{"id":11902,"date":"2024-10-08T10:21:30","date_gmt":"2024-10-08T15:21:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/empowermissouri.org\/?p=11902"},"modified":"2024-10-08T10:21:41","modified_gmt":"2024-10-08T15:21:41","slug":"this-november-vote-no-on-amendment-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/empowermissouri.org\/es\/this-november-vote-no-on-amendment-6\/","title":{"rendered":"This November, Vote No on Amendment 6"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With the November election less than one month away, it seems likely that you\u2019re being inundated with news and opinions related to upcoming federal, state, and local elections. In Missouri, voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on five amendments to Missouri\u2019s constitution. You have likely seen three of these amendments\u2014Amendment 2 (legalizing sports betting), Amendment 3 (restoring abortion access), and Amendment 4 (allowing a new casino in the Lake of the Ozarks)\u2014covered by local media over the last year, as all of these were added to the ballot through Missouri\u2019s initiative petition process<\/a>. However, Amendment 6 was added to the ballot via a bill passed by our legislature, and it has barely received any attention from the media.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the surface, the language that you will see on the ballot next month will seem fairly innocuous: Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide that the administration of justice shall include the levying of costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for certain current and former law enforcement personnel? State and local governmental entities estimate an unknown fiscal impact.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One might reasonably guess that the majority of Missouri voters consider themselves \u201cpro-law enforcement,\u201d and so it seems likely that the amendment will pass, since there is no organized opposition to the measure. But, in fact, several local and national criminal justice advocacy groups strongly opposed this bill during session for one clear reason: Pensions should not rely on variable fee revenue streams tied to the volume of activity in the criminal justice system.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To better understand this issue, we have to review the events that led to the bill\u2019s passage in the legislature. In recent years, there was a class action lawsuit in Kansas City filed against the Missouri Sheriffs\u2019 Retirement System (MSRS) by a group of individuals who had paid a $3 surcharge on traffic tickets. The fee was used to fund sheriffs\u2019 pensions; it was put in place by state law in 1983. In 2021, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the fee could no longer be levied, because the surcharge was not \u201creasonably related to the expense of the administration of justice.\u201d The Missouri Constitution only allows for the levying of this type of surcharge when it is \u201creasonably related to the expense of the administration of justice;\u201d therefore, the charge was found to be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, rather than find a different mechanism to fund the pensions of sheriffs and prosecutors, the Missouri legislature is electing to attempt to amend Missouri\u2019s Constitution to include the funding of pensions in the definition of \u201cthe administration of justice.\u201d  Here\u2019s why Empower Missouri opposes this amendment: <\/p>\n\n\n\n