Constitutional question

Jefferson City News Tribune

Missouri's Supreme Court will hear arguments [this] week in the battle over when Missourians will vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. For the long run, that's a good decision.

As we noted Sunday, much public attention has focused on the political battle over which political parties might benefit most from having the issue on the ballot in November or in August.

Observers say a vote to ban gay marriage would attract conservative voters and aid Republican candidates in November's general election. An August primary would offer no such advantage to the GOP.

We've seen news releases from both political parties that accuse the other side of "playing politics" with the issue.

Several news releases have accused Democratic Gov. Bob Holden of "rushing" the measure to the ballot or trying to defeat the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment by placing the issue on the Aug. 3 primary election instead of the Nov. 2 general election. Other news releases accuse Republican Secretary of State Matt Blunt of "purely political motives" for trying to "force" the issue onto the November ballot.

But little attention seems to have been paid, outside the courtrooms, to the legal and constitutional issues that also are being argued.

The Missouri Constitution says votes on proposed amendments are held with the November general election unless the governor calls a special election.

State law -- but not the constitution -- sets the 10-week window between a scheduled election and the deadline for telling election clerks what issues will be on their ballots for that election.

And it's that deadline -- at 5 p.m. on [May 25] for the Aug. 3 primary -- that has been part of the legal battle. The Supreme Court has warned county clerks that -- because of the lawsuit -- if its ruling favors the governor, the issue will be on the August ballot despite the missed deadline.

Does the governor's constitutional power to call a special election take precedence over a deadline set by law?

The attorney general's office has argued that it does.

The secretary of state's office says they must follow the law.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to decide that question.

The hearing gives the Supreme Court judges the chance to make a decision that will have an impact on state government operations long after the people say yes or no to the idea of having a constitutional definition of marriage.