What a bizarre month this has been.

We’ve had Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) ask if the National Forest Service might change Earth’s orbit around the sun to alter the effects of climate change. An Ohio doctor pushes the idea that the vaccines can magnetize people and make them susceptible to government monitoring — an idea readily accepted by Republican legislators there.

Now comes Rep. Ann Wagner, (R-Missouri) proposing a bill that would hold China accountable for “deliberate, reckless action that allowed the coronavirus to spread, killing millions worldwide.”

She recently warned constituents that the government must pass this legislation, “to make sure China pays for their reckless actions.”

Talk about reckless actions, I bet she can’t wait to read “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History,” a new book by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta that captures the Trump administration’s dysfunctional response to the unfolding pandemic.

The book details some of the inner workings of Trump world early on in the pandemic. We knew he wanted to block cruise ship passengers from re-entering the country. But did we know he also wanted to bar infected Americans returning from abroad? His solution: send them to Guantanamo. All to keep the COVID numbers down in the U.S.A.

The book is not without its ironic moments…

“Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly exclaimed in a phone call to then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 18, yelling so loudly that Azar’s aides overheard every word. “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?”
“Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, citing the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
– Washington Post

Trump fired key people to stifle sound scientific commentary. And, of course, he espoused ideas like using hydroxychloroquine and bleach injection. He repeatedly claimed the whole pandemic was all a hoax. He downplayed the need for masks and he failed to encourage widespread vaccination.

Crazy, right? We laughed. But Abutaleb and Paletta take a more somber view.

“One of the biggest flaws in the Trump administration’s response is that no one was in charge of the response… Was it Birx, the task force coordinator? Was it Pence, head of the task force? Was it Trump, the boss? Was it Kushner, running the shadow task force until he wasn’t? Was it Marc Short or Mark Meadows, often at odds, rarely in sync?… Ultimately, there was no accountability, and the response was rudderless”

Yeah, Ann Wagner, people need to be held responsible for making the pandemic much worse than it needed to be.

The post Strange times, reckless behavior, nightmare scenarios appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Back at the turn of the century, as Chair of the Missouri Advisory Council On Alcohol and Drug Abuse, I appeared before committees working-up the state’s mental health budget.  The legislature maintained this great fiction that they controlled state operations down to one percent of every state employee’s time.  Using their power, a committee – thence the whole legislature – might slash a line item from 12.45 FTEs [Full Time Equivalent employees] down to 10.75 FTEs.

Of course, that mythical level of oversight never happened.  Still, it made the elected Representatives and Senators think they accomplished something.

And, even in these Republican times, the Missouri Legislature holds hearings and goes over the thick budget books for state departments in intricate detail.  Even expending just a trifle of money ($10,000 or $25,000 in a $30 billion budget) leads to debate, negotiations and tremendous angst.

Not this week.

The same legislature which traditionally sweats nickels gave accidental Governor Mike Parson unprecedented authorization to seek and spend over $6 billion without further or meaningful oversight.

Also, the Missouri legislature, by law, must pass a balanced budget for the new state fiscal year in early May.  Nope.

The latest plan has the governor calling a special session – probably in mid to late June – to pass a kinda budget.  Instead of detailed hearings and intricate review, the House and Senate will listen to a quick overview from bureaucrats and pull-out the rubber stamp.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congress gave the Federal Reserve Board broad power to act in virtual secrecy. Politico reports:

The new law would absolve the board of the requirement to keep minutes to  closed-door meetings as it deliberates on how to set up the $450 billion loan program. That would severely limit the amount of information potentially available to the public on what influenced the board’s decision-making. The board would only have to keep a record of its votes, though they wouldn’t have to be made public during the coronavirus crisis.

Remember, the Federal Reserve already acts deep in the shadows.  How they “find” trillions of dollars to prop-up the economy on short notice is pretty much a head scratcher. Yes, they do, after all, print money.  Still, it would be a nice to believe that somehow people elected by their neighbors get to review and question how our economy is manipulated.  Not this year. The current president sees the Fed as just another loyal serfdom obligated to respond to his whim,.

