Know Your Ballot: Judges

My post last week on the November general election ballot was on Propositions & Amendments. Today I’m looking at a part of the ballot people usually skip or just blindly say yes — judges up for retention. I’m no familiar with courts in other states, but it seems Missouri’s courts are different — in a good way:

Fed up with corrupt judicial elections, the people of Missouri adopted The Missouri Plan in 1940 and, two years later, reaffirmed their support in a statewide vote, rejecting the legislature’s attempt to repeal it.

The Missouri Plan is the foundation for merit-based judicial selection in America. Also known as the Non-Partisan Court Plan, it is Missouri’s constitutional system for selecting our appellate judges and trial judges in St. Louis, Kansas City, Clay County, Platte County, and most recently Greene County (Springfield). It is available to any county whose citizens wish to adopt it.

It works like this:  citizens and lawyers, working as a team, serve on nominating commissions to select the best three candidates to fill an open judgeship. The governor then appoints one of those candidates to the position. Then, at the general election following their first 12 months on the bench and at the end of each term, each judge must stand before the voters in a retention election.

The process is both transparent to the public and accountable to the people.

The Missouri Plan has produced a steady stream of competent judges in Missouri for more than 75 years.

The plan continues to be right for the for the people of Missouri because it attracts high-quality judges in the least political way and ultimately gives the people the final say.
(YourMissouriJudges.org)

The reviews for all the judges up for renewal were published on September 29th, all were determined to substantially meet overall judicial performance standards. That said, we can review the evaluation results for each, as well as copies of opinions they’ve written.

The following questions are used in the evolution of each, with responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree:

• The judge treated the parties equally.
• The judge carefully considered arguments from both sides before ruling.
• The judge conducted the proceeding in a neutral manner.
• The judge maintained a professional demeanor in the courtroom.
• The judge was prepared for court.
• The judge’s ruling cited the applicable substantive law.
• Considering the amount of case law required to make the decision, the judge was prompt in rendering a decision.
• The judge gave reasons for a ruling when needed.
• The judge listened carefully during the court proceeding.
• The judge started courtroom proceedings on time.
• The judge allowed the appropriate amount of time for each case.
• The judge used courtroom time efficiently.
• The judge made sure all parties (attorneys and their clients) understood the court proceedings.
• The judge adhered to appropriate rules of procedure.
• The judge applied rules of evidence relevant to the case.
• The judge assisted parties in narrowing key issues in dispute.
• The judge’s decision followed logically from the evidence presented.
• The judge issued an order that was clearly written.
• The judge addressed individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public, witnesses) respectifully in the courtroom.

The following are judges on city ballots, though the last three will be on ballots in other Missouri counties as well.

Associate Circuit Judges (3)

CALEA STOVALL-REID

Judge Stovall-Reid was appointed associate circuit judge in 2003. She earned her J.D. from Washington University School of Law.

Prior to becoming an associate circuit judge, Judge Stovall-Reid was corporate counsel to the St. Louis Housing Authority (1997-’03). During her law career she has worked as a litigation associate for the law firm of Peoples and Hale (1995-’97) and served as an assistant circuit attorney (1993-’95) and an assistant public defender (1991-’93.) Judge Stovall-Reid has also served as a volunteer judge for truancy court for the St. Louis City Public Schools and teaches part-time at St. Louis Community College.

NICOLE COLBERT-BOTCHWAY

Judge Colbert-Botchway was appointed associate circuit judge July 2, 2015. She earned her B.A. and J.D. from St. Louis University and her MBA from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Judge Colbert-Botchway served as an administrative hearing commissioner for the State of Missouri when appointed to the associate circuit bench. After working in private practice and serving as an assistant circuit attorney for the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney’s Office, Judge Colbert-Botchway served as an assistant attorney general and unit leader for the State of Missouri for more than 10 years.

THOMAS C. CLARK, III

Judge Clark was appointed associate circuit judge Jan. 17, 2006, and retained in 2008 and 2012. He earned his B.A. from the University of Kansas and his M.A. and J.D. from Saint Louis University.

Judge Clark previously worked as an assistant circuit attorney in St. Louis from 1998 -2006.

