Statewide poll: Voter support for Amendment 1 as strong as ever

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 21, 2019

Voters continue to support nonpartisan redistricting reforms added to state constitution,
and are very critical of politicians’ efforts to overturn will of voters

New polling released today by the Clean Missouri coalition shows voter support for the package of legislative reforms passed in November 2018 remains as strong as ever, including for components that have been targeted by politicians for repeal this year.

More than 1.4 million Missouri voters approved Amendment 1 at the ballot box, winning in every state senate district in the state.

“We saw in November, and again in this poll, that voters from across the political spectrum and from all walks of life support Amendment 1,” said Kevin Akins, Vice President at ALG Research. “Voters remain supportive of all of the Clean Missouri amendment’s core components, from fair redistricting reforms to government transparency.”

Highlights from the poll include:

• Amendment 1’s broad coalition of support remains strong. 61% of Missourians support the Clean Missouri amendment, which aligns with November 2018 electoral results.
• A plurality of Republicans (49%) support Amendment 1.
• Half of voters statewide are less likely to support a lawmaker who votes to overturn or repeal Amendment 1.
• Every pillar of the Clean Missouri package is supported by a majority of voters statewide.
  • 62% of respondents said they support Amendment 1’s process and criteria for redrawing state legislative districts to make future maps fair and competitive
  • 93% of respondents said they support requiring legislative records and proceedings to be open to the public

“Amendment 1 passed in a landslide, but some politicians just aren’t getting the message. What part of YES do they not understand?” said Rod Chapel, president of Missouri State Conference of the NAACP. “We won’t sit idly by, and let a few politicians and lobbyists overturn the will of the people.”

The Clean Missouri Amendment created a new, fair redistricting process that took away the influence of lobbyists and insiders in crafting new maps. Missouri’s new redistricting system includes checks and balances to create districts where candidates will actually have to earn their votes, and rules that ensure no political party gets an unfair advantage in any new maps.

These findings are based on a statewide telephone poll of N=606 likely November 2020 voters in Missouri. Interviews were conducted between February 21-26, 2019 via landline and cellphone. The poll’s margin of error is ±3.98% with a 95% confidence level.

Open records need to stay open in Missouri

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 21, 2019

Originally posted in Columbia Missourian on March 18, 2019.

In my various previous positions, I have filed many Sunshine requests through Chapter 610, Missouri Revised Statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act.

Since I am now mostly retired (I have a problem saying “no”), I just filed a citizen’s Sunshine Law and Clean Missouri request to Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Outdoor Resources Committee.

He has acknowledged my request and stated that I could expect the rather voluminous request to be honored on or before March 22.

No doubt that whatever records Bernskoetter has, these are public records and the good senator is a public servant. In short, everything in his office has been collected with public funds, and Bernskoetter gets his salary from public funds.

The Sunshine Law — so called because it shines the sun of openness on public records — is, in quite a few ways, superior to the federal FOIA. One of the ways is the length of time required to respond: three working days in the case of the Sunshine Law, 30 working days in the case of FOIA.

Once upon a time, when I was doing research for a book, I requested via FOIA certain records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Thirty days or more passed. The request was simply ignored, until I asked a couple of Seattle lawyers to press the Department of Agriculture to respond.

With no apology or explanation for the delay, a few days later my mailbox contained what I had requested. Of course, it was heavily redacted, but I had the information from various rumors and gossip, and I wanted verification.

Even with redaction, it was clear that the rumors I had heard were correct. It is telling, however, that it was necessary to involve attorneys before my request to a federal agency was honored. I have never encountered that in Sunshine Law requests.

The state Senate acts in accordance with the mandates of Clean Missouri. To his credit, Bernskoetter responded within the period of three working days and told me when I could expect what I had requested.

That represents a change in attitude, thanks to the passage of the Clean Missouri constitutional amendment, which made legislators’ records open to the public. Before the passage of Clean Missouri, legislators had conveniently exempted themselves from compliance with the Sunshine Law.

After the overwhelming passage of Clean Missouri by voters last year, which was opposed by several legislators, they are hoping to find a way to avoid compliance and keep their records sealed. After all, they apparently reason, what they do is their business, and the public be damned.

