Election Day is almost upon us, and although a lot of information has been put out, the Missouri ballot is going to confuse a lot of people going to the polls tomorrow.
In a phone call last week, Shawn Kieffer, a director at the Kansas City Election Board, described the 42-question Kansas City ballot as “horrifying” and said he expected some voters to spend 30 minutes or more poring over it.
But at least three sources of information can help you have a low-anxiety voting experience:
:: The League of Women Voters has an online voters guide that summarizes the issues and lets people print out their own “sample” ballots, which they can take to the polls and use to register votes on their official ballots.
:: I expect The Star to publish a list of its recommendations for both Missouri and Kansas at least by tomorrow morning…In my experience, The Star has the best interests of voters in mind, and I usually follow its recommendations.
:: Finally, you’ve got me. I’ve studied the ballot carefully and voted absentee last week, and I covered elections for most of my 36 year-career at The Star.
Here, then, are my recommendations on the major races and issues on the Kansas City ballot. (I believe the only place where my ballot and The Star’s will be at odds is on the proposed Jackson County Charter amendments. The Star is recommending some amendments be approved and some be rejected, but I’m recommending all seven be rejected.)
U.S. Senator — Claire McCaskill (God spare us from the dangerous geek running against her.)
State Auditor — Nicole Galloway (No reason I know of not to give her a second term.)
U.S. Rep. — Emanuel Cleaver II (He’s flawed, but he’s ours. Plus, never forget he snapped KC out of the inferiority complex that had settled in during the 12 years Dick Berkley was mayor.)
Jackson County Executive — Frank White (He’s bad but there’s no viable alternative.)
Jackson County Sheriff — Darryl Forte (Guess we’ve gotta give this guy a few more years in office so he can get two public pensions.)
Jackson County Circuit and Associate Circuit Court judges — “Yes” to retain every judge. (Judicial retentions always confuse people because they don’t know who the judges are and if they’re making the right move when they vote “yes.” Don’t worry; none of these judges has done anything remotely scandalous.)
Constitutional Amendment No. 1 — “Yes” to placing limits on campaign contributions for state legislative candidates and to limit gifts that legislators and their employees can accept from individuals or entities. (It’s about time.)
Constitutional Amendment No. 2 — “Yes” to legalizing medical marijuana and imposing a 4-percent tax on sales, with the revenue to be used to provide care for military veterans and to administer and regulate marijuana retail facilities. (Of the three marijuana proposals on the ballot, this one has the backing of longtime legalization activists; trust them.)
Constitutional Amendment No. 3 — “No” to legalizing medical marijuana and imposing a 15-percent tax on sales to fund a cancer research institute headed by Brad Bradshaw, a Springfield lawyer and physician. (This is a power grab by Bradshaw, who likes to put up big billboards of himself.)
Constitutional Amendment No. 4 — “Yes” to removing language from the Constitution that limits bingo-game advertising. A court has ruled the prohibition unenforceable. (If lottery advertising hasn’t killed us, we can live with bingo advertising.)
Missouri Proposition B — “Yes” to raising the minimum wage to $8.60 an hour, with an 85-cent-per-hour increase each year to 2023, when the minimum wage would be $12 an hour. (Investment in low-end workers will lead to long-term economic growth.)
Missouri Proposition C — “No” to legalizing medical marijuana and imposing a 2-percent tax on sales, with the proceeds going for veterans’ services, early childhood education and public safety in cities with medical marijuana stores. (Consider the source: This proposal is brought to you by the Missouri General Assembly.)
Missouri Proposition D — “Yes” to raising the 17-cent-per-gallon gas tax by 2 1/2 cents per year for four years — 10 cents over the four years — with most of the proceeds going for highway and road and bridge construction and maintenance. The ballot says $288 million a year would go for “Missouri state law enforcement” and $123 million a year would go for road construction, but that is misleading because the Missouri Transportation Department finances the Highway Patrol. Revenue from the higher gas tax would free up the money that has been going to the Highway Patrol and would redirect it to roads and bridges. (Finally, a road-improvement tax increase to be paid by those who use the roads, including those damned truckers.)
Jackson County Charter amendments (Questions 1 through 7) — “No” on all. (As you will see, the ballot language is maddeningly vague on proposed pay increases for county officials. In addition, several of the questions are aimed at increasing the County Legislature’s power and reducing that of the County Executive…I believe it is best to continue centralizing power with the County Executive so voters can ultimately hold one person accountable for the county’s overall direction.)
