Category Archives: Constitutional Amendments

Bits ‘n Pieces

Posted on by
https://jasonkander.com/files/2015/02/Jason-Kander-for-US-Senate-100x100.jpg

Missouri Secretary of State, Jason Kander

Jason Kander, our democrat Missouri Secretary of State and scion of the Kansas City democrat political machine, has announced he will run against Senator Roy Blunt in 2016. Kander received the endorsement of the entire Missouri democrat team as well as from the KC ‘Red’ Star. Surprise, surprise!

Attorney General Chris Koster, who is readying to join Kander on the statewide slate in his own run for governor: “Every day, Jason Kander uses the lessons he learned serving in the Army in Afghanistan to do what’s right for Missouri. He doesn’t care who gets credit for an idea, he just wants to get the job done for our state. We need that approach in Washington, which is why I am supporting Jason Kander for United States Senate.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, February 19, 2015.

So it will be Turncoat Koster running for Governor teaming with Kander running for Senator. All in all, Kander has a better rep than Koster. Still you have to wonder, in this ‘race of the Double-Ks’ who is helping whom?

***

An idea whose time has come? Missouri already has a Voter-ID law on the books. There are a number of acceptable forms of ID listed on the Missouri Secretary of State’s website.

ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF VOTER ID:
  • Identification issued by the state of Missouri, an agency of the state, or a local election authority of the state
  • Identification issued by the United States government or agency thereof
  • Identification issued by an institution of higher education, including a university, college, vocational and technical school, located within the state of Missouri
  • A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document that contains the name and address of the voter
  • Driver’s license or state identification card issued by another state

If you do not possess any of these forms of identification, you may still cast a ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each major political party, attest they know you. – http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/govotemissouri/howtovote.aspx

This new effort will add a Constitutional Amendment to give more teeth to the existing law which has a number of exceptions that still allow people to vote without proper ID. The existing law is a good first step, but, reviewing the documented acts of vote fraud in St. Louis and Kansas City, it isn’t enough.

Missouri House endorses voter photo ID requirements

By MARIE FRENCH, Associated Press, Feb 18, 6:21 PM EST

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri House is once again pushing forward with a Republican priority to require photo identification at the polls, after similar measures were stymied by the Senate or courts in recent years.

The House gave initial approval Wednesday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would go before voters in 2016 and also endorsed a bill that would institute the voter photo ID requirements if the constitutional amendment is approved.

Both measures need a second House vote and also would also have to pass the Senate, where Democrats have previously blocked the proposed photo ID requirements.

Supporters say the requirement is needed to ensure the integrity of the election process. Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said the measure would protect individuals’ voting rights by making sure someone does not try to vote for another person.

“It ensures that someone did not take their vote and steal what is rightfully their vote,” Brattin said.

If you read the full article at the website, you will see, as usual, democrats, abetted by MO Secretary of State Jason Kander, protesting the measure because it would make their continuing vote fraud schemes more difficult.

***

Have you heard the term, Social Justice Warrior? It’s all the vogue on university campus across the country and in other segments of society (see my post concerning the SFWA and the Hugo Awards.) Social Justice Warriors have become the progressives’ front-line troops in their battle against free speech and expression.

Social Justice Warriors Come to Campus

By Robert Weissberg, February 19, 2015

Since the late 1960s, radical students have periodically taken over the university president’s offices to propose a laundry list of “non-negotiable” demands. Early takeovers tended to be about their school’s cooperation with the military during war in Vietnam; today, however, “social justice” is the aim so let’s call these office occupiers Social Justice Warriors or SJW’s.

Back in February 2014 a group of 30 Dartmouth students commandeered the president’s office to  announce a “Freedom Budget”:70 specific calls for greater diversity, eliminating sexism and heterosexism, an improved campus climate for minorities and gays, banning the term “illegal immigrant,” offering a class on undocumented workers in America, creating a professor of color lecture series, and harsher penalties for sexual assault, among many, many others.

More recently, Clemson University SJW’s demanded that the school provide a “safe” multicultural center for students from “under-represented” groups, employing more administrators and faculty of color, a more diverse student body, mandatory sensitivity training for faculty and administrators, and increased funding for students organization catering to under-represented groups.