Donald Trump, alas, ignores rules—and truth—every day.  Note how when he signed the latest stimulus bill, he refused to abide by its oversight provisions.  And, his new hobby is firing federal Inspector Generals, even the ones he appointed.

Donald, like Mike here in Missouri, prefers to rule by decree. “I know what’s best for you” ought to be on both their business cards. Dictate, don’t negotiate. If it works for Vladimir Putin or Recep Erdağon it ought to work for Trump and Parson.

Too bad it is working.

For decades, historians have charted the move towards an imperial presidency in this country. Yet it continues. And, Missouri governors of both parties have yanked more power to their office—the disposal of Eric Greitens being the rare exception to that trend.

My fear?  When COVID 19 heads to the history books, the extra control seized by government executives “during the emergency” won’t go away. Kind of like today’s Federal Assembly in Russia.  What began almost 30 years ago as a true parliament has reverted to the old Supreme Soviet, existing to say yes to the tyrant’s whims (including changing the law so the tyrant can rule as long as he wants).

Remember, Republicans elected to Washington and Jefferson City voluntarily ceded much of their power.  Will their successors ever get that power back?  Probably not

The post Are we witnessing the end of representative government? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

By October 1, 2020, anyone wanting to fly domestically, or gain legal admittance to a government facility or a nuclear power plant needs to have a Real ID (or a valid U.S. passport). Your Real ID is a form of identification that meets standards set—in response to 9/11—by the federal government and set in stone by Congress in 2005. Some states jumped right in and created Real ID’s for their citizens. If you don’t live in Missouri, this is already old news, and you’ve had your Real ID for years. Not surprisingly, ultra-conservative and slow-as-molasses Missouri was among the last of the states to get on board (as I write this, the only remaining outliers are Oklahoma, Oregon and New Jersey).

I hate to admit this, but I’m not sure I completely disagree with Missouri’s recalcitrance. The requirements for getting your Real ID can be onerous for some people and inconvenient for a lot. Those are probably not the main reasons my state legislature dragged its feet—it’s probably more about “big-gummint” intrusion into little people’s lives, and as a “librul,” I’m less worried about that, given the greater good that a big-thinking government can do. What troubles me about Real ID is its basis in xenophobia and the burden it places on people with the fewest resources.

That being said, though, it’s the law. And now that the deadline is looming—the feds are done giving out multiple extensions like those it granted to Missouri several times over—it is becoming an emergency for Missouri citizens to do what’s needed to get the new card.

So, dutiful citizen that I am, and wanting to beat the last-minute crowds that will undoubtedly show up just before the deadline, last week, I did my research, gathered my docs, and headed over to my local DMV to get compliant.

The process was far from a slam-dunk. I was pretty sure I had the proper credentials—but as I waited in line at the DMV, I began to wonder. I had a long time to worry, because when I arrived, I pulled number 25 from the dispenser and then heard them call number 4. Each transaction was taking about 15 minutes. I did the math. It was going to be a long day.

But then, as I observed the official interactions from my chair (I was lucky to get one) three feet away, I began to see a trend: The clerk was turning away more than half of the applicants because they didn’t have a complete set of the required documents. That phenomenon made the line move more quickly—and I found myself guiltily cheering for more rejections—but it was disconcerting, too. With so many people being turned away, it was becoming clear to me (increasingly nervous about my own documents) that the requirements were confusing or not well-explained, or just impossible for some people.

I brought four items, but you might need five, if you don’t have a passport:

1. My current U.S. passport. That’s my proof of identity, because it has my full name and date of birth. (There are a bunch of other things you can bring for identity, but that’s the one I had. Birth certificates count, but mine wouldn’t have worked, because, as a woman who got married in the 1960s and changed my name, my birth name doesn’t match my current name, so it’s not valid ID. A friend of mine told me about an 86-year-old woman she knows who tried to use her birth certificate as ID but was rejected for just that reason and was told she needed something with her changed name, such as her marriage certificate. Unfortunately, all she had was her Jewish marriage certificate, known as a “ketubah.” That wouldn’t work, because it’s written in Hebrew.)

If you have a name problem, you can bring a “name change” document, such as a certified marriage license (in English), a certified divorce decree, certified adoption papers, or an amended birth certificate.

