Defending traditional families

Posts tagged 2012

MFN 2012 General Election Voter’s Guide

To order any quantities of 50 or more the MFN 2012 General Election Voter’s Guide, go to:   www.movoterguides.org   (your order must be in increments of 50.)

Please click on the preview image below to download/open a PDF version of the Missouri Family Network 2012 General Election Voter’s Guide.

To order any quantities of 50 or more the MFN 2012 General Election Voter’s Guide, go to:   www.movoterguides.org   (your order must be in increments of 50.) 

Footnotes to the Voter’s Guide can be found on this page: missourifamilynetwork.net/2012/10/footnotes-for-2012-general-election-voter-guide/ 

——————————————————————————————–

Here are links to other Voter’s guides available for the 2012 General Election:

(Note some organizations also have Party Platform comparisons.)

American Family Association Voters Guides: https://ivoterguide.com/?partner=AFAAction&type=S

Wallbuilders voter’s guide:   http://wallbuilders.com/downloads/2012WBPresVoterGuide.pdf

Faith & Freedom Coalition voter’s guide:   http://ffcoalition.com/sites/default/files/Presidential-Voter-Guide_0.pdf

Missouri Family Policy Council voter’s guide:   http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF12J04.pdf

Family Research Council voter’s guide:   http://www.frcaction.org/votertools

Constitutional Coalition Front Line voter’s guide:   http://www.yourmopolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Front-Line-Voters-Guide.pdf

Priest for Life voter’s guide:   http://www.priestsforlife.org/candidates/2012-voter-guide-large.pdf

Christian Coalition voter’s guide:   http://www.cc.org/voter_guides

Footnotes for 2012 General Election Voter Guide

November 6th, 2012

President:

1.      Abortion

Obama – Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum, 8-17-08  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/17/se.01.html (accessed 10-10-12)

Romney – “My Pro-Life Pledge,” National Review Online, 6-18-11

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269984/my-pro-life-pledge-mitt-romney (accessed 10-10-12)

2.      Human Cloning

Obama – President Obama’s March 9, 2009, announcement of his lifting of President George W. Bush’s funding restriction on embryonic stem cell research.  S. 1520, See Sec. 301 (b) which allows cloning for research:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1520: (accessed 10-10-12)

Co-Sponsored: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01520:@@@P (accessed 10-10-12)

Romney – Campaign website, http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values (accessed 10-10-12)

3.      Public Funding for Abortion Providers

Obama – ABC News Report, 1-23-09 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1 (accessed 10-10-12)

Romney – “My Pro-Life Pledge,” 6-18-11

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269984/my-pro-life-pledge-mitt-romney (accessed 10-10-12)

4.      Religious Liberty

Obama – USCCB Office of General Counsel Memorandum, 3-7-12

http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/upload/2012-hhs-mandate-public-legal-memo.pdf (accessed 10-10-12)

Romney – “President Obama versus religious liberty,” Mitt Romney, Washington Examiner, 3-

16-12  http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/224461 (accessed 10-10-12)

5.      Same-Sex Marriage

Obama – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?_r=2&hp& (accessed 10-10-12)

Roll call vote on S.J.Res. 1   http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163 (accessed 10-10-12)

Pg 3: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf (accessed 10-10-12)

Romney – “Mitt Romney reaffirms opposition to gay marriage,” ABC News Report, 5-10-12

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-reaffirms-opposition-gay-marriage/story?id=16314461#.UHY7Km8xqfg (accessed 10-10-12)

6.      Second Amendment

Obama – Chicago Tribune, 7-22-12

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-22/news/ct-oped-0722-page-20120722_1_anti-gun-president-gun-show-loophole-nra-leaders (accessed 10-10-12)

Romney – NRA Website, 10-5-12

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-pvf-endorses-mitt-romney-and-paul-ryan-for-president-and-vice-president.aspx (accessed 10-10-12)

U.S. Senate:

1.      Abortion

McCaskill  – “Where They Stand: Talent, McCaskill On Abortion,” Sam Hananel, The Associated Press, 9-25-06

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/2109/claire-mccaskill#.UHZHBG8xqfg (accessed 10-10-12)

Akin  – http://nrlc.www.capwiz.com/nrlc/bio/id/10339 (accessed 10-10-12)

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/9301/todd-akin#.UHZGxG8xqfg (accessed 10-10-12)

2.      Traditional Marriage

McCaskill – “Blunt Pulls Out Win As Bush Carries State,” Terry Ganey and Virginia Young, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11-3-04

Akin – 2008 H.J. Res 89: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hjres89 (accessed 10-10-12)

3.      Second Amendment

McCaskill – http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Missouri.aspx (accessed 10-10-12)

Akin – http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Missouri.aspx (accessed 10-10-12)

4.      Wasteful Gov. Spending

McCaskill – H.R. 1 (111th Congress) “Yes” vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/h46 (accessed 10-10-12)

“…stimulus bill was an egregious waste of $800 billion of tax payer money…” CAGW, 6-27-12: http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2012/cagw-slams-fha-for-insuring.html (accessed 10-11-12)

CAGW rating: http://www.ccagwratings.org/?mode=member&member=501 (accessed 10-10-12)

Akin – H.R. 1 (111th Congress) “No” vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/h46 (accessed  10-10-12)

CAGW rating: http://www.ccagwratings.org/?mode=member&member=44 (accessed 10-10-12)

5.      ObamaCare

The Associated Press, “McCaskill, Akin differ on health care policy,” 9-30-12

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/McCaskill-Akin-differ-on-health-care-policy-3906726.php (accessed 10-11-12)

Governor:

1.      Abortion

Nixon – As Attorney General paid to defend Missouri’s laws, Nixon explained why he would not defend a pro-life law: “I’m Pro-Choice, I have a conflict of interest.”  (Post-Dispatch, July 30, 1999).   “anti-life rating” from Missouri Right to Life: http://www.missourilifepac.org/2012/2012-general-ratings-endorsements.pdf (accessed 10-11-12)

Spence – St. Louis Beacon, 12-16-11: https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/14442/cadre_of_local_businesspeople_help_spence_raise_money_fast (accessed 10-11-12) 

Endorsed by Missouri Right to Life: http://www.missourilifepac.org/2012/2012-general-ratings-endorsements.pdf (10-11-12)

2.      Homosexual Special Rights

Nixon – Gov. Nixon’s Executive Order 10-24, July 9, 2010  (see Articles I, VI, IX, XI, XII, & XIII)  http://governor.mo.gov/orders/2010/10-24.htm (accessed 10-11-12)   