Then there are the University of Minnesota students who seized the President’s office to demand a bigger budget for the Department of Chicano and Latino Studies Department, removing all racial descriptions from university police reports, offering gender-neutral bathrooms at all college facilities and, of course, recruiting more faculty and students of color.

Fortunately, this is the U.S., where such political histrionics are greeted with mild amusement. Ironically, school officials typically welcome “meaningful political dialogue and change,” the need for “hard work” to achieve progress and then conclude by thanking the Social Justice Warriors for their assistance in moving forward. Though police may remove protestors, criminal charges, let alone violations of campus rules, are rarely pursued and the moral buzz for these SJW’s may last weeks. In fact, I suspect some warriors honestly believe that their achievement will burnish their resume when applying to a second-tier MBA program. Imagine if these SJW’s tried this in Russia or China?

Such incidents are easy to pooh-pooh as the politically-correct version of Animal House. But that said, they nevertheless offer important insights into today’s college activist’s thinking and why university administrators tolerate the foolishness.    

Most evidently, the Social Justice Warriors totally disregard the costs associated with their self-righteous crusades. Everything is single-ledger accounting. Will the tooth fairy fund Dartmouth’s proposed $3.6 million dollar Triangle House, the “safe haven” for LGBT? Yes, high-school dropouts may believe that government benefits are “free,” but youngsters admitted to top colleges? No wonder the U.S. sinks deeper and deeper into indebtedness — even among the smart, costs are invisible. Picture a Warrior taking Econ 101 and hearing for the first time that there is no such thing as a free lunch. What a shock!

The shallowness of these demands is breathtaking and suggests that these activists are just winging it. The Dartmouth students are surely among America’s brainiest but why do they denounce “ableism”? Are they suggesting that acknowledging variations in ability is morally wrong and if differences are to be abolished (hopeless anyhow), how would society function? Why must the campus offer gender-neutral bathrooms? Keep in mind that in a few decades such folk may be among our national leaders.

Particularly troublesome is how these presumptuous, self-centered warriors think that if they think something is good, it must be good, so case settled. For example, they glibly assume that academically challenged black and Chicano youngsters really benefit by attending schools that would never admit them in a merit-based admission process.  Have these young do-gooders considered the downside of this generosity — schools will fake the numbers by creating easy-to-pass courses in dubious ethnic-studies departments, steering them to easy grading instructors or just tolerating rampant grade inflation. Or, more important, that these in-over-their-head youngsters may be better off in community college acquiring well-paying skills like welding?

Closer to home, have these SJW’s calculated the link between achieving their vision of “social justice” and tuition? Attracting minority students, addressing their academic deficiencies, creating a nurturing environment and all the rest costs money, and this will inevitably push soaring tuition even higher and, since there is no Santa Claus, a college education will be yet further beyond the reach of many poorer students while saddling graduates with yet more debt. In effect, these idealistic protestors are demanding a tax on those who are not members of their version of “under-represented.” Imagine if these SJW’s had to hold jobs to pay their own tuition?

Do these Social Justice Warriors realize that their demands will require administrators to break the law to achieve this multicultural Utopia? That is, under today’s judicial guidelines it is almost impossible to admit students solely on the basis of race or ethnicity. California, Michigan, and Washington (among others) have state laws explicitly banning racial preferences.

Why do schools tolerate such idiocy, including ignoring violations of campus policy? The answer is that no matter how imprudent the demands, they help drive the university’s bureaucratic expansion, and in today’s campus life, size matters. A symbiotic relationship exists between the children’s crusades and yet more bureaucratic bloat. Universities are not the profit-driven private sector. Absolutely everything, everything in every one of these SJW catalogues entails spending more university money, hiring more personnel, and creating yet more rules and regulations and the apparatchiki to monitor and enforce them.

It is a long article and I urge you to follow this link to the website and read the entire piece. It may be an education for you; make you aware of another insidious attacks against our liberty by ‘progressives.’ Joe Stalin and Adolf would be proud of them.

Facebook

Followup: MO Constitutional Amendments

Posted on by

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

By Virginia Young vyoung@post-dispatch.com 573-556-6181

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 Barone

One 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.

