Posted on 11/05/2012 6:43:48 AM PST by ConservativeChris
Did several searches on FR and google and came up empty. So if this was covered, sorry in advance, or belatedly, I guess. See below.
To save time if you already have read the referendums,this is how I plan to vote, unless I am reading it wrong;
1) PROPOSITION E, Yes. (Yes, No state based health insurance.) (seriously? Yes, No?)
2) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3, No. (No amendments, No commissions, No Lawyers.)
3) Propostition A, No. (No More Govt)
4) It is not below but No on Prop. B (cigarette tax)(No More Taxes)
I don't want to accidentally vote for something because of the way it is written, or if I am missing something that ISN'T written. I have been a member here for years and a lurker before that, so we all think alot alike, less govt, more personal responsibility, etc, any useful, non-attack would be appreciated. If I have mis-read or mis-interpreted ANYTHING, Please let me know.
Please no remarks about my publik skoolin. I'm series, this is hugh!
Sorry this post is so long, I didn't want you to have to click on a link to help me, so I posted the whole ballot. (I guess I am asking for help with my homework.)
1) PROPOSITION E Proposed by the 96th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SB 464 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.
Yes. I think. (This was the "YES means NO" one to me.)
2) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Proposed by the 96th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SJR 51 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.
If I am reading this right I want to vote no here.
3) Propostition A Proposed by Initiative Petition 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.
NO here.....Unless?
Thank you in advance, unless you were an asshat.
That’s how I’m reading them, too.
My boss & I were discussing Prop A. the other day & neither one of we’re sure how to vote. On the one hand, why shouldn’t a city control it’s PD? One the other hand, has the state board helped prevent corruption? Being from downstate I admit I really don’t understand this particular set-up. I just know it was started after the Civil War. I did read where the police officers don’t want city control & believe the City just wants to get their hands on the pensions. I’m thinking that should be a “no” vote.......
BTW, I don’t smoke but will vote “no” on the tax increase. It’s really a big deal around here as there is a group in town trying to ban smoking completely. They are naive enough to really believe all the money will go to the schools.....
TRYING to post as little as possible, (FR been acting freaky)so I will condense my posts.
Nuc 1.1: Thank you, this is exactly why I posted here, most times what is NOT in the bill (consequences, etc.) is what is MOST important. You may be right, at least I can vote for him.
PoplarBluffian: The more I read about it the more I think I should stay out of it and let the people actually affected by it vote, unless I am missing something.
golfisnr1: Thank you for the link.
1. Yes (I read that the same way as you do.)
2. No - I disagree with Nuc 1.1; more lawyers don’t seem to be a good idea to me. The amendment reads like the Govenor already has the power to appoint some of the commission, but not a majority - better than allowing the appointment of a majority in my opinion. However, that may not be the current method, so you need to find out.
3. Yes - allowing more local control (rather than state control) is usually preferred. Why is St. Louis a city not within a county? Does it actually extend across 2 or more county lines? We have some cities like that and have no problem with them controlling their own municipal police force. (Unless St. Louis is so corrupt and lawless that an outside force is required to protect the innocent.)
Here is the info on the STL PD history:
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/st-louis-wants-control-own-police-force-again.html
The State should give back control to the STL city government or take control of all the other Municipal PD’s, If it’s good for one it”s good for all.
Thanks for the link. Giving back control was my first thought until I started cluttering my mind with some some of the opinions I was reading and then I got unsure about the whole thing. Better not to vote than vote uninformed!
I’m voting “no” on local control of police. I grew up hearing my parents talk about the Pendergast era in Kansas City, fascinating stuff, really. Of course, Pendergast controlled much more than just the police, but no organization needs what these STL and then KC politicos will bring to the table. They learned from the best and we need not to back to “the Chicago Way”.
I’m voting “no” on local control of police. I grew up hearing my parents talk about the Pendergast era in Kansas City, fascinating stuff, really. Of course, Pendergast controlled much more than just the police, but no organization needs what these STL and then KC politicos will bring to the table. They learned from the best and we need not to back to “the Chicago Way”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.