Spence – http://www.spenceforgovernor.com/conservative-values/    

The Washington Times  http://www.washingtontimes.com/campaign-2012/candidates/david-dave-spence-62421/

http://www.spenceforgovernor.com/conservative-values/ (accessed 10-11-12)

3.      Religious Liberty

Nixon – SB 749 veto, 7-12-12  http://www.mbcpathway.com/2012/07/nixon-spurns-faith-groups-vetoes-religious-liberty-bill/ (accessed 10-11-12)

Spence – “Spence: Nixon veto a blow to religious liberty,” 7-12-12: http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2012/07/spence-nixon-veto-blow-to-religious.html (accessed 10-11-12)        “Planned Parenthood Praises Nixon Veto, Spence Condemns It” 7-12-12: http://20poundsofheadlines.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/planned-parenthood-praises-nixon-veto-spence-condemns-it/ (accessed 10-11-12)

4.      Second Amendment

Nixon – NRA ratings: http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Missouri.aspx (accessed 10-11-12)

Spence – NRA ratings: http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Missouri.aspx (accessed 10-11-12)

5.      ObamaCare

Nixon – Kansas City Star, 6-29-12

Spence – Position on ObamaCare: http://www.spenceforgovernor.com/common-sense/ (accessed 10-11-12)

Lt. Governor: 

1.      Abortion

Montee – Midwest Democracy Project, 2012 Candidate Survey Responses

http://midwestdemocracy.com/officials/susan-montee/ (accessed 10-11-12)

Kinder – S.B. 275, 9-10-97: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills97/sbsum97/SB0275C.htm (accessed 10-11-12)  http://www.senate.mo.gov/97info/bills/SB275.htm (accessed 10-11-12)

2.      Religious Liberty

Kinder – S.B. 12, 7-9-03: http://www.senate.mo.gov/03INFO/bills/SB012.htm (accessed 10-11-12)

3.      Same-Sex Marriage

Kinder – S.B. 895, 8-28-96:  http://www.senate.mo.gov/96info/bills/SB895.htm  (accessed 10-11-12)

http://www.senate.mo.gov/04info/pdf-jrnl/DAY30.pdf (p.500)  (accessed 10-11-12)

4.      ObamaCare

Montee & Kinder – St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 4, 2012: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/lieutenant-governor-candidates-in-missouri-hope-to-boost-job-s/article_f22bc907-34cd-5691-9db5-c5a5ed0ab431.html (accessed 10-11-12)

Secretary of State:

1.      Abortion

Schoeller & Kander: Missouri Right to Life, 2012 General Election Endorsement List:

http://www.missourilifepac.org/2012/2012-general-ratings-endorsements.pdf (accessed 10-11-12)

2011 Legislative Scorecard: http://missourilife.org/mrl_pac/2011_House_Scorecard.pdf (accessed 10-11-12)

2.      Second Amendment

Schoeller & Kander: NRA, Grades & Endorsements Database:

http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Missouri.aspx (accessed 10-11-12)

3.      Religious Liberty

Schoeller & Kander: S.B. 749, 9-12-12: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills121/jrnpdf/jrn078.pdf (p. 15-17) (accessed 10-11-12)

4.      Voter ID

Schoeller & Kander: Kansas City Star, October 1, 2012

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/missouri-secretary-of-state-candidates-disagree-on-voter-id/ (accessed 10-11-12)

2-15-12 Voter ID Bill: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/missouri-house-passes-voter-photo-id-bill/ (accessed 10-11-12)

5.      ObamaCare

Schoeller – VoteSmart.org, HB 1764 Roll Call Vote: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/65636/shane-schoeller#.UHc4Fm8xqfg (accessed 10-11-12)

http://www.shaneschoeller.org/schoeller-praises-court-ruling-on-effort-to-block-obamacare-calls-for-common-sense-election-reforms/2027 (accessed 10-11-12)

Kander – VoteSmart.org, HB 1764 Roll Call Vote: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/104525/jason-kander#.UHc4dG8xqfg (accessed 10-11-12)

State Treasurer:

1.      Abortion

McNary – Missouri Right to Life, 2012 General Election Endorsement List

http://www.missourilifepac.org/2012/2012-general-ratings-endorsements.pdf (accessed 10-11-12)

Zweifel – Missouri Right to Life, 2012 General Election Endorsement List;

http://www.missourilifepac.org/2012/2012-general-ratings-endorsements.pdf (accessed 10-11-12)

 State House Journal, HB 156, May 1, 2003, Overall vote: 122-35, Zweifel vote: No; September 10, 2003, Overall vote to override: 121-38, Zweifel vote: No; State House Journal, HB 481, April 28, 2003, Overall vote: 116-40, Zweifel vote: No

2.      Second Amendment

NRA, Grades & Endorsements Database:

http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/Missouri.aspx (accessed 10-11-12)

3.      ObamaCare

McNary – McNary website on ObamaCare: http://colemcnary.com/?page_id=563 (accessed 10-11-12)

Zweifel – http://semotimes.com/a-conversation-with-clint-zweifel/ (accessed 10-11-12)

Attorney General:

1.      Abortion

Koster – “Koster switches party and stances on issues.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 2, 2007

Martin – Missouri Right to Life, 2012 General Election Endorsement List

http://www.missourilifepac.org/2012/2012-general-ratings-endorsements.pdf (accessed 10-11-12)

2.      ObamaCare

Martin & Koster – St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 30, 2012; http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/candidates-for-missouri-s-attorney-general-see-the-race-very/article_fe82adb5-8e34-566e-bbf0-6d98201c1824.html (accessed 10-11-12)

“Democrat in Missouri to Oppose Health Care Law” The New York Times, April 12, 2011: Article talks about Koster taking some steps but not joining the other states in their litigation. “supports expansion of health coverage”

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.mo.gov%2Fnewsroom%2FNewsClips%2F2011%2F04April%2F041211.doc&ei=vUp3UJ_XCIiC2gXT4IDgCw&usg=AFQjCNF3WB7pdDaAC5C6pqp9OVITnYUxwQ&sig2=WshFL7mox1_1y_etHeA1sQ (accessed 10-11-12)

3.      Government Transparency

Koster – http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/audit-hits-ag-koster-for-contracts-and-contributions/article_21c4c880-c091-11e1-bc32-0019bb30f31a.html  (accessed 10-11-12)

 http://articles.kspr.com/2012-06-27/law-firms_32445320  (accessed 10-11-12)   http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/audit-hits-ag-koster-for-contracts-and-contributions/ (accessed 10-11-12)