2. I needed something that certified that I am in the U.S. lawfully. My passport worked for that, too, but again, there are other valid documents for that purpose.
3. Social Security Card. (The rules say it can’t be laminated. I was glad I had never gotten around to doing that.) You can also bring a W-2 Form, a 1099 form, or a current pay stub that has your name and social security number.
4. Proof of residence x2: They want two of these. I brought my Missouri voter registration card (not the notification of where you vote) and a printout of my most recent bank statement, which has my mailing address on it. This is the category that tripped up most people who got bounced from the queue ahead of me. They didn’t have two. There’s a long list of things that work, you just have to remember to bring two of them.

The process was so slow that many people left before their number came up. Some took a new number as they exited, hoping to come back later and have an advantage in the sequence. That didn’t seem to work. The young man sitting next to me had tried it, after waiting for 90 minutes earlier that day. But when he came back, his number—89—had already been called, and he had to start over. He got 26 this time—he would be right after me—and we sat together for the next 90 minutes, chatting, secretly hoping for more people ahead of us to be rejected, and commiserating about the sad state of government administration as demonstrated by where we were at that moment.

Finally, they called, “25.” I did, indeed, have the correct documentation, and my transaction took only about 10 minutes, plus a $12 fee. The beleaguered clerk, who had taken quite a bit of shit from people lacking all the required docs, was very pleasant.  Unfortunately, I had made one major miscalculation. Real ID is good for six years, but my driver’s license expires in August of this year, which means so does the Real ID that I received in the mail 10 days later. I should have waited until March (or later), when I would have been within the six-month window for renewing my license. In my quest to get ahead of the game, I got too far ahead, and now I’ll have to go through the whole thing again this summer.

The post I got my Real ID last week in Missouri. Here’s what you can learn from my experience. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As a black person and as the president of College Democrats of Truman State University, I feel that I have a dual responsibility to talk about the personal and political realities of dealing with hate.

I am not afraid of white supremacy or these so-called white supremacists. My identity is my own, I’m proud of it, and I have no intent to shade it or apologize for it to make these racists comfortable.

My grandparents did not struggle for years in the Jim Crow south for me to be afraid today. Myself and others have dealt with worse than an anonymous poster left by insecure cowards. I’ve heard people say the N-word while I was in the room. I’ve had my presence at this university discounted as “affirmative action.” I’ve had people try to affix stereotypes to me and use me as a token to support their own savior complex. I’ve had my entire identity and culture boiled down into the punchline of a joke.

These experiences and others are more common and more damaging than a few posters. We as a people have been dealing with bold white supremacy for years and will continue to. We need to address, in our individual lives, the subtle white supremacy.

It’s easy to tear down those posters. It’s less easy to ask if you’re complicit in a larger problem. Talk to your friends of color, take their experiences seriously, and grow together.

Editor’s note: The poster pictured above was found this morning, March 25, 2019 in the Square in Kirksville, MO. The full text of the poster reads:

“Did you know that Truman trains non-whites to replace you white man? A “Nation of Immigrants” means your time is up.”

The text at the bottom of the poster says that the poster is “brought to you by your local Stormer book club.” 

The College Democrats of Truman State University issued the following statement regarding the poster:

The College Democrats of Truman State University unequivocally condemns the presence of white supremacy in our community.

Kirksville has a thriving immigrant population which has enriched the experience of everyone who calls this place home. We are welcoming to people of all nations, all faiths, and all cultures because we know our diversity is our strength. We have stood together in the face of all manner of obstacles that have threatened this community, including recession, blizzards, droughts, fires, and floods. It is time to come together once again to combat this abhorrent extremist ideology which is rooted in cowardice and hate. We are bigger, we are bolder, and we are stronger than white supremacy or anything else that would seek to break this community.

We will not allow immigrants, people of color, women, the LGBTQ+ community, or anyone who speaks out against white supremacy to be intimidated. We stand with you, because we are you, and we’re all in this together.

The post My response to the poster found today at Truman State U. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The “Better Together” plan for the re-consolidation of St. Louis City and St. Louis County is being released, and the initiative drive is about to begin. These are my thoughts about it. (There are ten points, but they are not inscribed on two tablets.)