The Missouri House of Representatives has passed HB 445, which Sandy Davidson wrote about in her Missourian column Friday. In this bill, the legislature is attempting to keep certain records from being open and accessible.

Not so fast. The Clean Missouri language requires the legislature to have the same openness as all other public entities. The Sunshine Law is only included as an example.

In short, if legislators attempt to exempt themselves from certain requirements of the Sunshine Law and Clean Missouri, they must exempt all other government entities, from state agencies to municipalities to county commissions.

Lawyers are standing by.

Poll shows support high for Clean Missouri

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 21, 2019

Originally posted in The Columbia Tribune on March 19, 2019.

Half of Missourians would likely vote against lawmakers who seek to repeal Amendment 1, the ethics and redistricting initiative approved by voters in November and under attack in the General Assembly, according to a new poll commissioned by backers of the amendment.

The poll conducted in late February by ALG Research asked a series of questions about the four major elements of Amendment 1. The least popular, with only 56 percent favorable, was the provision replacing a redistricting commission with a state demographer to design districts for 163 Missouri House seats and 34 state Senate seats. Gov. Mike Parson has called on lawmakers to repeal that provision.

The most popular, with 93 percent favorable, was the requirement that lawmakers’ records be subject to the state Sunshine Law.

“I think what the poll shows is that support remains very strong for the Amendment 1 package and its individual provisions,” said Sean Nicholson of the Clean Missouri coalition. “Voters sent a message. The other piece is that voters are extraordinarily skeptical and unhappy with politicians who are trying to undo what they just passed.”

Amendment 1 has resulted in more than a dozen legislative proposals to alter its rules or make it more difficult for other groups to offer initiatives through the petition process. The most advanced is a bill changing the state Open Meetings and Records Law. The bill, passed in the House, would close records that have cell numbers, home addresses or Social Security numbers of individuals; records of communication between elected officials and constituents and records of communications from any party with “advice, opinions and recommendations” about matters before the official.

The Missouri House changed its rules in January to close constituent files and records of legislative caucus deliberations.

That bill “significantly undermines the Sunshine Law,” state Rep. Kip Kendrick, D-Columbia said.

“I think that people should be aware and should be concerned about ongoing attempts to undo provisions in Clean Missouri,” Kendrick said.

Amendment 1 received 62 percent of the vote in November and the poll found 61 percent of those surveyed support it. The poll also found 53 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of President Donald Trump. The highest support for Amendment 1, 72 percent, was among Democrats, while 49 percent of Republicans viewed it favorably.

Amendment 1 put a $5 cap on lobbyist gifts and imposed a two-year wait on lawmakers becoming lobbyists after leaving office.

It changed the redistricting process by creating the position of state demographer and having the state auditor submit names of candidates for the job to legislative leaders. Districts are supposed to have partisan balance as well as be compact and cross as few political and natural boundaries as possible.

Prior to the passage of Amendment 1, correspondence and other records kept by individual lawmakers were exempt from the Sunshine Law.

In the state Senate, GOP members are most concerned about the redistricting provisions and the strongest push is to raise the bar for placing initiatives on the ballot, Senate Majority Leader Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, said Wednesday.

“I don’t want to repeal anything and I don’t think any of my colleagues do,” he said.

Rowden said he has been working with representatives of the Missouri Press Association to make changes to the Sunshine Law that are reasonable. The redistricting provisions are generating the most concern, he said.

Legislative districts are redrawn after every census. Because the districts are used for 10 years, they should be fair, Rowden said.

“We want to make sure going into this next round of redistricting that voters are very clear,” he said.

Along with requiring more signatures for initiatives, some proposals also seek to increase the required majority, currently 50 percent, for passing constitutional amendments. That would be a good idea, Rowden said, and it should apply to amendments proposed in the General Assembly as well.

“It should be somewhat difficult to change our state constitution,” he said.

Because it is incorporated into the state constitution, any changes to the Amendment 1 provisions must also be approved by voters, Rowden said.

The poll isn’t very convincing either way, he said.

“I have got polling that says when you frame the questions differently, you can turn things upside down,” Rowden said.

The poll will make lawmakers pause before they move on other proposals, Kendrick said.

“There will be a continuing effort to undo these changes,” Kendrick said. “Getting polling data out there is important to remind them of the provisions in Clean Missouri.”

