LEGISLATORS SEE GOOD RESPONSE TO HANCOCK'S LATEST INITIATIVE

Several Southeast Missouri legislators are predicting a warm response from citizens for an effort by U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock to pass a new version of the constitutional amendment bearing his name, one that limits state revenue growth without a vote of the people.

Hancock, who is a third term Republican congressman from Springfield, announced plans to launch a Hancock II effort recently after state legislators approved Senate Bill 380. The measure, which includes a new school foundation formula and a $318 million tax increase for education, was signed into law without a vote of the people.

Hancock and many others argue that the tax increase was large enough that the constitution requires a vote. State Auditor Margaret Kelly expressed doubts that the increase would fall within the Hancock Amendment guidelines. Gov. Mel Carnahan and the Office of Administration insist the increase is constitutional.

In the Hancock II effort, the congressman and his supporters are hoping to pass a new version that will tighten some of the loopholes they feel legislators have abused since its enactment in 1980.

State Sen. Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, said the grassroots movement was predictable after legislators approved SB-380.

"This kind of statewide grassroots movement or petition drive was the foreseeable consequence of our haste this session in enacting Senate Bill 380," said Kinder. "I felt like it was action too hasty and not carefully considered and that we left too many loose ends out there."

Kinder said he has never met Hancock and is not part of the Hancock II effort. But, the first-term senator pointed out, "I am watching it very carefully and will be interested in what proposal they come up with."

Kinder said one of the most startling things about the Hancock effort is that within three days of announcing the effort, $50,000 in seed money was raised.

Rep. Mark Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, said if a stronger Hancock Amendment was submitted to voters in his district, he has no doubt "it would pass overwhelmingly. Mel Hancock is articulating the frustration most taxpayers feel in this state over what they view as a violation in spirit of the Hancock Amendment and insulting comments made by several public officials that the public was not smart enough to vote on such an important issue."

Richardson said he would have to see the latest version to know whether he could support it but points out he strongly supports the effort by citizens to make changes in state government.

But Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, argues that Hancock is just trying to react to one bill he did not agree with by re-writing the constitution.

"In this instance of SB-380, he is unhappy and wants to re-write the constitution," said Thomason. "This whole reaction is based on one single incident. He never complained when we raised the gas tax last year.

"I'm surprised he doesn't start dozens of initiative petitions for everything he doesn't agree with. But I suppose his reaction is indicative of the times we are in."

Richardson, Thomason and state Rep. Dennis Ziegenhorn, D-Sikeston, all agree that many voters have the incorrect impression that the original Hancock Amendment meant that all tax increases would have to be submitted to a vote. But in reality, the amendment limits the new revenue the state can take in without a vote of the people.

"The bottom line is most people think Hancock has kept us from any tax increases, and that is not the case," said Ziegenhorn. "They were led to believe that Hancock said no tax increase at all, the same as they were led to believe that all money in the lottery would go to education. The same thing is happening here."

Ziegenhorn noted that last year voters approved a constitutional amendment earmarking all lottery proceeds for education.

Ziegenhorn said he believes the new Hancock effort will pass and said he has no problem if voters want to approve the initiative. "This is supposed to be a democracy and if that's what they want to do, that is good."

Thomason added, "The legislature didn't do anything on the school bill that wasn't designed into the Hancock Amendment. If there is fault, it is in the way he designed the Hancock Amendment in the first place; but whatever he wants to do is fine with me."

Although it is unclear what Hancock II will consist of, Thomason said he fears the version will be too restrictive, even to the point where voters would have to agree to allow the state to keep revenue gained from natural growth.

"People have to decide what they really want out of our government," said Thomason. "We can put everything that comes before us to a vote of the people, but then we don't need a legislative branch of government. Missouri is one of only a handful of states that have restrictions on revenue growth at all; but apparently people like Mel Hancock think our restrictions are not tight enough.

"The philosophy behind that approach is everybody is incompetent except the voters of the state, even though legislators who are supposedly incompetent are elected by the people of the state. The whole circle is illogical."

Kinder conceded there is a danger that a revised version of the amendment could be too restrictive, which is one of the reasons he is not yet prepared to endorse the idea.

Richardson said his concern about it being too restrictive is limited. In 1992 the legislature approved a gas tax increase that enabled the state to receive $5 in federal funds for every dollar in state funds. In that case, Richardson said there was a definite need for lawmakers to act quickly to take full advantage of available funds.

"Outside of that kind of situation, I don't have a real problem with it," said Richardson. "I still think people paying the tax have the right to have more than just an indirect voice in how much they want to pay."

He added, "Whether it is ultimately something that will hamstring elected officials from providing good positive leadership remains to be seen ... but this is something being done by voters to what is perceived as an abuse by the legislature."

Kinder said he believes Hancock has the support to get a strong measure approved by voters. He noted that Hancock was quite effective with his movement in the late 1970s that led to the current amendment.

Said Kinder: "He is not the kind of guy whose statements should be taken idly."