Category Archives: government

Taking the Initiative (Away)

Posted on by
Reply

Ohio residents voted a few days ago on a proposition that would make it harder for citizens to enact laws if the legislature refuses to do so.  Or to correct a legislative enactment many think based on something other than the general public welfare.

Ohio voters approved initiative and referendum in 1912, about the time Missourians approved it.  In the recent statewide Ohio vote, 57% of the voters rejected an effort largely led by those who do not want to see a pro-abortion amendment added to the Ohio Constitution.

In Missouri, constitutional amendments proposed by the people need only a simple majority to be approved.  This year, the Missouri House voted almost two-to-one (Republicans control the House by about the same ratio) to require 57% approval for any amendment proposed by the people.  Only another end-of-session mud fight in the Senate kept the proposal from a vote there sending the issue to the ballot.

Abortion was (is) the principle issue behind the failed legislative effort in Missouri. One major House supporter of the increase went on record during the session admitting the increased threshold was intended to keep a petition allowing abortions from being sent to the voters for their approval. The people, in turn, sent a message back to the legislature.

One of the key arguments for the supermajority threshold is that the change is needed to keep the state constitution from being further cluttered by amendments that should be only statutes.

The concern is legitimate. The proposed means of answering that concern, though, are questionable—and the legislature largely is to blame for the situation to begin with.

Some amendments have been added to the Missouri Constitution because the legislature has refused to pass a statute to address an issue.  The legislature has at times rewritten a statute approved in an election, a perceived rebuke to the will of the people who then can petition for an amendment to the constitution that is harder for the legislature to alter. The legislature cannot, on its own, rewrite a provision in the constitution. It can, however, suggest a replacement amendment that takes the place of the citizen-adopted language inserted into the constitution.

Government can be a little dizzying sometimes but at least the governed and the government are on the same level playing field. A national movement has materialized to tilt the field, however.

The initiative process does need some changing.  But making it harder for the people to propose and pass a law or an amendment on an issue the legislature has ignored, fumbled, or is not favored by the majority (or supermajority) party is not the proper approach.

There is a hypocrisy in this proposed change of the political process. Members of the legislature elected by a simple majority can pass a proposed law or amendment with a simple majority, even a proposal to require the people to get a supermajority to propose or pass a measure the legislature has ignored or bungled.

This is a philosophical problem that is often lost in the different worlds of politics versus popular sovereignty.  Benjamin Franklin defined popular sovereignty when he wrote, “In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.”  Or as the Declaration of Independence reminds us, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

A simple majority governs.  A super majority dictates within the political system.

There are two kinds of supermajorities.  The human first one is a legislative majority capable of enacting laws with no regard to the presumed political equality of a minority. The second is an  entity on paper that keeps a simple majority from speaking or acting.

Supermajorities in their different forms are dangerous because they can ignore the unalienable mutual right to, in particular, liberty.

In this case, the Missouri legislature has a supermajority that wants to ban abortions with a fifty-percent-plus-one vote while requiring those who oppose the ban to get 57% support.  Changing the constitution to tilt the table against the minority is a tilt away from democracy.

There is an argument that the proposal likely to be back in the legislature next year will infringe on the right of citizens “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”  That’s a basic right in the U. S. Constitution.  Although the document does not specifically address what it takes to petition government, our history has established the simple majority as the rule.  Making  it harder to petition for a redress of grievances hardly seems to keep faith with the founders.

The process needs improvement.  But limiting access of the people to an original right in our national charter is not the best way to handle the issue.

Here are some things—top of the head thinking so take it for what it’s worth—that could be done to improve the process. You might have others or prefer others:

—Limit the number of proposed propositions by one organizaiton to one.  Too often, petition campaign organizers file multiple versions of a proposal that vary only slightly, a process that places an unnecessary burden on the Secretary of State’s staff that has to review each proposal.

—Require clear reporting of the source of funding for the petition, identifying by name the donors and any organizations through which the financing is delivered. If someone wants to buy a part of the constititon or a state statute, voters need to know who it is and why.

—Require pre-filing public hearings in x-number of locations throughout the state so the people have chances to hear the specifics of the proposal and to criticize it within an audience of their peers, giving an early public airing of the issue which otherwise might go to the ballot with a well-financed and heavily one-sided campaign.

—-Require a hearing by a joint committee of the legislature before circulation begins. Neither the House nor the Senate could change the proposal but the hearings could explore shortcomings in a process that could be made by petition sponsors.  One of the major—and justified—criticism process is that petitions lack the refining process that legislative review offers for issues recommended for the ballot by the General Assembly.

The petition process is a right that is to be reserved and preserved for the citizens.  To limit citizens’ right by forcing on them an obligation not forced upon the people who purportedly represent them is to repudiate Franklin’s idea of a republic in which “the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.”

We hope Missourians are as cognizant of their rights and responsibilities as citizens as the good people of Ohio are—regardless of any measure the Missouri General Assembly might try to enact that makes citizens lesser participants in their own governance.

 

Bye, Bye, Bulbs 

Posted on by
1

If you have them, use them. They’re still legal.  But once they’re gone from the store shelves, they’re gone, period.

The incandescent light bulb, perfected by Thomas Edison almost 150 years ago, is being turned off.

There are likely to be some nut cases who will say the federal government will be sending agents around to your house to confiscate all of your light bulbs.

That’s a crock.

Sixteen years ago, President George W. Bush—a Republican—signed a law that set new efficiency requirements for lightbulbs and started a timeline to phase out incandescent light bulbs.

But through the years there have been individuals and groups who have decided it is highly-profitable to convince people they are victims of government (as opposed to being thinking partners in it), and the humble lightbulb has become part of a broader conspiracy theory.

