I wrote about the four Missouri Constitutional Amendments that will appear on the ballot November 4th. I recommended voting YES for amendments 2, 3 and 10; voting NO on amendment 6.
Yesterday I reported that I’d seen ads only about Amendment #3, the education reform amendment. Since then, an ad has appeared about Amendment #10 that would constrain the governor from withholding appropriated funds at his whim.
The ad below, using a Kansas City resident and sponsored by the Missouri Club from Growth, if very effective. Watch, listen and understand why this amendment is necessary.
***
Amendment #6, a bad amendment to loosen the constraints on absentee voting, is getting some press as well. Negative press, that is. The St Louis Post-Dispatch reported that even democrat Secretary of State Jason Kander is not supportive of the amendment.
Early voting proposal draws opposition from Missouri elections official
JEFFERSON CITY • Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander wants to make it easier for people to vote before Election Day. But he opposes Amendment 6, the advance voting proposal that the Legislature placed on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot.
Kander, the state’s chief elections official, said in an interview Monday that the proposed constitutional amendment would set up a confusing system of on-again, off-again voting, cost the state $2 million and jeopardize the security of the ballot box.
“I’m a huge proponent of early voting, but I can’t support changing the constitution in a way that will require us to go back and fix it almost immediately,” said Kander, a Democrat.
Current Missouri law provides for absentee voting up to six weeks prior to an election provided the voter states he is out of the area or unable to vote on election day. Unfortunately, most county clerks rubber stamp absentee ballot requests and fail to ask for justification as required by law. Our current absentee voting is rife with fraud. We do not need to make voting fraud easier.
***
Political columnist Michael Barone, writing for Rasmussen Reports, examines the Kansas and South Dakota senatorial races where ‘independents’ may win. Barone says…
Will Independent Candidates’ Support Dissipate in Kansas and South Dakota?
A Commentary By Michael BaroneOne question I’m asked in every electoral cycle is, “What are the surprise races in this election?” My answer in recent years has been, “There are no surprises, because any unexpected development becomes universally known in seconds.”
There have been two such developments in this cycle. One in Kansas: the emergence about five weeks ago of independent Greg Orman (and the withdrawal from the ballot of the Democratic nominee) as a strong competitor against 34-year Capitol Hill veteran Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.
The other was in South Dakota: a poll showing Larry Pressler, a former Republican senator running as an independent, within the statistical margin of error of Republican nominee Mike Rounds and ahead of Democrat Rick Weiland.
…
Unless these polls are dreadfully wrong, there’s no question that many Kansas and South Dakota voters have been changing their minds. That’s in contrast to the relatively static preferences of voters in other states with serious Senate contests, where only a few percent seem to have been moving around.
Both these states’ contests feature purportedly independent candidates. In September, Gallup reported, 58 percent of Americans said that a third political party was needed. So maybe it’s not surprising that, when presented with a well-known independent candidate, many voters consider voting for him.
…
An independent presidential candidate who achieves critical mass can be competitive, as Ross Perot seemed to be until he withdrew suddenly in July 1992 or as polls in 1995 suggested Colin Powell would have been as an independent candidate. But usually support for third candidates dissipates by Election Day.
Will it this year? Perhaps Pressler, who voted twice for Obama, will displace Weiland as the chief alternative to Rounds in South Dakota. But he faces an uphill climb in a state that voted 58 percent for Mitt Romney.
In Kansas (60 percent Romney), Roberts has banked on that with a simple message — I’m the real Republican; he’s a Democrat. He’s running even if you average the three polls conducted this month.
My guess is that oscillating polls will give way to familiar results in South Dakota and Kansas…or maybe not.
The latest Kansas poll released this week showed a reversal for Pat Roberts over Greg Orman. I’ve not seen one for South Dakota but I would not be surprised to see a reversal there as well for Republican Mike Rounds over Independent Larry Pressler. In three weeks, we’ll see who wins and which poll and analyst was correct.