On Thursday HJR 4, sponsored by Rep.
Neth (R-17) was given final approval. HJR 4, if approved by the voters would
change the way legislators could serve their terms of office in the General
Assembly. In keeping with the voters’ wishes from when term limits were enacted,
the Joint Resolution maintains the total limit of 16 years that a citizen could
serve in the General Assembly; however it makes one significant change so that
a legislator may divide those years between the House and Senate however they
decide. Furthermore, it prohibits legislators from running if they do not have
enough years left to fill the full term. For example; if someone has already
served 14 years in the General Assembly, they could not run for a four-year
Senate term, but they could run for a final two-year term in the House.
As term limits currently stand, a
legislator has a limited amount of time to not only learn the process but also
learn the history of how and why certain legislation either makes it or not. In
the legislative process, knowledge is power—especially institutional knowledge.
Unfortunately time has shown that much of the institutional knowledge no longer
lies with the legislators, but instead it lies with the high-paid lobbyists of
special interest groups and entrenched bureaucrats. That knowledge and power belongs
to the people through their elected representatives. HJR 4 would enable
legislators who wish to continue effectively serving their constituents to do
so in the same amount of time they are already afforded, but not be distracted by
looming term limits for each body.
Another piece of legislation that
received final approval this week was HCS HB 117, sponsored by Rep. Dugger
(R-141). HCS HB 117 streamlines the process by adding transparency and
accountability to the initiative petition process—further protecting the
people’s right to petition their government. In recent years, the initiative
petition process has been infiltrated by out-of-state special interest groups
with unlimited funds to skirt the legislative process in Missouri.
Since 2004, the number of initiative
petitions filed has skyrocketed from merely 16 to over 140 in 2012. Of the
petitions filed in 2012, 61 were submitted by three different groups and they
only covered three different topics. This is a new tactic being used—submit
multiple versions of the same measure hoping one will stick. This practice
floods the streets with wildly varying information on the same topic, is an
abuse of the system and creates costly unnecessary work wasting valuable state
time and resources. It is unacceptable. In addition, the number of lawsuits
involving initiative petitions has skyrocketed over the past six years, from
four in 2006 to fifty in 2012.
This legislation improves transparency
and addresses fraud by requiring the following:
·
A copy of the Statement of Committee
Organization filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission would be submitted with
a proposed initiative petition
·
Proposed initiatives would be posted on
the Secretary of State’s website within two business days of filing
·
A public comment period would be held after
initial certification
·
The Joint Committee on Legislative
Research would hold a public hearing solely for the purpose of taking public
testimony within 30 days of certification to place the measure on the ballot
·
Signature gatherers must disclose
“paid” or “volunteer” status
·
Prohibits those convicted of forgery
from gathering signatures
·
Making those who knowingly sign a name
other than their own guilty of a misdemeanor
Increasing transparency and stopping
fraud are vital to the success of the governmental process. The citizens of
this great state deserve to know what is happening and who is responsible for
doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment