nixon on Wednesday signed into law his “Missouri solution,” which blends a bill that weakens regulations for dog breeders in Missouri with some language from voter-approved Proposition B aimed at cracking down on puppy mills.
Nixon signed Senate Bill 161, hours after he signed Senate Bill 113. Both measures remove a cap of 50 breeding dogs, but Senate Bill 161 keeps other Proposition B requirements in place regarding cages and vet exams as part of his compromise with farmers and animal welfare groups. (Nixon signs puppy mill compromise)
Many of my friends were angered by Nixon signing these. Â But Friday Gov. Nixon made some of the same friends happy:
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Friday vetoed an employment relations bill passed by the Missouri Senate, saying it would strike down central tenets of the Missouri Human Rights Act.
Nixon struck down Senate Bill 188, which caps punitive and compensatory damages in workplace discrimination cases and requires plaintiffs to prove that discrimination was an employer’s “motivating†factor in a discrimination claim, rather than the current “contributing†factor standard. (Nixon vetoes bill increasing burden of proof in workplace discrimination cases)
The veto took place at the Old Courthouse in St. Louis. This brings us to the poll question for this week, what are your thoughts on the signing of the puppy mill bills but vetoing the other? Did he make the right decisions, in your opinion?
– Steve Patterson