The portion of the poll that asked about how voters will react to lawmakers who support changes is the part that lawmakers should be especially concerned with, Nicholson said.

“We’ve seen some politicians hint that voters are smart enough to know what they are voting on,” he said.

Sandy Davidson: Any attempt to undo Clean Missouri is undemocratic

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 15, 2019

Originally posted in the Missourian on March 14, 2019.

On Monday, news reports from Anchorage, Alaska, concerning the Iditarod dog-sled race arguably gave us some surprising insight on the power of collective action.

French musher Nicolas Petit was ahead, but he apparently didn’t know what he was going to get when he scolded one of his dogs, Joey, for fighting with a teammate. Apparently, yelling at one’s dogs is a major “faux paw.”

Seemingly out of solidarity with their scolded teammate, the dogs refused to pull the sled. Petit camped out for over five hours as other teams passed him and his doggedly recalcitrant dogs.

One can just imagine what the dogs were saying in dogalese:

• “OK, jerk, pull your own damned sled.”
• “Let’s teach that temperamental Frenchman some manners.”
• “You know what ‘dog’ spelled backward is, right?”
• “All for one, and one for all.”

Although the sports story wasn’t about a typical athletic team, it illustrated teamwork at its apex. Petit ended up withdrawing from the race. The dogs’ move — or refusal to move — was just as effective as taking the car keys away from a misbehaving teenager. All punishments should be so swift and so effective!

That brings me to this question: What should be a swift and effective punishment for politicians who go astray? Or maybe the question is this: What could effectively stop erring politicians in their tracks, just like the dogs stopped Petit?

Maybe there is no such mechanism. There’s the ballot box, but an election might not be that near, so the term “swift” wouldn’t apply. Impeachment? Only in the most egregious circumstances, and that isn’t a swift process, either.

Sometimes politicians are stopped when their pet projects don’t get funded.

But what can voters do when they have clearly let their will be known but some politicians refuse to follow through? The situation in Missouri is worse than a failure to follow through, however. Some Missouri politicians are trying to undo what voters clearly said they want last November: Clean Missouri.

Constitutional Amendment 1, the initiative also known as “Clean Missouri,” covers several topics — lobbying, campaign finances, redistricting and public records. Cole County Judge Dan Green ruled in mid-September that the initiative violated Missouri’s constitutional provision that says a proposed amendment “shall not contain more than one subject.” But the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District overruled Green, deciding that the initiative contained one subject — namely, regulating the Missouri General Assembly. The initiative was back on the ballot.

To get the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, the Clean Missouri coalition had to collect signatures amounting to 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election in six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. The coalition submitted 346,956 signatures to the Missouri Secretary of State for verification.

On Nov. 6, the initiative passed by an overwhelming margin of 62 percent to 38 percent. Because this is “Sunshine Week,” the focus here is on the public records part of Clean Missouri.

“Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” Justice Louis Brandeis famously quipped. However, some politicians apparently don’t want sunshine. Do they want a dirty Missouri instead of a clean one?

Here’s what the public records part of Clean Missouri says: “Legislative records shall be public records and subject to generally applicable state laws governing public access to public records, including the Sunshine Law.”

Clean Missouri then defines legislative records very broadly: “Legislative records include, but are not limited to, … all records that are created, stored or distributed through legislative branch facilities, equipment or mechanisms including electronic.”

But House Bill 445 would close some legislative records from public view. Here’s the language of the proposed exemption: “Any document or record, including electronic communications, received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendations in connection with the deliberative decision-making process of said body.”

Eek! Are any records more important for sunshine’s disinfecting effect than the “advice, opinions and recommendations” connected to the “deliberative decision-making process”?

When studying philosophy, I came to believe that what separates more totalitarian governments from more democratic ones is access to government information.

Lobbyists would perhaps relish having their recommendations placed outside the reach of the Sunshine Law.

What if the “advice, opinions and recommendations” given to legislators are faulty? Maybe they’re based on misinformation — or on biases in favor of the advice-givers’ interests. How does the public counteract what the public is forbidden from seeing?

Bill 445 would be a step backward for transparency in government. Yet it passed the House on Feb. 7. That’s not just an “Eek!” That’s a “Gag!” Literally. Put a gag on the “advice, opinions and recommendations” relating to the “deliberative decision-making process.”

