Category Archives: courts

Just doing his duty

Posted on by
Reply

A warning:  When we composed this examination of current events, we did not realize it would generate a second chapter.  Today, chapter one.

A lot of people are getting all hot and sweaty about President Trump’s push to get his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the Senate before the election so she can rule on any lawsuits about the legitimacy of the election that reaches it. He is convinced the only way he can lose is if there is massive voter fraud and he has lawyered-up to file a lot of lawsuits. Addressing that demagoguery is not our purpose here today.

Let’s talk about the process a little bit because it’s been a while for most of us since our political science classes in high school or college and with all of the shouting and finger-pointing going on, a bit of a refresher course might be in order.

First, the president said last week, “I have a constitutional obligation to put in nine judges—justices.”

Well, yes and no. Article two, section two of the United States Constitution says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint….judges of the Supreme Court.” Note that it does not say how soon after a vacancy occurs the President must act.  It also does not say an incumbent President must act.

Article three, section one says, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme court and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall at all times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

Now, there’s something we don’t hear discussed often.  These judges shall hold their offices “during good behavior.”  We went to Congress.gov to see what that means because most of us, your faithful observer included, who had not observed that qualification before and wonder what that means.

For those of you who think the only thing we have to do is read the Constitution to solve all of our problems, this is an example of the flaw in that argument.  One of many.

Congress.gov says, “This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior. The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers. While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.”

If you think the noise we are hearing about the president’s appointment is loud, imagine what would happen if Congress had the power to remove Supreme Court Justices with whom the majority of Congress disagreed? Why would it have to be the whole Congress, even?  The Senate is the chamber that confirms nominees to these offices.   The Senate giveth; the Senate taketh away.

Nothing is written that prohibits Congress from doing that. What is written is the power of the House to impeach federal public officials (Article one, section two, clause 5).  As we know, after the House files charges (impeachment), the trial is held by the Senate (Article one, section 3, clause seven). Not all federal officials can be impeached (Article two, section four, which also defines the misconduct that can lead to impeachment).

But impeachment is not expressly mentioned in Article three, the judicial article. Instead of listing specific causes for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices, the Constitution speaks of “good behavior,” and that, says Congress.gov, “is widely understood to provide the unique nature of judicial tenure.”

One interpreter of that standard said in 1983, “The nation’s founders so insulated the job against political pressures because they believed the mission of the federal courts requires a high degree of independence in the third branch. The security of life tenure, the Constitution’s framers thought, would encourage resistance by the federal branch to popular moods of the moment not properly expressed in laws, and would promote the fidelity of federal judges to the enduring values embodied in our fundamental instrument of government.”  The observation was given in the John R. Coen Lecture Series at the University of Colorado School of Law by United States Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Your observer has diverted himself from the theme of our discussion but the diversion, we hope, has helped understand the special nature of the third arm of our government.

Back to the president’s statement that he has a Constitutional responsibility to “put” nine judges on the U. S. Supreme Court.

Not really.  The word “immediate” is not in the Constitution. The words “without delay” also are not in it.

He can only do it if the Senate agrees to let him do it.  That’s where the Advice and Consent language kicks in.  He also is not required to make sure the court has nine justices. The number nine is not mentioned in the Constitution and the president’s fellow Republicans a few years ago had no qualms about leaving the court with eight judges for fourteen months so that the next president could make the appointment.  Did that hamstring our judicial system?

No, it did not. In fact we have found eight cases dating to 1973 in which the court tied, sometimes because of a vacancy but most often because one of the Justices did not take part in the decision for one reason or another.  Eight cases in 47 years hardly hamstrung the judicial system.  So there is no Constitutional requirement that the president appoint a ninth Justice.  He is not prohibited from doing so a few weeks before an election, either.  Nor is he prohibited from leaving a vacancy indefinitely.   But when he does suggest someone, the Senate is mandated to provide its blessing before that person can put on the robe.

In fact, there is nothing in the constitution requiring nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, as you could see by reading the provisions at the top of this offering. We will get to that next week.  We will mention that the number of members of the U. S. Supreme Court is set by Congress, which is why we’re hearing Democrats say they’ll try to expand the court to keep it from swinging unacceptably (to them) to the right.

“Packing” the court, as it’s called, has its perils.  What happens if Congress decides a 9-3 court is too radical?  Would it raise the number of 19?  Lower it back to 9, kicking some judges off the bench in the process?

It is obvious that the contemporary situation is a dangerous one—not in terms of whether the potential new court member swings the court far to the right but whether the handling of the nomination by the president and his party will lead the Democrats to do something that spreads the chaos of the Legislative and Executive branches to the judicial branch, where calmness in determining the validity of our laws should prevail.

—at least, in a more perfect world.

We conclude by submitting that the arguments made in the Merritt Garland case are specious and do not apply in the current case. The public’s decision in 2016 to have a president and both houses of the Congress represented by one party does not give that party a license to act with impunity in the current instance, especially since that party has seen a reduction in its overall congressional numbers in the intervening election although gaining two seats in the Senate in 2018. The argument is a red herring.

The issue, created in the Garland case, is whether one party can act one way prior to an election and then four years later, act another way even closer to an election. Any discussion beyond that is political gymnastics. The people’s will seems to be changing, as seen in the change of party power in the House and concerns by Republicans that their control of the Senate after November is in jeopardy. The surveys indicating the public mood continues to change this year further weakens the argument that what was sauce for the goose in 2016 should not be sauce for the gander because of 2018.

But, let’s face it.  Senate Republicans don’t give a tinker’s dam what one old man on a quiet street in Middle America thinks.

Next week we’ll be back with some more history and a look at the court’s future, which could become worse for liberals and might not get back to 5-4 for a decade or more.

After RGB 

Posted on by
Reply

Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t make it to the end of the Trump administration as she had hoped.  Her dying wish reportedly dictated to her granddaughter was that she not be replaced before the election.  It appears that’s not going to be realized either.  Our president has belittled her last opinion, in fact, claiming without evidence that it was something composed by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer, three of his favorite Democratic punching bags.

Your observer of the three branches of government for most of his life fears a 6-3 U. S. Supreme Court, regardless of any perceived partisan tilt, and thinks a 5-4 court is best regardless of any such tilt.  The law is a matter of constant fine-tuning, often on small points of difference. Progress under the law is best accomplished with a surgical instrument rather than with a hammer.  The length of time members of the court are allowed to serve is a crucial factor in whether equality under the law is balanced for the long-term welfare of the country. Rulings from a 5-4 court seem more likely to represent arguments based on law rather than decisions based on ideology.  And when ideology shapes the legal standards under which we all much live, the opportunity for Inequality seems more likely to grow.

