Poll: Gov. Nixon signed ‘compromise’ bills on puppy mills & vetoed workplace discrimination bill, thoughts?
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
The one doesn’t make up for the other. Great that he vetoed the discrimination bill, but I still won’t vote for him because of SB 161.
If our Democratic leaders seem somewhat right of center, it’s because we’re given examples such as this: yeah, they did bad on this and this and this, but look at what they did on that!
Or our leaders cater to the right, or in this case, agribusiness, but we’re told not to get angry because, “if we don’t continue to support the Democrat, we’ll get this other person, instead!” This other person presumably being Kinder in this case.
No, a good act does not make up for a bad one. And the old “but the only other option is so bad”, just doesn’t hack it for me, anymore.
The one doesn’t make up for the other. Great that he vetoed the discrimination bill, but I still won’t vote for him because of SB 161.
If our Democratic leaders seem somewhat right of center, it’s because we’re given examples such as this: yeah, they did bad on this and this and this, but look at what they did on that!
Or our leaders cater to the right, or in this case, agribusiness, but we’re told not to get angry because, “if we don’t continue to support the Democrat, we’ll get this other person, instead!” This other person presumably being Kinder in this case.
No, a good act does not make up for a bad one. And the old “but the only other option is so bad”, just doesn’t hack it for me, anymore.
Just because something is passed by the voters doesn’t make it good law, just like having something passed in the legislature doesn’t always make for a good law, either. In many cases, the devil is in the details, and people (voters or legislators) are voting for what they THINK is in a proposed law, and not from actually reading and understanding every nuance and intended and unintended consequence. If the new law is slightly weaker but more enforceable in the real world, I’d consider it a win. Whether a breeder has 40 or 60 dogs isn’t the real issue, the real issue is the quality of care EACH animal receives!
Just because something is passed by the voters doesn’t make it good law, just like having something passed in the legislature doesn’t always make for a good law, either. In many cases, the devil is in the details, and people (voters or legislators) are voting for what they THINK is in a proposed law, and not from actually reading and understanding every nuance and intended and unintended consequence. If the new law is slightly weaker but more enforceable in the real world, I’d consider it a win. Whether a breeder has 40 or 60 dogs isn’t the real issue, the real issue is the quality of care EACH animal receives!
How about the abortion mills? Humans are more important than dogs, right?
How about the abortion mills? Humans are more important than dogs, right?
i voted for Prop B, but i’m not sure that it would have passed the first Judicial Challenge, so I’m glad that the compromise was passed (which required SB 161), so there will still be a law on the books giving breeding dogs a better quality of life than what they previously had. personally, i would like to see Dog Breeding completely banned, at least until the number of abandoned strays is reduced greatly, but unless there is a full on ban, it isn’t constitutional to limit the amount of business a person can conduct (aka number of dogs they can have).
i voted for Prop B, but i’m not sure that it would have passed the first Judicial Challenge, so I’m glad that the compromise was passed (which required SB 161), so there will still be a law on the books giving breeding dogs a better quality of life than what they previously had. personally, i would like to see Dog Breeding completely banned, at least until the number of abandoned strays is reduced greatly, but unless there is a full on ban, it isn’t constitutional to limit the amount of business a person can conduct (aka number of dogs they can have).
He should have vetoed both, still the comparison is not quite identical in that the citizens passed the puppy mill bill but not the discrimination bill. I thought at the time the puppy mill bill should have been written differently and voted against it because of that reason. Still the arrogance of the legislature to over rule citizens indicates just how far the influence of the American people has fallen. I agree that it is agribusiness calling the shots, (and this includes another bill allowing huge confinement hog operations to set up shop and contaminate the air and land of the surrounding community without recourse).
It is hard to take the political system seriously, they keep talking about being “adults” but it only a code word for doing what they want to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
I am not familiar with the process that produced the puppy mill bill, but it does point to the need for proper consideration of all aspects of a bill to make it stronger.
The rural voters, as the results indicate, look at such things differently. I have lived in rural communities and am sure those voters are not interested in supporting puppy mills that abuse animals. On the other hand the limit of 50 dogs for instance, is an arbitrary number and does not take into account well run operations that can in fact handle that many animals in a healthy manner.
Then there are breeders that push the limits, unfortunately there is a need for laws to regulate them. It is greed gone wild that seems to characterize so much of American society.
The care of chickens, hogs and cattle are just as important, if not more so, since they affect the health of humans as well as the animals, that is what really scares me.