President Trump bought into that and rolled back the Obama administration’s rules phasing out the Edison bulbs in favor of more energy efficient lights. Vanity might have played a role in his decision because he once complained to Congressional Republicans, “I always look orange” under LED lights.

There has been a lot of speculation about that and lights have nothing to do with his orangeness.  Mother Jones has suggested Trump’s close friendship with Steve Hillbert might be a reason. Hilbert is the CEO of a company that makes tanning products. The magazine says they became friends about the time people began noticing Trump’s hue. (Melania reportedly got a one-million dollar contract to promote the Hillbert company’s line of caviar-based skin products).

Trump’s longtime personal doctor has suggested the coloration might come from Rosacea, a skin condition that produces redness of the skin.

Informally, we might suggest that his constant rage against those who suggest he seriously disregarded the statutory rules of public behavior might contribute to his coloration.

We have wandered afield from our intended topic.

The Biden administration’s Department of Energy reinstated the policy in April of ‘22 with a new rule that says light bulbs have to have a minimum of 45 lumens per watt. Light bulb maker Phillips says traditional light bulbs that have come down from Edison’s time produce one-third of that amount.

Lumens are ways to measure brightness. And, actually, modern LED bulbs produce 75 lumens per watt.

The rule does NOT mean you and I must immediately throw out our incandescent light bulbs—or the government will force us to do so. It DOES outlaw the manufacture and sale of them, though.

And there are several kinds of incandescent bulbs that can still be made and sold in our stores.  The Department of Energy says they are:

  • Appliance lamps, including fridge and oven lights
  • Black lights
  • Bug lamps
  • Colored lamps
  • Infrared lamps
  • Left-handed thread lamps
  • Plant lights
  • Flood lights
  • Reflector lamps
  • Showcase lamps
  • Traffic signals
  • Some other specialty lights, including marine lamps and some odd-sized bulbs

Why is the government making this switch?  Because these lights are more energy efficient and because they will lessen the human impact on climate change.  The DOE thinks these bulbs eventually will save consumers about three-billion dollars in utility bills.  The department also estimates they will reduce carbon emissions (a factor in global warming) by 222 million metric tons in the next three decades, the equivalent the carbon dioxide emissions of 28-million homes.

A metric ton is about 205 American pounds more than an American ton.

We have several of the old-fashioned bulbs in our fixtures at our house. It is legal for us to use them until they burn out.

The United States Energy Information Administration’s 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey says about half of all American households are using LED bulbs already.

The changeover to higher-tech lighting isn’t done. Compact fluorescent bulbs are next on the ban list.  Last December the DOE proposed a rule saying the minimum lumen level would have to be more than 120, a move that would, in effect, ban CFL bulbs. That rule is to go into effect at the end of next year.

All of this conveniently fits into the right-wing conspiracy theory that federal agents will soon be confiscating our gas stoves.

Everything is a big conspiracy these days. It helps gin up a too-sizeable segment of the population willing to immediately believe almost anything that can be manipulated into a profitable anti-government movement.

Your light bulbs are safe, folks.  Your stoves are, too, but that’s another story for another day.

1,078

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Cox Richardson is a history professor at Boston College whose “Letters from an American” daily Substack newsletter place contemporary events within a historical context. USA Today named her one of its Women of the Year honorees last  year.

Joyce Vance is a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and now a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer in Law (criminal justice reform, criminal procedure, and civil rights are her specialties) at the University of Alabama School of Law.

We are borrowing from a couple of things they wrote when our immediately former president was arraigned on criminal charges on August 3.

Donald Trump is charged with crimes linked to the January 6, 2021 events at the United States Capitol.  Richardson cites the federal prosecutor for Washington D. C. is observing that Trump is the 1,078th person charged with federal crimes connected to those events. And he was arraigned in the same courtroom where many of those 1,077 others have appeared, or will appear.

She also cites Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, responding to defense claims that the charges infringe on Trump’s constitutionally-protected right to free speech even if his remarks were repeated lies.  The charges, however, appear not to attack his free speech remarks but instead focus on the greater issue of his illegal efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election.

Snyder thinks we should not be distracted from the real point of the charges: “That Trump will be tried for his coup attempt is not a violation of his rights. It is the fulfillment of his rights.  It is the grace of the American republic. In other systems, when your coup attempt fails, what follows is not a trial.”

We would add that in most failed coup attempts we have read about in our long life, what follows is a quick assumption of guilt and often a quick dispatching of what is called justice.

Richardson also notes in that day’s “letter,” that the arraignment took place on the same days that Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released a transcript of their interview with a Hunter Biden business associate that GOP committee members claim proves then Vice-President Biden was personally involved in some shady business deals involving Hunter.  She says the interview transcript undermines the Republicans’ claims although they’re overlooking that issue.

(If you want to read Richardsons full “letter,” you can find it at:

August 3, 2023 – by Heather Cox Richardson (substack.com)

Joyce Vance’s column, “Civil Discourse” says that, “Many people…have become inured to Trump’s behavior…A real problem with Trump is that there is just so much of it that he is exhausting. For some people it is easier to tune it out than it is to try to keep all of it in focus.”  But she says the people need to re-connect and follow the process by which these charges are dealt with “so they can assess the evidence and the proceedings for themselves…It is every American’s obligation to follow this process.”

One subtle thing she mentions is that in court, the former president is just “Mr. Trump,” a designation that applies generally to (male) trial participants.  No matter what your station is life is, or has been, you are equal in the eyes of the law to every other person who has gone through this process…Donald Trump was treated like anyone else in his position would be. Investigation having found that there is sufficient evidence of significant crimes, he has been charged by a grand jury. He now has the same opportunity to defend himself that anyone would have.”