It is clear that Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s desire for an immediate vote on an immediate appointment is more focused on ideology than on the law, more focused on power than on principle.  Our nation is best served when the differences between conservative and liberal are narrow, forcing participants to focus on principle rather than power, more on law than on ideology.  It is as true in our appellate court system as it should be true in our legislative halls.

Super-majorities breed arrogance, distract from the principle of service, and place value on power.  And unchallenged power is inimicable to a republic.

Senator McConnell, who argued in February, 2016 that President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, Merritt Garland, should not get a hearing, let alone a vote, because court vacancies should not be filled during an election year, now has constructed some gymnastics to justify contradicting his argument against Garland.

Whether the process can be rushed to completion before the election is held is unclear. The process usually takes longer than the time between now and voting day. But it appears Senator McConnell will push that process.

The filling of this vacancy has instantly changed the presidential campaign and can instantly change campaigns for the U. S. Senate, including McConnell’s.  When the confirmation vote nears, we’ll see if some senators facing close contests might want to wait until after the election rather than rush to a vote before.

As if we voters don’t have enough to think about.

“May you live in interesting times” is a supposedly ancient Chinese curse—although scholars have found no such expression in Chinese.  There is, however, a Chinese phrase from a 1627 collection of short stories: “Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos.”

It appears we’re going to have a 6-3 court.  That doesn’t guarantee that the most conservative issues will be rubber-stamped, as we have seen from time to time when the court has surprised us with a ruling when a swing judge develops. Now, however, it’s going to take TWO swing judges when the court’s liberals prevail, a mountain too steep to climb most of the time. But the court’s own history indicates 6-3 is not always going to be a given.

Sometimes, however, being a dog, especially in times of chaos, is appealing, too.

Us vs. It—part III, Re-opening Day

Posted on by
1

This is the third or fourth version of this entry from your faithful observer as he has struggled to keep up with our President and his ping-pong positions on the pandemic.

We started with the anticipation that President Trump would be convening a task force to look at when he can proclaim the country re-opened for business. He called it the biggest decision of his life. Within seventy-two hours he had amplified his position, asserting that he and he alone could order the lifting of social distancing and other policies put in place by the nation’s governors.

Now, after several governors have suggested rather clearly that he didn’t know what he was talking about, he has decided he’s going to “authorize” each governor to reopen states as the governors see fit. This is a big CYA effort (or if you prefer a more elevated phrase, a face-saving effort) and governors are likely to maintain that they don’t need his “authorization” either.

The way things are going, this entry could be out of date before sundown. But we’re going ahead anyway.

The President is under a lot of pressure to get the economy moving again. Some of that pressure is coming from Wall Street, which is highly-important to him personally as well as politically.

The Washington Post reported a few days ago that the Trump Organization had laid off 1,500 people and closed seventeen of its twenty-four properties in various parts of the world because of the virus. Based on previous Trump financial disclosures, says the newspaper, the closed properties generate about $650,000 a day. The organization’s payments on leases and property taxes are coming due or are past-due.

Some of this is increasingly political. He needs a big economic turnaround before the Republican National Convention opens in Charlotte, North Carolina on August 27. He needs the virus to be gone and a major economic resurgence to talk about at the convention and in the weeks before the election. He can continue deflecting criticism of his handling of the epidemic to someone else—as he already has in pointing a finger at China, Congress, Democrats, the Obama Administration, governors, and the World Health Organization. But by late August, he’ll have a hard time generating enough other boogeymen to deflect enough blame away from an administration that had taken exclusive credit for the growing economy and now wants no criticism for its sharp decline.

While he now seems willing to let governors decide what is best for their states, we’ll be watching to see if this new attitude also includes better assistance to the states in the recovery. As we have heard, he has blamed governors for their lack of protective equipment for healthcare workers.

Actually, we were looking forward to a possible legal donnybrook between the governors and the President if he had maintained his position that he has the exclusive power to reopen state economies. We do wonder if his new position still includes part of his previous statement that if he disagrees with a governor’s actions or lack of them, “I would overrule a governor, and I have a right to do it.”

We all know what could happen if he tries to overrule a governor, don’t we? What will the President do if a governor refuses to be overruled? Will he withhold federal disaster aid? That won’t win many friends or votes. Will he sue the states or the governors? Will the states and their governors sue him?

Our Governor Parson, asked on Monday about the President’s remarks about exclusive powers, said the President “well-knows the authority of the states.”  He said he’s not worried.” We might have to go back to the early days of World War II to find a governor who suddenly has so many things on his plate.

The President still hopes something good for him can happen on May 1. He seems to be one of the few who thinks that date is realistic.

Here’s an outlook for Missouri is concerned:

Leaders of the Missouri legislature hope to re-convene the General Assembly on April 27. Governor Parson said yesterday that would be okay with him as long as they maintain social distancing—as they did last week when they passed the supplemental budget bill. Some projections underline the governor’s cautionary note.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been cited in several White House Coronavirus briefings, a few days ago lowered the anticipated death toll from the virus at 61,545, quite a drop from a possible 240,000 suggested earlier. It says social distancing is the key to the lower number. But while the 61,545 was the hard number we read about and heard about, the institute admitted it was only an estimate, somewhere between 26,487 and 155,311 in its modeling.

We checked the projection graphs a few hours before posting this entry. The institute has increased its projected death total to 68,841 with the 68,841st death coming on June 28. The hard number falls in a bracket of 30,188 and 175,961.

The forecast estimated that on May 1, the nation’s hospitals will need 49,891 beds, 10,937 in intensive care, and 8,953 invasive ventilators. It suggests 976 people will die that day.

Not a good day to reopen the country. We expect the modeling will changes from day to day as new statistics are fed into the system.

The IHME’s latest forecast is for Missouri’s peak day is April 29, just one day before May 1, two days after the legislature convenes. The good news is that no bed shortages or ICU space shortages are forecast. But we will need 313 ventilators. The institute forecasts that we’ll be averaging 50 deaths per day by then, part of an anticipated total of 1,712 with the 1,712th death coming on June 16. That’s the hard number forecast so far. The institute model says that’s within a range of 420 and 5,557.

Governor Parson has said more than once that he’s making decisions about re-starting the economy based on Missouri-specific data. He needs a lot more of it. Our testing numbers, although growing, are not impressive and Missouri as well as other states are going to have to have large improvements in testing to make a safe determination of when stay-at-home orders should be lifted and social distancing standards should be eased.

The President realizes that the opposition gains more ammunition each day the virus creates a new hot spot, each day that first responders are overwhelmed, every day that doctors and nurses are exposed to the virus because they lack the personal protective equipment they need. He knows, or should know, that declaring the company open is a great risk if the virus is still killing significant numbers of people each day.