Facebook

Missouri Ballot: Constitutional Amendments

Posted on by

Were you aware there are several Constitutional Amendments on the Missouri ballot next month? Many people do not. Only one proposed amendment is getting any attention because it affects education. That one amendment strikes at the education unions, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and their embedded group of administrators and school board members that I call ‘the Education Mafia.’

I’ll speak more about that amendment later, but first let’s examine each amendment in numerical order. The amendments are numbered: #2, #3, #6 and #10. If you would like to do some personal research, follow this link  at www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/ and page down past August to the November ballot issues.

The first one, Constitutional Amendment 2, is to restore the ability to use a defendant’s past history as evidence. The defendant’s personal history, if he has a ‘propensity’ to act in a particular manner, would be usable in some cases. The federal government and thirty-three states allow ‘propensity evidence‘, sometimes call ‘character evidence,’ in court. Missouri’s Supreme Court struck down the use of such evidence in 2007.

This amendment allows propensity evidence to be used again in specific cases—sexual offenses against minors. If the amendment is passed, such evidence can be presented in court if the Judge examines the evidence and rules if it is appropriate to the case. For instance, a history of kiting checks would likely not be allowed in a sexual offense trial unless the writing of fraudulent checks can be linked to the sexual offense—difficult, if at all possible. However, other prior offenses that can be linked to other sexual offenses, may be presented if the Judge agrees. Prosecutors across the state are in favor of this amendment.

I recommend voting, “Yes!” on Amendment #2.

Constitution Amendment 3 has the education unions and the Education Mafia up in arms. Why? Because it looses the stricture imposed by tenure. Teachers can be easily fired—and are fired, within the first five years in their positions. After five years of continued employment, they may apply for tenure.

Usually tenure is granted. Thereafter, it is nearly impossible to fire the teacher—or administrator even with extensive documentation. Amendment 3 provides another process to remove ineffective teachers and to support and promote good teachers. How? By performance. This amendment will allow school board to evaluate teachers and administrators by performance, not by longevity.

I’m not surprised the unions, administrators and union shills are screaming. It makes educators accountable by their demonstrated performance. The unions scream it means testing. That’s one method. It isn’t, however, the only method. But testing is one means of determining performance and school boards are free to use testing—or other quality measurements, as justification to remove ineffective teachers, administrators, or to reward good, effective teachers.

In short, it introduces accountability in education and that is what has the unions and the education mafia up in arms. Frankly, anything that constrains tenure and enforces accountability is a step in the right direction. For education, whenever the unions scream, you know it will improve the final product, the knowledge base of our children.

Constitutional Amendment #3 was sponsored by a citizen’s initiative, not through the legislature. With the power of the education lobby, this amendment would never be presented much less passed. we’re fortunate we have the ability to propose Constitutional Amendment without passage through Jeff City.

I recommend voting, “Yes!” on Amendment #3.

Constitutional Amendment #6 is an attempt to legalize one method of vote fraud—early voting. You remember the old adage, ‘vote early, vote often’? This would allow that by loosening the current absentee voting law. The way fraud happens is that Joe Blow votes early, then he shows up on election day and votes again. County clerks don’t cross-reference early voters on the rolls sent to the polls. There is nothing to prevent a voter who voted early from voting again. Once a ballot has been run through the voting machine, who can tell if that vote was proper or not?

County clerks are supposed to require justification for absentee ballots. How many do so? I know my current democrat county clerks does not. Consequently, this is a bad amendment. It allows more vote fraud. I recommend voting, “No!”

Constitutional Amendment #10 is complicated and concerns the ability of the Governor to withhold funds appropriated by the Legislature. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has a line-item veto for the state budget and he used it heavily in the last legislative session. When the Legislature returned, a significant amount of those line-item vetos were overturned.

The Governor may, if there is a shortfall in state revenues, justify withholding funds at his discretion. However, democrat Jay Nixon has been withholding funds, usually from education, when no shortfall in revenue exists to justify withholding the funds. This amendment corrects some of the loopholes that currently exists that allows the Governor to abuse his power.

Missouri State Senator Ed Emery provided this description of Amendment 10. From his October 10th, 2014 legislative update…

Amendment 10 
(Proposed by the General Assembly.)
 