And if the Senate passes this anti-transparency legislation … ?

So much for representative democracy. This attempt to undo the public records part of Clean Missouri is misguided. It’s reprehensible. It’s undemocratic.

What does it mean to live in a representative democracy? It means, in part, that we elect representatives to vote for us — unless we go to the work of gathering enough signatures to get a question on the ballot and then pass the ballot measure.

A margin of 62 to 38 percent in November should have sent a message.

Meanwhile in Alaska, where Frenchman Petit’s dogs sent him a message, Peter Kaiser from that state’s Bethel won the Iditarod.

Sunshine can also bring joy. The biggest ray of local sunshine this week came from Nobel Prize winner George Smith, who is donating his nearly quarter-of-a-million dollars in prize money to the College of Arts and Science for needs-based student scholarships.

Mizzou will also contribute $300,000 for scholarships, according to Chancellor Alexander Cartwright, who said that Mizzou is starting a new tradition of donating $100,000 for scholarships any time a Mizzou faculty member wins a Nobel Prize.

Especially at this time in U.S. history, when student debt has exceeded credit card debt, George Smith’s Nobel Prize gift is noble.

Making that decision to give away the Nobel Prize money — that’s about as likely for most of us as deciding what to say when we receive our Oscars.

Way to go, George Smith! Just when it seemed you couldn’t get any higher in the esteem of your fellows here at Mizzou, you did. You really did!

Sandy Davidson, Ph.D., J.D., teaches communications law at the MU School of Journalism. She is a curators’ distinguished teaching professor and the attorney for the Columbia Missourian.

Missouri Lawmakers Seek To Shield The Emails That Voters Said Should Be Public

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 14, 2019

Originally posted in KCUR on March 14, 2019.

Any member of the public can go to the debates in Missouri House or Senate. And in November, voters said the discussions about legislation and strategy that lawmakers have in emails and other documents should be public knowledge, too.

But some legislators are looking to once again shield those records from public view, a move that opponents say is a step backward for government openness and transparency.

Members of the General Assembly became subject to the state’s open records law (aka the Sunshine Law) after the passage of Amendment 1, otherwise known as Clean Missouri, in December.

But a Senate bill, along with a similar bill that has already passed the House, would shield their emails relating to strategy on legislation and constituent concerns.

Supporters of the legislation said Amendment 1 made no provisions to protect the privacy of residents who seek help from their representatives or senators. But opponents believe it’s another sign of an era where government transparency is less valued — especially coming after the Greitens administration, which used secretive apps to communicate.

“I can certainly understand why legislators would want to keep communication that relates to constituents’ personal life private,” said Sara Baker, legislative and policy director for the ACLU of Missouri. “I do not think that communications that relate to the legislative process, communications that could have an influence on a legislator and how they vote, should be kept from the public eye.”

The House legislation also extends those exemptions to local governments, including city councils and school boards, which opponents say would take away a tool residents can use to push officials for answers and solutions.

A ‘genuine’ effort

The state’s Sunshine Law has been in the spotlight for several months now, starting with former Gov. Eric Greitens. He, members of his staff, as well as the state Highway Patrol, frequently used apps like Confide or Silent Phone, which delete messages after they’re sent.

These apps are the subject of a lawsuit over whether their use violates the state’s Sunshine Law. While Gov. Mike Parson has banned the use of the apps by state officials, the House bill would codify it into state law.

Meanwhile, St. Louis attorney Elad Gross, who is running for attorney general in 2020, separately sued Parson’s office for not releasing records from the Greitens administration. Gross has been looking into the role certain nonprofits played in Greitens’ political career; both Greitens and U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, the former attorney general, have been subpoenaed to testify in the case.

“All of these kinds of cases, although they exist now, with the changes that are being made in Missouri Sunshine Law or at least being proposed, those would go away,” Gross said. “We’d see a lot less transparency in Missouri government and I think that’s the wrong direction to be going.”

But some Republicans in the legislature pushed back at the notion that their bills — and the situations involving the apps — are linked.

“I think what we are trying to do with this is very genuine,” said GOP Sen. Ed Emery of Lamar, who is sponsoring the Senate bill. “I think there’s a genuine distrust of government … it’s a pile-on type issue: ‘Yeah, I don’t trust government either, and so I want this to published.’ “But if you talk to someone who’s communicating with my office, they might have a little different view,” he added.