Governors also must be aware that easing the protective steps they have ordered could backfire on them, many of them facing re-election this year. The autumn flu season will have started by the election in November. The autumn sports seasons will draw thousands of people to distances far less than six feet, elevating the danger of a new virus surge. The last thing the President or the governors need is a flare-up of COVID-19 ten days or fewer before the election.

A popular song during World War I proclaimed, “We won’t come back ‘till it’s over, over there.” The lyric can change to fit our times: “We won’t come back ‘till it’s over, over here,” with a new definition of “come back” and another new definition for “it.”

 

 

Innocent

Posted on by
1

A brief observation about the vote on President Trump’s impeachment:

One of the things we journalists were taught early in our careers is that a “not guilty” verdict in a criminal court case does not mean the accused person is innocent. It only means the prosecution failed to convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” of the guilt of the accused.

Another word sometimes erroneously used after such trials: “exoneration.” Finding someone “not guilty” does not absolve someone from blame, which is what “exoneration” means.

The partisan nature of the vote on the impeachment articles aside, the outcome in no way bestows innocence on President Trump. If the results would have been identical but reversed they would not have bestowed guilt.

To use a tired phrase, it is what it is. Claiming it is more is dishonest.

Of course, all of this is lost in today’s world of “Forever Trumpers” vs. “Never Trumpers,” a world in which reason, perspective, and understanding of a process are lost in the shouting.

But somebody had to mention this and it might as well have been mentioned here.

There is a third word that is appropriate: acquit.

The word “acquit” seems to be a better fit. The Senate vote discharged the president from the accusations against him, which is one meaning of the word.   There is a second meaning: to conduct oneself in a proper way, particularly in stressful situations

So now that the president has been acquitted, we shall see how he acquits himself, to use both definitions in the same sentence.

 

A good time for a critical review

Posted on by
2

As we have researched issues related to funding for construction of a National Steamboat Museum and a State Museum building, we have come to the conclusion that somebody should empanel a commission, task force, or committee to see if the laws and regulations on casino gambling in Missouri are best serving the interests of the six-million people who live here or are best serving the interests of the owners of thirteen businesses, all of which are headquartered in other states.

Frankly, we think things have evolved to the advantage of the latter and to the disadvantage of the best interests of the people of Missouri.

We don’t know if there has developed some kind of mysterious mental vortex on this matter, but it’s good to see that Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr has established an interim committee on gaming headed by Representative Dan Shaul of Imperial.

The committee already has held a hearing on Video Lottery Terminals. Efforts are being made to legalize them. Some people in the casino industry see them as illegal competition and folks in the home-dock cities of our casino boats are concerned those terminals will further erode patronage at casinos and the steadily-eroding financial support those cities draw from casino admission fees.

About two months ago, Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd sued a company that provides VLTs. He says the company has put a couple of the illegal machines in stores in Parkville, where police seized five of the machines last year. The company says the machines are not “betting devices” because lottery results already are determined before the player uses the machine. The case apparently is set for hearing in December.

We understand from talking to Rep. Shaul that the committee also will examine issues such as proposed sports wagering and other things.

We’ve had casinos in Missouri since the spring of 1994. There is ample evidence that at least one part of casino law is badly outdated, allowing the casinos to make large profits at the expense of their home dock cities, veterans, and others. And there are some serious questions about proposed sports wagering legislation.

Speaker Haahr has taken an important initiative and members of the committee and members of the legislature next year might be asked to exhibit courage during an election season in the face of a politically-powerful industry to tilt the tables back to a more fair level for the all of the people of Missouri rather than thirteen businesses.

There is nothing wrong with casinos making a lot of money. The problem is how they keep it. And after a quarter-century, it’s time for a fair but critical look at an industry that seems (from this perspective at least) to have only one goal: to take as much money out of Missouri as possible—by obeying the law. But are laws passed in the early 90s valid a quarter-century later?

They are to the casinos, who correctly note they are obeying laws and regulations. But are they fair to the people who elect members of the legislature to watch out for the welfare of all of the people of Missouri?

Speaker Haahr has appointed the committee to answer that important question.

Sometimes you miss a turn

Posted on by
1

—and you wind up in part of a long-ago Missouri political embarrassment.

I was headed back to my Illinois home town of Sullivan for a brief visit a few weeks ago when I missed the entrance to I-72 from Highway 54 and wound up in Griggsville, Illinois, a small town of about fifteen-hundred people that fifty years ago, or so, was linked to Jefferson City because of an event that some people in Griggsville and elsewhere thought was a major scandal.

Whatever you want to call it, the incident made national headlines—even in the New York Times. The incident/scandal came to mind as I saw the big sign painted on the wall of a downtown Griggsville tavern, just around the corner from city hall. The incident was known in Jefferson City—and Griggsville— as the Great Purple Martin Massacre. Griggsville had started calling itself the “Purple Martin Capital of the Nation” just two years earlier. At the time it was the home of Trio Manufacturing Co, the nation’s leading producer of Purple Martin bird houses.

This is the story, then, of how a little Illinois town and Missouri’s capital city suddenly had a lot in common.

It was the summer of 1967, a usual hot and muggy Monday night in the heart of downtown Jefferson City when five men armed with shotguns invaded the grounds of the Executive Mansion, ready to kill. It was August 21, fifty-two years ago today.

Governor Hearnes had been bothered for a month or more by smelly, noisy, roosting birds in the trees around the mansion, His spokesman told New York Times reporter Douglas Kneeland (whose career later included coverage of somewhat larger stories such as Charles Manson’s murders, Patty Hearst’s kidnapping, the Kent State shootings, Richard Nixon’s “Saturday night massacre,” the firing of special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, and four presidential campaigns), that Hearnes “said to a sergeant in the State Highway Patrol who was on duty at the mansion on Monday, ‘Let’s try to do something about these birds.’”

The sergeant apparently took that to mean the governor had ordered a “hit” on the thousands of noisy starlings, maybe as many as ten-thousand, around the old white-painted mansion (Betty Hearnes later led the effort to wash off decades of paint so the beautiful brick could be seen). The word was passed along to Stan Diemler, the assistant to the director of the Department of Planning and Construction, who recruited two other employees, Roy Renn and Earl Campbell. They invited two other state workers, Ed Plogsted and Larry Jarrett to go starling hunting. This wasn’t the first time shotguns had been used to encourage starlings to find other roosting places. Diemler had consulted with the Conservation Commission on previous occasions and had been encouraged to poison the birds.