She explains that, “Arraignment is usually a perfunctory matter, as it was for Trump… It is governed by Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a defendant be advised of the charges against him and enter a plea to them. The traditional plea at the time of arraignment is one of not guilty. The defendant has not yet seen the government’s evidence against him—there is no informed basis for knowing whether the government can prove what it has charged. So it is no surprise that the plea Donald Trump entered…was one of not guilty.”

But this arraignment has an unusual twist, she says. While judges normally tell the defendants not to commit any new crimes while they are free on the streets, this instruction was different. The judge warned Trump not to try to influence a juror or witnesses.  If he violates that admonition, he could find himself sleeping on government-issues sheets at night and wearing government-issued clothes.

Was Trump listening to the Judge’s admonition?  Vance thinks he wasn’t. A day after he was released on pre-trial bond, Trump went on Truth Social and said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Vance says  on X (the former Twitter) that Trump crossed the line. “Free speech is one thing, but this is over the line. As a prosecutor, I’d be sorely tempted tomake a motion to removke Trump’s pre-trial bond and put him in custody. Let him explain it to the judge.”

Newsweek reports that Trump spokesperson has belittled Vance as “a moron (who) loses sleep because she has Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

So, apparently, does former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, the former lead prosecutor against former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who says—in what until recently would be called a tweet—“Not addressing this will only cause it to metastasize with undue deadly risks.”

A Trump spokesman, not surprisingly, defended the threat as “the definition of political speech,” and then went into full Trump irrational rant, saying it “was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for Growth.”

Forget getting out the hip boots, folks. It’s so deep that you’ll need a full body suit.

Friday night, assistants to federal prosecutor Jack Smith filed a notice with U. S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan expressing concerns Trump might improperly share evidence in the case on Truth Social. They urged the judge to order Trump to keep any evidence given to his lawyers by the prosecutors away from public view.

The judge ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond by 5 p.m. today.  When they asked for a three-day extension, she refused to let them have it—which set off another Trump tantrum aimed directly at the judge—not a wise thing even from a self-proclaimed stable genius:  “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge ‘assigned’ to the ridiculous Freedom of Speech/Fair Elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she!”  It was all in capital letters, followed by more capitals announcing plans to seek a new judge and a new location for the trial.

We will be watching to see if the old saying manifests itself—Don’t poke a tiger with a twig.

The prosecution says it wants a speedy trial. Normally it’s the defendant that wants a speedy trial. But in this case, it’s to Mr. Trump’s political advantage to stretch the process as far as possible.

Both Richardson and Vance believe the most important charge against Trump is the final one—the one Vance says “tears at my heart….the conspiracy by an American president to take awy our right to vote…and to have one’s vote counted.”

Vance concludes that a dozen people in the courtroom will decide Trump’s fate but all of us are a “jury in the court of public opinion.”

“The outcome of the 2024 election really is every inch the most important election of our lives. The indictment itself is not evidence, but it lays out the narrative of the facts we saw unfold before our eyes and helps us make sense of the crimes that Trump is charged with committing. It is an important document for every American to read. Not everyone will, but that’s where we can come in, sharing details, and helping people around us, understand the procedures that begin today. It’s the real work of saving the republic.”

You can read her full Civil Discourse insights at Arraignment – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance (substack.com)

Federal court rules do not allow live broadcast coverage of trials. But the standard is a rule, not a law and the exigent circumstances of this case, which will be a transcendant event in American history and will involve questions basic to the survival of our republic, should create an exception to the rule so that all of us canbe witnesses to these evens. It is of such overwhelming importance that our grandchildren’s grandchildren should be able to see and hear how our generation responded to this crisis.

We agree that the 2024 election will be “the most important election of our lives.”  It is far more important to all of us and to our nation as a whole that all of us pay close attention to the truth that emerges in the trial of 1708 than it is to give heed to anything the interpreters of that testimony on the left and the right want us to think.

 

 

 

No.  No?  Yes, No. (Corrected)

Posted on by
Reply

(This story contains corrected information.  Former Congressman Richard Gephardt’s position on “No Labels” was incorrectly stated in the first version of this post as being part of the organization. This story clarifies his that he not only is not, but that he is opposed to it.)

The “No Labels” political party is beginning to form itself out of the fog of idealism announced several months ago.  It has drawn former Governor Jay Nixon into its ranks.  But former Congressman and futile (1988) presidential candidate Dick Gephardt wonders if the effort puts the anti-Trump movement in peril.

Organizers say the party is for people who are disgusted with what the long-dominant Republican and Democratic Parties have become and who want to have a middle-ground political outpost upon which to hang their hopes.

Gephardt, who was the House Majority Leader and in line to become Speaker before the Republican takeover ended that possibility, is part of one of three Democratic organizations hoping to stop the movement.

For those who claim that both parties are being run by their extreme wings, this group that has labeled itself the “No Labels” party might seem to be a refuge. But two Democratic groups, Third Way and MoveOn, want to put a stop to the “No Labels” movement because they fear it will sap votes away from the mainline Democratic ticket and hand the presidency back to Donald Trump.

A spokesman for Third Way says “No Labels” is “dangerous.”

Gephardt is part of a super political action committee called Citizens to Save our Republic.

Nixon has told the APs Steve Peoples that the opposition groups are entitled to their opinion but “No Labels” is “entitled to use our constitutional and statutory rights to allow American to have another choice.”

The question now becomes whether the party formed to be a middle ground can find a middle ground with three groups that want to snuff out its movement early.

Regardless of how this intra-party turmoil is resolved—if it can be resolved—“No Labels” adherents need to address, and quickly, what it stands for in terms of policies instead of being some kind of ill-defined safe house for the Middle.

If “No Labels” is to survive, it needs a surface identifier, a logo.. It’s not enough to say it stands for The Middle.