Emery and other lawmakers cited a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article from December that included the subjects of emails his office had received.

“Communications between a legislator and anyone actually that contacted my office prior to Amendment 1 was very similar to the protection that you get if you talk to your attorney,” Emery said. “That has always been protected so that people could communicate with me on personal issues, on legal issues, on things that you wouldn’t necessarily just want broadcast on the front page of the paper.”

But Emery and other Senate Republicans oppose including local governments in the exemptions.

‘Some kind of change’

Cecile Leggio died days after a 2016 collision at this intersection in Raytown. Her family is seeking improvements to the intersection.

On New Year’s Eve 2016, Cecile Leggio was in an accident near the intersection of 67th Street and Ralston Avenue in Raytown. She later died at a hospital. The family wanted to know more about that intersection, so attorney Chris Dandurand tried using the Sunshine Law.

“And in particular, we requested complaints about the intersection and police reports about incidents that had occurred at any time prior to that intersection because we wanted to know what does the city of Raytown know about this intersection? Do they know that it’s dangerous,” Dandurand said.

But city officials refused to comply, citing an exemption in the law they felt allows them to hold records if someone intended to file a claim against the city, which Leggio’s family had not yet done. Dandurand asked the family for permission to file suit under the Sunshine Law.

“They didn’t necessarily know exactly what it meant other than they knew that the city was supposed to comply with the Sunshine Law and to produce documents in response to a request like this,” Dandurand said. “But when we explained to them the likelihood of something like this happening to another family … they realize that if the City of Raytown is going to obstruct and block access to public records to someone who already has an attorney, then there’s no telling what they’ll be saying to people out there who are essentially on their own.”

Last month, a Jackson County judge ruled Raytown had violated the law and fined officials $42,000. An attorney for the city declined to comment, citing a pending appeal.

Supporters Tell MO Lawmakers: Hands Off Amendment 1

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 13, 2019

Originally posted in Public News Service on March 12th, 2019.

Grassroots activists are in Jefferson City today to tell state lawmakers to keep the anti-gerrymandering “Clean Missouri” measure the way it is.

Amendment 1 passed with 62 percent of the vote last fall. But since the start of this year’s session, state lawmakers have been calling for changes. Among them is a proposal requiring a bipartisan commission to approve district redrawing, which would weaken the nonpartisan state demographer central to the amendment.

Kevin Grooms, a Sierra Club member in Kansas City who gathered signatures for Amendment 1, said the point of the measure was to give people a voice in elections.

“We’re just trying to make a district fair and actually make it a toss-up and not a foregone conclusion, and not something that a person’s vote in that district doesn’t matter,” Grooms said.

The amendment takes the redistricting process away from legislators and gives the power to redraw the political map after the 2020 Census to a nonpartisan demographer, whose work would be overseen by a citizen commission.

Grooms also is concerned about efforts to roll back rules in the amendment requiring legislative records and proceedings to be open to the public. Lawmakers in favor of the change say it’s necessary to protect personal information they receive from constituents.

Martha Lafata is a Sierra Club member in the Saint Louis area who also gathered signatures for Clean Missouri. She said lawmakers should respect the will of the voters.

“If people vote for something, you would think that that would be good enough, that they would leave things as is,” Lafata said. “But they just keep trying to, once again, change things in their favor.”

To combat the influence big-money donors have on elections, Amendment 1 would limit the donation dollars that legislators can take from any individual. It also requires former state lawmakers to wait two years after leaving office before they can become lobbyists.

Clean Missouri prepared to fight back on legislative changes

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 8, 2019

Originally posted in The Missouri Times on March 7th, 2019.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The campaign that successfully advocated for sweeping changes to the Missouri General Assembly shows no sign of backing down as legislators look to alter the voter-approved constitutional amendment.

In the final days of bill filing for the 2019 regular session, five Republican lawmakers filed resolutions that would make significant changes to the new standard for redistricting approved on the November ballot.

Amendment 1, which was backed by the Clean Missouri campaign, limited lobbyists gifts, lowered campaign contribution limits, extended the transition time from public service to lobbying, and open lawmakers’ records to the public. One of the more notable, and contentious, provisions were changes to the redistricting requirements for the General Assembly.