“Last time we tried poisoning them we didn’t kill any birds and just killed six pet squirrels,” he said later.

The shooting started about 9 p.m. Street lights provided limited visibility of the clusters of birds on the limbs above the men. About one-hundred shots were fired into the trees and about 2,000 birds dropped to the ground. But, said the spokesman, “In the course of the shooting, a little old lady called a state biologist who was a neighbor of hers and said someone was shooting those lovely birds.” The biologist showed up, got the killers to stop shooting, and started looking at the carcasses.

Not a single starling was found. The birds were Purple Martins, most of which were hauled away to be cremated. But some were turned over to the Missouri Department of Conservation, which confirmed that the five men had murdered birds protected by state and federal law and international compacts.

“It’s a sad story. I just wish to hell we could redo the whole thing,” the spokesman told Kneeland. “We made a mistake and we’re sorry. The Governor regrets this thing more than anyone else at the present time. He never would have condoned the shooting of Purple Martins. Nobody is his right mind would, particularly since we had a wet spring and there are a lot of mosquitoes around here.

You know, this has been done for several years previous to this. It has been S.O.P., standard operating procedure. Now the question has arisen in our minds as to whether we have been killing starlings all these years or Purple Martins.”

National umbrage made itself felt almost immediately. The National Audubon Society Executive Director Charlie Callison, a former director of the Conservation Federation of Missouri, admitted the birds do migrate in large flocks about that time of year. But, “If their droppings are offensive to anyone, all they have to do is call upon the local fire department to chase them out of the local trees with water from a hose line.”

Truth to tell, Purple Martins and Starlings can be easily confused, particularly in the dark, especially by amateur bird observers (as opposed to the more serious bird-watchers). Purple Martin Place, an internet site that advocates for the Martins, says they’re sometimes confused with Tree and Barn Swallows and European Starlings.

The European Starlings are darkly colored with some feathers of iridescent green or purple. Purple Martins are “blackish” colored. Males are “blueish-blackish” while females have chests that are creamy colored or grayish. The most distinguishing feature is the beak.

The European Starling beak is “long pointy and deadly…designed to unearth ground dwelling insects…bright yellow in color in both males and females. The shape of the head is more narrow and longer.”   The Purple Martin beak is “ALWAYS dark colored and much shorter with a downward curve…much wider at the base as it is designed to catch insects while flying.”

Within twenty-four hours the incident had gained national attention. Federal Game Management Agent John Hague, who lived in St. Joseph, was ordered to start a federal investigation.

Letters began to pour into Jefferson City from individual bird lovers and bird advocacy organizations demanding the heads of the shotgun five.

“Yes,” said Cole County Prosecutor Byron Kinder, “I’ll file charges,” a statement that quickly put long-time Magistrate Judge O. Lee Munger in the spotlight. “Let’s have a hearing,” he said.

The hearing November 15 was, as you might expect, a colorful event, highlighted by testimony from M. D. Anglin of Berryville, Arkansas, who once described Berryville as being “about eight miles, as the crow flies, to the Missouri line,” an interesting observation for the President of the National Association for the Protection and Propagation of Purple Martins and Bluebirds (NAPPPM&B), who claimed he had “fooled around with Purple Martins and Bluebirds” for 56 of his 62 years. He disagreed with the defense that Purple Martins had been known to break tree limbs. “Never heard of it before in my life,” he said. He maintained the only way to keep Purple Martins from flocking into a tree was to “cut the tree down,” a comment that prompted Kinder to protest, “But, Mr. Anglin, only God can make a tree!”

Anglin complained that man had spoiled nature with pesticides, insecticides, and even birth control pills for birds. He charged that most people won’t know anything about birds except that they have feathers and can fly. Personally, he said, he would rather clean up after Purple Martins and do without the mosquitoes they eat. As for Starlings—they’re so bad that even cats wouldn’t eat them.

“I don’t want to cut their throats,” he said referring to the five defendants. “Or I don’t want to see them shot because they didn’t know the difference between a Purple Martin and a Starling. If you shot everyone who didn’t know the difference, you’d have one big funeral.”

Munger and defense attorney Bud Wilbers hoped to keep any mention of Governor Hearnes out of the proceedings. But Anglin, who called himself “a fellow Democrat,” said he’s heard all kinds of reports about the killings, even that the governor——

But shouts from the dozen spectators, the two lawyers, and the judge cut that part of his testimony short.

Wilbers withdrew the earlier “not guilty” plea from the five shooters, who pleaded “guilty,” although Wilbers doubted Kinder could have made much of a case because it could not be determined which of the five men actually killed or wounded all those birds. Besides, “the defendants felt a moral obligation” not to “hide behind the law.”

Kinder, who had a bit of a flamboyant side at times, argued that the honest intentions of the men made no difference and that they should have looked into “what species they were dealing with” before they started shooting.

Munger wanted to know three things “for my own conscience” from the accused killers. Had the men been acting on their own or at the request of “someone else,” if they knew the birds were Purple Martins, and whether they would have shot them even if they had known it.

Diemler said “someone else’ had made the request. He said he decided to use shotguns because “this is the way it was done in the past” in getting rid of starlings. And, no, he wouldn’t have shot the birds if he’d know they were protected by law.

The five threw themselves on the mercy of the court. Munger find each of them fifty dollars plus $12.10 in court costs.

Among the onlookers were Thomas Coulson, the editor of the Purple Martin Capital News, published in Griggsville, who brought with him Wayne Bradshaw and George Mobus, a photographer and writer for the paper. They described themselves as representatives of the Griggsville Wild Bird Society, which had a membership of 12,000. He described the organization as having a “Madison Avenue approach” to selling the concept of protecting wildlife.

“We thought by this time in the Midwest everyone knew the difference between a Purple Martin and a Starling either by sight or sound,” he lamented. “It will take years again to build the martin bird society in this area.”

He found Munger’s judgment unsatisfactory. “If I went out and shot a duck that wasn’t in season I’d be fined $25 or $50 for each duck I shot. But here we had 2,000 federally protected species slaughter and all it cost them was $50 for the whole lot.” He considered the possibility the case could be prosecuted by federal authorities (it wasn’t). And, in noting that the birds are protected by compacts with other nations, “It could go as far as the United Nations.” It didn’t.

Retired Presbyterian minister A. B. Jackson, in his weekly column in the Jefferson City Sunday News and Tribune, observed a couple of weeks later that various groups were demonstrating for their rights in those days and “I suppose the purple martins would have liked to have some rights, but somehow they didn’t seem to have. The ‘purple martin incident’ is over, and a lot of folks would like it to be forgotten, but it leaves some unanswered questions. Such as, who ordered the shooting and why didn’t he come forward and take the blame? When someone said at the trial that the only way to get rid of the birds was to cut down the trees, someone remarked, ‘But only God can make a tree.’ True, but it is also true that only God can make a purple martin and it will take him some time to replace the 2,000 which were killed.”