Sooner or later it will have to define itself in terms of positions on issues. And finding an acceptable middle of The Middle will become a difficult challenge.

But before then, there’s another crucial issue.

What will the party symbol be?  The William Jennings Bryan-William Howard Taft election of 1896 provided party adherents with symbols that are familiar to us today.

Earth & World, a website that specializes in lists and charts showing “different and unknown facts” about our planet has a list of the ten friendliest animals in the world. A new party certainly doesn’t want a threatening image (roaring lion, water buffalo, crocodile, vulture, shark, etc.).

Perhaps this guy would work (it is #1):

This is a Capybara,  E&W says they are “immensely social and trainable; thus a dear friend to everyone.” There are a couple of problems, however.  They’re not native to the United States.  And they are considered the world’s largest rodent.

Some cynical observers might find a large rat to be an appropriate emblem for a political party but we’re not going to go there today.  Mankind’s best friend, the dog, might be appropriate but who wants to be known as a member of “a dog of a party?” Besides, what kind of a dog would be most appropriate?  Pit Bulls might fit the wing nuts of either party.  But mainline folks night struggle with the dog to represet them. Something that is an edgy Golden Retriever might do.

A cross between a Golden Retriever and a German Shepherd might do.  DogTime.com told us Golden Shepherds are good watch dogs and all-around family companions, “not especially barky, they will alert when strangers approach. These dogs are protective of their loved ones and friendly with people, children, and other dogs.”

A few Golden Shepherds in Congress would be good to have right now. Replace a few Dobermans.

Number three on the E&W list is the Dolphin.  There’s some possibilities with that one. Intelligent. Communicative. Comfortable in deep water.

Number four is the cat. Not good. Nobody wants a party headquarters that would be known by detractors as the “cat house.”  Their independence is a good cat/bad cat value. But they cover up their own messes and government coverups should not be appreciated no matter how badly the mess smells. Then again, a litter-box trained politician might be better than some that we have now.

The Panda?  Nope.  We’ve enough trouble with the Chinese owning our farmland. A Chinese animal symbolizing one of our political parties is a Yangtze Bridge too far.

Rabbit?   No.  Rabbits are favorite food items for Hawks. And our national government in particular is full of hawks.  And we already have too many people, including a few in politics, who have rabbit-like moral standards.

Guinea pig?  They also are part of the rodent family.  Some people in the Andean part of Peru keep a lot of them in and around the house.  For food. Dinner-under-foot. Cuy (pronounced “kwee”) is considered a delicacy.

Horse.  The horse is one of the world’s most useful animals. Durable, unless they’re throughbreds.  Dependable.  That’s worth discussion.

Sheep.  Heavens, no.

Nixon has refused to criticize either Biden or Trump during the years since he left office. As far as becoming part of a party with no name, he says, “I feel calm.  I feel correct.”

Very Capybaric of him.

 

A New County—part II, A New Book

Posted on by
1

Before hostilities in pre-Civil War Missouri turned deadly with the Camp Jackson incident in St. Louis, Governor Claiborne Jackson and his associates were gathering supplies they would need to repel an “invasion” of Missouri by federal troops if one happened.  A large quantity of gun powder was procured in St. Louis and taken to Jefferson City by two companies of the Missouri Volunteer Militia, one of which was Kelly’s.  From Jefferson City, some 12,000 kegs of powder that had been stored at the fairgrounds about a mile from town were distributed throughout much of the state to be hidden away until needed by Jackson’s forces. Kelly and his unit took about half of the supply to Cooper, Saline and other nearby counties where they were carefully hidden.  The stored powder was a factor in the Confederate victory in the Battle of Lexington.  One of those involved was Michael K. McGrath.

The Irish unit fought at Boonville, Carthage and Wilson’s Creek, where Kelly was wounded in the right hand, (as seen in his picture) and in the Confederate capture of Lexington. The unit also was at the Battle of Pea Ridge, in Arkansas then in 1862, he became part of the regular Confederate army that fought in Mississippi and in the Atlanta campaign against Sherman and his Union troops.

St. Louis researcher Doug Harding indicates that McGrath would have been one of the 23 survivors out of the original 125 members of Kelly’s unit. Kelly surrendered in Louisiana in 1865 and took the oath of allegiance to the Union and was paroled in Shreveport.

It is not clear if McGrath also took the oath there or at some other time and place.  But signing it allowed him to take a bar examination and become a lawyer, paving the way for him to return to public office.

Kelly, his health broken by the war, died in 1870 and is buried in the McGrath family plot in St.  Louis’ Calvary Cemetery.

(Official Manual of the State of Missouri, 1913-14)

McGrath in 1866 became a deputy clerk for the United States district and circuit courts. In 1868 he was elected to the clerkship of the St. Louis City Council.  Two years later he was elected clerk of the criminal court and in 1874 he was elected to the first of his four terms as Secretary of State (his first term under the 1865 Constitution was for only two years; the 1875 constitution established the term at four years.

He decided the State of Missouri government had grown large enough to require some kind of a directory.  He produced the first one in 1878.

(Missouri State Archives)

McGrath wrote in the two-page introduction, “It is a truth that must be admitted, that many outside and some even in it, know but little of the vast resources or of its immense wealth and unexampled prosperity, and when told scarcely believe it, so great is the extent and magnitude thereof…No location in the republic represents a more encouraging field for the honest laborer or the aspiring citizen. The contentions of the war have long since disappeared. Liberalism and tolerance in politics and religion are noted characteristics of her people. They are generous, hospitable and enterprising. Among them poverty and humble birth present no barrier to the attainment of wealth, distinction and honor.

“True merit is the criterion of success, and is fostered by hearty encouragement and profitable recognition. Occupying, as she does already, a front rank among the States of the Union, it is easy to forecast her future as one of glory and renown!”

