THE VOTERS MUST DECIDE TUESDAY'S BALLOT ISSUES

Voters will decide on six important ballot issues Tuesday. To become more familiar with these issues, voter should read the ballot wording carefully. In addition, the Southeast Missourian editorial board's views on each of the issues is give below.

Some voters may wonder what happened to Amendments 3 and 4. These measures didn't make it onto Tuesday's ballot.

Amendment 1

First class counties authorized to adopt alternative form of county government if approved by voters. Taxes limited to those authorized by state law. Changes petition requirements for county charter question. County cost would depend upon action of its voters. No state fiscal impact.

This amendment would give large counties the ability to adopt a charter form of government. It is very similar to what the city of Cape Girardeau adopted in November 1981. Since Cape Girardeau County is a second class county, it wouldn't be immediately affected by this amendment's outcome.

But the county has plans to move to first class status in two years. Then this amendment will become very important. It removes the 85,000 population requirement and relies instead on assessed valuation. It has been endorsed by the board of the Missouri Association of Counties.

Home rule has served the city of Cape Girardeau well, and there is no reason this amendment wouldn't provide the same flexibility for Cape Girardeau County.

Amendment 2

Department of Natural Resources to pay counties, schools and other political subdivisions for taxes lost because of acquisition of land for park use. Payments to come from state park sales tax which terminates in 1998. Payments of approximately $40,000 annually would be made from the State Parks Fund.

The compensation proposed by this amendment is standard operating procedure for the federal government. It makes sense that the state should help offset lost revenues from some of this land, especially since many of these counties have lower assessed valuations.

The fact only $40,000 will be distributed statewide indicates that most government entities won't be greatly affected by this change. It is mostly a housekeeping matter for the state to permit allocation of the tenth of a cent state park sales tax.

Amendment 5

Shall the compensation of all elected officials, including members of the general assembly and judges be set by the Citizen's Commission established by this amendment rather than set by vote of the general assembly? Compensation changes (increases or decreases) would depend on actions of the commission and the legislation.

This is a bad idea.

Such a commission takes pay decisions away from the legislators and puts this process in the hands of "concerned" citizens. This would take the issue of salaries and benefits for judges, legislators and statewide elected officials out of the public eye and move it behind closed doors. This commission could operated in a manner insulated from taxpayers, unconcerned by budgetary constraints.

It is nothing more than a way to pass the buck. Legislators are accountable to the public, because voters hold their fate at the ballot box. The same can't be said for this independent commission.

Legislators should retain the responsibility of determining salaries for themselves and other state workers. The yearly pay debates should remain in the public arena.

Amendment 6

Shall the General Assembly be authorized to permit only upon the Mississippi River and the Missouri River lotteries, gift enterprises and the games of chance to be conducted on excursion gambling boats and floating facilities? This proposal would increase state revenues from existing gaming boats approximately $30,000,000 per year. Impact on local government is unknown.

This change makes economic sense for Missouri and the region. Gambling is legal in the state, but operators can't make sufficient revenue, because slot machines are illegal. And that means that revenue to the state is greatly reduced.

Many communities across the state will financially benefit from these riverboats, including Cape Girardeau. But if this law doesn't pass, many of the riverboat companies may decide to pass on Missouri.

Amendment 7

Shall Article X of the Constitution of Missouri be amended to limit yearly increases of total state revenues generated by new, increased or broadened taxes, licenses and fees, including user fees, to twenty-hundredths of one percent of the total state revenue during the prior fiscal year, unless approved by popular vote; make all increases in taxes, licenses and fees, excluding user fees, by any political subdivision subject to voter approval; and prohibit the state from mandating tax increases on political subdivisions as a requirement for maintaining their corporate status or existing level of state funding? This proposal would require state and local spending cuts ranging from $1 billion to $5 billion annually. Cuts would affect prisons, schools, colleges, programs for the elderly, job training, highways, public health and other services.

Amendment 7, or the so-called Hancock II, brings a reasonable concept to the table: limit the extraordinary growth of state government. But the amendment is so poorly written that it will prove a disastrous mess.

Too much of Missouri's budget goes to programs mandated by the feds, including Medicare and Medicaid. Amendment 7 can't touch these. That means the $1 billion of anticipated cuts would come from prisons, schools, colleges, programs for the elderly, job training, highways, public health -- in short the programs that are important to Missourians.

Voter dissatisfaction is understandable, especially with the passage of a whopping tax increase in the form of Senate Bill 380, the school finance reform legislation, without a vote of the people last year. But Amendment 7 is not the answer. It will create more problems than solutions.

Proposition A

Shall a law be enacted to limit campaign contributions to persons or committees by persons or committees per election cycle to $100 and $200 depending on the population of the political district and to $300 for statewide candidates; require disclosure by contributors of employer or occupation when contributing in excess of $25 per person; within 90 days of the election to fill the office, require contributions, in excess of expenses, that are 10 times the maximum amount allowed be returned to the contributors or remitted to Missouri Ethics Commission; establish a commission on fair elections; allow persons to file complaints alleging violations of the contributions limits? The administrative impact of this proposal would largely duplicate that of recently passed legislation.

This amendment is unnecessary and would burden both the state and candidates with tedious campaign reporting.

As the amendment clearly states, this proposal would largely duplicate recently-passed legislation except that the amounts are not so restrictive. It is nothing more than an incumbent protection law, since officeholders typically draw the larger donors.

The campaign reform measure already passed by the legislature takes effect Jan. 1. It limits political contributions and gives candidates strong incentives to adopt spending limits. The legislation applies to all elected offices, from governor to local officials such as school board members. Currently, there are no limits on how much a candidate can receive or spend to get elected, causing voters to complain about the outrageous costs of political campaigns.

Full disclosure and reasonable limits are needed to ensure that candidate votes are not bought and sold. Proposition A is too paperwork intensive and will discourage good candidates from stepping into the ring.