This amendment clarifies expectations on how a governor should prepare his annual budget proposal. It also provides a check on any governor who tries to manipulate budget withholdings for political purposes. Frustration with the current governor’s approach to budgeting and spending demands that something be done to prevent similar abuses in the future. If Amendment 10 passes, a governor is prevented from counting his chickens before they are hatched. He/she could not forecast revenues, for example, based on the anticipation that the General Assembly will pass a tax increase— it has been done.

Amendment 10 also provides a path for the Legislature to override a governor’s operating fund withholdings similar to the procedure now employed to override a veto. Abuses to the governor’s power to withhold funds make it necessary to provide a check and balance on behalf of those agencies that are being used as political pawns.

Senator Emery recommends we vote, “Yes!” on this amendment. I agree. For years we’ve heard the democrats and the education mafia claim we’re not spending enough on education. It’s a lie. The legislature has appropriated more than enough funds—it has been the democrat governor, Jay Nixon, who has been withholding funds from education.

When you enter the voting booth in two weeks and see the list of proposed amendments, remember to vote, Yes, Yes, NO, and Yes for Amendments 2, 3, 6, and 10. Or, vote yes for all except for #6.

See you at the polls.

Facebook

Lawfare in Missouri

Posted on by

If you haven’t heard, there is another constitutional amendment on Missouri’s November ballot, Constitutional Amendment #6 (HJR 90). No, it’s not the education amendment, it’s another one to define early voting. Democrats usually push for early voting. They remember the old adage, “Vote early, Vote often.” In many areas of the state, precincts in Kansas City and St Louis for example, early voting allows for massive vote fraud.

This amendment, however, the dems don’t support. Why? Because it limits early voting to the five business days prior to the election and only during normal business hours—9am to 5pm…and only if the Legislature provides funding. Such an amendment makes it more difficult, not impossible but more difficult for the democrats to exploit and makes vote fraud more difficult as well. This amendment is thought to be a pre-emptive strike at democrat sponsored bills that would allow up to 6 weeks of early voting including weekends.

Since the amendment has been passed in the legislature, the dem’s only hope is to obfuscate the language on the ballot. One of their pet judges changed the ballot language to read like the dems wanted. The Secretary of State immediately appealed the decision.

THE 2014 BALLOT — ‘Missouri court reworks early voting ballot summary,’ AP: “A Missouri appeals court panel rewrote the ballot summary Monday for an early voting proposal, ruling that the wording approved by lawmakers was misleading because it failed to mention the measure is contingent upon funding. A proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot will ask Missouri voters whether to authorize a no-excuses-needed early voting period for future general elections. The six-day voting period would be limited to business hours on weekdays. In its ruling Monday, a panel of the Western District appeals court said the summary prepared by the Legislature failed to note the early voting period would occur only if the Legislature and governor provide funding for it. …

“The appeals court ordered additional wording to be included in the ballot summary. The rewritten ballot summary will state: ‘Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay for the increased costs of such voting?’

“The legal challenge to the measure had been brought by an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of civil rights leaders Norman Seay and Nimrod Chapel. The lawsuit argued that the court should simply strike the measure from the ballot if it decided the Legislature’s summary was unfair. But the appeals court rejected that approach, concluding it has the authority to rewrite the wording.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, September 16, 2014, and The Southeast Missourian.

Like I said, lawfare. If you can’t win, or don’t believe you can win at the polls, sue.

***

Remember the internecine battles during this year’s primaries between the Senate Conservative Fund (SCF) who was backing conservatives and the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) who was backing RINOs and anyone running against SCF supported conservatives? Well, the NRSC wants to make up.

Red State has a report today about the NRSC’s attempts to gain—not the SCF’s support, no, just their money. The NRSC spent all theirs fighting Republican conservatives during the primary.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee Loves the Senate Conservatives Fund (Or At Least Its Money)

Remember how the National Republican Senatorial Committee wanted everyone to know just how terrible the Senate Conservatives Fund is?

Remember how NRSC consultants took to op-ed pages, pushed reporters, and tweeted about the lavish and extravagant expenses of SCF?

Remember how when a candidate got endorsed by SCF, everyone knew immediately NRSC would support the opposite candidate out of spite? (See e.g. Ben Sasse v. Shane Osborn)

Remember how the NRSC, Chamber of Commerce, and other establishment groups poured tons of money into primaries to stop SCF gains and those of other outside groups?