This first manual was 72 pages long.

His term was the longest in Missouri records until James C. Kirkpatrick served five four-year terms.

He was elected to the Missouri Senate to fill a vacancy and served in the Senate during the 1889 session.

McGrath was never far from the public trough, it appears.  The Columbia Daily Tribune observed upon McGrath’s death that “He has been inspector and attorney in the office of the building commissioner, assistant state examiner of building and loan associations…” He also had a brief and unsuccessful stint as a publisher of a Sedalia newspaper. He was nominated in 1909 to be St. Louis City Register of Deeds and was nominated for another city job in 1911 but lost both times.

In 1912, McGrath was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives. He introduced some bills, including the one to chance St. Louis County to Grant County, but failing health forced  him to go home where heart trouble and bronchitis became too much to overcome and he died on January 28, 1913 at his home in St. Louis.

A resolution of mourning passed by the House of Representatives said, “The House lost a useful, honest, and courageous member, the State a valued and Patriotic citizen, and society an influential and sympathetic member.”

The St. Louis Times wrote, “It is much to say that a man can spend all his mature thought in a lifetime covering seventy-nine years upon the chances and changes of politics and go to his grave ithout surrendering the belief that reform in politics is possible, and that it is worth while to keep on fighting.  Such was the experience of Michael McGrath, of whom men ar easing toda, ‘Yes, he was a politician—but he was square.”

Difficult choices 

Posted on by
3

Lawmakers, state and federal, sometimes find themselves in the position of voting for something they don’t like to get something they want. The reverse also is true—they vote against something they like to keep something they dislike from becoming law.

At campaign time, opponents usually don’t discuss these subtleties in our political system when they criticize the incumbent for voting against an issue popular or unpopular with the public.

These dual-personality bills sometimes are passed anyway.  Then it becomes a problem for governors and for presidents.

The problem could be avoided if the legislative body did not try to combine two or more (somewhat) disparate issues into one bill.

Governor Parson had one of those bills that he vetoed in the last flurry of bill signings from the 2023 session. In this case, however, he disagreed with both sections of the bill. For whatever good it does, we—as appeals court judges sometimes write—“agree in part and disagree in part.”

Had we been present in the discussion (and it is easy to be a second-guesser from our lofty perch), we would have wondered if at least some of his reasons for the veto would be different if he were still the Polk County Sheriff.

One of the sections in the bill to which Governor Parson objected expanded the number of people eligible for state restitution if their convictions of crimes were overturned by a court proceeding and the prosecutor decided not to refile the charge.

Present law allows the state to pay someone $36,500 for each year that person was wrongly imprisoned if DNA evidence proves they are innocent.  The bill that the governor vetoed upped that figure to $65,000 and includes people set free by a “conviction review process” that was established by law two years ago.

It is the new, second, category of prisoner releases that troubles Governor Parson—and the 75% increase in restitution. The original figure, an amount based on $100 a day for each day of wrongful confinement, was enacted in 2006.  The new amount would be about $178 a day.

But here’s the meat of his objection, from his veto message to the legislature:

“With very few exceptions, criminal cases are tried by local governments (counties or municipalities).  The underlying offense, elected prosecutor, elected or retained judge, and community-drawn jury all come from the local jurisdiction and not the state as a whole. However, the burden of paying restitution under these provisions falls on all Missouri taxpayers…Missourians from every part of the state should not have to foot the bill for a local decision. Local governments should bear the financial cost of their own actions.”

Had I been in the discussion, I might have piped up with something such as:

“I agree that our justice system is administered by local people in local courtrooms.  But the offender was charged with violating a STATE law.  As I recall from years of reading court records at the local courthouse, the charges often—always?—end by saying the offense occurred “against the peace and dignity of the STATE.”

“The trial was held in a circuit court, which is a division of the STATE court system. The prosecutor, although locally-elected, is prosecuting the STATE law.  The jury, although made up of local citizens, is part of the STATE judicial process that determines guilty or not-guilty verdicts.

“The accused probably was held in a local jail but the STATE compensates the local jurisdiction for the costs of incarceration—-although local officials have complained the compensation isn’t close to adequate.”

“Clearly this is a state issue because everybody but the accused is acting on behalf of the STATE.”

“If the compensation, as you argue, should be made at the local level, who should be sued to gain restitution?  If such a reversal had happened when you were Polk County Sheriff, should YOU pay it—especially if you made the original arrest? Should the twelve members of the jury be held responsible for one-twelfth of the annual amount because they acted responsibly although incorrectly?   How much responsibility should fall on the shoulders of the judge who sent this ultimately-innocent person to jail for so many years?  Should Polk County have had some liability because its county prosecutor and its county sheriff were key figures in this process?

“And suppose this trial had been moved to another county on a change of venue. How much does that county have to pitch in?

“Polk County has about 33,000 residents.  Could a court order each resident to contribute two dollars per capita times the number of years this person was improperly imprisoned? Would that be a problem in a county with a per capita income of less than $25,000 a year?”

“Do you think you would get elected to another term as sheriff if you were the one who arrested this person to begin with?”

Well—I wasn’t part of the discussion and as I said, it’s easy to second-guess a decision such as this from a distance and without hearing the other voices. And it’s always a shame when so many good things combined into a bill are knocked down because the bill contains one problematic section that a governor thinks is poorly-written.

The legislature will have a chance to override the veto when it meets in about 50 days or so.  Or it can come back about six months from now and try again, fine-tuning the language and making a better argument for financial justice for someone from whom the STATE took away the most precious gift all of us are given—time.

 

Expungement  

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve written about this before. This is an unfortunate update

Eddie Gaedel presented major league baseball with a peculiar problem in 1951 when St. Louis Browns owner Bill Veeck sent him to bat in a game against the Detroit Tigers.