It is those changes to how state legislative districts are drawn that lawmakers are looking to alter.

“Missourians just passed a new law to stop gerrymandering in November, by an almost two to one margin,” said Bob Johnson, a Lee’s Summit Republican who previously served in the General Assembly. “Their mandate from more than 1.4 million Missourians was clear: fair and competitive maps.”

Now in the Missouri Constitution is the requirement that when the newly-created nonpartisan state demographer draws districts, fairness and competitiveness be the leading factor to boundaries.

Five measures — Sen. Bill Eigel’s SJR 23, Sen. Dave Schatz’s SJR 29, Rep. Phil Christofanelli’s HJR 46, Rep. Curtis Trent’s HJR 47, and Rep. Jeff Pogue’s SJR 57 — filed in the General Assembly would change that. All five resolutions would go to a statewide vote if they get approval from the General Assembly.

The different proposals filed would change the priority order for drawing districts. While the proposals have various factors at the top of their lists, they all move fairness and competitiveness to the bottom or repeal the provisions altogether.

The Eigel and Schatz proposals put population as the priority with contiguous territory following. Partisan fairness and competitiveness are listed as the last criteria for both. Trent’s resolution has equal population, contiguity of territory, and compactness as the top three priorities, respectively. All other criteria under the Missouri Constitution is relegated to sixth out of six in priority.

Pogue’s resolution would completely repeal the entirety of the changes approved by voters in November. Christofanelli’s proposal would repeal the redistricting processes involving the nonpartisan state demographer.

Supporters of Amendment 1 are alleging that the proposals would “undermine” the voters’ will and “gut” the mandate.

“These new proposals are designed by incumbent politicians to eliminate the rules voters just added to the state constitution to require fair legislative district maps,” said Nancy Miller, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Metro St. Louis.

The campaign that backed Amendment 1 is prepared to defend the standards approved by an overwhelming margin of voters.

Sean Nicholson, with Clean Missouri, said that campaign will fight against any attempt to overturn the voters’ will and that the voters themselves are prepared to defend their decision.

In February, Eddie Greim, a Kansas City lawyer with expertise in redistricting, told the Missouri Times that the standards passed in November make the Show-Me State is a bit of a “laboratory” experiment.

The model, which is currently in the Missouri Constitution, to determine what constitutes fair and competitive districts has never actually been used before, according to Greim. He noted that any nonpartisan fairness model essential designates that a political party has a right to a specific number of legislative seat.

Greim also said that by making political fairness the top priority over compactness or contiguity it opens up the possibility of odd-looking districts that smash together vastly different communities.

Bipartisan group condemns politicians’ new plans for overturning will of voters

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 5, 2019

Good government groups joined Missourians from both parties today in condemning a batch of proposed amendments introduced in the Missouri General Assembly that would roll back redistricting reforms passed overwhelmingly by Missouri voters in 2018.

A small group of Jefferson City politicians introduced a batch of new proposals in the final days of the legislative filing period for 2019, each of which would allow lobbyists and political insiders to draw gerrymandered districts in future state legislative plans.

Five different joint resolutions — SJR 23, SJR 29, HJR46, HJR47, and HJR57 — were filed last week. All five proposals would:

• flout the will of 1.4 million Missouri voters who supported fair and competitive maps;
  allow for gerrymandered districts that protect incumbent politicians, and
• gut the rules in the state constitution that require fair maps.
• None have been referred to committee or scheduled for a hearing at this time.

“Legislators should respect the people of Missouri who voted overwhelmingly to clean up Missouri politics,” says Nancy Miller, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Metro St. Louis. “These new proposals are designed by incumbent politicians to eliminate the rules voters just added to the state constitution to require fair legislative district maps.”

“Missourians just passed a new law to stop gerrymandering in November, by an almost two to one margin,” said Bob Johnson, a Lee’s Summit Republican who previously served in the General Assembly. “Their mandate from more than 1.4 million Missourians was clear: fair and competitive maps.”

“We can’t let a few politicians and lobbyists overturn the will of the people,” said Rod Chapel, president of Missouri State Conference of the NAACP. “Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Missourians from all walks of life supported Amendment 1 because it got us started cleaning up Missouri politics, and gives everyday citizens more of a voice in our state government.”