For months after the trial, Governor Hearnes’ office received The Purple Martin Capital News, which had covered the massacre as most newspapers cover major wars. Prosecutor Kinder, who once opined that his knowledge of birds was not very extensive although he felt he could tell the difference between an ostrich and a hummingbird, also received gifts for several months, including a stuffed bird.

The incident appears not to have caused lasting damage to the major participants. Hearnes was elected to a second term as governor. Kinder became a widely-known circuit judge. Diemler later was a deputy sheriff and then Cole County Clerk. The incident is remembered, if it is remembered at all, as one of life’s embarrassing moments, although Purple Martin lovers would never dismiss it that lightly.

And Griggsville, Illinois, remains a small town about sixty miles west of Springfield, a town whose streets are lined with Purple Martin houses including a 70-foot tall, 562-apartment complex for the birds. Trio Manufacturing, founded in 1947, was a leading maker of television antennas until founder J. L. Wade started building Purple Martin houses and selling them throughout the nation. Wade, by then 93, sold his company—then known as Nature House and Nature Society, in 2006 to Erva Tool and Manufacturing Co., of Chicago. Production of Purple Martin houses ended in Griggsville in March of 2007 and the twenty-two employees were laid off. Erva today makes a lot of metal lawn and garden equipment, still makes metal Purple Martin Houses, and “the World’s Greatest Squirrel Baffles” (that’s the real name) to keep squirrels out of bird houses. And the company ships directly from its factory. No Amazon involved.

When I told the folks at the Griggsville City Hall I was from Jefferson City, Missouri it didn’t cause a stir. They hadn’t heard about the connection between Griggsville and the big state government scandal in Jefferson City so long ago.

It’s a nice, clean, little town just off I-72. You’d like it. And I bet if somebody says Griggsville is for the birds, the folks there would smile and say, “It sure is.”

Governor Mike and First Lady Teresa Parson have moved to temporary quarters while a much-needed extensive renovation and repair is made to the Governor’s Mansion. One nice touch during that effort might be to add a Purple Martin house to the place.   Have a little dedication ceremony for it. Invite the mayor of Griggsville. I bet he’d enjoy it.

(Photo credits: Griggsville—Bob Priddy; Mansion—Missouri Secretary of State; Purple Martin—Audubon.com)

Sponsorships

Posted on by
Reply

State government never has enough money to fix the roads, educate our kids, take care of those of us in our declining years, pay our prison guards and state employees  enough to get off of food stamps, maintain hundreds of buildings it owns, keep our air and water safe, and a lot of other things.

I woke up on a Monday morning a few weeks ago with the solution.  I think it was the day after I’d watched the Indianapolis 500 in person and the NASCAR 600-mile race at Charlotte that evening on the telly.  It came to me that state government could make millions if it followed an economic model based on racing.

A few years ago the stock car race at Indianapolis was called something like the Your Name Here Crown Royal Brickyard 400 Powered by Big Machine Records.  Each year the name of some citizen—a private citizen who was a veteran or someone who had voluntarily done something of public benefit would be picked to fill in the “Your Name Here” part of the event name—a nice thing to do to recognize the importance of people like most of us who do good stuff just because we do good stuff.

And if you watch any of these events, you know that the first thing the winners do in the post-race interview is thank all the sponsors whose logos adorned their cars and are sewn onto their fire-resistant driving suits. “You know, Goodyear (Firestone) gave us an awesome tire today and our (Chevrolet, Honda, Toyota, Ford) had awesome power.  I’d like to thank Bass Pro, M&Ms, Budweiser, Coke, Monster Energy, Gainbridge, NAPA, and all my other sponsors who make this possible—and the fans, you’re the BEST!!!”

Suppose state government was run like that.

At the end of a legislative session, the Speaker and the President Pro Tem, in their joint news conference, began with “We have had an awesome, productive session here at the Anheuser-Busch Capitol powered by Ameren.”

“The Monsanto Department of Agriculture driven by the Missouri Farm Bureau will be better equipped than ever to regulate corporate farming through the Tyson CAFO Division.

“The Master Lock Department of Corrections employees are getting a significant pay increase; The Depends Division of Aging is expanding its services significantly; the Tracker Marine Water Patrol is able to hire more officers; and the Dollar General Department of Revenue is going to install new computers to get our H&R Block tax refunds out faster.

“The Cabela’s Department of Conservation sales tax renewal has been put on the ballot next year.  The Wikipedia Department of Higher Education driven by Nike has been given more authority to approve such programs as the Shook, Hardy & Bacon Law School at UMKC, the Wal-Mart Business School in Columbia, the Eagle Forum Liberal Studies program at UMSL, and technology developed at the Hewlett-Packard 3-D Missouri University of Science and Technology will now be capable of building new football facilities on our campuses for pennies..  And we found additional funding for the Cologuard Department of Health and its Purdue Pharma Division of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

We also were able to put a proposal on the ballot next year to increase funding for the Quikcrete Department of Transportation.

“We couldn’t do all of the great things we’ve done in the 101st Session of the Citizens United General Assembly fueled by Laffer Economics without the support of all of our state’s other great sponsors.

“And we appreciate the participation of you citizens out there.  We couldn’t do this without all of you. You’re the BEST!!!”

And the confetti made from 1,994 un-passed bills would rain down and the legislative leaders would spray champagne (or, more likely, shaken-up Bud) all over each other in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Legislative Victory Circle (previously known as the rotunda) and the legislative mascot dressed as the Official State Dessert would dance to a celebratory song performed by Sheryl Crowe, who next year will be chosen as a project by a third-grade class studying state government to be the subject of a bill designating her as the Official State Country Singer.

This would never work, of course.  We can’t see members of the legislature in uniforms that have state government sponsors’ patches all over them during the sessions or campaigning in outfits that have the logos of their donors.  And the Senate would just flat out refuse to tolerate anything that would eliminate Seersucker Wednesdays.

Even if government tried something like this, the Supreme Court would be tied up for years in lawsuits determining whether sponsorships should be calculated as Total State Revenue under the Hancock Amendment, thereby triggering tax refunds that would undermine the entire idea.  And Clean Missouri would get another ballot proposal approved by voters that would tie the Missouri Ethics Commission into knots trying to define whether sponsors constitute campaign donors.

Hate to say it folks.  In the real world, if we want better services or more services or better roads or prison guards who don’t have to hold two other jobs, it’s us taxpayers who will have to be the sponsors of state government.    And after all, shouldn’t we want to be

THE BEST?

