This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 23, 2011 - Stymied by the Missouri General Assembly, organizations in recent years have used initiative petitions to achieve their aims.
In the last few elections, groups successfully have pushed measures eliminating casino loss limits, increasing regulations for dog breeders and forcing St. Louis and Kansas City to vote on the future of their earnings taxes. The first two items would have had a hard slog in the legislature, where there was marked opposition.
But some lawmakers want to make it much more difficult -- and costlier -- for groups to get propositions on the ballot. A Republican state representative and a Democratic state senator, for instance, introduced constitutional amendments forcing groups to gather a certain amount of signatures in all of Missouri's congressional districts, as opposed to only two-thirds.
One powerful lawmaker who warmed to such a proposal is House Speaker Steve Tilley, R-Perryville. He said on Monday it should be more difficult for groups to put initiatives or constitutional amendments on the ballot.
"That's why you have a legislative process where you have public hearings, so you can work out the pros and the cons and the unintended consequences of passing a bill," Tilley said. "It gets a little unnerving when it's so easy to put stuff on the ballot."
Others say the measure will have unintended consequences.
"The net effect of making you collect signatures in all congressional districts is to increase greatly the number of signatures you've got to get," said Ron Calzone, an activist who tried to use the initiative petition process to restrict eminent domain. "And right now, if you have a true grassroots effort like our effort to try and stop private use of eminent domain, it's incredibly difficult."
Hurdles To The Ballot
The initiative petition process is particularly attractive for statutory and constitutional changes with strong legislative opposition. For instance, social conservatives blocked efforts to rescind the casino loss limits, while rural lawmakers from both parties opposed more regulation of dog breeding.
But circumventing the legislature isn't easy.
Some initiatives encounter trouble after the secretary of state's office provides ballot language. Even if proponents get past that phase, they still need to collect the necessary signatures as required by the Missouri Constitution.
To place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, organizers must gather signatures from registered voters equal to 8 percent of the total votes cast in the prior governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Changes to state statutes require registered voters equal to 5 percent of that standard.
Some lawmakers want to change that threshold. State Rep. Tony Dugger, R-Hartville, sponsored a constitutional amendment to force organizations to gather the necessary signatures in all of the state's congressional districts, as opposed to two-thirds. State Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, proposed a similar amendment in the Missouri Senate. Both measures would have to be approved by voters to go into effect.
Dugger, the chairman of the House Elections Committee, said all districts should have a part in the petition process. He said the current process leaves districts out, especially ones with more spread-out populations.
"It's only fair that all districts should take a part and all signatures should be required in all districts," Dugger said.
While he said pushing a successful item would require more signatures and more effort, it would make "everybody a part of the process."
State Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, said on Tuesday that groups are ignoring spread-out, rural districts such as the 8th Congressional District (in southeastern Missouri) or the 4th Congressional District in the western part of the state. Such a move would separate "grassroots" efforts from "big-moneyed" ones, Cox said.
For instance, Ameristar and Pinnacle spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2008 to eradicate loss limits in Missouri casinos. And animal welfare organizations -- such as the Humane Society of Missouri -- provided large infusions of cash to pass increased regulations for dog breeders.
"If it's truly a grassroots effort, that's what we need to encourage, as opposed to the big corporate efforts, the big-moneyed efforts," Cox said.
Power To The People
But Scott Charton, CEO of Charton Communications & Consulting, said the proposed amendment might not have the effect Cox envisions.
Charton provided strategic consulting for Amendment 3, the Missouri Association of Realtors' 2010 statewide ballot measure prohibiting transfer taxes on real estate transactions. He's also been involved in the ballot initiative regarding earnings taxes. He said the proposed amendment won't change how some ballot items progressed.
"If the targets are well-funded campaigns, there won't be much impact," said Charton in an e-mail response to the Beacon. "The cost of gathering signatures would rise, but those costs are not the largest portions of the budget for most major statewide initiative campaigns and that would still be the case. Those with significant funding would probably need to start earlier in signature gathering to cover all districts, but they would probably still be able to reach the ballot."