Well, NRSC spent so much money trying to ensure its incumbents were protected that it now has no money to pick up new seats. Brilliant strategy there Jerry Moran and Josh Holmes. Just brilliant.

So what is the NRSC doing now? Begging the Senate Conservatives Fund to spend money.

The column continues at the Red State website. As far as I’m concerned, the NRSC is nothing more than a parasite, attempting to maintain the RINOs’ status quo in Washington.

***

This is the next gun-grabber tactic. Sue ammo retailers.

Online ammo retailers targeted in lawsuit by anti-gun violence group

By Jessica Chasmar – The Washington Times – Monday, September 15, 2014

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filing a lawsuit against online retailers that allegedly sold ammunition to James Holmes, the suspect accused of the Aurora theater killings.

“The lawsuit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others by failing to use any screening mechanism to determine his identity or intent for the products,” the Brady Center said in a media release, Fox-affiliated KDVR reported.

The lawsuit comes as the Brady Center continues its “Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers” campaign, which seeks to target those who “supply guns to criminals by selling them to straw purchasers (people buying guns for others), gun traffickers (people buying guns to illegally resell), and other dangerous people,” according to its Web page.

The lawsuit in the Aurora, Colorado, case will be filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed on July 20, 2012, when Mr. Holmes allegedly gunned down 12 people at a Century movie theater. The official announcement was set to be made Tuesday in Denver, KDVR reported.

The Brady Center said it plans to name Lucky Gunner, at BulkAmmo.com, as well as other online weapons sellers in the lawsuit, the station said.

We must be ever vigilant.

Facebook

Missouri Constitutional Amendment #3

Posted on by

Have you heard about the proposed Amendment 3 to the Missouri constitution? Neither had I, but it will appear on the November ballot.

The teacher’s unions are all up in arms. Why? Because the amendment changes the rules for teacher tenure and provides for teacher performance evaluations.

A Missouri Teacher Performance Evaluation, Amendment 3 is on the November 4, 2014 election ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, this measure would implement teacher performance evaluations that would be used to determine whether a teacher should be dismissed, retained, demoted or promoted. It would also prevent teachers from collectively bargaining over the terms of these evaluations. — Ballotpedia.

This amendment didn’t come through the state legislature, it came through citizen’s initiative, a much more difficult process. But, it was successful and will appear on the November ballot…unless, like the failed attempts by gun-grabbers to block Amendment 5 in June, the unions fabricate a scheme to block Amendment 3, like their failed attempt to block Amendment 5 that passed this last Tuesday. I’m still researching the basis for Amendment 3 but on first look, I’ll support it.

***

An idea whose time has come—closed Missouri primaries.

In Missouri, it is always an issue in primaries. The dems tightly control their candidates. In Cass County this year there were NO contested offices on the democrat ticket. That control allowed dems to crossover to tilt the ‘Pub primary choices their way. Whether crossovers had that much impact is a question that, given Missouri’s open primary, we’ll never really know. We do know, from bragging dems, that it has affected  the outcome of elections in the past, the run for Northern Commissioner in the last primary for example.

Some ‘Pubs are calling for closed primaries nation-wide. I agree.

Angry Republican leaders ready to shut door on open primaries

Changes sought after Mississippi Democrats help Thad Cochran beat Chris McDaniel

CHICAGO — Any party that allows its opponents to help pick its candidates in “open” primaries is a PPINO — a “political party in name only” — say many Republican officials at their annual summer meeting.

Republican National Committee members and activists are still seething about reports that longtime Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican, enlisted Democrats to help him win his tough primary contest this summer against state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who was backed by the tea party.

They would seem to have an ally in the GOP boss, but the sentiments of the entire party and the prospects for changing state laws are unclear.

At least one committee member plans to press the issue at the RNC meeting, which opened Wednesday.

Currently, 27 states let independents and Democrats help pick Republican candidates for general elections. The reason usually is not the desire of the state GOP but rather that the state legislature has mandated open primaries or requires no party registration.

The article continues here.

The usual excuse for not implementing closed primaries by state legislatures is the cost. Yes, it will cost money. A database will have to be created for voters to declare their party allegiance, processes and procedures to update and maintain the database just be developed and implemented statewide, a network and terminals at each county clerk’s office and, at election time, terminals at every polling station, during primary elections, to insure voters receive the correct ballot for their party.