1.  I definitely support some kind of merger or consolidation of St. Louis City and County. I don’t need to be convinced that something must be done. I understand that many people like their local governments and are worried about losing that connection, but at the minimum, the city and county must somehow be brought together.
2.  I am open to ideas on the best way to do this— form of government(s), taxation and financing, timetable, etc.— I will consider all options. I don’t have any preconceived notions.
3.  I am determined to ignore County residents saying they don’t want any part of the city and its crime, bad schools, etc. I will also look beyond City residents worried that this is all just a power grab. And I am happy to pay no attention to government officials who are just protecting their own fiefdoms. (I do understand that many in the black community are concerned that any kind of consolidation will weaken their political clout, but I don’t think that is automatically true.
4. I am not going to be swayed by “We’re stuck in 1904 (or 1876) and we must move forward” kind of slick PR slogans. I know we must do something. What is the best way to do it?
5.   I am not going to be swayed by arguments along the lines of “we have to do something now and this is the proposal that’s out there so it is this or nothing.” We are talking about taking steps that will have a huge impact on the region for the next century or two. As frustrating as the current situation is, I’m not going to vote for a bad plan just for the sake of doing something. I’d rather wait and do it right.
6.  I will not support anything that opens the door to privatization of government services.
7.  I will not support any plans, proposals, or campaigns that in any way limit full public disclosure of discussions, information, decisions, etc.
8.  I am not convinced that this is something the whole state must vote on—at least not before city and county residents come to an agreement.
9.   Nothing against the five people who developed the plan, but there is already one strike against this because there was no public discussion of the plan before it was released and presented to the public. (I know they had hearings and public sessions, but the plan was developed behind closed doors.) The Better Together campaign has gotten off on the wrong foot.
10.   The fact that Rex Sinquefield is investing massive amounts of money in this means the proposal already has two strikes. Sin-Q has proven that he does not care about the well-being of our region’s residents. He only cares about protecting his own wealth and forcing his libertarian philosophy on everyone. It is very tempting to oppose the plan on this basis alone. His involvement puts a very negative cover over this whole thing.

So— the Better Together plan has two strikes against it. It has a lot of work to do to not strike out. And in the mean time, I am open to competing ideas.

What do you think?

The post Proposed St. Louis City – County merger: Better together? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republican governors, state legislators and secretaries of state have become shameless in their attempts to reverse the results of legitimately passed ballot initiatives. What they’re doing goes far beyond the coy, clever, clandestine dirty tricks that Republicans have honed over many years. They’re not just working behind the scenes: they’re out in the open, declaring publicly their intention to undo what voters have officially said they want.

This is not a rogue strategy: Judging from news reports from a variety of states, this is a trending Republican policy. According to the Washington post,

“In the past two years alone, legislators have filed more than 100 bills across 24 states aimed at reversing ballot measures, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which focuses on advancing progressive priorities through ballot initiatives.

“It’s a power grab,” the center’s executive director Chris Melody Fields Figueredo said last month. “It’s an attempt to take that power away from the people. It is counter to why we have democracy in the first place.”

“The ballot-measure process is under attack,” said Justine Sarver, the executive director of the center. “There were many successful measures in 2016, and we’re seeing many conservative governors saying, ‘I’m not going to implement that.’”

Case in point: Missouri

In November 2018, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved [62% to 38%] a constitutional amendment—dubbed “Clean Missouri”—that will impose campaign-contribution limits, restrict gifts to legislators, and change the way state legislative districts are drawn, to eliminate partisan gerrymandering.

But almost before the last vote was counted on the Clean Missouri initiative, Republican Governor Mike Parson vowed to get behind a legislative effort to repeal it—even though, he acknowledges, his support of a reversal doesn’t look good to voters. [This isn’t Parson’s first screw-the-voters effort: After Missouri voters approved a 2011 initiative that would have shut down inhumane “puppy mills,” Parson—then a state legislator—led a successful legislative drive that put puppy mills back in business even before the new law could take effect.]

