Home » Politics/Policy » Recent Articles:

St. Louis City & County Voters Rejected Same Four Amendments, Two Approved Statewide

A decade ago Missouri voters amended our state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but the majority of voters in the City of St. Louis voted no. As is often the case, city voters differed from state voters. I’ve not looked at previous elections, but this year voters in St. Louis County voted against the same four amendments.  Two amendments city & county voters rejected, Amendments 1 & 5, were approved by statewide voters.

caption
caption

I couldn’t locate statewide information on the number of ballots cast from each party, most likely greater than half were Republican.

The amendment that received the most votes was #7, a 3/4-cent sales tax for roads.

Transportation officials have been working for more than a decade to find more money. In 2002, voters defeated a proposed $483 million sales and fuel tax increase.

“There is no perfect solution,” said Kehoe, the sponsor. He said Amendment 7 was crafted around polling that showed a sales tax was most likely to pass at the polls. He said the fuel tax would have to be raised 20 to 25 cents per gallon to generate the money needed. (stltoday)

As you’ll see, Missouri has long resisted increases in the fuel tax. Here is the text from MoDOT’s funding history page:

Funding History

 2008

In July, the start of fiscal year 2009, Amendment 3 is fully phased-in, providing MoDOT with all of the motor vehicle sales tax revenues previously going to General Revenue.

MoDOT sold bonds for a portion of the new Interstate 64, a design-build project in the St. Louis region. For the first time, MoDOT secured bonds primarily with federal funds, rather than state funds. These bonds are called Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds.

2004
In November, Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 3, which requires all revenues collected from the sale of motor vehicles come to MoDOT. Previously, half of the sales tax went to MoDOT and half to the state’s general revenue fund. It requires the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission to issue bonds for building highway and bridge projects and uses these additional revenues to pay back the bonds over a period of time. The additional Amendment 3 revenues are to be phased-in over a 4 year period in 25 percent increments.

2002
Legislation is passed extending the 6-cents-per-gallon motor-fuel tax, which was due to expire in 2008. Proposition B, an omnibus transportation bill that would have increased the motor-fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon and the general sales tax by 1/2 percent, is defeated by voters by a 3-to-1 margin.

2000
Legislation was passed, effective May 30, 2000, allowing MoDOT to issue $2.25 billion in bond financing to accelerate highway improvements. Up to $250 million in bonds can be issued in 2000 and up to $2 billion from 2001 through 2006. Projects funded by the first $250 million were required to come from MoDOT’s 5-Year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. MoDOT can issue up to $500 million per year in bond financing through the year 2006. MoDOT submits a bond financing project list to the Legislature each January for approval.

1992
A 6-cent per gallon increase in the motor fuel tax is passed by the Legislature. The 6 cents is to be phased in over a 5-year period; 2 cents in 1992, 2 cents in 1994 and 2 cents in 1996.

1987
Proposition A, a constitutional amendment to increase the motor fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon, is approved by the people. It becomes effective June 1.

1984
Fees for motor vehicles and truck classes not raised in 1983 are increased.

1983
Fees for some classes of trucks are increased.

1982
Proposition B, a constitutional amendment to raise the motor fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon, is defeated by the people.

1979
Voters approve a constitutional amendment changing the CART distribution formula. Counties receive 10 instead of 5 percent, cities receive the same 15 percent and the state receives 75 instead of 80 percent. The law is effective Jan. 1, 1980. The amendment also merges the Highway Department with the Transportation Department. Also included in this legislation is a provision that one-half of the motor vehicle sales tax go to finance road and bridge construction. Of this half, 74 percent would go to the state, 15 percent to the cities and 10 percent to the counties. The remaining 1 percent goes for planning of other transportation modes.