The legislation creating the closed primary won’t be easy. The legislation must provide time-frames and methodologies for declaring and changing parties and how long, before the primary, will party change-overs be frozen (I’d suggest ninety days.) Voter registration procedures would have to be updated as well.

Regardless of the expense, it is a change whose time has come.

Facebook

Time’s up!

Posted on by

Yesterday, July 14th, was the deadline for Governor Nixon to veto, sign or ignore the pile of bills on his desk. One, SB 656, was one of those waiting for Nixon’s action. Late yesterday—at the very last minute, he vetoed SB 656.

What was SB 656? It was a bill that among other things, allowed teachers to protect their students after extensive training and certification by law enforcement, similar training, in fact, that LEOs undergo.

Nixon vetoed it saying it endangered the children. He prefers School Resource officers. So he said. Some school districts cannot afford hiring police to patrol their schools every day nor does every police department have extra officers to station them at every school.

Regardless of his motives, what Nixon has done was to leave schools open for more shootings. Our students must continue to be taught in free-fire zones.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Jay-Nixon-kmov.jpgMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation Monday that would have allowed vetted and trained teachers and school administrators to carry firearms on campus. The measure had passed the Republican-dominated state house by a strong 111-28 vote and the state senate in a 21-7 vote.

“I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators,” Nixon said. “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer.”

Nixon said he supports the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers.

The bill, SB 656, was designed to allow school districts to cross-train faculty to a new “school protection officer” standard. These volunteer teachers and administrators would need a valid Missouri concealed-carry permit and complete a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission certification course. Following these steps, they would be allowed to carry on school grounds if the district opted to allow armed personnel on campus.

Over the summer, no fewer than 10 school districts have sent selected teachers and staff through up to 75 hours of training in anticipation of the bill being signed by the governor. This required training ran at a cost of $17,500 for every two staff members.

Bloomberg surrogates, Moms Demand Action, are ecstatic that student remain endangered.

***

In another firearm related issue, Jackson County quietly passed an ordinance earlier this year prohibiting firing a firearm within the county. The way the law is written, if you have to shoot to protect yourself, you will be arrested, regardless of the merits of the act, for shooting within the county.

Kevin Jamison, one of the creator’s of Missouri’s CCW law and President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, had this to say.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Spread the word.

***

SJR 36, also known as Amendment 5 on the August 5th ballot continues to be under fire from gun control activists. An appellate hearing occurred yesterday before the Missouri Supreme Court. Ron Calzone, a gun-rights activist was present and made this report.

What do you think “unalienable right” means?

Today I went to the MO Supreme Court hearing over the ballot title for Amendment 5, the super strong gun rights amendment sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer.

The lawyer for the anti-gun side said, (beginning at about 2:50 of the audio link): “The effect of the word ‘unalienable’ has no legal meaning, as we argued in our brief. Three states have, that I have found, have the phrase “inalienable right’ in their constitution. In all three of those states their Supreme Courts have said, specially, that the use of the word ‘inalienable’ does not trigger strict scrutiny standards and that they will review those under rational basis.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/46c3c6fb6b7bd9eb86257d0a00634fcf/$FILE/SC94293.mp3

This type of thinking is exactly why, in SJR 36, we advocated for the addition of a specific requirement that gun rights be protected by “strict scrutiny” standards in court.

For a 4 minute primer on Strict Scrutiny vs. the Rational Basis Test, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4

You’ll see that the rational basis test the anti-gun lawyer argued allows government restriction on gun rights for about any reason. You can also see why it’s so important to pass Amendment 5!

Facebook

Friday Follies for July 11, 2014

Posted on by

Missouri Governor Nixon’s veto deadline is approaching. It has passed for some bills, but for those passed near the end of the legislative session, the deadline is July 14, 2014, this coming Monday. If Nixon does not veto any outstanding bill, it automatically passes into law without his signature. That tactic allows Nixon to fence-sit on some issues. He can claim he never signed the bill and the supporters get their bill passed. Neat!

One such bill is SB 656. This bill is an amalgam of several bills that update various gun issues in Missouri. Some of those issues are: allowing teachers to be armed in schools after certification by law enforcement, lowering the CCW age from 21 to 19, younger for those on active duty in the military, explicitly allowing open carry throughout the state superseding any local prohibitions.