In November 2018, Missourians overwhelmingly supported a new, fair redistricting process that took away the influence of lobbyists and insiders when crafting new maps. In its place, 1,469,093 voters enacted a new system with checks and balances to create districts where candidates will actually have to earn their votes, and to ensure that no political party gets an unfair advantage in any new maps.

EDITORIAL: Diluting the Sunshine Law undermines transparency

By Mackenzie in News Posted March 1, 2019

Originally posted in The Columbia Missourian on February 26th, 2019.

Thus far, 2019 hasn’t been a great legislative year for open records and transparency in government.

Perhaps the biggest threat to the Sunshine Law is a proposed change that would make communication between public officials and their constituents private. House Bill 445 is a reaction to the Clean Missouri constitutional amendment, passed by voters last November.

Part of that bill, which is intended to hold local government to the same standards as the state, includes an amendment that closes access to any correspondence between a government official and a constituent.

“I just want to be sure that my constituents feel comfortable in contacting me and that I can keep their information private,” Rep. Cheri Toalson Reisch, R-Hallsville, recently told the Columbia Missourian.

The sweeping amendment, however, undermines transparency and potentially limits a wide range of public information about your government.

Those voting for the bill included Republican Brenda Shields, who represents the 11th House District in St. Joseph. Rep. Bill Falkner, R-St. Joseph, voted against the measure. Rep. Sheila Solon, R-St. Joseph, was absent for the vote.

Most newspapers and media companies are uncomfortable with narrowing or restricting the Missouri Sunshine Law. We’re no different. We believe our state’s open records law holds public officials accountable.

Another key reason we’re concerned about this bill is that the people of Missouri have spoken. Voters overwhelmingly passed the Clean Missouri Amendment. It appears those who live in our state want more accountability and transparency in government, whether the legislature agrees or not.

Another attack on open records comes from bills in both the House and Senate on publishing public notices. Currently, city, county and state governments are required to publish certain information in newspapers. For instance, Buchanan County Clerk Mary Baack-Garvey is required to post a complete sample ballot in advance of every election.

One proposed bill would allow Baack-Garvey to simply put up a notice on the county clerk’s website.

There are some troublesome issues with this. First, not every citizen has a computer, smartphone or tablet. Second, not every Missourian has access to the internet, especially in rural counties and communities where that service might be limited.

Currently all the proposals that would allow electronic publication of required notices are languishing in committees. Should they surface, Falkner recently told the News-Press that he would vote against such measures.

Let’s urge Shields, Solon and the rest of our Northwest Missouri representatives do the same.

Copyright St. Joseph News-Press. Reprinted with permission.

Clean Missouri supporters unhappy with bills seeking to close records

By Mackenzie in News Posted February 24, 2019

Originally posted in the Jefferson City News Tribune on February 24th, 2019.

After Missouri voters last November overwhelmingly passed Amendment 1 to the Constitution, known as the Clean Missouri proposal, supporters have been upset with lawmakers who have proposed, or voted for, several bills and rule changes this legislative session that aim to undo some of the new amendment’s requirements.

And last week’s committee approval of Sen. Ed Emery’s Senate Bill 132 is just the latest point of unhappiness.

“It’s happening again,” Sean Soendker Nicholson said in an email last Wednesday, a day after the Senate’s Government Reform Committee recommended the full Senate debate and pass the bill.

“A Missouri Senate committee just passed a new bill designed to allow legislators to dodge the Sunshine Law, even though we just passed Amendment 1 barely three months ago,” Nicholson wrote.

Amendment 1 received 1,469,093 “yes” votes Nov. 6, or 62.021 percent of the total 2,368,706 votes cast, to 899,613 “no” votes, or 37.979 percent.

For many people, that’s considered a popular mandate.

And, Emery told the News Tribune last week, he’s not trying to ignore the people’s will.

“We’re trying to absolutely preserve that,” he explained. “We all have oaths of office that we take and voters to answer to.

“We’re all up there for the same purpose,” to represent their constituents’ interests as best as they can.

The main issue involves records that, before voters passed the Clean Missouri amendment, most lawmakers considered to be closed to the public.