1978
An initiative petition to increase the fuel tax 3 cents per gallon is defeated.

1972
The Legislature passes a bill increasing the gas tax from 5 cents to 7 cents per gallon.

1961
The Legislature passes a bill temporarily raising the fuel tax from 3 cents to 5 cents per gallon. The bill provides that a constitutional amendment be put before the people which would allow cities and counties to share in state motor fuel tax revenues. If the amendment is not submitted within six months, or if it is rejected, the tax would revert to 3 cents. Voters approve the amendment on March 6, 1962, and the 5-cent per gallon tax becomes permanent. This act establishes the County Aid Road Trust program.

1952
On March 24, an act is approved increasing the motor vehicle tax from 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon. The law becomes effective July 29.

1950
On April 4, Missourians again reject a referendum proposal to increase the motor vehicle tax. The proposal would have increased the tax from 2 cents to 4 cents per gallon.

1938
On Nov. 8, the people defeat by referendum election an attempt of the Legislature to raise the fuel tax from 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon. At the same time, an initiative petition proposal to amend the Constitution to fix the fuel tax at 3 cents for 10 years is also defeated.

1924
A 2-cent tax rate for motor vehicle fuel is adopted by a vote of the people under initiative petition. It is the state’s first motor fuel tax.

From the above I made this list of the fuel tax rate since 1924:

  • 1924 2-cents
  • 1952 3-cents (28 years, 100% increase)
  • 1961: 5-cents (9 years, 66% increase)
  • 1972: 7-cents (11 years, 40% increase)
  • 1987: 11-cents (15 years, 57% increase)
  • 1992: 13-cents (5 years, 18.18% increase)
  • 1994: 15-cents (2 years, 15.38% increase)
  • 1996: 17-cents (2 years, 13.33% increase)

It has now been 18+ years since the fuel tax was increased, the only period longer was the first increase after the initial tax! Had the 1990s 2-cent increase every two years continued we’d be at 34-cents — double the current rate. We’d still be lower than Illinois and many other states. Amendment 7 proponents say voters rejected a 2002 attempt to raise the fuel tax rate. From above: “Proposition B, an omnibus transportation bill that would have increased the motor-fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon and the general sales tax by 1/2 percent, is defeated by voters by a 3-to-1 margin.” They’d proposed a measly 4-cent fuel tax increase combined with a 1/2-cent general sales tax. I don’t recall how I voted a dozen years ago, but I likely voted no based on the general sales tax increase.

Here’s what should happen:

  • The Missouri legislature should pass legislation to double the fuel tax from 17-cents to 34-cents over the next 5-10 years.
  • The Missouri legislature should pass legislation make I-70 a toll road between Kanas City and St. Louis. This revenue, not the fuel tax, would be used to widen I-70.

We do need to maintain our infrastructure, we should be cautious about adding to the system if we aren’t willing to raise the fuel tax. Why build more miles of highway if we can’t maintain what we have now?

— Steve Patterson

 

Missouri Primary Today

The St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners is on the first floor at 300 N. Tucker (@ Olive)
The St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners is on the first floor at 300 N. Tucker (@ Olive)

Today is Missouri’s primary election, please be sure to go vote if you’re registered.

Here’s a couple of related posts from last week:

The polls are open 6am-7pm. It took me a while to find the hours, it wasn’t on the postcard or website from STLElections.com.  I finally found it on Ballotpedia.

— Steve Patterson

 

Recorder of Deeds Primary Endorsement: Edward McFowland

Recorder of Deeds candidate Edward McFowland on my balcony on Wednesday July 16, 2014
Recorder of Deeds candidate Edward McFowland on my balcony on Wednesday July 16, 2014

In next week’s primary I’m endorsing Edward McFowland for Recorder of Deeds, for those voters taking a Democrat Party ballot. Many of you might not recognize the McFowland name, but Edward McFowland has been around politics much of his life. His mom, Daisy McFowland, served as 4th ward alderman 1973-79, 1983-90 (she died in office). In 1977-78, while Daisy McFowland was serving on the Board of Aldermen, 23rd ward committeewoman Sharon Carpenter was the secretary to Board President Paul J Simon.