I’ve not heard of any movements against this bill since it was passed in the legislature. The libs and gun-grabbers seem to be focusing on Amendment 5 (AKA SJR 36).

The gun-grabbers are attacking Amendment 5 again. They lost a suit in late June on how the amendment appeared on the ballot. The Cole County Judge declared the suit by a St. Louis police chief and a Bloomberg surrogate to be without merit. Now those same libs have appealed their suit to vacate or change the amendment.

The libs proclaim to support choice…as long as they can dictate what those choices are. My choice is to vote YES! on Amendment 5.

***

The Louisiana state education board is backing off on their threat to sue Governor Bobby Jindal over Common Core. Jindal is against it, the board is for it. The nation’s education elite is finding support for Common Core sifting through their fingers. Centralized control of education continues to take a beating.

Louisiana School Board May Back Down In Feud With Jindal

10:14 PM 07/10/2014

The state school board of Louisiana, which is on the brink of launching a lawsuit against Gov. Bobby Jindal over his plan to pull the state out of Common Core, indicated Thursday that it may be willing to back down and negotiate.

Rather than use new Common Core-aligned standardized tests created by the multi-state consortium Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), officers with Louisiana’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) indicated that they are willing to continue using a modified form of the state’s old LEAP exams for one additional year.

The modified test, said BESE Chairman Chas Roemer, would incorporate some questions from the PARCC exam in order to adhere to a state law requiring that 2015′s standardized tests be comparable to tests used in other states.

The proposal comes one week before a July 17 meeting that has been scheduled between Jindal and state Superintendent John White. It is hoped that the meeting will help forestall a possible lawsuit by BESE against Jindal.

“It’s not 100 percent what the governor wanted and is not 100 percent what BESE wanted,” said Roemer in a conference call with reporters, adding that he was “optimistic” that Jindal would be open to an agreement.

Jindal’s office appears to be holding fast for the time being, however. Kristy Nichols, the governor’s commissioner of administration, told reporters she believed BESE’s plan was unworkable because it relies on contracts the governor maintains are invalid.

Certain aspects of the deal suggest the proposed compromise could simply be smoke and mirrors. Even the original PARCC test plan would have been a mix of national and state questions, since PARCC only produces math and English tests, leaving science and social studies up to individual states.

The proposed plan to maintain the LEAP test could still allow the state to rely on PARCC for most of its English and math questions, indicating that the “compromise” could amount to the PARCC exam under a new name. With Jindal expressing a strong commitment to rooting out any trace of Common Core from the state, even allowing Common Core-derived questions onto a Louisiana-created test could be a significant concession for him.

Jindal, once a supporter of Common Core, has switched sides in the past year and become one of the most prominent Republican critics of the multistate standards, even comparing them to Soviet totalitarianism. He urged both BESE and the Louisiana legislature to pull the state out of PARCC, but when both refused he decided to take action himself, issuing a set of executive orders demanding the state craft new education standards.

Jindal also suspended a contract the state had made to supply the PARCC test next year, claiming that it violated the state’s procurement laws. The PARCC tests, one of two major multi-state exams created to align with Common Core, are considered a key component of the standards’ implementation.

Until Thursday, both BESE and Superintendent White have stood firmly against Jindal’s actions, insisting that his executive orders are illegal and that the state will both proceed with Common Core and the PARCC tests as planned. White in particular has urged BESE to file a lawsuit challenging Jindal’s orders, and last week BESE voted to retain its own legal counsel should such a course of action arise.

The feud has caused sharp divisions between figures who were once allies on the issue of education. Both Jindal and BESE Chairman Roemer are Republicans, while White is an independent who has worked closely with Jindal in defending the state’s school voucher plan from a federal challenge.

The fresh battle between the three has proven to be the most bitter of many Common Core fights across the country in 2014. If Jindal gets his way, Louisiana will be the fourth state to break off from Common Core, following Indiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

The problem the BESE found was not philosophical. They backed off because they came to believe they couldn’t win against Jindal’s opposition. So, they decided to take the next best, from their standpoint, step—defer the decision to next year. That tactic always works with politicians.

Facebook