Circuit Judges (10)

ROBIN RANSOM VANNOY

Judge Vannoy was appointed circuit judge Sept. 11, 2008, and retained in 2010. She earned her B.A. in political science and sociology from Douglas College-Rutgers University and her J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law.

Judge Vannoy began her career as an assistant public defender for St. Louis County Circuit Court (1992-’95) and then as an assistant prosecuting attorney (1995-’96). She joined the legal department of the St. Louis County Family Court-Juvenile Division in 1996 and remained until December 2002, when she was appointed as a Family Court Commissioner for the 22nd Judicial Circuit in St. Louis City.

THOMAS J. FRAWLEY

Judge Frawley was appointed circuit judge in September 1991 and retained in 1992, 1998, 2004 and 2010. Judge Frawley earned his B.A. from Hamilton College and his J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law.
Judge Frawley previously worked in private law practice (1972 -’91.)

DAVID C. MASON

Judge Mason was appointed circuit judge in August 1991 and was retained in 1992, 1998, 2004 and 2010. He earned his B.S. from Austin Peay State University and his J.D. from Washington University.

Prior to his appointment, Judge Mason served as an assistant attorney general, general counsel to the Missouri Department of Corrections and was in private practice. Judge Mason has been a teacher of Trial Advocacy for The National Institute For Trial Advocacy, The Yeshiva University Benjamin Cardozo School of Law and several bar associations. He also has served as an adjunct professor of law at the Washington University School of Law since 1989.

MICHAEL K. MULLEN

Judge Mullen was appointed circuit judge in 2008 and retained in 2010. He received his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Judge Mullen clerked for Judge James A. Pudlowski at the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District (1989 – ’90) before joining the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office (1990 -’95). He worked for the Charles M. Shaw Law Firm (1995 -’96), was a partner in the firm of Mullen & Fernandez (1996 – 2000) and was a solo practitioner (2000 – ’01) before joining the bench as an associate circuit judge in 2001.

CHRISTOPHER E. MCGRAUGH

Judge McGraugh was appointed associate circuit judge Nov. 8, 2012, and appointed circuit judge April 15, 2015. He received his B.A. and J.D. from Saint Louis University.

Judge McGraugh previously worked as an assistant public defender in the St. Louis County Trial Division of the Missouri Public Defender’s office from 1987 to 1990. He was promoted to lead trial counsel for the Capital Litigation Division for the Eastern District of Missouri for the Missouri Public System from 1990 to 1992. From 1992 until his appointment, he was a principal in the law firm of Leritz, Plunkert & Bruning P.C., engaged in civil, criminal and appellate practice.

DENNIS M. SCHAUMANN

Judge Schaumann was appointed circuit judge Oct. 16, 1997, and retained in 1998, 2004 and 2010. He earned a B.A. from Missouri State University and a J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law.

Judge Schaumann was a legal officer for the Circuit Court Juvenile Division (1973 -’75) and worked in private practice with the firm of Kuelker, Gates & Schaumann (1975 -’94.) He was appointed municipal judge for the City of St. Louis (1981 -’94) and served as the municipal court’s presiding judge. He was appointed associate circuit court judge in 1994.

PHILIP D. HEAGNEY

Judge Heagney was appointed circuit judge Feb. 28, 1996, and retained in 1998, 2004 and 2010. Judge Heagney earned his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Judge Heagney was previously a St. Louis City police officer (1970 -’73) and worked in private law practice for a small general practice firm in St. Louis (1976 -’96).

JAMES E. SULLIVAN

Judge Sullivan was appointed circuit judge Feb. 10, 2015. He received his B.A. from Southern Illinois University and his J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law.

Sullivan has served as an assistant public defender, prosecuting attorney, and circuit attorney; St. Louis municipal court judge; and drug court commissioner for the 22nd Circuit Court. Prior to joining the bench, he was in private law practice for 20 years.