You’re probably familiar with the story. Gaedel, who was described by Veeck as “by golly, the best darn midget who ever played big-league ball.”

Eddie was three feet, seven inches tall.  He weighed sixty pounds. His uniform number was 1/8.  Actually it was the uniform of the Browns’ nine-year old batboy, William DeWitt Jr., now the Chairman of the Cardinals.  Detroit pitcher Bob Cain walked him on four straight pitches. Gadel scampered to first base where he was quickly replaced by Jim Delsing.

American League President Will Harridge was not impressed by the stunt. He accused Veeck of making a mockery of baseball. He voided Gaedel’s contract and ordered Gaedel’s appearance from the baseball records.

Veeck argued that striking Gaedel from the record book would have to mean the game was never played because Gaedel had been the leadoff hitter and if there was no leadoff hitter there could be no other hitters either.  Harridge finally allowed Gaedel to have his place in the record books a year later.

The story of Eddie Gaedel comes to mind with word that some mental midgets in Washington want to expunge from the records of the House of Representatives the two impeachments of Donald Trump. Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has to please people such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Elise Stefanik (she’s the Republican Conference Chair) because they granted him his tenuous hold on the Speakership, will let their resolution be heard by a House committee that can decide whether to send it to the floor for debate.

Such is the looney world into which our Congress has sunk.

Eddie Gaedel did lead off a major league baseball game regardless of Veeck’s motives (he was quite a promoter in his day and was known for his stunts).  Donald Trump was impeached twice by the House.  Erasing the record does not erase the facts whether you’re three-feet-seven or  you’re six feet-two, whether you’re a paid performer in a major league uniform or whether you’re a (well, we’ll let you form  your own thoughts about the equivalency of Eddie Gaedel and Donald Trump).

The official score cards of that day in 1951 list Gaedel on the Browns’ roster and somewhere in attic trunks might be the unofficial score cards kept by some fans who were witnesses to that day’s events.  The scorecards don’t lie. The news accounts don’t lie.  Will Harridge finally admitted the official records of baseball couldn’t lie, either.

Thousands of pages of the Congressional record have been printed and circulated recording those events although the idea that members can “revise and extend their remarks” for that record make it less officially accurate than baseballs statistics. It is, nonetheless, on printed pages that cannot be recalled from those that have them.

Expunging the impeachments from the House records would mean the Senate was playing some kind of a weird game on February 5, 2020 when it acquitted him of a charge that will not exist (somehow) in the House record, if this airheaded movement is approved by the full House.

The second impeachment has always been questionable.  It happened after Trump had taken his boxes of shirts and shoes and pants and documents to Mar-a-Lago.  The Senate on February 13, 2021, thirteen months after Trump and his boxes went south, voted 57-43 to convict him.  But a two-thirds majority was needed, so Trump was acquitted—allowing him to crow loudly that he had been completely cleared of any wrongdoing in the events of the previous January 6.

And once again, the Senate spent a day dealing with something that the great thinkers in the House now want to declare never officially happened.

One of singer Paul Simon’s greatest songs is “The Boxer.”

It doesn’t refer to our ex-President but the title comes to mind as we have thought of him in this discussion, as does the chorus:

Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie

Expungement would be a lie-lie-lie-lie-lie.

Eddie Gaedel is still in the baseball record books.  Donald Trump deserves the same honor in the Congressional Records.

 

The demise of local news

Posted on by
Reply

A friend has passed along an article written a few years ago by Jonathan Bernstein, a columnist on the Bloomberg Views website in which he lamented that the “demise of local news may be ruining Congress.”  Bernstein wrote that several senators facing re-election found that “no one in their home states knows who they are.”   He cited a piece by Washington Post writer Paul Kane, who saids, “A prime cause of this fight for name recognition is the increasingly fragmented media in which partisans largely receive their news from ideologically driven cable news and social media. Middle-of-the-road voters, reliant on their local news, are often left in the dark.”

Kane noted, “Overall, there are more reporters covering Congress than ever, except they increasingly write for inside Washington publications whose readers are lawmakers, lobbyists and Wall Street investors.”   He cites North Carolina Senator Richard Burr, began his Washington career in the House before moving to the Senate in 2005.  When he arrived in Washington, three newspapers from North Carolina had Washington Bureaus.  Now, none of them do.  “I can give a major policy speech, and no newspaper in Charlotte or Raleigh or Winston-Salem will even cover that I was there, much less that I gave a policy speech.”

Bernstein offers a scenario:  The president proposes a new initiative.  If the local newspaper has a Washington bureau, a member of Congress might figure out how district voters feel and then endorse whatever constituents want.  The constituents can then read the news coverage in the local paper.  But that’s not how things work anymore.

He wrote, “More and more politically active voters get their news from national partisan TV, radio and digital outlets. Less engaged voters can easily tune out all political news, at least until the height of election season. So the safest bet for an incumbent is going to be to echo the party line (which will normally mean no coverage at all) or, better, just to keep his or her mouth shut. Why stick with the district’s needs over party loyalty when no one in the district will ever hear about it — except the die-hards who support the party line no matter what?”

He also worried that the changing face of the news business works against the local Senator or Representative proposing things that benefit the district.  “If the rewards for action are reduced, fewer and fewer members of Congress are going to bother,” he says.  The end result: “The demise of state and local political reporting is often thought of as a potential threat because without a vigorous press, no one will expose malfeasance, and politicians will have weaker reasons to avoid corruption.  But perhaps the reduced incentives for good behavior by these elected officials are an even bigger reason to despair.”

This is not just a national issue.  It is a matter of concern in every state.  The same concerns Bernstein voices apply to our state and city governments.