Charton also said a bolstered signature requirement could enhance the message of a well-funded initiative.
"There would be an added benefit in the positive messages supporting such a well-funded campaign -- it could accurately lay claim to support from border to border if enough signatures come in from all congressional districts rather than the selected number of districts now specified," Charton said.
Calzone said Missourians need to have tools such as the initiative petition when their government is either "repressive or unresponsive." At a hearing for Dugger's amendment on Tuesday, Calzone said a "grassroots" effort to change the constitution or state statutes is already difficult. His effort, he said, stalled after summaries for his ballot items got tied up in court.
He said Dugger's amendment would make the process even more arduous. "This measure would virtually take real grassroots petition drives off the table," he said.
Charton said if the goal is easing access for "grassroots groups," the amendment "backfires."
"Right now the minimum signature requirements are a challenge for a purely grassroots group using volunteers to satisfy," Charton said. "Increasing the sheer numbers of required signatures would likely place a successful initiative campaign out of reach for grassroots groups working with less money."
Jaci Winship, the executive director of Missourians Against Human Cloning, also testified against Dugger's amendment. Winship's group was part of an unsuccessful push to overturn a constitutional amendment shielding embryonic stem cell research from General Assembly intrusion.
She said she doesn't have a problem with prompting groups to spread out to more rural parts of the state. But she said Dugger's amendment -- which keeps the percentage of signatures needed static -- would make things more difficult.
"I do think we should go out there and collect signatures from throughout the state," Winship said. "I totally agree. It should be statewide. We should have a number in every congressional district. ... It's much harder to do this if you have never tried to organize this level of an effort. And so I do think the percentages do need to be dropped down to where we're not asking people in the future to collect more signatures than we have in the past."
Status Quo?
While state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County, said he hasn't always liked how some groups used the initiative petition process, he said he would be comfortable with the status quo.
"Our constitution allows for statute to be changed by two ways -- through the legislative process or through the initiative petition," Lembke said. "The founders of our state thought it was important to trust the people through that method. The real crux of this matter is: Do we want to make this easier than it is currently, or do we want to make it more difficult than it is?"
"I've kind of come to the place where we probably ought to just leave it alone," Lembke said. "Now that said, it does concern me that when any special-interest group isn't able to get something accomplished in the legislative process here in this Capitol, they often will go to the initiative. And if they have deep enough pockets, it seems like they're able to accomplish their goal."
And Senate Appropriations Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, said it was unlikely that the legislature would propel a change to the initiative process.
"A lot of public policy considerations go into changing the initiative petition process," Schaefer said. "And we've seen a couple bills that have tried to do that in the last couple of years. And they generate a lot of debate. But I don't know if there's a consensus in the House or Senate in making a change to the initiative petition process."
One lawmaker is offering a constitutional change to the initiative process, but in a different direction. State Rep. Scott Sifton, D-Affton, proposed an amendment to require a two-thirds supermajority for changes to initiative petitions in the first two years after a vote. Changes in the third and fourth years after the vote would require four-seventh majorities.
He said he brought about the measure after successful ballot items -- such as inflationary hikes to the minimum wage and the measure restricting earnings taxes - faced substantial changes in the legislature.
"Having a situation where 52 percent of voters vote one way at the ballot box and then 52 percent of the legislature goes the other way, I have a real concern with," Sifton said, adding that the issue isn't limited to attempts to overturn Proposition B, the ballot item concerning dog breeding.
While he said he hadn't read the specific language of the amendment to force groups to collect ballots in all of the state's congressional districts, he added one of the points of the initiative petition process was to "give the people the check on the legislature."
"Missouri was an early pioneer in the initiative petition process," Sifton said. "I would want to be very careful about limiting the people's ability to weigh in on the issues of the day."
Jason Rosenbaum, a freelance writer in St. Louis, has covered state government.
