March 10, 2024
(This is long because I won’t ever ask you to “just trust me” -- I want you to know the facts and principles.)
There are some tone-deaf politicians in Jeff City who think that regular people are only concerned about protecting the Missouri Constitution from deep-pocket special interests who would use the initiative petition process, and that we’re not concerned about deep-pocket special interests who would use the legislative process – now or in the future – that is also a threat.
Consequently, Republican legislators in Jefferson City are about to make a mistake that may haunt our state for the next 200 years.
I’m not exaggerating.
That’s how long we have had our current standard for approving constitutional amendments, so that may be how long we have to live with any changes we make now.
SJR 74, filed by Senator Mary Elisabeth Coleman, started out as a very good measure, but through amendments it has turned into one of the worst liberty-stealing bills I’ve ever seen.
As I’ll explain below, it’s sort of like political gun confiscation.
As it was passed by the Missouri Senate, SJR 74 would do just the opposite of what it was originally designed to do – it would amend the Missouri Constitution with a double standard that gives government more power over our lives and liberty.
We, the People, must stop it. The message is simple: SJR 74 must be reverted back to the way it was when it was filed, or it must be killed.
At the bottom of this email I’m going to ask you to fill out a witness form for a hearing to be held this coming Tuesday at noon.
Imagine where we would be if after the Patriots defeated King George they said, “Now that our team is in control, there’s no need for a right to Keep and Bear Arms.”
POLITICIANS RUIN A GREAT GRASSROOTS IDEA
It’s really frustrating to see politicians pass so many bad, often unconstitutional, bills.
But it’s beyond frustrating when the grassroots provide and then spend a couple of years promoting a solution to a problem that the politicians struggled with for a decade and a half, only to see politicians screw up the solution.
We supplied the solution to what they have been calling “IP reform” by pointing out that we really need ratification reform. Thousands of us finally convinced them that Concurrent Majority Ratification is the best way to raise the bar for approving amendments and ensure citizens from across the state have a voice in amending our Constitution, not just the urban centers.
From the beginning, we have been saying that Ratification Reform legislation has to have these features:
-
First and foremost, it must raise the bar on approving amendments on all three ways amendments can be proposed, (1) by the legislature, (2) by an initiative petition, and (3) by constitutional convention. That means that reform solution has to amend Article XII in the state Constitution.
-
Second, the amendment approval process must give “voice” to broader geographic regions of the state, so it will no longer take just the urban vote, as it does with the current simple majority system. Concurrent Majority Ratification does just that.
The original SJR 74 accomplished exactly those things.
In fact, that approach was used in more bills than any other idea: SJR 48 (Hoskins), SJR 59 (Brattin), SJR 61 (Moon), SJR 83 (Eigel), HJR 76 (Hudson), HJR 76 (Hudson), HJR 81 (Kelley), HJR 91 (Schnelting), HJR 94 (Richey), and HJR 113 (Dinkins)
We had every reason to believe that idea would prevail, but the Senate managed to turn the thing we were all clambering for on its head!
THE SENATE’S DOUBLE STANDARD
The final amended SS SCS SJR 74 would create a double standard for amending our state Constitution. It makes it easier for amendments proposed by the legislature to get approved by voters than amendments proposed by the People.
It increases the power of government and diminishes what may be the most fundamental principle in an American Constitutional Republic – the power of the People to build taller fences around the powers they loaned to the government, without having to ask permission from the very government they want to rein in.
See Article I, Section 3 and Article III, Section 49, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
POLITICAL GUN CONTROL
To be fair, there may have been some senators who just didn’t realize what they were voting for after 20 hours of Democrat filibustering and 19 amendments, but the final result is like political gun confiscation.
It reminds me of the left’s argument that the People shouldn’t have AR15s because they don’t need the same tools the government has.
That certainly isn’t the way the Founding Fathers looked at it!
Some Republicans don’t think we have to worry about the legislature proposing bad amendments, since they have majorities. That’s incredibly short-sighted, though. Imagine where we would be if after the Patriots defeated King George they said, “Now that our team is in control, there’s no need for a right to Keep and Bear Arms.”
WE CAN NOT TRUST THE LEGISLATURE
Some of my friends think it’s ok to have a double standard for ratification because the legislature has checks and balances and they do such a good job vetting and deliberating on bills.
Sometimes that might be right – but not always.
What a super-majority of Republicans might do is NOT the correct question.
Correct Question: When Democrats eventually control the Missouri House and Senate again, what will they want to put in the Constitution, especially if there is a Republican governor at the time who won’t sign radical bills?
Red Flag laws. Ban on owning certain types of firearms. Abortion on demand. Universal Minimum Income. Undermine private ownership of property. Favored treatment of the LGBTQ community. The list goes on.
Some will say that Republicans in the Senate will filibuster such proposals, but mark my word, after years of being in the minority Senate Democrats will not hesitate to “Call the previous question” (PQ) on Republican filibusters and force them through the process.
And then, if the Double Standard is in the Constitution, it will only take a simple majority of voters, which can come from only the urban areas, to enshrine radical leftism in the state Constitution.
ISN’T RAISING THE BAR ON IP PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BETTER THAN NOTHING?
No, it’s not.
Again, the double standard is a net power shift to government, and that’s never good. If Concurrent Majority Ratification is applied only to amendments proposed by the People and the government can repeal them with just the urban vote, that puts the thumb on the government side of the scale.
Understand, too, that we will never convince the legislature to limit their own power without making it part of an overall fix to the way we approve constitutional amendments.
SJR 74 WILL BE “DOA” AT THE BALLOT IF THE DOUBLE STANDARD STAYS IN
The votes on Clean Missouri and Cleaner Missouri prove that voters like the idea of limiting the power of politicians.
Just the opposite will happen if the Double Standard remains in SJR 74. The Double Standard dooms SJR 74 to failure at the polls.
FILL OUT A WITNESS FORM BEFORE TUESDAY NOON
The House of Representatives has an online witness form system you can use to get your message in front of the House Elections Committee, or you can attend the hearing in person. I will be testifying AGAINST SJR 74, and telling them to “kill the bill” if they are unwilling to fix the double standard problem.
ONE MORE FAVOR…
There’s one more thing I need you to do. Please call and email the Republican members of the Elections Committee with the same message – fix the Double Standard or Kill the bill.
OK, ONE MORE FAVOR
Share, share, share, this post! You can forward this email after removing the Unsubscribe link, or share this web URL:
In liberty,
- Ron