Grasping to retain power, regardless

Posted on by
Reply

We’re watching with interest efforts in Wisconsin by Republicans to limit the power of a newly-elected Democratic governor who will replace Scott Walker.                The New York Times reported yesterday:

“The long list of proposals Republicans want to consider also includes wide efforts to shore up their strength before Tony Evers, the Democrat who beat Gov. Scott Walker last month, takes office: new limits on early voting, a shift in the timing of the 2020 presidential primary in Wisconsin, and new authority for lawmakers on state litigation. The Republican plan would also slash the power of the incoming attorney general, who is also a Democrat…In recent years, single parties have come to dominate state legislatures, allowing lawmakers to make significant policy changes in states even as Washington wrestled with gridlock. But in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, where Democrats regained governor’s offices in capitals that Republicans fully controlled for years, Republicans are making last-minute efforts to weaken their powers…It is a model pioneered in North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers in 2016 tried to restrict the power of the governor after a Democrat was narrowly elected to the post. That set off a bitter court battle that continues to this day.”

There is nothing new in this.  In fact one of the most egregious examples happened here in Missouri. Only then it was Democrats who had controlled the state government including the legislature during the depression in a way that could make today’s two-thirds Republican legislature jealous. The state constitution then in effect required the Speaker of the House to make the official announcement of the election results at the start of the next legislative session so the winners could be inaugurated a few days later.

Governor Lloyd Stark, who had broken with the political boss in Kansas City, Tom Pendergast, could not succeed himself but in the process of what happened after the election he became the longest-serving single-term governor in Missouri history. With the demise of the statewide Pendergast machine, the organization run by St. Louis Mayor Bernard Dickmann became the dominant machine power within the Democratic Party.

Forrest c. Donnell (whose name was pronounced as if it was “Donald” without the “d”) campaigned heavily against Democrat machine politics and beat Lawrence McDaniel, his former Sunday School pupil, by 3,613 votes, the second-closest margin in state history. Democrats retained the other statewide offices.

Two weeks later, Democratic State Committee chairman C. Marion Hulen of Mexico proclaimed there was “an imposing array of reports, evidence of illegal use of large sums of money and of vote buying, of irregular voting and of alleged frauds.”  Another committee member claimed there was enough evidence to show McDaniel had won by 7,500 votes.

When the House convened on January 8, 1941, it passed a resolution barring Speaker Morris Osburn from announcing the results until a ten-member committee (of which six were Democrats) examined the ballots. Attorney General Roy McKittrick, one of those re-elected in November, held such an action was legal.

The committee recommended that Osburn certify the re-election of all of the Democratic candidates but it said Donnell should not be certified because of mistakes and fraudulent voting in the governor’s race.  The Republican committee members called the report a fraud and noted nobody had presented the committee with any evidence of fraud.

Inauguration day was January 13.  But there was no parade, no big event in the rotunda (inaugurations were indoors then), no inaugural ball.  Secretary of State Dwight Brown, Auditor Forrest Smith, and Attorney General McKittrick were sworn in for their third terms at the Supreme Court.  Lieutenant Governor Frank Harris, also a third-termer, took his oath in the state senate chamber because he constitutionally was the President of the Senate. Wilson Bell was sworn in as treasurer for his first term.

Donnell could have been sworn in by a Justice of the Peace (an office later replaced by magistrate judges who were even later replaced by associate circuit judges on the government charts) or some other qualified officer but he rejected the suggestion, saying he wanted to avoid further chaos.  Instead, he went to Jefferson City and asked the Supreme Court to order Osburn to announce him as the winner.

With those actions, Lloyd Stark could not leave office. He was to serve until his successor had been elected and qualified to take over. He was, to put it politely, urinarily agitated.

In what was to have been his final State of the State speech he announced he had vetoed the joint resolution seeking an investigation and said he would not approve spending any money for any such thing. He called for Donnell to be seated as governor and for any dispute about the results to “proceed in a legal and proper manner.”

His fellow democrats, not happy with his position, started an “absolutely bipartisan” recount anyway.  In mid-February the Supreme Court ordered the legislature to declare Donnell governor.  Osborn read the official document on February 20 declaring Donnell the winner.  The Senate majority leader immediately announced that McDaniel would file a declaration contesting the results.

Newspaper editorial writers from both sides of the aisle flayed the Democrats, the Joplin Globe saying “thousands of Democrats” had been “nauseated from the stench from the original office-stealing effort.”

Donnell finally was sworn in on February 26, in the rotunda. Stark, who said he had been “living in a suitcase since January thirteenth,” quickly headed back to St. Louis and his private law practice.

McDaniel’s 226-page election contest petition claimed that a complete recount would show him the winner by 30,000 votes.  State Republican Chairman Charles Ferguson laughed, particularly at the claim that hundreds of non-residents had voted for Donnell in Newton County in southwest Missouri: “It stands to reason that five or six hundred strangers could not show up to vote in a town as small as Neosho and get away with it.”  Neosho’s population that year was 5,318.

Donnell’s response was fifty-thousand words long and accused Democrats of the things they had said his campaign did.

The chairman of the recount committee, Senator Phil M. Donnelly of Lebanon, said the recount would not start until mid-April.   When it did, it was a disaster for McDaniel and the Democrats. By late May reports indicated recounts in eighty-one counties and St. Louis City had ADDED four-thousand votes to Donnell’s total. McDaniel met with Donnelly and agreed to file a letter withdrawing his request for a recount.  He did so without consulting party leaders who had pushed him to demand the recount and who had cooked up the claims of massive Republican vote fraud. McDaniel’s statement later seemed to be a slap at Hulen and his party allies when McDaniel said he had been “misled” by those who claimed he should be declared the winner.

The House and Senate met in joint session and in ten minutes declared the recount over with Donnell the winner.  Because the recount was never completed, his official victory margin remains 3,613 votes.

Democrats paid a heavy price for this escapade.  Several saw the writing on the wall and did not run again in 1942.  Several who did run lost their primary elections and many of those who got through the primaries were whipped in November as Republicans regained control of the House and pulled into a tie in the Senate.

Donnell was succeeded by Senator Donnelly, the senator who led the aborted recount effort. Donnelly later became the first governor to serve two full terms although he had to serve them separately because he was barred from succeeding himself but not prohibited from being governor again.

While Donnell was governor, a constitutional convention was called.  The new constitution, approved after he left office, prevents another effort to “steal” the governor’s election.  It says the Secretary of State, not the Speaker of the House, will certify the winners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A tax gift, if we want it

Posted on by
Reply

The U. S. Supreme Court has shown it can change its mind and a new ruling that lets states collect sales taxes from out-of-state internet retailers gives Missouri government a new opportunity as well as some new issues to confront.