Kansas City Public Library question — “Yes” to increasing the property tax levy by eight cents, from about 47 cents to 55 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It would be the first such increase in 22 years. (Not only is this a meritorious proposal, its backers came up with the best political yard sign of the 2018 general election campaign. Tilting one book against the others was a stroke of genius.)
League of Women Voters? KC Star? You? At least you openly acknowledge your bias, while these others expend considerable energy maintaining a nonpartisan veneer.
I do appreciate the link to vote411.org. While the only recourse against the Star’s charade is economic, vote411.org can “neither support or oppose a candidate”, but that’s exactly what they’ve done for the Kansas Governor and US House of Representative races with their presentation of choices.
I’ve made screen shots of both if you’d like.
Mike
The League of Women voters is my third favorite — after the American and National.
Pretty half a**ed election predictions. Those west of the state line don’t deserve your analysis? The economic engine for this area is not worth your time? Pretty typical of big city reporter, ignore the suburbs only people live there.
Kansas? The economic engine? The only major attraction Kansas has helped the metro with — ever — was Union Station renovation. Otherwise, Missouri (mostly Kansas City and Jackson County) pays and Kansans come over and enjoy the fruits. If it weren’t for Kansas City, there wouldn’t be any suburbs.
Also, I didn’t make predictions; I tried to offer explanations. I don’t know enough about the various Kansas ballots to offer explanations. But if I was living there I’d vote Democratic all the way, even nerdy Paul Davis.
This is why “campaign finance reform” has zero effect on elections, and why the “It’s your duty to vote” movement is a sham.
“Who do I vote for?”
“It doesn’t matter who’s running or what the issue is, ‘vote Democrat all the way'” (or Republican).
It doesn’t take a lot of money to communicate that message! It would be interesting to see election results if “Party” was not included on the ballot.
Jim, thanks for the info, it was very helpful.
I’m glad it helped, Richard.
There is no way I can bring myself to vote for Constitutional Amendment No. 1. The language describing the redistricting process is so poorly worded that it is virtually impossible to understand the process being described.
Specifically, I am referring to Subsection 3(c)(1)(b). More specifically, I am referring to the paragraph which begins “To this end, the non-partisan state demographer…”; this is the paragraph which attempts to explain the mathematical standards for redistricting.
I challenge people to read that one paragraph before they vote. After reading it, if they think they understand the process being described, then by all means vote “yes.” But, if after reading it they are very confused, then they should vote “no” and insist that another attempt be made in a future election to develop better language.
Click to access 2018-048.pdf
To your credit, Mark, you’re getting into that proposal much deeper than the average voter will. Regarding redistricting, the basic ballot language — which is all that 99.9 percent of voters will go by — simply says the amendment will “change process and criteria for redrawing state legislative districts during reapportionment.”
That won’t set off an alarm with many people; it didn’t with me.
“To your credit, Mark, you’re getting into that proposal much deeper than the average voter will.”
Even beyond the “average voter”, I wonder if the members of the Star editorial board read that one paragraph and thought it was clear. Frankly, I doubt they gave that language (as well as the rest of the amendment pertaining to redistricting, for that matter) much more attention than 99.9% of voters. And that’s disappointing.
So you voted absentee??? When you know you will be in town? Even if you are substitute teaching, the polls will be open before and after work. Isn’t that out of integrity, Fitz?
And your cynical endorsements or recommendations remind all of us in Kansas why we are so darn glad we left.
Border War rages…We love our respective “home” states.
(I “retired” from substitute teaching last spring, Tracy. One of Jim Henson’s many stupid moves as SMSD superintendent was to contract the sub system out to Kelly Services, the temp agency. I had been a proud employee of SMSD and had no interest in being a Kelly employee.)
KCK is hiring, and desperate.
As for voting absentee in MO, it is illegal, and incredibly smart! Those lines will be insane.
When I told Patty I intended to vote absentee, she said, “What? Are you too important to wait in line like everyone else?”
That left me without an answer, other than I just don’t want to wait in line while some people ahead of me take half an hour to vote!
God didn’t spare us.
It’s a test. P.S. We’re not doing very well.