There probably are fewer reporters covering state capitols full-time than there are reporters covering Congress.  Newspapers from St. Joseph, Cape Girardeau, Springfield, and Joplin once had year-around reporters at the capitol.  Not today, although Springfield still sends a reporter to the Capitol during sessions.  There once were two wire services covering state government. The Associated Press is the only one left.  Second newspapers from Kansas City and St. Louis went out of business years ago.  Don’t expect to learn much from metropolitan TV or radio stations about what’s happening in Jefferson City although what happens at the capitol affects their viewers every minute of their lives.  Missouri Independent, a new and aggressive news organization whose articles appear in several newspapers, is an important addition and works hard to fill the yawning gap in coverage of state government and politics.

Missouri newspaper subscribers are more likely to get their news about state politics and government from weekly columns written by their legislators than they are to read anything from a local reporter that details or questions what the local lawmaker is doing or saying because few local news outlets have anyone focusing on covering the actions of their area lawmakers. The weekly columns from office holders must not be acceptable substitutes for reporters who are the fires to which political feet are held.

The situation is worse when it comes to local radio or television news telling of what lawmakers or even city council members are doing.   The corporatization of radio stations has eliminated many vigorous local news departments.  When stations that once had people covering city hall, the courthouse, the school board, and other local events become only one of a half dozen (or more) formats under one roof—and sometimes not even in the same town they are licensed for—with one person who does some news on all of the stations only during morning drive, citizens are not well-informed.

And in an election year, the voters are left to the mercy of manipulative commercials and partisan podcasts.

The economics and the technology of the news business have changed.  In general, those changes have led to more concerns about the bottom line and less concerns about informing the increasingly less-educated, more self-centered electorate who make up a political system that favors agendas over broad public service. The public is in danger of being the frog in the pot of water not realizing it is being boiled to death.

It has been observed that the best thing to happen to newspapers in many towns is the disappearance of local radio news.  People have only the local newspaper to turn to if they want to know about events at city hall and elsewhere. But it is unlikely those newspapers have anybody specifically assigned to make local and federal legislators accountable to their constituents. And in too many instances, local newspapers have come under ownerships that have no local commitments and thus provide few safeguards against poor public policy to their readers.

Some cities are fortunate that new owners step in who have a dedication to their communities and who believe in the responsibility the press has to them.

It is easy to blame the media for the shortcomings in political awareness among the public.  But to do so is to ignore the responsibility that we, the public, carry in a free society. Bernstein spoke of irresponsibility when he wrote, “More and more politically active voters get their news from national partisan TV, radio and digital outlets. Less engaged voters can easily tune out all political news, at least until the height of election season.”

If we despair of today’s politics, we must despair of ourselves.  While the too-often bottom-line-only news media share the blame (some might say “the credit) for what we have become as a political people, we cannot escape our own personal civic responsibility to pay attention, to ignore the manipulator and the self-serving promoter, to question claims and concepts, to ask if those who claim they can do anything unilaterally really have the power to do so in a three-branch system of checks and balances, and to evaluate, think, and act for ourselves.  Citizens cannot allow themselves to be victims of “the demise of local news.”  It is better to live and ask questions than to exist and accept self-serving answers or comfortable assurances.

Think about that as we sit in the pan of water while the political stove gets hotter.

You can read Bernstein’s article at : https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-31/demise-of-local-news-may-be-ruining-congress

0000

Blood Right

Posted on by
Reply

Ten years ago, I threatened to break a new law within thirty seconds of when it went into effect.   I think of that circumstance from time to time and it has come to my mind more than once of late as the number of mass shootings piles up.  And as one shooting in particular has touched me.

I was still a reporter in the Senate in 2013 when Governor Nixon vetoed a bill that would have exempted Missouri from recognizing any federal gun laws  that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”  Any federal official who tried to enforce such a law could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.  AND if made it illegal to make public the names of gun owners.

That meant that I could not publish the names of the legislators who carried guns into the House and Senate Chambers and voted for the bill.  Yes, some did carry guns in the chambers. And to be truthful, there were times when debate got overheated that I did not feel entirely secure.

I don’t know if we have lawmakers packing today. I’m not down amongst them anymore. But a sign on the entrance door to the building indicates they’re allowed to have guns inside.

The Missouri legislature from time to time has tried to say it has the power to declare particular federal laws are not effective here, the United States Constitution notwithstanding. The legislature has at times protected the Second Amendment the way a Doberman would protect his raw steak.

That might be justifiable if all federal constitutional rights are absolute. The Second Amendment is to its most ardent defenders a Doberman Amendment. Touch it and I’ll bite off your arm.

As we’ve noted before, declared rights do not erase personal responsibility.  Free speech still allows lawsuits for libel and slander.  Freedom of Religion does not allow the state to insist that any of us must follow a particular faith to live and prosper.  The right to assemble does not grant a right to smash windows and doors at the United States Capitol and interfere with a mandated role of Congress.

So it is with the Second Amendment. It assumes those with guns will use them to protect the nation’s security (in some interpretations), and that those with guns will be responsible citizens.

As with any right, or any privilege, irresponsibility has its penalties.  The responsible citizen suffers because the irresponsible citizen is allowed free reign (as others might interpret the situation).  In today’s culture, the issue is whether responsible citizens are defending the irresponsible ones to the detriment of the citizenry as a whole.

The mass shooting last weekend in Allen, Texas again raises the question that passionate Second Amendment defenders brush off.  But once again we are told that the answer to mass shootings is the same solution Archie Bunker had in the days when airline hijackings were regular things—issue every passenger  a gun. So it is in these incidents that one answer is to have more people with guns.

Or—instead of limiting access to guns originally designed with one purpose—to kill an enemy on the battlefield using a large magazine of bullets—we are told the answer is better mental health treatment.