All reasons for NOT collecting taxes on out-of-state internet sales seem to have been eliminated by the court’s narrow decision to throw out a 1992 ruling saying out-of-state internet merchants would not have to collect state sales taxes and pay them to the purchaser’s state unless the company had a substantial presence in a state.

That ruling in the early days of internet commerce put brick and mortar businesses in Missouri and other states at a disadvantage and they’ve been aggravated for years that the legislature hasn’t corrected the problem.  The legislature has said its hands have been tied by the 1992 ruling.

The ropes are off now.  We’ll be interested to see if state leaders next year call for passage of a law requiring collection of that sales tax.  There is no doubt the state could use the money.

The legislation will not be easy to write although the court ruling does provide some hints about what will work.

It would not be surprising to hear some voices claim—as they have in the past—that imposing sales taxes on internet merchants would be a tax increase on purchasers and therefore not something the state should lay upon the shoulders of taxpayers who have avoided sales taxes on certain purchases up to now.  We’ll have to see if that lame argument still has any legs in a state that continues to rank in various studies in the lower third of all states for overall tax burden.

The court ruling makes it harder to justify saying, “We’re pro business” while maintaining a sales tax policy that puts our home-town merchants at a sales disadvantage to businesses that exist on our computer screens.

And where do we get the idea that the computers on our desks or in our pockets are not some kind of a “physical presence” in our state? Let’s be honest and admit that the internet long ago became more a physical presence in our lives than Wal-Mart. We don’t have to drive across town to buy something on the internet, after all.

Checking out through Paypal is no different from checking out at the local counter.  The buyer doesn’t  physically stick a credit card into a slot at a cash register with Paypal.  But internet merchants do have a cash register right in front of us—the computer that is a very real physical presence. My brick and mortar house becomes an internet merchant’s physical presence in my town and my state every time I check out with Paypal or some similar system.  (Ohio tried to address the issue with a law saying the use of cookies on consumer’s computers by internet retailers constitutes a “presence.” The retailers are fighting the idea in court.)

The danger, as some might see it, to requiring sales taxes to be collected on internet purchases is that state revenue might increase to the point that some lawmakers will decide to once again ease the overall tax burden on Missourians again.

That idea is getting pretty old. And shaky.

Political commentator Josh Barro, a former staffer at the Tax Foundation (considered a conservative think tank) who contributes to Business Insider, observes in a new article that the court decision reminds states of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that says states cannot unduly burden or discriminate against businesses from other states.

South Dakota, which brought the lawsuit, avoids that pitfall by providing those retailers with computer software that makes it easier for them to pay sales taxes.  It does not require those retailers to deal with the state and every political subdivision within it that charges sales taxes.  The money goes to a central state agency.  Our Department of Revenue, which collects sales taxes collected by our local businesses and then sends proper amounts to local governments, would fill that role with internet sales taxes.

Missouri has not joined the twenty-or-so states that have signed on to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.  Those states have agreed to some common rules dealing with their sales taxes.  This ruling might encourage a new legislature (The 2019 General Assembly will have new leadership and several dozen new members) to take a new look at the SSUTA as it considers what to do to capitalize on the ruling.

One of Barro’s former colleagues at the Tax Foundation, Joe Henchman, says, “If you want to be absolutely sure that your statute is valid under these rules, you should try to emulate South Dakota as much as possible.”  So that’s a starting point.

Barro makes an important observation that some Missouri leaders seem to have been going against for some time: “It is important for a tax system to be adequate—that is, revenues should grow on pace with the economy, so the government can keep pace with the demand for services as the economy grows.”

He notes tax-free purchases from internet retailers distorts the behavior of purchasers by encouraging them to buy online when they otherwise would buy at a local store, thus reducing local tax collections and that means “the government either has to cut back on services or it has to raise taxes on something else.”   The resulting erosion of sales tax income at the state level has put a heavier burden on property taxes and “taxpayers have revolted against increases in this inflexible tax, voting to impose caps that have in some states kept revenue growth well below economic growth.”

Add to that the penchant government has to lower various taxes under the philosophy that lower taxes will mean more jobs that will stimulate the economy and you can get a state that reduces services that industries and employers would like to see before they commit to creating jobs.

So Missouri has an opportunity because of the court ruling.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court decision, estimates the ruling could mean eight to thirty-three Billion dollars in annual tax revenues for the states.  The federal Government Accountability Office thinks Missouri’s share would be $180-275-million a year in state and local sales taxes.

Missouri could do a lot with that amount of money at the state and local levels.  Except—

We have the crippling Hancock Amendments.

Those parts of our state constitution put a ceiling on how much new taxes can be collected without a statewide vote.  State Auditor Nicole Galloway, a little more than a year ago, estimated that taxes at the statewide level could not increase by more than $94-million without such a vote. We’re not sure how much of the figure from the GAO would go to the state and how much would go into local government revenue accounts, but Hancock appears to put a cloud over the issue at the state level.

Before the passage of what was called Hancock II, the state had to make refunds to income tax payers if state revenue growth exceeded the original Hancock limits. The state did make those refunds for a couple of years before adopting the first of a series of tax cuts to make sure the state did not to go to the inconvenience of mailing out checks.  The state hasn’t come close to hitting the refund threshold since Hancock II. In fact, Auditor Galloway says Missouri is four BILLION dollars under that limit now.

Will voters support the new authority given Missouri by the U. S. Supreme Court to collect more than $94-million in internet sales taxes?  Will collecting six or seven or eight cents per dollar from an out-of-state internet seller increase state revenue so much that a statewide vote will be required, giving Missourians a chance to reject the proposal?  The GAO and the state auditor have put forth figures indicating that vote might be needed.

We have had about two decades of leadership telling voters their taxes are too high. We’ve seen voters who travel to the polls on increasingly bad roads that go across increasingly crumbling bridges refuse to support gas tax increases to make their journey smoother and safer. And the legislature has taken steps year after year to reduce the state’s financial ability to “keep pace with the demand for services as the economy grows.”

The court has presented Missouri with a gift.  Will Missourians decide to leave it unopened?

(You can read Josh Barro’s article at https://amp.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-wayfair-internet-sales-tax-decision-good-for-consumers-2018-6)

Collateral Damage

Posted on by
4

Eric Greitens thought the Missouri governorship would be a step toward the White House. Instead it became a step off a cliff.