Carpenter first stepped into the job in 1980, when she was appointed by then-Gov. Joe Teasdale following the death of then-Recorder of Deeds William Schulze. (The state law has been changed to allow the mayor to now fill any vacancy in the office.) Carpenter later won a special election to fill out the term, and has handily won re-election ever since. (St. Louis Public Radio)

Carpenter’s predecessor William C. Schulze died of a brain tumor in March 1980, he was only 33 years old! Like Carpenter, Schulze was appointed to the position by Gov Teasdale.  In 1977 Recorder Francis R. Slay, the mayor’s father, resigned so the office was vacant. The next year Schulze was elected to a full term, which Carpenter was appointed to finish.

Thirty-four years later, on Friday July 11, 2014 the Circuit Attorney Public Information Officer Lauren Trager released the following statement at noon:

Upon receiving Mr. McFowland’s first letter, we conducted an initial review of the applicable law. We determined that there was a legal basis for referring this matter to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and we did so on June 27, 2014. As you know, the SLMPD is the primary investigative body for the City of St. Louis. We are awaiting the results of that investigation, and we expect them shortly. At that point in time, we are prepared to take action, should the investigation substantiate Mr. McFowland’s allegations. For more information, please contact the SLMPD.

Just over four hours later Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce said:

The Circuit Attorney’s Office has received a letter indicating that Ms. Sharon Quigley Carpenter intends to resign from office, effective Monday morning. The specific allegation of nepotism provides no legal basis for criminal prosecution. Ms. Carpenter admitted to violating a provision of the Missouri Constitution. The sole remedy for a violation of that provision is removal from office during the term when the specific conduct occurred. The investigation into the allegations remains open, until such time as her resignation becomes effective.

Edward McFowland’s diligence and research uncovered this wrong doing by a person in office for over three decades. He’d sent many emails about other things he found, how other information he sought through Sunshine Law requests hadn’t been provided.  Just before Carpenter resigned I emailed McFowland to ask to meet face to face.  I was impressed by his skills at seeking out problems, but also his positive ideas such as having a U.S. Passport office in city hall. The day before Carpenter resigned McFowland emailed the idea:

As Recorder, I will pursue designation of one or more Recorder of Deeds employees as U.S. Passport Acceptance Agents.

22 CFR 51.22 (Passport agents and passport acceptance agents) permits the Department of State to authorize “Any other person specifically designated by the Department” to serve as agents.

Libraries across Missouri, including the Kirkwood Public Library and three public libraries in Jefferson County, are Passport Offices. Why not the library of public records for the City of St. Louis?

You need a Birth Certificate copy to get a passport. The City Recorder’s Office is a copy center for State of Missouri Birth Certificates. Combining birth record services with Passport services is a great match.

The Downtown Post-Office Passport Office is open 9 am to 4 pm. The Recorder’s Office is open 8 am to 5 pm. More hours for passport customers, means more convenient.

I believe a City Hall Passport Office would be well received and we would make a little more money for the City with the additional Birth Certificate copy sales.

Let me also add that I think publishing Recorder services information in Spanish and Bosnian is long overdue.

For starters, the Recorder has a Birth and Death Records services brochure and Marriage License services brochure that should already have been translated into Spanish and Bosnian, published on the website, printed, and copies made available to various institutions and nonprofits serving the Spanish-speaking and Bosnian-speaking communities.

As Recorder, I will work with our immigrant communities and service providers to make the Recorder of Deeds Office customer-friendly to all residents.

We can add Passport services and make the Recorder’s Office immigrant-friendly within the Recorder’s current budget.

We met the following week, I came away very impressed.  We talked about his ideas, the problems he’s uncovered, and his background. McFowland, in his mid-50s, has considerable experience; he’s served our country in the U.S. Army and the Army Reserves. Like my oldest brother, a Navy vet, I think McFowland can take his experience gained from the military and apply it to any field. McFowland also has the education, holding a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in Public Administration from SIU Carbondale. See McFowland’s “action plan”.