MARK H. NEILL

Judge Neill has been a circuit judge in the City of St. Louis since Feb. 15, 2002. He received his B.A. in history from St. Louis University and his J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law. From 1973 until 1986, he was with the Legal Division of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and served as law clerk, assistant legal advisor, legal advisor and general counsel. From 1986 until his appointment to the bench, Judge Neill was in the general practice of law. He handled a variety of trial and non-trial matters in Missouri and Illinois and in the federal courts.

BRYAN L. HETTENBACH

Judge Hettenbach was appointed circuit judge April 2, 2008, and was retained in 2010. He earned his B.A. from the University of Missouri-Columbia, M.A. from the University of Michigan and J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law.

Judge Hettenbach was in private practice for 23 years prior to being appointed to the circuit bench.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (2)

JAMES M. DOWD

Judge Dowd was appointed to the Missouri Court of Appeals in June 2015. Judge Dowd earned a B.A. in history from St. Louis University and a J.D. from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Judge Dowd was previously with the James M. Dowd Law Firm, P.C.

PHILIP M. HESS

Judge Hess was appointed to the Missouri Court of Appeals in December 2013. Judge Hess earned a B.A. in economics and philosophy from Rockhurst University and a J.D. from the University of Missouri.

Judge Hess was previously employed with Larsen & Hess P.C.; Randall, Keefe & Griffiths; Brown & Crouppen; Weier, Hockensmith & Sherby; and as a United States Senate page.

Missouri Spreme Court (1)

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN

Judge Teitelman was appointed to the Supreme Court of Missouri in February 2002 and retained in office at the November 2004 general election for a 12-year term expiring December 31, 2016.

Judge Teitelman served a two-year term as chief justice from July 2011 through June 2013. He previously served on the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, from January 1998 to February 2002.

Voters in St. Louis County can review their judges here.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Debate Hosting Costs Worthwhile?

Washington University in St. Louis will host the 2nd presidential debate for 2016 tonight, not its first time doing so:

Washington University in St. Louis has hosted more debates than any other institution in history. Between 1992 and 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates asked the university to host debates in five consecutive elections. The debate scheduled for Sept. 25, 1996, was canceled two weeks prior. The Oct. 9, 2016, event will be the fifth debate held at Washington University. (Washington University)

The last debate held at Washington University in St. Louis was the Vice-Presidential Debate in October 2008. Each time the costs have increased:

For the first debate that [associate vice chancellor] Givens organized in 2000, the fee the university paid to the debate commission was $450,000. This time, that upfront fee is just shy of $2 million. Combine that with other costs the university will incur, including the set-up of a state-of-the-art media center, security, staffing and crowd management, and Washington University will end up paying anywhere between $4-5 million to host the debate on Oct. 9. [St. Louis Public Radio]

That’s a lot of money! That figure might include paying local police departments for security details. With two presidential candidates in town at the same time their routes to/from the airport must be secure.

On the other hand, the influx of press and campaign officials means hotel rooms, restaurants. etc will be full for days prior. It’s unclear how much, if anything, local taxpayers will end up paying. It is unknown how much of the $4-5 million will stay in the local economy.

So lots of unknowns, but here is the poll question for today:

The poll closes at 8pm tonight, the time the debate starts.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bill 10/7/2016

Only one new Board Bill will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. Review today’s agenda here.

Board Bill No. 152 | Online posting of notices

BOARD BILL NO. 152 INTRODUCED BY PRESIDENT LEWIS E. REED An ordinance requiring online posting of notices and agendas of all public meetings of the City of St. Louis and requiring the Information Technology Services Agency to create an electronic subscription service that e-mails alerts of new notices of meetings.

Quite a few bills will get a 2nd reading and perfection by consent — see the agenda for the list. The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

Seven board bills will be considered at two committee meetings next week:

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2016 HOUSING, URBAN DEVELOPMENT MTG – 8:30 A.M. – KENNEDY ROOM

• B.B.#110 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to change the zoning of property from “C” Multiple- Family Dwelling District and “H” Area Commercial District to “J” Industrial District, City Blocks #2178 (1315-39 S. Grand & 3632 Rutger), #2181.06 (3656 Hickory) and #2180 (1101 & 1121 S. Grand and 1126 Motard); containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#119 – Moore – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 4308-4324 Dr. Martin Luther King.
• B.B.#125 – Ingrassia/Davis – An ordinance amending Ordinance #60100 by modifying the terms of the termination of the Mill Creek Valley Redevelopment Plan.
• B.B.#137 – Ingrassia – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 2217 Locust.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2016 STREETS, TRAFFIC & REFUSE MEETING – 10:00 A.M. – LEISURE ROOM

