Ballot measuresurprises Capitol officials

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri voters will decide this November if a constitutional convention should be held to revise and amend the state charter.

The current state Constitution, adopted in 1945, requires that the question be put to voters every 20 years, starting in 1962.

Although the matter is scheduled to go on the ballot this year, there has been no discussion of it around the Capitol. Few state officials, apparently, are aware of the constitutional requirement.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, was stunned when told of the provision and that previous votes had been held in 1962 and 1982.

"I was a living, breathing voter in 1982," Kinder said. "I remember some of the stuff that happened that year -- managing Bill Emerson's second campaign for Congress -- but I sure don't remember this being on the ballot. That's amazing. I'm nonplused. We have got to get busy and comply with the Constitution, it seems."

Under Article XII, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, the secretary of state, Missouri's chief elections official, must put the question on the November ballot.

Dan Ross, executive deputy secretary of state, said research began last year in preparation for the vote. If voters approve the question, it would set off a chain of events Missouri hasn't experienced since the 1945 convention, including calling a second election within six months to select delegates.

"If it passes, quite a few requirements will need to be met," Ross said.

Ross, who is running the day-to-day operations of the office while Secretary of State Matt Blunt is on active military duty, said Blunt will put the matter on the ballot by his own initiative and doesn't need the General Assembly's approval.

However, the provision does allow lawmakers to put the question before voters at any election between the mandated 20-year cycles.

Scott Holste, a spokesman for Attorney General Jay Nixon, said the provision was reviewed by Nixon's office after it was brought to light on Friday, and echoed Ross' interpretation.

Damon Porter, chief of staff to House Speaker Jim Kreider, D-Nixa, said he wasn't sure if the Kreider was aware of the impending vote, but agreed there has been no buzz about it among legislators.

"I guess nobody really thinks about it," Porter said. "I haven't heard any great furor to call a constitutional convention. I guess that shows, for the most part, that people believe the Constitution is working well and doesn't need a major overhaul."

Defeated in past

The call for a convention was soundly rejected in both previous elections. In 1962, 63.7 percent of voters opposed a convention; 69.5 percent were against it in 1982.

Former Gov. Warren Hearnes of Charleston was secretary of state in 1962 and remembers that vote.

"I was the only one for it, I think," he joked.

Hearnes said he still believes the Constitution should be regularly reviewed instead of putting amendments on the ballot piecemeal at nearly every major election, as is currently the case. In the last general election, three amendments were on the ballot, though only one passed. Twenty-five proposed amendments are before the Legislature for debate this year.

One change Hearnes advocated in 1962 was eliminating the office of lieutenant governor, which at the time had few duties other than waiting for the governor to die or resign office.

"I remember being a freshman in the Legislature when guys would stand up and say they were running for lieutenant governor because it was the best job in the state," Hearnes said. "And it was the best job in the state because you didn't have anything to do and it paid well."

The office now has a number statutory duties.

Former Republican state Sen. Emory Melton of Cassville was in the Legislature in 1982. He said there was no major effort that year for or against calling a convention.

"It was just there," Melton said. "Nothing was said about it, in particular."

Melton said there would have to be tremendous dissatisfaction with the Constitution for a convention to be called because too many groups would stand to lose too much under a rewrite of the document.

"If you turn it over to a constitutional convention, special interests would all want to get their oars in the water," Melton said. "Everyone is afraid to call a constitutional convention, because it might infringe on what people have now."

For example, the Hancock Amendment, which limits growth in state revenue and requires most tax hikes to go to a public vote, would certainly be targeted for elimination at a convention, Melton said.

Kinder said he would like to see some constitutional changes, such as requiring judges appointed by the governor to undergo Senate confirmation, as is the case with nominees for the federal bench.

"However, I don't see a need for convening a whole constitutional convention," Kinder said.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608