Martin – “He was also chairman of the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners. He headed the leadership team[8] that designed and implemented the Missouri Accountability Portal,[9] an Internet search engine that aims to track state government spending in order to increase transparency and better identify and eliminate government waste.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Martin_(Missouri_politician)  (accessed 10-11-12)

 http://www.rebootcongress.net/2012/07/missouri-ag-candidate-ed-martin-plans.html (accessed 10-11-12)

4.      Defending Family Farms

Koster – “The HSUS Praises Missouri Attorney General for Cracking Down on Third Substandard Puppy Mill this Summer” 8-9-11:

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/11/hsus_praises_missouri_08092011.html (accessed 10-11-12)

Martin – “Ed Martin will Defend Missouri Agriculture from Regulatory Overreach,” RebootCongress, 7-13-12:

http://www.rebootcongress.net/2012/07/ed-martin-will-defend-missouri.html (accessed 10-11-12) 

Judges on your 2012 General Election Ballot

It is Time to Vote NO on Unknown Judges!

Why should politically produced, politically perpetuated, and politically protected political positions be so insulated from public scrutiny?

NOTE:  The following message focuses on judges on your November 6, 2012 General Election ballot.  Those judges running as partisan candidates should have campaign web sites and other information available.  However, there are 51 “non-partisan” judge retention votes on the various State ballots across Missouri.

Our MFN recommendations on many of these “non-partisan” judges are only subjective recommendations.  Objective performance reviews of the vast majority of Missouri’s “non-partisan” judges is simply not available.  In some cases we have records on a particular judge and thus recommend a Yes or a NO vote to retain.  But for those we know nothing about, we acknowledge that any NO recommendation is only a subjective “protest” vote.  For the most part 99.9% of the general public knows NOTHING about these judges.  The costs of obtaining such research is simply unaffordable as qualified attorneys would have to work full time to monitor the hundreds of courtrooms in the State.  No organization exists with available resources to monitor these hundreds of judges and tens of thousands of cases.

The reason for such continued and widespread confusion over the men and women in these important positions is that the Non-Partisan Court Plan does NOT work for Missourians!  It works great for those who get appointed to these judgeships, but fails the citizens of the State by perpetuating such systemic ignorance of who our judges are and/or what has been their performance on the job.  Meanwhile it is the progressive liberal political establishment and the self-appointed political elite that stand guard to protect the Non-Partisan Court Plan as one of the most ‘holy cows’ that cannot be questioned much less changed.  Unelected “commissioners” interview potential judges and propose a slate of three for the Governor to appoint.  Eventually voters are asked to “retain” these judges – but the Plan has absolutely no provision for informing voters anything about them!!!

For this reason Missouri Family Network believes it is completely legitimate for voters to cast a “protest vote” when left totally in the dark about powerful judges that we are expected to approve!  This provides voters an opportunity to send a message to both the court and Missouri’s current and future Governors that citizens expect our courts to be responsible to the rule of law, resist judicial activism and discipline themselves to be judicially restrained!

Yes this is subjective.  But why should we continue, election after election, to accept such unresponsive politics just because criticisms of judges are just as hard to find as their merits?  Why should politically produced, politically perpetuated, and politically protected political positions be so insulated from public scrutiny?  We believe it is time to tell the progressive liberals and political elite that the Non-Partisan Court Plan is broken and must be fixed.  After years of rejected efforts to reform the Plan, it is time for voters to speak the only language these folks understand.  It is time to ask your fellow citizens to vote NO on unknown judges.

Constitutional Amendment 3 offers voters the first opportunity to alter the Non-Partisan Court Plan.  Constitutional Amendment 3 is worded on your ballot to look bad.  This politically biased ballot question was written by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and approved by Attorney General Chris Koster.  Together they are protecting the Trial Lawyers group which controls the process and puts their friend on these courts.

Please vote “YES” on Constitutional Amendment 3.

 

 Missouri Judges

 2012 General Election – November 6th

 107 Names are on Missouri Ballots Related to Missouri’s Courts

Plus many more local court judges throughout the State’s hundreds of local municipalities.

Retention & Election of Missouri’s

Statewide & Local Judges

 

Missouri State Supreme Court

One Judge Will Appear On Every Ballot For A Statewide Retention Vote

 

Court of Appeals Judges

8 Total Judges from Missouri’s Three Appellate Districts Face Retention Votes

Voters in the Eastern District of the Court of Appeals will see 4 judges.

Voters in the Southern District of the Court of Appeals will only see 1 judge.

Voters in the Western District Court of Appeals will see 3 judges for retention.

 

State Circuit Courts

98 Individuals Are On the Ballot Around the State

(However, voters will only see a handful of names and courts appearing on their local ballot.)

42 Non-Partisan Circuit Court Judges Face Retention Votes

(31 Circuit Judges and 11 Associate Circuit Judges face “yes” or “no” retention votes as part of the nonpartisan plan.)

56 Partisan Candidates Seeking Circuit Court Judgeship Elections

(49 partisan judgeship elections that are not under the nonpartisan plan jurisdiction will face voters throughout Missouri’s 45 circuit courts.)

However, only seven of these judicial seats are contested as 18 democrat and 24 republican Circuit Judges have no challengers!

 

Municipal Court Judges

There are many more local judges that will be on ballots all across Missouri that are not under the state elections oversight.  These are placed on the ballot by your local county election authorities.  Please consult your local sample ballot in the newspaper printed prior to the November 6th election for a complete listing of ALL ballot measures, candidates, and questions.  If your county has voluntarily submitted your local sample ballot to the Missouri Secretary of State, Elections Division website, you may see a sample ballot online at: http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/countylinks.asp?eid=336

NOTE: MFN has an outline for reviewing local judges below.

 

Any additional local municipal judicial elections which may appear on your ballot are NOT part of the Nonpartisan Court Plan and are NOT covered under any assessment by Missouri Family Network.  Later in this discussion you will find evaluation tips that apply to your local courts and candidates.


   Missouri Non-Partisan Judge Retention Votes

2012 General Election Ballot

 

There is only one State Supreme Court Judge facing a statewide “retention” vote November 6, 2012.

The eight Appellate Judges (4-Eastern, 1-Southern, and 3-Western Districts) only appear on the ballots in their respective districts.

(See the Appellate Court map below to clarify which district you live in.)

 

The nature of the judicial system in Missouri shrouds judges from effective performance review by voters.  In the absence of high-profile cases, the only barometer of a judge’s performance prior to their facing a “retention” vote from citizens requires constant monitoring of their cases and the judgments they hand down.  Each case demands a complete understanding of the laws related to the case.  No judge should engage in any “judicial activism” (fanciful interpretations of law to fit personal whims) but must adhere to the ‘rule of law’ and “judicial restraint” (based on the legislated law) leaving the policy debates of law to the Legislature.  

Due to the fact that a “Judicial Commission” takes applications, interviews, and actually selects “finalists”, limits the Governor from selecting judges in a true publicly accountable manner. 

Who knows the personalities and politics of these Commission members?

The Governor may only select one of three names handed to him!

 

Even the pro-life stance of an appointing Governor may not reflect accurately on a given Judge’s performance.

Listed below are the pro-life or pro-abortion positions of those Governors who appointed these Judges.

 

However, the true test is if the Judge is pro-life and ”judicially restrained”!

 

Missouri State

Supreme Court

Eastern District Appellate Court

Southern District Appellate Court

Western District

Appellate Court

Retention Question on

All ballots statewide.

Retention Questions in

Eastern areas only.

Retention Questions in

Southern areas only.

Retention Questions in

Western areas only.

George W. Draper III

Jay Nixon – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

Robert Clayton

Jay Nixon – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

Also well known progressive liberal

William Francis

Jay Nixon – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

Cynthia Lynette Martin

Jay Nixon – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

 

Gary M. Gaertner

Jay Nixon – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

 

Thomas H. Newton

Mel Carnahan – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

 

  

Lawrence E. Mooney

Mel Carnahan – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

Gary D. Witt

Jay Nixon – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO”

Also well known progressive liberal

 

Sherri B. Sullivan

Mel Carnahan – Pro-Abortion

Vote “NO” 

 

 

 

Missouri Court of Appeals Districts

 

 

  Appellate Judge Information 

Eight out of the thirty-two Judges of the Missouri Court of Appeals are on the November 2nd ballot for retention.

4 – Eastern District

1 – Southern District

3 – Western District

 Democrat Governors Carnahan and Holden maintained a mandatory “pro-abortion” litmus test for all their judicial nominees over their twelve years of administrations!  Most of these judges need to be replaced.   Gov. Matt Blunt maintained a strict standard that judges MUST be restrained on law and supportive of the sanctity of life, but could only pick from the three “finalists’ presented to him by the judicial commission.  Current Governor Jay Nixon has a mixed review from his first term as he strives to distance himself from the extremity of his democrat party’s pro-abortion demands, even though he is pro-abortion himself.

 Any time three finalists are placed before the Governor for him to make a choice, there is a very, very high political probability that at least one will be pro-abortion.  On the other hand, those finalists who would have been set before former governors may have provided slim pickin’s for pro-life administrations.

John Ashcroft appointed judges based on judicial restraint and are generally okay but may not have turned out as good as he would have liked.  Appointments Governor Ashcroft made in his later years administrations were more seriously screened but he could only pick from the three candidates placed before him for each appointment.

Appointments made going back to Governors Bond and Teasdale (yes they still face retention every twelve years and not all have retired yet) were picked before the contemporary focus on judicial activism and pro-life/pro-abortion debates had become major political issues. 

 Former Governor Mat Blunt had little opportunity to appoint Judges except from limited names handed to him from the Judicial Commissions.  Under the non-partisan court plan Gov. Blunt could only choose between the three finalists placed before him in making these appointments.  Even though he has repeatedly stressed concern over “judicial activism” Gov. Blunt could not place a pro-life judge on the court unless one survived the process to be submitted among the three finalists placed before him!

Supreme Court Judge Zel Fischer did survive that process and has earned support from pro-life voters in his 2010 retention vote!

 Supreme Court Judge Patricia Breckenridge promised to behave on the court when selected by Gov. Blunt, and he offered her praise (over the other finalists) however, the Governor also stated in the same press release that he did not have faith in the Judicial Commission to put forward any candidates that could be completely trusted at that time.  (see Gov. Blunt’s press release dated 9-7-07)


 Missouri Family Network acknowledges that there has only been limited information and research on the 2012 Non-Partisan Judges.

Therefore:  Missouri Family Network expresses the following qualifications related to our voter recommendations.

MFN is 95% confident that any judge appointed by Governors Nixon, Carnahan, or Holden are pro-abortion and prone to activism on life issues, or other such political subjects.

MFN is 80-90%, or more in some cases, sure that those judges we recommend a YES vote to retain are pro-life and practice judicial restraint, according to what we have seen.

MFN openly solicits any qualified information from citizens which could assist us in building our confidence – or demonstrating any errors in our MFN recommendations.


Judges of the Missouri Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and Circuit Courts in the St. Louis and Kansas City regions are appointed under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. 

These judges are not elected to office, are not ‘officially’ aligned with any political party and do not campaign as other “candidates”.  They are not “elected” to office in the traditional sense.

 Retention questions related to these judgeships are nonpartisan ballot questions.  When voters go to the polls they will be asked to vote YES, or NO, to retain them or not to retain them.

 Non-profit organizations and churches are at complete liberty to speak to these retention questions just as they are regarding any other non-partisan ballot question.

Judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri, along with all of the Missouri Court of Appeals (all three districts) and the circuit courts in Clay County, Jackson County, Platte County, the City of St. Louis and St. Louis Co. (Kansas City & St. Louis areas) are all appointed through what is called the Nonpartisan Court Plan.  The procedures for these various appointments and any opportunity for voters to retain these judges are outlined in the Missouri State Constitution which operates as follows:

Those seeking to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the Appellate or Supreme Court bench apply to an Appellate Judicial Commission, which is comprised of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, three citizens appointed by the governor and three attorneys selected by The Missouri Bar.  The Commission will review all the submitted applications and conducts interviews before it selects a panel of three finalists to nominate to the governor.  The governor must select from one of those three individuals sometime within 60 days to fill the judicial vacancy.  Failure of the governor to make the final appointment would shift the responsibility back to the Commission itself.

Once an appointment is made, that new judge takes office.  The new judge then must sit for a retention vote at the next general election after he or she has been in office for at least one year.  If at least 50 percent of the voters in that election agree to retain the judge on the ballot, they would then serve a full term on the bench.  For all appellate judges, including the Supreme Court, the term would be for 12 years. (For circuit judges, the term is six years, and for associate circuit judges, the term is four years.)  This applies despite to the length of time remaining in the term of the judge that for whatever reason has vacated the bench and is being replaced.  

The Missouri State Constitution requires that Judges appointed to either the Supreme Court or the Missouri Court of Appeals to be at least 30 years old (may serve until 70), licensed to practice law in the state, citizen of the United States for at least 15 years, and also qualified to vote in Missouri for at least nine years prior to their appointment.