The problem seems to be that this corner of our political universe also is one that seems to vehemently oppose providing funding that will pay for those services—-or any of the services the “advocates” say need to be improved.

One of the cable networks covering the shooting in Allen took special note that the shooter might have worn body armor and asked program commentators if there should be limits placed on the sale of body armor, making it available only to law enforcement officers and other first responders.

As this is written, there has been no howl that such a proposal infringes on somebody’s right to shoot and not be shot back.  But it is a serious issue.  The idea that our children should go off to school every morning in their cleaned and pressed body armor, or that the dress code of teachers and administrator requires coat, tie, and bulletproof vest—and a Dirty Harry pistol in the holster that’s in plain view—is absurd.

It is said that money is the life-blood of politics. It has been said that a society is measured by how well it protects its most vulnerable.  One question asked during coverage of the Allen incident is, “Is there anyplace any more where we aren’t vulnerable?”

Political life-blood.  Innocents’ life-blood.  A decision about which is more valuable seems beyond expectation. Death awaits us all but in today’s America, we face uncertainty about whether we shall die in bed surrounded by our loved ones or die on the floor of a mall or a church or a school surrounded by a growing pool of blood.

Getting back to the veto override.   After Governor Nixon vetoed that particular Missouri Secession effort, the legislature had a chance to override it.   And the House did. 109-49, exactly the number needed. It was a stunning event to many, including the person sitting in my chair at the Senate press table.

The bill came over to the Senate and it was 22-10, needing one of the two remaining Senators to vote for the override for that bill to become law.  President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey and Majority Floor Leader Ron Richard had not voted. If one of them voted “yes,” the override would be complete.

I am not taking credit for what happened next. I don’t know if they were aware of what I had told some of my colleagues at the press table. I already had written a piece for the Missourinet blog about that bill.  I had three photographs I was going to use. One was of me, standing in front of an American Flag proudly holding my Daisy BB gun.  Another showed Governor Nixon with Wayne LaPierre, the President of the NRA, and the owner of the Midway Exchange west of Columbia. They were cutting the ribbon on a new gun shop at that complex.

The third picture showed the daughter of Missourinet reporter Jessica Machetta posing with her grandfather. They were with the deer that Macy had shot with her grandfather’s gun. It was her first deer.

Dempsey and Richard both voted “no.”  The override failed by one vote.  I never got to publish that entry on that blog. I really wanted to publish it.  And then tell the legislature, “Come and get me.”

Jessica lives in the Denver area now.  A few days ago, Macy was murdered by her boyfriend, who then shot himself to death.

One dead. Two dead.  Twenty dead.

Say what you want. Make sure you sound sincere.  But don’t do anything to really look for a solution to gun violence.  Don’t mess with the Doberman.

And Down the Stretch They Come

Posted on by
Reply

It’s like the Kentucky Derby this past weekend.  The big group of horses rounds the last turn, accelerating, bumping, jostling, looking for an opening, straining for the finishing line.

And then, it’s over.  Suddenly.  Done.  In the record books. The exhausted competitors head back to their barns.

The last week of this year’s regular legislative session begins today.  All of the work, the hopes, the politicking, the lobbying, the deals and compromises, the conflicts and the consensus-building comes to a merciful end at 6 p.m. Friday.

The public has no concept of what their elected representatives go through on their behalf—or at the behest of those with power to force decisions—between early January and mid-May, especially in the weeks after Easter break when the clock begins to tick more loudly and the calendar pages fall more quickly.

The greatest responsibility the legislature has each year is passage of a state budget.  This year it is $51 billion, huge, the largest budget in state history.  The state is flush with money and sometimes there’s more fighting about state spending when there’s a lot than there is when there’s a little.  With the little, lawmakers have to cover the basic services. With a lot, there are more pet projects, more promises to be fulfilled, more conflicts about what constitutes responsible fiscal policy.

Time of plenty tend to breed unnecessary discussions of policies that ultimately will make times of little even worse.  It becomes harder to defend a system that allows consistent fiscal responsibility in good times as well as bad.

This is the week when bills become Christmas Trees, as they’re called in legislative circles—bills that begin as simple measures suddenly exploding in size as lawmakers who see their bills doomed for failure find bills with better prospects on which they can hang their issues.

Sometimes it works.  Sometimes the bills finish up violating a constitutional standard that a bill can contain only one subject. Sometimes an effort to piggyback a controversial issue onto a relatively non-controversial bill kills both.

Perhaps the biggest issue involving the above scenario involves sports wagering.  Hallway talk is that gambling interests will make one last push to finally get sports wagering by tacking the bill onto a Senate-passed tax bill during House debate and sending it back to the Senate for approval with no time for negotiations. The Senate must take sports wagering, which would face certain death on its own, if it wants to finally approve a more general bill that it has already passed.

If you have trouble following that description, you are not alone.  Bills can become sacrificial lambs as well as becoming Christmas trees.  Believe it or not, the process as a certain fascination the more you watch it.  We will not try to influence your judgment about how moral or ethical that process is.

Sports wagering has at least one strong opponent in the Senate who is prepared to filibuster if the issue returns in some form from the House—and filibustering means there won’t be time for several other bills to be considered as the clock winds down.

So will the sports wagering advocates, desperate to get the issue approved after five years of previous failures, cause the death of other issues because they cannot take “no” for an answer? Again?

This is a nervous time for majority leadership in both chambers because they know every deck contains 52 wild cards at this time of year.   To their credit, they’ve run the place pretty well in 2023, particularly compared the debacle of 2022. But they know their leadership legacy might rest on what happens by 6 p.m. Friday.

Everybody is excited to be coming to Jefferson City each January.  But speed limits will become  just roadside advisories for a lot of people after the gavel falls Friday evening.