What experience in recording did Carpenter have before being appointed?  If you’re taking a democratic party ballot on Tuesday please vote for Edward McFowland for Recorder of Deeds!

— Steve Patterson

 

 

Readers Opposed To Four Out Of Five Constitutional Amendments On Missouri’s August 5th Ballot

The floor of the Missouri House of Representatives, 2011
The floor of the Missouri House of Representatives, 2011

Tuesday August 5th Missouri voters will go to the polls for the primary election, which includes five proposed constitutional amendments. The poll last week included a question about each. The results below aren’t scientific and outstate voters frequently vote the opposite of voters from urbanized areas.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 1  Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (First Regular Session) CCS No. 2 SS HCS HJR Nos. 11 & 7

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.

Results:

  1. No – Against the amendment 186 [71.81%]
  2. Yes – For the amendment 55 [21.24%]
  3. Undecided 15 [5.79%]
  4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 3 [1.16%]

My thoughts:

  • “Amendment 1 is a concerted effort to shield factory farms and concentrated agricultural feeding operations from regulations to protect livestock, consumers and the environment.” — KC Star editorial 
  • See VoteNoOn1.com for reasons to vote against 1
  • Please vote NO!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR No. 36

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right? State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

Results:

  1. No – Against the amendment 172 [68.25%]
  2. Yes – For the amendment 75 [29.76%]
  3. Undecided 3 [1.19%]
  4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 2 [0.79%]

My thoughts:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS HJR No. 68

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges? This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state’s Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.

Results:

  1. No – Against the amendment 190 [72.52%]
  2. Yes – For the amendment 58 [22.14%]
  3. Undecided 11 [4.2%]
  4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 3 [1.15%]

My thoughts:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) HJR No. 48

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 costs 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.

Results:

  1. No – Against the amendment 160 [65.57%]
  2. Yes – For the amendment 47 [19.26%]
  3. Undecided 33 [13.52%]
  4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 4 [1.64%]

My thoughts:

  • The lottery was approved to provide a funding source, any dollar going to another worthy cause isn’t going to education. This won’t increase Lottery revenues, just divide the pot.
  • We need to do more for veterans, this isn’t the right way to do it.
  • Please vote NO!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 9 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR No. 27

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects? State and local governmental entities expect no significant costs or savings.

Results:

  1. Yes – For the amendment 177 [72.84%]
  2. No – Against the amendment 47 [19.34%]
  3. Undecided 17 [7%]
  4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 2 [0.82%]

My thoughts:

  • The NSA isn’t going to avoid Missouri if passed
  • The ACLU of Missouri urges members to vote yes.
  • I don’t see it making much difference, vote your conscience.

I happen to agree with Ray Hartmann on these five proposed amendments, see Think Again: Indecent Proposals (St. Louis Magazine for his analysis. Please vote Tuesday August 5th!!

— Steve Patterson

 

Poll: How Do You Plan To Vote On Missouri’s Five Proposed Constitutional Amendments?

Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar

The poll this week has five questions, one for each of the five proposed constitutional amendments on Missouri’s August 5th ballot. The poll questions in the right sidebar are brief because of software, but here is the official ballot language for each:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 1  Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (First Regular Session) CCS No. 2 SS HCS HJR Nos. 11 & 7

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR No. 36

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right? State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS HJR No. 68

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges? This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state’s Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) HJR No. 48

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 costs 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.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 9 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR No. 27

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects? State and local governmental entities expect no significant costs or savings.

Please vote in the poll, I have answers to cover if you’re undecided, don’t plan to vote, or if you’re not a Missouri voter. Also, please don’t pick out just the one or two you might be passionate about, please select an answer for all five. Thank you.

— Steve Patterson

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe