THE PUBLIC MIND: LAWYER TAKES ISSUE WITH COMMENTS ABOUT APPELLATE JUDGES

Dear Editor:

On March 30, 1992, the Southeast Missourian did a disservice to the Missouri Judiciary and to the public when it published a "Speak Out" article in which the caller asserted an intent to respond to the press meeting held by the judges of the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District.

While the caller obviously has an agenda, three points are essential.

1. The judges who spoke here are Appellate Court judges, not Supreme Court. The author accuses them of eroding the voters' intention. That statement is simply incorrect and reveals the kind of misinformation that the press conference itself was designed to eliminate. Article V, Section 3 gives the Supreme Court "exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving ... the construction of the revenue laws of this state."

Thus, while the caller was not specific in his criticism, the caller was simply wrong. The appellate judges have nothing to do with the Hancock Amendment.

2. No appellate court has ruled on the Hancock Amendment.

3. The caller demonstrated a monumental misunderstanding of the Hancock Amendment. The Hancock Amendment, Article X, Section 16, prohibits the increase of "property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation." Where the voter got the idea that licenses or fees were covered is strange since neither the word "fee" nor the word "license" appears in the Hancock Amendment. Therefore, the scope of the caller's comment was simply erroneous.

The second misconception contained in the statement with respect to the Hancock Amendment is the caller's idea that the amendment prohibits increases "without voter approval." That is absolutely not the case and never has been the case. The Hancock Amendment only prohibits an increase "above the limitations specified herein." The amendment then provides a complicated mathematical formula to set the limit.

It is very unfortunate that the caller believes otherwise.

It is extremely unfortunate that the caller would seek to penalize an appellate court judge for a decision which the appellate court judge never had the opportunity to make about a constitutional amendment, the contents of which the caller is obviously unfamiliar with.

The Cape Girardeau County Bar Association and the Missouri Bar Association would be pleased to provide speakers and the information to any civic organization that is genuinely interested in understanding how the Missouri judiciary is structured and would be pleased to put on appropriate educational programs or to provide speakers. Perhaps if the caller's misunderstanding of the Hancock Amendment is representative of that the general public, the Southeast Missourian might consider an objective article explaining exactly how the Hancock Amendment actually works.

Sincerely Yours,

John L. Oliver Jr.

Oliver, Oliver, Waltz & Cook