Missouri Amendment 3 is a confusing, misleading mess. Here’s how to vote
Missourians should vote no on Amendment 3.
That sounds simple, and it is. But because Republicans in the state legislature are terrified for their jobs, and because misleading the public is their primary strategy for getting this ballot measure passed, many voters may be confused by the ballot question or skip it altogether.
That would be a mistake.
If you want a government that’s honest and listens to you — if you want a clean Missouri — you must vote no on Amendment 3. Here’s why.
Two years ago, roughly 300,000 petitioners told the state’s leaders they wanted to reduce lobbyists’ influence in Jefferson City, cap political donations and make the process for drawing state legislative districts more even-handed. Their signatures put the so-called Clean Missouri initiative on the ballot.
By a 25-point margin, voters endorsed Clean Missouri. That should have been the end of it.
But Republicans in the legislature thought otherwise. They wanted another vote on the Clean Missouri framework, claiming voters didn’t understand what they actually passed in 2018.
Did those Republicans seek petition signatures for a vote, as Clean Missouri supporters had two years earlier? Of course not. They knew Missourians wouldn’t sign. Instead, GOP leadership crafted a ballot measure in the darkness, rammed it through the legislature and put it up for a November vote.
Those tactics are bad enough. But voters must understand this truth: Amendment 3 doesn’t simply repeal the reforms of two years ago. Instead, it replaces the changes with a redistricting scheme so insidious it would wreck the state’s General Assembly for a generation.
Clean Missouri established a framework for creating legislative districts that more fairly represented the people. It called for a demographer who would draw districts based on bipartisan fairness and political competitiveness.
Amendment 3 trashes that framework, creating an incumbent-protection process for drawing new lines.
There’s more. If Amendment 3 passes, only “eligible voters” would be counted when forming legislative districts, not total population. That omits children. It’s hard to imagine a more anti-family approach than that.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWho decides the endorsements?
Members of The Kansas City Star Editorial Board interview political candidates, as well as advocates and opponents of ballot measures. The editorial board is comprised of seasoned opinion journalists and is separate from The Star’s newsroom. The board’s members are editorial writers Toriano Porter and Mara’ Rose Williams — all veteran journalists with decades of experience. Editors Derek Donovan is also a member, and editor David Tarrant, while not a member of the board, reads and often improves each editorial we publish. Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
What does the endorsement process entail?
The Star Editorial Board invites candidates in each race to meet with the board in an on-the-record discussion, the purpose of which is more fully understand what distinguishes one candidate from another. Board members do additional reporting and research to learn as much as possible about the candidates. The editorial board then convenes to discuss the candidates in each race. Board members seek to reach a consensus on the endorsements, but not every decision is unanimous..
Is the editorial board partisan?
No. In making endorsements, members of the editorial board consider which candidates are well prepared to represent their constituents — not whether they agree with us or belong to a particular political party. We do weigh heavily their stances on issues we consider basic tests of judgment and candor, such as whether they even acknowledge climate change as real, or if they continue to deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. We weigh these factors against many others, and state clearly what our conclusions are. Primarily, we evaluate candidates’ relevant experience, their readiness for office, their depth of knowledge of key issues and their understanding of public policy. We’re seeking candidates who are thoughtful and who offer more than just party-line talking points. The editorial board will endorse both Republicans and Democrats, making recommendations about who the best-qualified candidate for each job is.
Why are endorsements unsigned?
Endorsements reflect the collective views of The Star’s editorial board — not just the opinion of one writer. Board members all discuss and contribute ideas to each endorsement editorial.
“If Amendment 3 is fully implemented, one out of every four Missourians would not count when new districts are drawn,” opponents of the proposal have argued. That “would have profound implications for how our families and our communities are represented in the State Capitol.”
There are other parts of Amendment 3 designed to lure voters into supporting a measure they don’t want or need. The ballot measure lowers the cap on campaign contributions to state senators by $100. It reduces the threshold on lobbyist gifts from $5 to $0.
Both proposals are cynical attempts to pass off Amendment 3 as political reform. It is not. It’s a measure aimed at making sure insiders can choose their politicians, cutting voters out of the process.
Fortunately, Missourians are far smarter than legislative leaders give them credit for. Voters passed Clean Missouri in 2018 to make the state better. They knew what they were doing.
And they know what to do now. Vote no on Amendment 3. It’s that simple.
This story was originally published October 22, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Missouri Amendment 3 is a confusing, misleading mess. Here’s how to vote."