Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




Difference between revisions of "Missouri ballot news archive"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - '<references/>' to '{{reflist}}')
m (Text replace - "fiscal note" to "fiscal note")
Line 8: Line 8:
 
==Eminent domain lawsuits in Missouri==
 
==Eminent domain lawsuits in Missouri==
  
[[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]] is holding off on collecting signatures on the [[Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010)]] because of two lawsuits filed by the [[sunshinereview:Missouri Municipal League|Missouri Municipal League]].  The lawsuits, filed against the state government, allege that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the [[Missouri Secretary of State]] are misleading.  In particular, the Missouri Municipal League believes that the fiscal note prepared by the state auditor is wrong because it underestimates the costs on cities.<ref>[http://sbj.net/main.asp?SectionID=18&SubSectionID=23&ArticleID=84454&TM=56292.41 ''Springfield Business Journal Online'', "Eminent domain petitions await court decisions", March 16, 2009]</ref>
+
[[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]] is holding off on collecting signatures on the [[Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010)]] because of two lawsuits filed by the [[sunshinereview:Missouri Municipal League|Missouri Municipal League]].  The lawsuits, filed against the state government, allege that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the [[Missouri Secretary of State]] are misleading.  In particular, the Missouri Municipal League believes that the [[fiscal impact statement|fiscal note]] prepared by the state auditor is wrong because it underestimates the costs on cities.<ref>[http://sbj.net/main.asp?SectionID=18&SubSectionID=23&ArticleID=84454&TM=56292.41 ''Springfield Business Journal Online'', "Eminent domain petitions await court decisions", March 16, 2009]</ref>
  
 
According to Ron Calzone, president of [[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]], "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures.  The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."<ref>[http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2009/01/23/news/346news03.txt ''Fulton Sun'', "Eminent domain petitioning to return to a street corner near you", January 23, 2009]</ref>
 
According to Ron Calzone, president of [[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]], "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures.  The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."<ref>[http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2009/01/23/news/346news03.txt ''Fulton Sun'', "Eminent domain petitioning to return to a street corner near you", January 23, 2009]</ref>

Revision as of 21:19, 12 June 2012

Note: This page includes short news headlines as they happen. If you scroll through the page and read earlier headlines, information pertaining to the events in those sections may have changed significantly since the section was posted.
==Stem cell, abortion on Missouri docket==
Missouri No Public Funds for Stem Cell Research Initiative (2010)
  • Supporters of abortion rights (who are opposed to this initiative) filed a lawsuit claiming that the ballot title written by Robin Carnahan's office does not fully explain that the initiative, if approved, could bar abortions at public hospitals and possibly also put the state in conflict with Medicaid requirements.[1]
  • Missouri Roundtable for Life, supporters of the initiative, say that Carnahan's title is biased and misleading in such a way as to artifically skew public perception against the initiative.[1]

Eminent domain lawsuits in Missouri

Missouri Citizens for Property Rights is holding off on collecting signatures on the Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010) because of two lawsuits filed by the Missouri Municipal League. The lawsuits, filed against the state government, allege that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the Missouri Secretary of State are misleading. In particular, the Missouri Municipal League believes that the fiscal note prepared by the state auditor is wrong because it underestimates the costs on cities.[2]

According to Ron Calzone, president of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures. The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."[3]

Duelling ballot title lawsuits

Supporters and opponents of the Missouri No Public Funds for Stem Cell Research Initiative (2010) have filed lawsuits against the Missouri Secretary of State's office. Each side believes the ballot title as written mis-states what the measure does.[4]

Missouri group faults Carnahan

The Missouri Roundtable for Life organization is criticizing Missouri Secretary of State Carnahan for the ballot title she wrote to describe an initiative headed for the Missouri 2010 ballot that seeks to ban the use of tax dollars for abortion, human cloning or other similar procedures.[5]

Legislators wants to make ballot access more difficult

January 2009. Missouri state legislators have introduced three bills to change the laws governing the initiative process in Missouri so as to make it more difficult for ballot initiatives to pass.

  • HB 228 would outlaw ut-of-state circulators, forbid paying circulators on a per-person basis, and require circulators to work only one petition at at time.
  • HJR3 would boost the number of signatures needed to get an initiative on the ballot, from 8% of the last gubernatorial vote (for a state Constitutional change) and 5% (for a statute), to, respectively, 10% and 8%
  • HJR4 would say that initiatives need to receive 60% of the popular vote in order to pass.[6]

References