• B.B.#132 – Conway – An Ordinance, recommended by the Board of Public Service, establishing a public works and improvement project for the Tower Grove Park Neighborhood Access Enhancements; and containing a public work emergency clause.
• B.B.#147 – Conway – An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 4600 block of Cleveland as “Barbara Beck Boulevard.”
• B.B.#148 – Conway – An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 4900 block of Botanical as “George and Sandy Grbac Lane.”

Readers Not Concerned About LED Street Lights, But Should Be

In the Sunday Poll a few days ago nearly three-quarters of readers weren’t concerned about health warnings from new LED street lights, here are the results:

Q: St. Louis is replacing old street lights with LED units. How concerned are you about possible negative health effects of unseen blue light from some LEDs?

• Very concerned 3 [8.33%]
• Concerned 3 [8.33%]
• Somewhat concerned 4 [11.11%]
• Neutral 1 [2.78%]
• Somewhat unconcerned 1 [2.78%]
• Unconcerned 15 [41.67%]
• Very unconcerned 9 [25%]
• Unsure/No Answer 0 [0%]

The new lights were tested in 2010.

I’m among the minority that is concerned. We were slow to begin adopting LEDs, which may be a good thing if we learned from cities that made the switch years ago. I’m not so sure we have learned anything from others.

The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency “put a lot of push into them,” said Michael Siminovitch, director of the California Lighting Technology Center at the University of California at Davis. “I call it a rush.”

Siminovitch said the light from early-generation LEDs “really negatively impacts people’s physiological well-being.”

Lighting is measured by color temperature, which is expressed in “kelvin,” or “K.” The original LED streetlights had temperatures of at least 4000K, which produces a bright white light with a high content of unseen blue light.

Now, LEDs are available with lower kelvin ratings and roughly the same energy efficiency as those with higher ratings. They don’t emit as much potentially harmful blue light, and they produce a softer, amber hue.

White, blue, amber? Kelvin? Okay, it gets technical from this point but I hope I’ve made it understandable to everyone:

Lighting is measured by color temperature, which is expressed in “kelvin,” or “K.” The original LED streetlights had temperatures of at least 4000K, which produces a bright white light with a high content of unseen blue light.

Now, LEDs are available with lower kelvin ratings and roughly the same energy efficiency as those with higher ratings. They don’t emit as much potentially harmful blue light, and they produce a softer, amber hue.

When 4000K and 5000K LEDs were installed, they drew mixed responses. Police and traffic-safety officials and many motorists liked them because they created a bright light that sharply illuminated the ground they covered.

But in many places, including New York City and Seattle, residents complained that the bright white light was harsh, even lurid. People described them as invasive, cold and unflattering. (Washington Post)

To help put this in context, lighting manufacturer Westinghouse explains:

What is color temperature?

• Color temperature is a way to describe the light appearance provided by a light bulb (lamp). It is measured in degrees of Kelvin (K) on a scale from 1,000 to 10,000.
• Typically, commercial and residential lighting application Kelvin temperatures fall somewhere on a scale from 2000K to 6500K.
• A light bulb’s (lamp’s) color temperature lets us know what the look and feel of the light produced will be.
• The color temperature of a light bulb (lamp) is assigned using the basis of correlated color temperature (CCT).
  For example, if you heat up a metal object, the object appears to glow. Depending on the Kelvin temperature that the metal object is being heated at, the glow will be various colors, such as orange, yellow or blue. The color temperature of light bulbs (lamps) is meant to replicate the Kelvin temperature of the metal object.

What color temperature is right for me?
Understanding Kelvin temperature (K) makes it easier to choose lighting that gives you the look and feel you want.