He should have vetoed both, still the comparison is not quite identical in that the citizens passed the puppy mill bill but not the discrimination bill. I thought at the time the puppy mill bill should have been written differently and voted against it because of that reason. Still the arrogance of the legislature to over rule citizens indicates just how far the influence of the American people has fallen. I agree that it is agribusiness calling the shots, (and this includes another bill allowing huge confinement hog operations to set up shop and contaminate the air and land of the surrounding community without recourse).
It is hard to take the political system seriously, they keep talking about being “adults” but it only a code word for doing what they want to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
I am not familiar with the process that produced the puppy mill bill, but it does point to the need for proper consideration of all aspects of a bill to make it stronger.
The rural voters, as the results indicate, look at such things differently. I have lived in rural communities and am sure those voters are not interested in supporting puppy mills that abuse animals. On the other hand the limit of 50 dogs for instance, is an arbitrary number and does not take into account well run operations that can in fact handle that many animals in a healthy manner.
Then there are breeders that push the limits, unfortunately there is a need for laws to regulate them. It is greed gone wild that seems to characterize so much of American society.
The care of chickens, hogs and cattle are just as important, if not more so, since they affect the health of humans as well as the animals, that is what really scares me.
In 1992, 54% of the voters in Colorado approved Amendment 2 to the state constitution. It stated: “Neither the State of Colorado through its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim they need minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of discrimination.”
Amendment 2 would have repealed anti-discrimination ordinances in several Colorado cities, including Denver, Boulder and Aspen, and prohibited the passage of any such ordinances in the future. Amendment 2 supported state-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and protected such discrimination from redress at local, county or state wide levels. Fortunately, the law was never enforced, first by injunction in local courts, then supported by rulings by the state supreme court and the the US Supreme Court. (If Amendment 2 had been upheld, it would have marked the first time a state constitutional amendment would have revoked the previously-granted civil rights of a group of citizens.)
The same logic seems to be being applied in Missouri, by its supporters, to Proposition B. The majority passed it, so it has to be both good and right. Something similar is happening in Arizona, where SB 1070 was recently passed, its “papers please” law, that requires anyone to present proper documentation that they are in the country legally. And for the older folks among us, how many remember the implementation of the FNMSL, the 55 mph maximum speed limit, that President Carter pushed as a way to save fuel. All of these are laws passed with good intentions but many uninteded consequences. Should they have been / be allowed to remain unchanged and unchallenged? Or, should majority rule be the be all and end all?!
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/93-27.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/
In 1992, 54% of the voters in Colorado approved Amendment 2 to the state constitution. It stated: “Neither the State of Colorado through its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim they need minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of discrimination.”
Amendment 2 would have repealed anti-discrimination ordinances in several Colorado cities, including Denver, Boulder and Aspen, and prohibited the passage of any such ordinances in the future. Amendment 2 supported state-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and protected such discrimination from redress at local, county or state wide levels. Fortunately, the law was never enforced, first by injunction in local courts, then supported by rulings by the state supreme court and the the US Supreme Court. (If Amendment 2 had been upheld, it would have marked the first time a state constitutional amendment would have revoked the previously-granted civil rights of a group of citizens.)
The same logic seems to be being applied in Missouri, by its supporters, to Proposition B. The majority passed it, so it has to be both good and right. Something similar is happening in Arizona, where SB 1070 was recently passed, its “papers please” law, that requires anyone to present proper documentation that they are in the country legally. And for the older folks among us, how many remember the implementation of the FNMSL, the 55 mph maximum speed limit, that President Carter pushed as a way to save fuel. All of these are laws passed with good intentions but many uninteded consequences. Should they have been / be allowed to remain unchanged and unchallenged? Or, should majority rule be the be all and end all?!
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/93-27.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/
As an attorney, I think the employment discrimination bill was unnecessary and unethical. I think Governor Nixon made the right decision in vetoing it. I don’t think I know enough about the puppy mill law to have an informed opinion.
As an attorney, I think the employment discrimination bill was unnecessary and unethical. I think Governor Nixon made the right decision in vetoing it. I don’t think I know enough about the puppy mill law to have an informed opinion.