Rumor has it that one Republican legislator is preparing to pre-file a bill in the 2019 Missouri legislative session that would undo Clean Missouri immediately. And within days of Clean Missouri’s decisive victory, a new group—with the Orwellian name “Fair Missouri”—began raising money for a new ballot initiative that would erase what voters had just approved.

Missouri is not new to this game. The state has a sordid recent history of undermining, invalidating and/or sabotaging voter-approved initiatives. Here are a few examples:

• 1999: MO voters vote against concealed-carry permits for guns.
  2003: MO GOP legislature passes concealed carry law.
• 1990s: MO voters vote for caps on campaign contributions.
  2008: MO GOP legislature removes the caps.
• 2011: MO voters pass puppy mill ballot measure. Missouri Republican-dominated legislature reverses it before it can take effect.
• 2015: St. Louis and Kansas City voters pass city minimum wage hikes.
  2017: MO GOP undermines the wage hike with its own state- mandated minimum wage.
• 2016: MO voters–again–approve caps on campaign contributions. Missouri Republicans launch a court fight against the new rules.
• 2018: MO voters overwhelmingly reject GOP’s Right to Work legislation via ballot measure.
  2019: MO GOP files the legislation again.

It’s legal

For the record, it’s not illegal for Missouri’s legislature to pass laws that reverse the provisions of voter-approved ballot initiatives. According to Ballotpedia, only two states—Arizona and California—have actually made it illegal to change an initiative substantively without sending it back to the voters. In fact, 11 states (and D.C.) can change or repeal initiatives at will, without any restrictions on how soon, or with what majority the legislative body can act.

But, while it may be legal, thumbing your legislative nose at voters reeks of unfairness and a sore-loser, anti-democracy mentality.

“There’s little disagreement that, after offering the choice up to people at the ballot boxes, it’s symbolically fraught to take it away,” writes Sarah Holder, at CityLab. Holder quotes former Washington DC mayor Anthony Williams as saying, “We are facing a situation that is never good for a democracy. The people appear to have spoken, and yet their elected officials are saying, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.”

As we learned in eighth-grade Civics class, ballot initiatives came about as a way for citizens to be a final check and balance on their representatives. That’s an important principle, and it should be respected. Unfortunately, in Missouri as in too many other states, too many elected officials clearly regard “the will of the people” as merely a suggestion, rather than as a right, and they’re making it their official policy to salute voters with their middle-fingers.

The post Reverse the vote: Undoing the will of the people is now official Republican policy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

After the November 2018 midterm election, Missouri voters could congratulate themselves on being ahead of the curve in the nationwide drive for anti-gerrymandering laws. But the elation was short-lived. One day after voters passed Constitutional Amendment 1—nicknamed “Clean Missouri”— by an overwhelming 61% margin, Republicans in the “Show Me” state showed their true colors and began a cynical effort to undermine the new law.

The Clean Missouri amendment includes sweeping new provisions aimed at reducing government corruption at the state level. The new law limits gifts to legislators and bans elected lawmakers from becoming lobbyists immediately after serving in office, among other restrictions.

But the biggest news in the new law is how it revises the process for redrawing congressional district boundaries after each national census. And that’s the provision that Missouri Republicans are targeting.

Here’s what is different about Missouri’s new approach to congressional redistricting. According to AP,

Other states have created independent commissions and required bipartisan votes to redraw legislative and congressional districts. Missouri will be the first to rely on a new mathematical formula to try to engineer “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness” in its state legislative districts; the Legislature will continue drawing the state’s congressional districts.

It’s an experiment—one that Missouri Republicans want no part of because, according to an AP analysis:

…it has the potential to end the Republicans’ super-majorities in the state House and state Senate and move the chambers closer to the more even partisan division that is often reflected in statewide races. But the size of the likely Democratic gains remains uncertain, partly because the formula has never been put to a test.

[Also, there’s science, analysis and factual information involved. Those things apparently turn off Missouri Republicans as well.]