Divided among the state’s 45 Circuit Courts are a total of 98 Circuit and Associate Circuit Judges on the November 6th ballot. 

Some (42) are ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions to “retain” appointed judges – others (56) are competing in open contests as partisan candidates.

Know Your Circuit Courts!

Please be sure to research your local circuit and state appellate division judges that will appear on the ballot in your local area!

All judges appearing on your sample ballot that will be in your local polling booth on election day are highlighted in the online Official State Manuel (otherwise commonly known as the “Blue Book“) at: http://www.sos.mo.gov/bluebook/

A simple review of each judge will tell you which Governor appointed them or if they are Democrat or Republican judges (remember party platforms matter).  Admittedly it is overly simplistic to rate judges by mere party affiliation or Gubernatorial appointments, however this is the only viable tool available to average voters to rate the value of our judges.  Any notorious or noteworthy cases along with any other viable information on your local judges should be taken into consideration. 

 Each County in Missouri is in charge of the ballots printed for their citizens.  On a county by county bases some, but not all, counties have provided sample ballots to the Secretary of State, Elections Division. 

These sample ballots are available at:  http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/countylinks.asp?eid=336

 To look up your local ballot judges, who appointed them (Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion governors) or if they are politically affiliated with the pro-abortion planks of the Democrat Party or the pro-life planks of the Republican Party, visit the online version of the “Blue Book” at:  http://www.sos.mo.gov/BlueBook/  

 It is very important that citizens understand the state’s court system and investigate the judges who are either running for judgeships or (for those who were appointed to the bench as described earlier) are facing retention votes.

 Some of the better sources of information are to contact a variety of law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and trustworthy attorneys to ask about a sitting judge’s “law & order” attitudes.  It is important to note that many of these folks may not be willing to openly criticize a sitting judge but may be very willing to dialogue with you about a judge’s character and/or other qualifications.  (See questions below.)

Missouri’s 45 Circuit Court Districts

Missouri’s State Court System Is Broken Down Into:

 

        1 State Supreme Court                                                    7 Supreme Court Judges

 

       1 Court of Appeals in 3 Districts:

                                   Eastern District,                                  14 Appellate Judges

                                    Southern District,                                 7 Appellate Judges

                                    Western District,                                 11 Appellate Judges

        45 Circuit Court Districts with various Divisions      136 Circuit Judges

        114 County Courts serving their given Circuits        186 Associate Judges

Note:  All Drug, Family, Juvenile, or other Probate Commissioners

are employed by and accountable to those Judges listed above.

 

In the Missouri Legislature it would take a minimum of 82 members of the House agreeing with 18 or more Senators (a majority of both bodies), agreeing together and successfully navigating the parliamentary procedures of the Missouri General Assembly to advance liberal social policies, such as homosexual marriage, in our state.  In the state court system only one out of 322 judges is needed to do the same thing.  An activist court decision would have to go through at least one, or more, Appellate Judges whose decision either way would then go to the State Supreme Court.  The pivotal question hinges on who sits on these courts?  What would 4 out of 7 members of the high court do?  Since its establishment in 1820, Missouri’s Supreme Court had been both politically and socially conservative – until 2004!  For over 180 years our state had maintained a judicially restrained court – up until just a few years ago! 

With the appointment of Judge Richard B. Teitelman to the Supreme Court by Governor Bob Holden (his second appointee) the court swung to a liberal domination for the first time in Missouri’s history.  Twelve years of liberal antics from the Carnahan & Holden administrations has changed Missouri for generations to come!

The responsibility of voting for Missouri judges is more compelling than ever!


As far as your Circuit Judges are concerned:

You will have to research them for your own area. 

There are 45 Circuit Districts with hundreds of judges.
 
MFN recommends you call local law enforcement – sheriff deputies, prosecutor(s), and any trustworthy attorneys 
(lawyers from your area churches who have a reputation of maintaining a consistent Biblical worldview).

 Ask these people who interact with the circuit judges about their experiences and knowledge.

– Ask about how a judge either helps or hinders law enforcement?
– Do they help in the fight against meth or are they part of the problem?
– Do they treat people differently depending on which side of town they come from?
– Do they tend to protect certain popular family names, or otherwise treat them with kit gloves?
– Do they get up in the middle of the night to sign search warrants, or give a sheriff grief over being troubled?

 
Law enforcement will not openly campaign for or against the judges they are going to be standing in front of. 

But after going through these kinds of questions you will be able to discern any significant problems or outstanding

traits that will help guide you and your friends in voting in an intelligent manner that is pleasing to the Lord.


All Non-Partisan Judges Facing Retention Votes In This Election

Missouri Supreme Court     

George W. Draper III

Court of Appeals – Eastern District           

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr.

Sherri B. Sullivan

Robert Clayton   –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  Former Pro-Abortion Member of the Missouri House of Representatives, very bad pro-abortion and progressive liberal voting record

Lawrence E. Mooney

Court of Appeals – Southern District        

William Francis

Court of Appeals – Western District          

Cynthia Lynette Martin

Thomas H. Newton

Gary D. Witt   –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  Former Pro-Abortion Member of the Missouri House of Representatives, very bad pro-abortion and progressive liberal voting record

Circuit 6 – Circuit Judge     

Abe Shafer – Div 1

Lee Hull – Div 2

Circuit 6 – Associate Circuit Judge

Thomas C. Fincham – Div 3

Dennis C. Eckohld – Div 5

Circuit 7 –Circuit Judge      

Anthony Rex Gabbert – Div 2

Larry D. Harman – Div 4

Circuit 7 – Associate Circuit Judge

Janet L. Sutton – Div 7

Circuit 16 – Circuit Judge   

Justine E. Del Muro – Div 4

James F. Kanatzar – Div 5

Charles H. McKenzie – Div 13

Marco A. Roldan – Div 16

Jack Grate – Div 17

Circuit 16 – Associate Circuit Judge          

Kenneth R. Garrett – Div 26

Vernon E. Scoville – Div 28   –  –  –  –  Former Pro-Life Member of the Missouri House of Representatives