• At the lower end of the scale, from 2000K to 3000K, the light produced is called “warm white” and ranges from orange to yellow-white in appearance.
• Color temperatures between 3100K and 4500K are referred to as “cool white” or “bright white.” Light bulbs (lamps) within this range will emit a more neutral white light and may even have a slightly blue tint.
• Above 4500K brings us into the “daylight” color temperature of light. Light bulbs (lamps) with color temperatures of 4500K and above will give off a blue-white light that mimics daylight.

Apparently the first generation of LED street lights were 4,000-5,000k, basically simulating the color temperature of daylight. Better options do exist now:

More recently engineered LED lighting is now available at 3000K or lower. At 3000K, the human eye still perceives the light as “white,” but it is slightly warmer in tone, and has about 21% of its emission in the blue-appearing part of the spectrum. This emission is still very blue for the nighttime environment, but is a significant improvement over the 4000K lighting because it reduces discomfort and disability glare. Because of different coatings, the energy efficiency of 3000K lighting is only 3% less than 4000K, but the light is more pleasing to humans and has less of an impact on wildlife. (AMA Report PDF download)

Even East-West Gateway Council of Governments addressed the issue via Great Streets St. Louis:

Lamps also have two important color characteristics: the color of the emitted light (measured in degrees Kelvin/color temperature) and the accuracy of colors as seen under the light (measured as a Color Rendering Index – CRI). 

High-pressure sodium measures at about 2200K (peach-colored orange), a household incandescent lamp rates 2700K (considered the most desirable color range), and a bright white metal halide lamp used in stadium lighting might be 4000K.

My concern is in our rush to make streets brighter we’ll ignore warnings about color temperature and install lighting with negative consequences. In the future nobody can claim “unforeseen circumstances” because this issues has been raised for years now. Better options exist.

Who knows, we might be installing the lower Kelvin LED lights. I intend to inquire.

— Steve Patterson

Know Your Ballot: Propositions & Amendments

Absentee voting for the November 8th general election began in Missouri last Tuesday, but since I’m still researching items on the lower part of the ballot I haven’t voted absentee yet. I decided to start at the bottom and work my way up, so this post is my initial research on ballot issues. Most are statewide, but even the first applies to St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and the City of St. Louis:

Proposition S — senior services

Voters in 3 counties will vote on identical measures.

A November ballot measure seeks to create senior citizen service funds in St. Charles County, St. Louis County and St. Louis that together would raise about $18 million a year in property taxes to help people stay in their homes longer.

More than 50, mainly small, Missouri counties already have created similar programs to help provide transportation, food, health care and other services. If the new measures pass, they would be the largest of their kind in the state.

Proposition S would levy a 5-cent property tax on every $100 of assessed value, which boils down to $9.50 a year on a home worth $100,000. Local boards would decide which needs are a priority for residents who are at least 60 years old.  (Post-Dispatch) 

I’ll probably vote yes on this. It is often better for seniors to be able to stay in their homes as they age — it’s also cheaper on taxpayers.  This is a good investment, assuming the local boards are well-managed. This is on the ballot because of Seniors Count St. Louis.

Proposition A/Constitutional Amendment 3 — cigarette/tobacco taxes

Regular readers know I’m a non-smoker who supports prohibition of smoking in public. I’ve also pointed out how low Missouri’s cigarette taxes are compared to neighboring states. So, you might think I’d be happy to see two ballot issues that raise taxes on cigarettes/tobacco. Wrong.

The campaigns behind both of the competing tobacco tax increase measures on the ballot were largely funded by tobacco companies. Large tobacco companies, in general, backed Amendment 3, the 60 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative, while some smaller companies and wholesalers supported Proposition A, the smaller tax increase.

Reynold’s American Inc. gave over $2 million to Raise Your Hand for Kids, which is supporting Amendment 3, the 60 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative. The drafters of Amendment 3 included a 67-cent-per-pack fee on wholesale tobacco sellers, raising the total state tax for smaller companies to $1.27 per pack. This added tax for small companies was designed to close an alleged loophole that allowed small companies to evade making payments to 46 states mandated by a multi-state court settlement to help offset Medicaid costs. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster had been pressuring the Missouri General Assembly to end this loophole and demand lost payments from small companies totalling $50 million annually.

Smaller companies such as Cheyenne International, LPC Inc., and Xcaliber International donated toward the Proposition A, the 23 Cent Cigarette Tax Increase Initiative, largely to oppose the Amendment 3. Chuck Hatfield, lawyer for Cheyenne, said that the Amendment 3 was “about Big Tobacco wanting to tax their competitors. That’s what this has always been about.” (BallotPedia)

Given this information, I’ll be voting no on both.

Constitutional Amendment 6 — Voter ID

Voter ID laws in other states have been controversial and ruled unconstitutional, but that didn’t stop the Republican-controlled legislature from overriding the veto to place this on the ballot. Their intent is very clear — discouraging/preventing African-Americams from voting. Period. What about the 78th House Dist race?  A voter ID wouldn’t have made a difference, the St. Louis Board of Elections had created a secondary process for absentee ballots that was abused.

In January a Missouri State Senator argued in favor of such a law:

Kraus said Missouri needs a voter I.D. law because there have been more than 16 cases of “some type of voter fraud” in Missouri. That number isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t support Kraus’ assertion that photo identification would solve the problem — or that there is a problem of people impersonating voters.
Kraus’ statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context. We rate his claim Half True. (PolitiFact Missouri)

I’ll be voting no.

Constitutional Amendment 4 — banning new sales/use tax on services

More states are looking to tax services, so some in Missouri are trying to stop it from happening here:

Could Missouri tax haircuts, veterinary services, pedicures and yoga classes? Missouri voters will have their say this November at their polling place with Amendment 4.

The “Taxpayer Protection Amendment” was certified for the ballot this month. If approved by voters it would ban a sales tax on services.

The amendment would prevent the state from taxing such services as car repairs, tattoos and lawn care. 

Currently, consumers don’t pay taxes on those services. Inconvenienced travelers pay a sales tax on a new tire but not on the service of replacing a flat.

But despite Missouri’s current lack of a sales tax on services, Amendment 4’s supporters – primarily the Missouri Association of Realtors, which circulated the initiative petition – see trouble on the horizon. (Missouri Times)

Taxing service transactions could be a headache for those providers, but this might also help budgets in areas heavy on service but low on retail. Hmm…

Retired financier Rex Sinquefield is a potential adversary, especially because he’s advocated for replacing Missouri’s income tax with an expanded sales tax. An e-mail to one of Sinquefield advisors wasn’t returned about whether he’d actively oppose Amendment 4. (St. Louis Public Radio)

This might force sales taxes to go up even more — an unintended consequence. I’m not sure yet how I’ll vote on this issue.

Constitutional Amendment 2 — campaign limits

Big money flowing into politics is something I generally favor trying to limit/stop:

The measure would cap donations to candidates at $2,600 per election and to political parties at $25,000. It also would impose other campaign finance restrictions aimed at preventing political committees from obscuring the source of their money.

In November 1994, 74 percent of Missouri voters approved a ballot measure limiting contributions to state candidates. The Republican-led General Assembly repealed contribution limits in 2008, which at the time stood at $1,350 for statewide candidates, $675 for Senate candidates and $325 for House candidates. (Kansas City Star)

Even though the person behind this is anti-abortion, I’ll likely vote yes.

Constitutional Amendment 1 — renew tax for soil/water conservation

This measure has been renewed in the past:

Amendment 1, upon voter approval, would renew the existing sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for 10 years. The revenue from the tax goes toward conservation efforts, and the measure was designed to “continue to generate approximately $90 million annually for soil and water conservation and operation of the state park system.”

Constitutional Amendment 1 was automatically referred to the 2016 ballot. This measure originated with a 1984 constitutional amendment. Due to the wording of this original amendment and subsequent iterations, the measure must be reapproved by voters. It is automatically referred to the ballot every 10 years. Previous versions of this amendment were approved in 1988, 1996, and 2006. If Amendment 1 is not approved in 2016, it will not be referred to future ballots. (BallotPedia)

I’ll vote yes to continue this tax.

Next week I’ll post on judges up for retention.

— Steve Patterson