It’s important to remember we live in a democratic republic, not a strict democracy…Ours is a system of checks and balances on any nexus of power be it the courts, the legislature, the governor or the majority electorate…
In this case of the puppy mills, clearly the will of the people is still being accomplished even if the exact verbage of the bill voted on isn’t the law of the state…
It’s important to remember we live in a democratic republic, not a strict democracy…Ours is a system of checks and balances on any nexus of power be it the courts, the legislature, the governor or the majority electorate…
In this case of the puppy mills, clearly the will of the people is still being accomplished even if the exact verbage of the bill voted on isn’t the law of the state…
As is almost always the case, the desire of the ten urban counties to “save” the uneducated heathens of the rest of the state from themselves is stinky with conceit. Breeders are bad because they put a price on an animal, yet shelters are good because they give dogs away, for free. Let’s get rhetorical for a second: which kid will take better care of his car, the one who had to earn it with part-time jobs and mowing yards or the one who gets one for free and knows that if he wrecks it another one is coming right behind it? The sin is that shelters have devalued dogs and cats to the point they have made them disposable. Most everybody has stepped foot into an animal shelter and felt sorry for these fellas, but almost nobody has ever gone out to the country and seen a professional dog breeder at work. You’ll see how an animal should be treated and how much they are valued. These ten counties so regularly vote with half the facts and with half their brains, if y’all were a laxative, you’d be investigated by the FDA because no product could perform that consistently.
As is almost always the case, the desire of the ten urban counties to “save” the uneducated heathens of the rest of the state from themselves is stinky with conceit. Breeders are bad because they put a price on an animal, yet shelters are good because they give dogs away, for free. Let’s get rhetorical for a second: which kid will take better care of his car, the one who had to earn it with part-time jobs and mowing yards or the one who gets one for free and knows that if he wrecks it another one is coming right behind it? The sin is that shelters have devalued dogs and cats to the point they have made them disposable. Most everybody has stepped foot into an animal shelter and felt sorry for these fellas, but almost nobody has ever gone out to the country and seen a professional dog breeder at work. You’ll see how an animal should be treated and how much they are valued. These ten counties so regularly vote with half the facts and with half their brains, if y’all were a laxative, you’d be investigated by the FDA because no product could perform that consistently.
You could also state that the rest of the counties also vote with half the facts and with half their brains. Can’t speak to well on what is a better bill, what originally passed by the voters or the revised bill passed by state reps and signed by Gov Nixon. However, growing up in a small rural farm town myself and making my career and livehood in big cities can at least attest to the fact that their is a lot of uninformed voters across in both places.
And yes, I have not seen a professional dog breeder at work. But don’t get people to believe that they are all raising their animals at a higher standard then an animal shelter. Some are and some are not. On both ends its about money, the dog breeder and animal shelters are trying to minimize costs. The first in order to maximize profit for their livelyhoods and the second to help as many animals as possible even thought it might be to their deteriment.
You are correct in that Missouri’s cities don’t hold a monopoly on half-brained folks. And there are no blanket truths: there are puppy mills as much as there are legit breeders, and there are dogs who cost their owners nothing that find loving homes for life (I rescued my dog from the street ten years ago). It’s just a frustrating tendency for the cities to be morally obligated to legislate the behaviour of all the other folks in this state in whose shoes they will never walk. Whereas the rest of the state tends to just wanna be left alone.
Oh please, rural voters and politicians are CONSTANTLY meddling in the affairs of the urban centers–the state control of St. Louis’s police being one easy example. I’m sick of rural voters (a minority of the population) claiming they’re the only “real” Missouians, and making sport out of criticizing us “decadent city slickers.”
Missouri does not attract jobs with the reputation for being the puppy mill capital of the United States. I DO care what East Coasters think, as they decide where that new factory or new skyscraper will go.
Cities not rural areas are where East or West Coasters look to put their new factories and skyscrapers. They don’t come into rural Missouri because our infrastructures are not equipped, not because of the fear of “puppy mills”. If your city is rejected for improvement then look at your violence and crime rates, growth potential, poverty levels, entertainment opportunities, etc. To the “Easterners”, the entire Mid-West consists of uneducated hicks that aren’t capable of making our own decisions. Well, I am educated enough to know that Wayne Percelle and the HSUS have an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting dogs in Missouri. Even the Federal Gov. is getting involved in his act.
>>Whereas the rest of the state tends to just wanna be left alone.<<
Except when they get to vote on "city issues", like whether KC and St. Louis should retain their respective earnings taxes. Then they wanna get their snoots right in the business of city dwellers, "in whose shoes they will never walk".