Robert L. Trout – Div 32

Circuit 21 – Circuit Judge   

Thea A. Sherry – Div 5

Douglas R. Beach – Div 6

David L. Vincent – Div 9

Michael T. Jamison – Div 10

Michael D. Burton – Div 16

Joseph L. Walsh – Div 17

Richard C. Bresnahan – Div 18

Colleen Dolan – Div 20

Circuit 21 – Associate Circuit Judge          

Mary Bruntrager Schroeder – Div 32

Dale W. Hood – Div 34

John N. Borbonus – Div 35

John R. Essner – Div 37

Sandra Farragut-Hemphill – Div 42

Joseph S. Dueker – Div 43

Circuit 22 – Circuit Judge   

Michael P. David – Div 6   –  –  –  –  –  Former Pro-Life Member of the Missouri House of Representatives

Margaret M. Neill – Div 9

Rex M. Burlison – Div 10

Edward Sweeney  Div 13

Robert H. Dierker – Div 18  – – – – – –  reported to be a strong conservative

John F. Garvey – Div 19

Jimmie M. Edwards – Div 30

Circuit 22 – Associate Circuit Judge          

Calea Stovall-Reid – Div 27

Thomas C. Clark, II – Div 29

Circuit 31      

Michael J. Cordonnier – Div 1

Calvin R. Holden – Div 5  – – – – – – –  Gov. Holden’s brother

Tom Mountjoy – Div 4

 


 Many contemporary politicians and political activists in the media are seeking to confuse voters.  In order to advance a liberal agenda, these activists support using the judicial court system to create laws and standards that are supposed to be set by the legislative branches of government.  One of the more common false claims they make is to redefine “judicial activism”.  As our culture reels from the onslaught of attacks against traditional/conservative social standards, courts are continually pressured to abandon the “judicial restraint” of applying the rule of law.   Instead, more and more they are creating new laws on their own through “judicial activism”.  Those who would seek to defend this offensive and unconstitutional activism tell citizens that conservatives who cry “foul” are creating a ‘straw man’ argument.  They deliberately work to advance the false idea that accusations of “judicial activism” are merely thrown out because conservatives don’t like a judge’s ruling and that it has nothing to do with the facts of the court case.

This is simply not true.  Please review the following descriptions of these key terms.  A “judicial activist” judge is just as wrong if they attempt to rewrite the law to the left or the right!  Voters must discern when a judge is true to the rule of law and work to change the laws they dislike, not the judge.  Likewise, being happy or disgruntled with a judge’s ruling that steps out from under the rule of law must be addressed according to the standards of the law, not the feelings of anyone affected.

“JUDICIAL ACTIVISM”

An “activist” judge is one who makes political decisions – not legal judgments.

When a Judge steps outside the parameters of the laws he is to maintain, he assumes the role of a legislator making law rather than a judge who determines if or how a law has been violated.  Legislators debate and deliberate as a body of several elected representatives charged with making the law.  Judges are only supposed to enforce those laws and no more.  Thus, any judge who, for any reason, ignores a law he disagrees with or abuses his authority by imposing the power of his position to enforce legal frameworks that do not otherwise exist in duly adopted laws and ordinances, is acting outside the “rule-of-law” – he is an “activist”, not a judge.

“JUDICIAL RESTRAINT”

A “restrained” judge is one who discerns legal judgments from within the “rule-of-law”.

Whenever a judge restrains himself from acting on his own personal preferences and applies only the “rule-of-law” in discerning legal judgments, he allows those properly elected to legislate the parameters of the law.  Public policy remains within the domain of those public bodies open to public discourse and influence.  The role of a Judge is not to make law but to enforce those laws properly deliberated before various bodies of duly elected representatives charged with the role of lawmakers.  These Judges set aside their personal preferences in order to enforce the “rule-of-law”.  Such restraint qualifies one as a trustworthy Judge.

Judicial Discernment

Voters are asked to elect or retain judges in every election cycle.  These are elections, complete with all the high rhetoric surrounding every other political contest.  Some have tried to redefine inappropriate judicial activism as mere disgruntlement with a particular judge of the judicial system. Falsely claiming that ‘activism’ is a “straw man” that doesn’t truly exist in Missouri courts as “spin” turns the table on the critics.  Anyone who raises questions about judges who step out of their bounds of authority is accused of being the bad guy.

The goal of this “spin” is to make the critic look like a fool who is unwilling to accept the authority of the court only because they are unhappy with the outcome of a case.  (Equally erroneous are charges of activism from folks who really are just unhappy with the outcome of a court case(s).)

 Citizens must be cautious to understand the parameters of the various laws related to cases they are concerned about.  A conservative Judge who engages in activism is just as wrong as a liberal who would do the same thing.  The performance of a Judge is not to be evaluated by the popularity of the outcomes of a given court.  Whether you like and support – or dislike and oppose – the outcome of a court ruling has nothing to do with declaring a Judge to be a liberal “activist” or a “restrained” conservative.  Discerning a Judge’s “judicial activism” or “judicial restraint” depends on his adhering to the “rule-of-law”,  or if he is taking the law into his own hand to remold it with political decisions according to his personal preference.

   Remember – Voting is:

a Blessing rather than a Burden

& a Responsibility, not a Right!

Four Statewide Ballot Questions – General Election, Nov 6

NOTE:  The following information is the same as the attached PDF which is ready to print for your convenience.   

Missouri’s Statewide Ballot Questions – November 6th, 2012

Analysis and Recommendations from Missouri Family Network

Here in Missouri registered voters often have the opportunity to vote on statewide ballot measures which are proposed to change State Statutes (Propositions) or the Missouri State Constitution (Constitutional Amendments).  These ballot measures come from two sources, either the State Legislature or citizen initiatives.  The citizen’s initiative process is regulated by the State Constitution and they are always designated to appear on the next General Election ballot following their successful completion of the signature gathering process.  Those statewide ballot questions put forward by the Legislature may have a designated election date embedded in the proposal, otherwise such issues default to the next General Election date, or another election as directed by the Governor.

On November 6, 2012 Missouri voters will see four statewide ballot questions.  Two have come from the General Assembly of the Legislature, and two have come to the ballot through citizen initiative efforts.  Of the four, one is a Constitutional Amendment and three are Propositions seeking to change State statutes.

The purpose of this article is to help provide voters with some additional information on each of these four ballot questions so you can make a more informed vote.  Here at Missouri Family Network we provide our recommendations of “YES” or “NO” votes so voters understand the perspective of our analysis up front.  All voters are challenged to take the time to seek out opposing information and vote your convictions with clarity.

Missouri’s Four Statewide Ballot Questions

Constitutional Amendment 3Accountability for Nonpartisan Judges – Vote YES

Proposition AReturning Control of St. Louis Police to Local Citizens – Vote YES

Proposition BMassive 500%+ Tax Increase on All Tobacco Products – Vote NO

Proposition ELimits to Creating ObamaCare Healthcare Exchanges – Vote YES

 

Constitutional Amendment 3   –   Vote YES   (Proposed by the General Assembly, SJR 51)

Official Ballot Title:  (what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to:

  • appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees; and
  • appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor’s appointees be nonlawyers?