So, without missing a beat, Missouri Republicans declared war on Amendment 1. According to the New York Times,

The day after the election, the Republican speaker of the Missouri House, Elijah Haahr, said that he wanted “to strike up conversations with African-American lawmakers who have expressed misgivings that Clean Missouri could reduce the [number] of black lawmakers,” Jason Rosenbaum of St. Louis Public Radio reported. That’s a classic strategy for Republican gerrymandering: Effectively guarantee black-held seats in exchange for reducing the overall number of Democratic seats.

In addition,

…opponents of the amendment created a political group to undermine it, Tony Messenger, a metro columnist for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has noted. The group has the Alice-in-Wonderland name of “Fair Missouri” and $150,000 in initial funding. Its goal is to place a new measure on the ballot that would sabotage parts of the amendment before they can take effect.

The covert, state demographer gambit

The most cynical anti-Amendment 1 strategy is one that will take place far out of the spotlight of ballot initiatives and special elections. Rumor has it that one Republican state representative is preparing a bill that would simply defund the newly created state demographer’s office.

How would that proposal affect Missouri’s anti-gerrymandering effort? Bigly. A report from KSDK-TV describes the impact:

Currently, state House and Senate districts in Missouri are redrawn after each census by bipartisan commissions. Members are appointed by the governor from nominees submitted by the Democratic and Republican parties.

Amendment 1 creates a new position of nonpartisan state demographer who would propose maps to commissioners that reflect the parties’ share of the statewide vote in previous elections for president, governor and U.S. senator. Criteria of “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness” would outrank more traditional criteria such as geographically compact districts.

De-funding the state demographer is a starve-the-beast, behind-the-scenes maneuver that would, essentially, kill the entire effort.

Interestingly, Missouri’s state website has duly posted a job opening for State Demographer and is accepting applicants. Among the duties of the job, the listing says that the state demographer:

Prepares periodic estimates and projections of the state population, and county-by-county population estimates and projections.

Serves as liaison with state agencies, the federal government, and local governments regarding population estimates and projections for the State of Missouri .

And, most importantly,

Supervises the decennial reapportionment project, including the supervision of professional, technical, and clerical personnel.

[Translation: the demographer is in charge of the data used in redistricting after every US Census.]

The pay scale is attractive: $50,000 – $80,000. The job could be a great landing place for a highly competent, non-partisan statistics nerd. The question is: With Republicans in a tizzy about the new law, and given their multi-pronged anti anti-gerrymandering effort, how long will that job posting—or the job itself, once filled—last?

These strategies show that the Show Me State  —  at least its Republican party — is not, as is popularly believed, out of step with the rest of the US. Undermining initiatives passed by voters [and even elections for high office]  is quickly becoming a national Republican strategy. Looking to Wisconsin, Michigan and other states as role models for controverting the time-honored democratic concept of “the will of the people,” Missouri Republicans can now congratulate themselves for being right there in the ugly, sour-grapes, democracy-defying mainstream of the GOP.

The post MO GOP’s overt / covert plots to undermine new anti-gerrymandering law appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Sponsors of Missouri Amendment 1—aptly nicknamed Clean Missouri—aims to increase fairness, integrity and transparency in Missouri politics. With the length and complexity of the 2018 midterm ballot, it’s fortunate that this good-government proposal is first on the ballot, because many voters may fall victim to ballot fatigue long before they get to some of the other issues.

What’s in the Clean Missouri amendment? Here’s a plain-English summary published by the perpetually knowledgeable and helpful League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis.

Amendment 1 would do the following:

• Reduce campaign contribution limits to $2,500 for state Senate candidates and to $2,000 for state House candidates.
• Eliminate almost all lobbyist gifts to members of the General Assembly
• Require that all legislative records be open to the public, including committee reports, correspondence and electronic communications, and allow taping of all meetings open to the public.
• Require politicians to wait two years after leaving office before becoming paid lobbyists.
• Ensure that neither political party receives an unfair advantage when new legislative district maps are drawn after each census—also known as “gerrymandering.”
• An independent demographer would draw maps that would then be reviewed by a citizen commission that must hold public meetings. Currently, politicians draw the maps to protect incumbents and their parties.