I get tired of rural legislators perpetually demonizing our state's two major cities. It drives them crazy to hear about the volume of state revenue generated by Sodom and Gomorrah, since that doesn't fit with their view of our cities as desperate sinkholes of welfare-cheating, crackhead Democrats. Spend some time in Jefferson City and observe. It is positively shocking. They are allergic to facts and hostile to the will of Missouri voters, when it doesn't suit their special interests.
As far as being "left alone" goes, believe me, I know many a St. Louis dweller who would LOVE for our whole Metro area to somehow be adopted by the state of Illinois. Everyone would win. Outstate legislators would be out of our bidness, our revenue would go to Springfield, IL. and rural legislators could rest easier when the Rapture hits.
Kind of looks (based on that map) that Missouri’s far-southeastern region might be a future ally for St. Louis and Kansas City (and yes, I know, one vote on a puppy mill bill does not make a perfect indicator). But hey, any more “outstate” partnerships we can make to strengthen the “urban” influence in Missouri’s legislature can only help going forward. I, for one, would welcome another burgeoning city to grow the state’s southern U.S. city draw.
You could also state that the rest of the counties also vote with half the facts and with half their brains. Can’t speak to well on what is a better bill, what originally passed by the voters or the revised bill passed by state reps and signed by Gov Nixon. However, growing up in a small rural farm town myself and making my career and livehood in big cities can at least attest to the fact that their is a lot of uninformed voters across in both places.
And yes, I have not seen a professional dog breeder at work. But don’t get people to believe that they are all raising their animals at a higher standard then an animal shelter. Some are and some are not. On both ends its about money, the dog breeder and animal shelters are trying to minimize costs. The first in order to maximize profit for their livelyhoods and the second to help as many animals as possible even thought it might be to their deteriment.
You are correct in that Missouri’s cities don’t hold a monopoly on half-brained folks. And there are no blanket truths: there are puppy mills as much as there are legit breeders, and there are dogs who cost their owners nothing that find loving homes for life (I rescued my dog from the street ten years ago). It’s just a frustrating tendency for the cities to be morally obligated to legislate the behaviour of all the other folks in this state in whose shoes they will never walk. Whereas the rest of the state tends to just wanna be left alone.
Oh please, rural voters and politicians are CONSTANTLY meddling in the affairs of the urban centers–the state control of St. Louis’s police being one easy example. I’m sick of rural voters (a minority of the population) claiming they’re the only “real” Missouians, and making sport out of criticizing us “decadent city slickers.”
Missouri does not attract jobs with the reputation for being the puppy mill capital of the United States. I DO care what East Coasters think, as they decide where that new factory or new skyscraper will go.
>>Whereas the rest of the state tends to just wanna be left alone.<<
Except when they get to vote on "city issues", like whether KC and St. Louis should retain their respective earnings taxes. Then they wanna get their snoots right in the business of city dwellers, "in whose shoes they will never walk".
I get tired of rural legislators perpetually demonizing our state's two major cities. It drives them crazy to hear about the volume of state revenue generated by Sodom and Gomorrah, since that doesn't fit with their view of our cities as desperate sinkholes of welfare-cheating, crackhead Democrats. Spend some time in Jefferson City and observe. It is positively shocking. They are allergic to facts and hostile to the will of Missouri voters, when it doesn't suit their special interests.
As far as being "left alone" goes, believe me, I know many a St. Louis dweller who would LOVE for our whole Metro area to somehow be adopted by the state of Illinois. Everyone would win. Outstate legislators would be out of our bidness, our revenue would go to Springfield, IL. and rural legislators could rest easier when the Rapture hits.
Cities not rural areas are where East or West Coasters look to put their new factories and skyscrapers. They don’t come into rural Missouri because our infrastructures are not equipped, not because of the fear of “puppy mills”. If your city is rejected for improvement then look at your violence and crime rates, growth potential, poverty levels, entertainment opportunities, etc. To the “Easterners”, the entire Mid-West consists of uneducated hicks that aren’t capable of making our own decisions. Well, I am educated enough to know that Wayne Percelle and the HSUS have an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting dogs in Missouri. Even the Federal Gov. is getting involved in his act.
Kind of looks (based on that map) that Missouri’s far-southeastern region might be a future ally for St. Louis and Kansas City (and yes, I know, one vote on a puppy mill bill does not make a perfect indicator). But hey, any more “outstate” partnerships we can make to strengthen the “urban” influence in Missouri’s legislature can only help going forward. I, for one, would welcome another burgeoning city to grow the state’s southern U.S. city draw.