There are no estimated costs or savings expected if this proposal is approved by voters.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees. This measure also allows the governor to appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor’s appointees be nonlawyers.

A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions for the nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Analysis:   Constitutional Amendment 3 addresses the infamous Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.  Falsely reported to be of such popularity that several States have used it as a pattern for their own applications, the truth is that no State has duplicated it without first making significant alterations!  Now, for the first time, Missouri voters have an opportunity to address some of the faults of this constitutional provision that have led our State into judicial darkness.

Under the current nonpartisan court plan, all higher court judges (State Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges) and certain specified Circuit Court judges are appointed rather than elected.  This has led to widespread confusion and frustration among voters, and insulation from accountability for the judges.

Currently these judges are pre-selected by a non-elected judicial commission.  When a vacancy occurs on these courts a judicial commission fields applications from interested individuals.  A slate of potential finalists are presented to the sitting Governor, who in turn makes the final appointment from the slate.  Once appointed judges serve on the bench, they face an initial retention vote on the ballots of voters from the appropriate jurisdictions, and repeated retention votes thereafter.  However, due to the nature of the process there are no campaigns or advertising related to these retention votes resulting in voters having no idea how to discern anything about such judges.  Human nature leads the majority of voters to support status quo and 99% of judges never lose their retention.  To make matters worse these retention votes can take as long as twelve years (Supreme Court members) to recycle!

It is all too common for voters to go to the polls on election day and see judge retention questions for the very first time, not knowing they were even going to be on the ballot.  When anything questionable regarding a judge comes up, there is no one to hold accountable.  The appointing Governor points to the judicial commission for not advancing better finalists to pick from.  The commission members wash their hands saying it was the Governor who appointed a judge.  No lawmaker had anything to do with the appointment.  Voters end up with no way to hold anyone accountable.

To make matters worse, the Missouri Bar Association, and the trial lawyers in particular, control the process behind the scenes to elevate their own selections without approval from or accountability to the voters.  Only until recent months, and following years of high profile criticism, has the judicial commission process even allowed public access to the interviews conducted with applicants for vacant judgeships.

Constitutional Amendment 3 realigns the appointments and tenure of members of the judicial commission to coincide with the sitting Governor.  This creates a political environment that removes the excuses used to avoid accountability.  While the commissioners never have to face voters, at least the Governor cannot pass blame if voters can tie the commission’s slate of finalists to the Governor.  This provides some degree of accountability, and possible recourse for voters.

Other changes include expanding the number of finalists presented to the Governor to appoint from.  The current three finalists would grow to four.  This increases the possibility of a pro-life applicant to survive the process during years in which a pro-life Governor is in office.

The end result of Constitutional Amendment 3 is that a poor quality Governor will continue to appoint judges which voters would never elect.  But voters would have opportunities to hold a Governor accountable for doing so.  However, a pro-life Governor would be in a much better position to bring pro-life judges forward by appointing conscientious commission members.

Missouri Family Network recommends a “YES” vote for constitutional Amendment 3 as a vote for accountability.  It is not a magic pill to fix everything wrong with Missouri’s judiciary, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

 

Proposition A   –   Vote YES   (Proposed by a citizen’s initiative petition.)

Official Ballot Title:  (what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

  • allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city and establishing a municipal police force;
  • establish certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension; and
  • prohibit retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press?

State governmental entities estimated savings will eventually be up to $500,000 annually. Local governmental entities estimated annual potential savings of $3.5 million; however, consolidation decisions with an unknown outcome may result in the savings being more or less than estimated.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of establishing a municipal police force by transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city. This amendment also establishes certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension.  The amendment further prohibits retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding St. Louis City’s police force.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Analysis:   Proponents of Prop. A primarily argue from a “local control” perspective, as well as outlining the history of the current law.  Supporters include a long list of leaders and organizations across the state.  Opponents focus on the concern of mismanagement and/or possible corruption at risk from placing the St. Louis Police board under the control of the City.  Opposition includes the NAACP, the ACLU, a narrow list of activists and some disgruntled over a complicated history with City leaders.

MFN rejects the bulk of both positions and makes our final recommendation of a “YES” vote based on citizen’s control.  Allow me to explain:

Let’s first look at “local Control.”  This is not a fully valid reason for changing current policies and practices.  The principles of local control come from the historic debates surrounding education.  At the base of these education debates are divided philosophies regarding any government’s jurisdiction over education in the first place.  While government may provide a free system of public education, it certainly has no moral authority to dictate education policy to those not interested in government schools.  In fact many effectively argue the State has no compelling purpose for being involved.  (This is an ongoing debate.)  Because education ultimately resides with the will of parents alone, local control principles play an incredibly important role.

However, law enforcement is in fact one of the basic purposes of government.  Thus the local control argument in this case does not fit well.  To make the case stronger is the fact that while the State of Missouri should rightfully be seen as a sovereign State (in relationship to other States, nations, and even our own Country, the United States of America), it is also THE sovereign political/civil entity.  All cities, towns, villages, counties, townships, precincts, etc. are subservient to the State as the sovereign authority which allows all the others to exist, and in what form.  In all matters of political sub-divisions within the State, the authority of the State ultimately trumps local control.  The single legitimate use of this argument resides in the values of locally directed and customized control that is often only realized at the local level and bearing the benefits of efficiency not otherwise recognized or appreciated from a central planning bigger government.

Secondly we reject opponents’ concerns over possible mismanagement and/or corruption.  If the City of St. Louis is this untrustworthy we should be hearing ongoing cries for disbandment of the City’s charter, or a state take-over of City management.  (Stick with me a moment longer please.)  No one claims the City does not have significant political problems.  However, among the hundreds of thousands of residents, there are many fine citizens who work tirelessly to improve the City and support efforts to hold people accountable.  And amazingly, there is no hue and cry for the City to be dissolved.  Yet this writer has seen several towns and villages come and go in less than 50 years, including urban, suburban, and rural communities!

Facts:  Over 150 years ago the State’s population distribution was weighted within the City of St. Louis by staggering proportions.  With the Civil War bearing down the Governor and State leaders realized that the St. Louis Police Department was by far the largest para-military force both in Missouri as well as west of the Mississippi River!  To risk divided factions targeting control of this force was a major concern for the State and the safety of thousands.  As a result of these developing political/military dynamics, the State asserted its Sovereignty and took over control of the police department.