Many felt that position was supported by a 2016 state appeals court ruling that Missouri’s Constitution expressly provides the House and Senate “may determine the rules of (their) own proceedings.”

But the Clean Missouri amendment included a requirement that legislative records and proceedings be open to the public under the Sunshine Law.

It’s that provision that, Nicholson told the News Tribune on Saturday, Emery’s bill seeks to change.

“Emery’s bill violates the clear language of the state Constitution,” he explained. “The General Assembly is required to follow the same generally applicable open records laws that are set for city councils, mayors, the governor.

“The law of the land right now (is): ‘Legislative records shall be public records and subject to generally applicable state laws governing public access to public records, including the Sunshine Law.’

“Any attempt to carve out the General Assembly from open records laws violates this clear mandate from voters.”

Emery said he only wants to protect communications with constituents — that often are very personal in nature, involving problems that constituents think the lawmaker can help resolve but wouldn’t want the general public to know about — and communications among lawmakers that are focused on the actual legislative process.

“Originally, (they) would have been confidential,” Emery said.

The Sunshine Law, found in Chapter 610 of Missouri’s Revised Statutes, includes 24 different exemptions to the basic concept of open records.

As modified by the committee, Emery’s bill would add a 25th exemption, that: “Any record retained by the office of a member of the general assembly that is related to a constituent of the member” would be a closed record under the law.

The proposed law explains: “As used in this subdivision, ‘constituent’ shall mean any person who is a resident of the legislative district of the member, any person who owns real property within the legislative district of the member, or any person who owns an interest in, or is an employee of, a business entity operating within the legislative district of the member.”

Emery said he’s trying to keep the Sunshine Law limitations very narrow.

Nicholson strongly disagreed, arguing that the definition of “constituent” is too broad.

“Under this framework,” he said, “communications to or from any employee of any business that happens to have a storefront in a district becomes secret.

“It’s not hard to imagine ways this would be abused.”

At a Thursday afternoon news conference, Senate Majority Leader Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, told reporters: “We have always been really concerned (about) the constituent information. We want to make sure that constituent interaction is protected.

“Beyond that, we’ve got to get it right. I think we have to be very diligent and very mindful of how we do what we do.”

But he believes a majority of the Senate’s Republican members think “something needs to be done” to modify what voters approved in Amendment 1.

Emery told the News Tribune he understands the Clean Missouri amendment clearly targeted “the outside influences” on the legislative process, and his proposed law change clearly doesn’t include “a person who is registered as a lobbyist or a lobbyist principal, as such terms are defined in (state law), regardless of whether such person otherwise meets the definition of ‘constituent.'”

Under that language, a number of Jefferson City residents who earn their living as lobbyists would have all of their communications with their representative, Dave Griffith or Rudy Veit, depending on where they live, and Sen. Mike Bernskoetter open to a public or media inquiry under the Sunshine Law — even if that communication was about a personal or family issue.

Emery’s bill also would add a 26th exemption to open records: “Any record retained in the office of a member of the general assembly, an employee of either house of the general assembly, or an employee of a caucus of either the majority or minority party of either house that contains information regarding proposed legislation or the legislative process — however, nothing in this subdivision shall allow the closure of a record that has been offered in a public meeting of a house of the general assembly, or any committee thereof.”

Emery said lawmakers’ strategy discussions, including proposals to amend or rewrite bills, shouldn’t become public until they actually are introduced in either the House or the Senate.

He argued neither the Republican or Democratic caucuses, for example, want the “other” side to know what their strategies are while negotiations are underway involving proposed laws or constitutional amendments.

Rowden said: “The work product discussion is a broader one — but we’ve got to get it right.”

Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, R-Sullivan, added: “For the most part, what voters want to see and understand is that, if there is anything nefarious going on, and making that information available — I don’t think anybody has a problem with producing and seeing that.”

Senate Minority Leader Gina Walsh, D-Bellefontaine Neighbors, said the voters “already have spoken I think it’s up to us to work within the guidelines and parameters of what (voters) have said, and to move forward.”

Nicholson said: “Any attempt to carve out the General Assembly from open records laws violates this clear mandate from voters.

“Why can’t the General Assembly just start following the Sunshine Laws that everyone else has to follow?”

Rowden, who manages when bills are brought up for debate, said last week he didn’t know when Emery’s bill would be debated.