Those final two bullet points are crucial. They are the anti-gerrymandering provisions of Amendment 1. Contending that democracy depends on creating a level playing field in the way districts are drawn, Amendment 1 specifies that when districts are constructed they need to meet the following criteria, in order of priority:

• Make districts as equal in population as practicable
• Comply with the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other federal laws
• Promote partisan fairness and competitiveness
• Be composed of contiguous territory, coincide with the boundaries of cities, towns and municipalities, and be compact.

The League of Women Voters has been advocating for the kind of redistricting reform specified in Amendment 1 [more details here] and, therefore, supports the proposal.

Here are some illustrations of a few, crazily gerrymandered Congressional districts in other states:

The post Missouri Amendment 1: Cleaning up Missouri politics appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Missouri House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC) seems to have a thing for scary words like socialism, state-controlled healthcare, atheists, liberal professors, progressive and, gasp, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Much of what you will find if you Google the phrase “Paid for by House Republican Campaign Committee, INC., Eddy Justice, Treasurer” will not be pretty. In fact most of the search results lead to downright nasty negative ads slamming Democratic candidates for various Missouri House races. Many of these pages have urls that look like the candidates’ official sites.

The House Republican Campaign Committee was formed as a political action committee. The official HRCC website claims that it is “Building MO’s GOP Majority Since 2004.” It’s treasurer is Eddie Justice. He’s been in that role since 2010. He was one of Eric Greitens’ nominees to the state school board. The state senate blocked him from that post.

There is no high road with the HRCC. Not even a chance of a civil conversation.
Of the web offerings by the HRCC, only three are positive sites pushing Republican candidates. At least seven are scare sites with the message that the named candidates are evil and that you should vote “NO.” No reference is made to the candidates for whom they would like you to vote.

Here’s a sampling of some of the HRCC vitriol:

Peggy Sherwin. 104th District, running against Adam Schnelting.
The 104th is in central St. Charles county. Sherwin is a retired professor and has taught newly released felons transferable skills related to re-entry into society. She has been endorsed by Missouri NEA, NARAL and various labor groups. Here is Sherwin’s real campaign site.

Using the url, peggyproblems.com, the HRCC claims:

• She’s a socialist extremist who wants government run healthcare, higher taxes, open borders and wants to take away our 2nd amendment rights.
• Peggy supported both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

Jessica Merrick. 20th District, running against Bill Kidd (incumbent.) The 20th is near Kansas City, north of Blue Springs. She believes everyone should have access to affordable healthcare and that our public education system is drastically underfunded.  Here is Merrick’s real facebook campaign page.

Using the url, realjessicamerrick.com, the HRCC screams:

• Our faith. Our Freedom. Nothing is sacred to Jessica Merrick.
• Too Extreme. Too Far Out of Touch. Vote NO on Jessica Merrick.

Michella Skelton. 50th District, running against Sara Walsh (incumbent.)  The 50th is south of Columbia. Skelton favors paid family leave, improved healthcare for all, the rights of workers to unionize and bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. She has a long list of endorsements from a variety of progressive sources. Here is Skelton’s campaign website.

Using the url, extremistskelton.com, the HRCC declares:

• Michela Skelton’s campaign is backed and funded by liberal professors that defended Melissa Click during the campus protests that led to a decline in enrollment, lost tuition revenue and fewer jobs in our community.

Brady O’Dell. 11th District, running against Brenda Shields. The 11th is in southwest Missouri around St. Joseph. O’Dell calls himself a blue collar worker who is against “Right to Work” legislation and is for raising the minimum wage.  Here is his real campaign facebook posting.

Using the url, bradyodell.com, the HRCC claims:

• Vulgar Brady O’Dell’s progressive policies are wrong for Missouri
• Brady O’Dell wants to bring socialism to Missouri. This destructive system will kill jobs, raise taxes, and expand failing, inefficient government programs.
• Brady O’Dell clearly doesn’t like our tax cuts. Socialist Brady O’Dell will try to repeal your tax cuts and increase government spending by MILLIONS.

The HRCC has not restrained itself to web postings. They also are sending out direct mail like this one slamming O’Dell. The socialism quote allegedly came from a 2013 facebook post.