So here we are over 150 years later and the State has never restored Control of the St. Louis Police Department back to the citizens of the City!  What if this were your local police, fire department, or other service providers or local infrastructure?  In fact the citizens of every other community in the state regulates its own services through the constitutional republic methods of civil structure.  As a result people can hold local politicians accountable for any mismanagement and/or questions of corruption.

It has proven to be inefficient and costly to Missouri taxpayers to have the members of our State Legislature micro-manage the policies of the local police in St. Louis City.  To save Missouri taxpayers money and to treat St. Louis City citizens with proper respect, it is incumbent upon Missouri voters to say “YES” to Proposition A.

 

Proposition B   –   Vote “NO”   (Proposed by a citizen’s initiative petition.)

Official Ballot Title:  (what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

  • create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of a tax of $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products;
  • use Fund proceeds to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding; and
  • increase the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and create bonding requirements for these manufacturers?

Estimated additional revenue to state government is $283 million to $423 million annually with limited estimated implementation costs or savings. The revenue will fund only programs and services allowed by the proposal. The fiscal impact to local governmental entities is unknown. Escrow fund changes may result in an unknown increase in future state revenue.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds from a tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products.  The amount of the tax is $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products.  The Fund proceeds will be used to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding.  This amendment also increases the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and creates bonding requirements for these manufacturers.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products or the escrow account and bonding requirements for certain tobacco product manufacturers.

If passed, this measure will increase taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Analysis:   Proposition B is a massive tax increase at best, which should be rejected.  At its worse, it is a politically correct attack on the tobacco industry and an attempt at social engineering that must be rejected.  Giving proponents the benefit of the doubt, let’s simply evaluate the tax perspective.

Just a few years ago Missouri shared in the “tobacco settlement agreement” brought about by the 1990’s politically motivated attacks and resulting litigations created by a democrat congress angry over tobacco industry support of republican candidates over democrats.   Hundreds of billions of dollars were distributed to the States, including Missouri, with little going to cessation programs or assistance for those harmed by tobacco.  Basically the money was absorbed by the State to prop up its 1990’s government growth spurt (a time in which state government doubled in size and costs).

Now we are being asked to accept a tobacco tax increase for the purpose of funding tobacco related medical services and education.  (What supporters of Prop B need to do is go back to the Legislature and ask them to reallocate current state revenues to make up for the funds already spent that should have provided these programs.)

There are two groups of voters facing this tax increase:

First are consumers who would face a significant tax jump on their tobacco products.  For these folks a “NO” vote is easy.  However, they may find it more difficult to sway their friends – so take a puff, or bite off a chaw and read on about the second group, the non-tobacco users who pitch their tents in two different camps.

The first camp of non-tobacco users see tobacco use as a personal choice.  These campers believe smokers have been warned for decades that tobacco use is harmful and that more taxes will not create any resolve for the problems associated with tobacco use.  For these folks let us consider the implications of such a new tax within the context of a politically correct culture.  Governments today believe they can dictate such things as the size of your soft drinks?  (You get the picture.)  What may be the next target of politically motivated taxes?  Fast food?  Non-eco friendly products?  ???

The second camp of non-tobacco users see tobacco as a vice, or a sin.  For these folks let’s consult Scripture.  Let’s see, how many times does the Bible point to civil government leaders being blinded to the victims of vice because of tax revenues received?  (Check out the minor prophets and the teachings of Proverbs, as well as other precepts.)  This is exactly why the State cannot bring itself to stop casinos or alcohol abuse.  There is just too much money coming into State coffers while the social costs (which are higher) gush out through multiple agencies and services.

So for tobacco users and non-users, a huge tobacco tax increase is not an attractive proposal.  Missouri Family Network recommends a “NO” vote for all citizens heading to the polls on November 6th, no matter which group or camp they reside in.

 

Proposition E   –   Vote YES   (Proposed by the General Assembly SB 464)

For your understanding of the issue we have provided both the original version of the ballot question (which was rejected by the court as misleading) as well as the replacement question which will appear on your ballot as written by the court.  Our analysis will follow.

Official Ballot Title:  (Original Version)(what voters would have seen in the voting booth)

 

Shall Missouri law be amended to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through an exchange operated by the federal government as required by the federal health care act?

 

No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues

are unknown.

 

Fair Ballot Language:

 

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through an exchange operated by the federal government as required by the federal health care act.

 

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding access to affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange.

 

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

 

Official Ballot Title:  (NEW Version)(what voters will see in the voting booth)

 

Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?

 

No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues

are unknown.

 

Fair Ballot Language:

 

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote

of the people or by the legislature.

 

A “no” vote will not amend Missouri law to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote

of the people or by the legislature.

 

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

 

Analysis:   Proposition E simply asserts that without voter approval, or that of the citizen’s duly elected members of the State House and Senate, the Governor nor his agencies shall enable ObamaCare on his own.

Last year a group of Missouri State Senators and the Lt. Governor’s office discovered and diverted plans by certain members of Governor Nixon’s administration to create the health care exchanges for implementing ObamaCare in Missouri.  These healthcare exchanges provide the administrative framework for enabling the federal government’s healthcare takeover and is opposed by a supermajority of Missouri citizens.  (See Prop. C, 71% adoption vote, August 3, 2010)

Following the revelations of what many citizens consider a “scandal” the State Legislature passed SB 464 which seeks to prohibit the Governor, or any state bureaucracies from establishing such exchanges without voter approval or that of the voter’s elected members of the General Assembly.

After passage of the legislation proposing this constitutional amendment, the Secretary of State (Robin Carnahan) in tandem with the Attorney General (Chris Koster) drafted the summary ballot question for voters to read in the polling booth.  But because their ballot question was so misleading and designed to taint the election, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder and a large host of republican members of the Legislature filed suit challenging the legality of the ballot title.

Implementation of the “Affordable Care Act” requires a new healthcare exchange system which carries a price tag of upwards to fifty million tax dollars ($50,000,000.00).  However the federal government is willing to provide the money (which still comes out of our pockets) if Missouri‘s Governor or another state agency agrees to accept it.  Thus it is important to expressly prohibit such a move through the executive orders of the Governor or other actions by unelected bureaucrats.

Missouri Family Network recommends that citizens concerned about the various implications of ObamaCare should cast a “YES” vote for Constitutional Amendment 3 in order to reserve such a move to themselves.  As a constitutional republic it is wholly appropriate to restrict such authority to voter approval or that of the 197 member Legislature.