He was, as he claimed in his campaign, an outsider, which might be the only part of his campaign that turned out to be true.  He did not clean up state government, as he promised.  His administration is more likely to be remembered for arrogantly being an example of what he promised he would fight.

Six days before he announced he would resign, Team Greitens sent out a typical Greitens message:

“We knew that these baseless allegations would be exposed for what they really are: false attacks brought forward by powerful liberals and Democratic leadership. And that’s exactly what’s happened. The cases against him have been dropped or dismissed.”

Team Greitens knew that not all charges had been dropped or dismissed, knew that the pit was only growing darker.  And Team Greitens surely knew the claimed falsity of the attacks was growing weaker by the day or even by the hour. 

In his announcement of his impending departure, he went back to familiar themes voiced less than a week earlier that, frankly, sounded convincing only to his do-or-die supporters:

“This ordeal has been designed to cause an incredible amount of strain on my family. Millions of dollars of mounting legal bills, endless personal attacks designed to cause maximum damage to family and friends. Legal harassment of colleagues, friends and campaign workers, and it’s clear that for the forces that oppose us, there is no end in sight. I cannot allow those forces to continue to cause pain and difficulty to the people that I love.”

He can blame the “corrupt career politicians” who were his proclaimed enemies as much as he wants.  He can blame “liberals” for destroying the “conservative agenda” he was fighting for as much as he wishes. He can claim the ordeal his family and supporters have been through was “designed.” He hasn’t used the term “fake news” to describe the media that covered his hypocrisies and his personal and political failings, but he did try to control the message and manipulate its delivery as no governor before him had done—and, we hope, as no future governor will try to do—and did blame the media for reporting “lies.”

He can blame everybody he wants to blame but the blame begins and ends with Eric Greitens.

Significantly, he did not announce his planned resignation until a former campaign worker provided some devastating information to the special House committee considering whether to file articles of impeachment and not until a Jefferson City circuit judge had ruled that the committee was legally entitled to obtain documents from the Greitens campaign fund and from the nonprofit organization he set up to push his agenda—including ads attacking those who opposed him, even legislators within his Republican Party.

In truth, Eric Greitens ran for the office of Unit Commander, not Governor.  In the end he still has a platoon of loyalists churning out toothless rhetoric blaming everyone for his situation but Eric Greitens.  Somewhere along the way this much-vaunted SEAL team member forgot the importance of being part of a team.  As far as we know, SEAL teams don’t go around calling each other names and insinuating that they’re not worth being on the same team as the leader.  But then, leaders don’t accomplish much when they shoot at the people they need to have behind them.

But Greitens did that repeatedly with his broad-brush condemnation of the members of the General Assembly. He did not seem to recognize during his campaign and never seemed to concede during his time in office that he could accomplish little without forming relationships in the legislature. Somewhere in his highly-publicized great education he apparently ignored the idea that there are three branches of government, not just the one in which he served.

There is a sense of betrayal about the governorship of Eric Greitens.  He wasn’t what he said he would be.  Some would even argue that he wasn’t even what he said he was.

The saddest thing about Eric Greitens is the damage he has done to others because people like him take others down with them, many of them innocent.  All of the people who believed he could take them along in ever-higher circles of power and influence, even as the evidence piled up against him to the contrary, are now his victims, his collateral damage. They now are seeing his disappointment while dealing with their own and that of their friends.

“The time has come…to tend to those that have been wounded, and to care for those who need us most,” he said in his resignation announcement. 

“Those who have been wounded” include many voters who supported him because they bought his promises to make government cleaner, more principled, more of a service to all of the people, more honorable. They were not wrong for believing in him because we have to believe in somebody’s words. It would not be surprising if many of those voters who supported him because they deeply distrust government find their distrust even deeper now because Eric Greitens seems to have turned out to be at least as bad as those he disparaged during his campaign. They are collateral damage not just now but perhaps in the future because some will wonder even more if they can trust anybody seeking or serving in public office.

There’s one victim in particular who might be collateral damage, who might be the most wounded of all.

We think of this person because of something we heard another former governor talk about many years ago.

In 1976, Missouri had a young, ambitious governor who was seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, so much so that President Gerald Ford had him on his list of potential running mates when the party held its convention in Kansas City that year.   The young governor would be challenged for re-election by a populist who focused his campaign on promising to do what he could not do legally or economically—fire the Public Service Commission and lower utility rates.  Christopher Bond and his campaign failed to recognize the popularity of the Joe Teasdale promises, unrealistic though they might be, and never strongly attacked those promises.   In November, Bond lost by about 12,000 votes.  A career trajectory that might have taken him to the highest national levels nosedived.

Afterwards he spoke of the impact his crushing disappointment had on his then-wife, Carolyn.  His dreams of a second term as governor and then a rise to greater position nationally seemingly had been killed by that election outcome.  But, he recalled, the burden was double for her.  A First Lady of the state, married to a man whose political future seemed unlimited before November, 1976, saw her own dreams crash and burn in that election, too.  She had to deal with her disappointment while also dealing with his.  She carried a double burden.

We do not presume to know how Sheena Greitens has dealt with, is dealing with, or will deal with the events that have led to her husband’s downfall.  The cold reality is that those who attach themselves to a rising star whether family or friends or believers should understand that they can get burned when the star becomes a meteorite.  That does not, however, lessen the pain when that happens.

But wallowing in despair will do none of them any good.

The earth won’t stop turning while people such as Eric Greitens and his supporters rant against the collapse of their worlds or mourn their personal losses.  History is replete with examples of those who stumble or fall whose dishonor is not their doom.

The premature end of a governorship is not necessarily the end of life in public service, elected or not.  And the world doesn’t care if Eric Greitens and his friends feel sorry for themselves. He has no one to blame but himself although it might take a while for him to admit it.  He has to get on with life without being in government.

—because government will get on with life without Eric Greitens. And so will the people of Missouri.

We are reminded of some of the words from Carl Sandburg’s great poem, The People, Yes:

The people will live on.

The learning and blundering people will live on.

They will be tricked and sold and again sold

And go back to the nourishing earth for rootholds,

The people so peculiar in renewal and comeback,

You can’t laugh off their capacity to take it…

 

In the darkness with a great bundle of grief

the people march.

In the night, and overhead a shovel of stars for keeps, the people

march:

“Where to? what next?”

 

Whether state government learns any lessons from the Greitens experience and in so doing develops the courage to take actions that will rekindle confidence among the people it serves or whether it will allow the people to “be tricked and sold and again sold” is something to watch for. But many people who were skeptical about government before Greitens used that skepticism to help him get elected are even more skeptical when they see how he turned out. The job of turning them around will be even harder now should anyone make a sincere effort to try.

But, as somebody once said, the mission continues.