And then there’s this direct mail piece which displays masterful Photoshop work on  Mike Labozzetta who is running against incumbent Republican Jean Evans in the 99th State Rep District in St. Louis County

The HRCC mailer was an over-the-top hatchet job that made Labozzetta look like a depraved Jack Nicholson from The Shining. In reality, Mike is a friendly attorney who works with entrepreneurs, business owners, non-profits and startups. On his website, he says his goal is, “to create a government that invests in its citizens by investing in their education, in their healthcare, and in creating a diverse economy that provides opportunities for all.” Here is Labozzetta’s campaign website.

All of these targeted candidates are reasonable people with high ideals. One has to wonder if their Republican opponents are really on board with these ugly HRCC postings. When asked if she condoned the negative mailers about Labozzetta, Jean Evans stated only that she would not run negative ads and that she has no control over the ads produced by the HRCC.

If these negative offerings hold sway, it will be sad commentary on Missouri voters.

The post MO GOP PAC goes low with scary words and images appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Proposition D on Missouri’s 2018 midterm ballot asks voters whether to increase the tax on a gallon of gas. Should you vote for it?  Good question. If passed, Proposition D would raise the gas tax by a total of 10 cents, over four years. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? After all, tax included, a gallon of gas in Missouri costs less than the same gallon in Illinois. You could argue that we’re getting a disproportionate bargain, and that voting yes would bring Missouri in line with neighboring states.

According to a summary published by the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis, the current tax is 17 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel fuel, compared to Iowa’s 31 cents for gasoline and 32.5 cents for diesel fuel. The higher tax is estimated to generate at least $288 million annually for the Highway Patrol and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction.

I generally support tax increases, because it’s clear from the necessity of continuous cutbacks in services, Missouri government is not adequately funded. But then I started thinking about the regressive nature of sales taxes, and how this increase would put a disproportionate burden on people at lower income levels. And then I read an op-ed by former Missouri legislator Joan Bray. As someone who served 18 years on the Missouri legislature—with a major focus on transportation — Bray’s opinion carries weight. She is urging voters to say no to Prop D, saying that it contains a “poison pill that should outrage voters.”  Here’s her argument, as published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Just like the last two proposals for gas tax hikes, this increase would disproportionately help rural areas by funding only interstates and “letter highways.” Under the state constitution, gas tax goes solely to roads and bridges. None can be spent for urban or rural public transportation, passenger rail, ferries or bicycle paths. This proposal makes sure those modes continue to starve.

I had hoped that after the sound drubbing voters gave the last two gas tax hikes, the concrete cartel in Jefferson City would realize it should address the plight of all transportation modes. But it decided to obfuscate instead. It is promoting the tax for safety — funding the Highway Patrol — while shifting the patrol’s current appropriation to roads and bridges.

The bill’s poison pill defies responsible distribution of state revenue. It sets up the “Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund” into which the Legislature would appropriate general revenue. At last, the road and bridge guys could legally take from the pot of money already gutted by tax cuts to build their pet projects.

Who would lose from this sleight of hand? Anyone who relies on state funding for elementary and secondary schools, universities, mental health care, Medicaid, hospitals, criminal justice and prisons, environmental protections, and, not to forget, other modes of transportation without their own special tax like roads and bridges have.

Once again, myopic transportation planners in Jefferson City need to be denied. Locking the state into more funding that ignores the transportation needs of millions of urban, rural and poor Missourians seals the state’s fate in concrete.

Here’s the exact wording that you’ll see on the ballot under Missouri Proposition D. You decide. Full disclosure: Unfortunately, I voted absentee—and I voted yes—before Bray’s op-ed was published. Oops. Someone out there, please cancel me out with a no vote.

Shall Missouri law be amended to fund Missouri state law enforcement by increasing the motor fuel tax by two and one half cents per gallon annually for four years beginning July 1, 2019, exempt Special Olympic, Paralympic, and Olympic prizes from state taxes, and to establish the Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund? If passed, this measure will generate at least $288 million annually to the State Road Fund to provide for the funding of Missouri state law enforcement and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction and maintenance.

The post Gas tax [Proposition D] on MO ballot: I voted yes before I knew what I was doing appeared first on Occasional Planet.