Missouri measures: Voters to decide on 5 issues
Missourians will weigh in on five measures, with three originating with voter petition drives and two approved in the last session of the Missouri General Assembly. Battles are likely to ensue over proposed new regulations on puppy mills and a possible elimination of earnings taxes levied by Kansas City and St. Louis.
However, a potential showdown over how the state chooses some judges will have to wait until next year after Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s office found that the petition’s sponsor, ShowMe Better Courts, failed to gather enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot. A second petition relating to real estate taxation also failed to gather enough valid signatures.
Petitions seeking to change a Missouri statute require about 95,000 signatures, while constitutional amendments require about 150,000 valid signatures, according to the Secretary of State’s website.
Proposition A
If approved, the measure would require Kansas City and St. Louis to hold referendums in 2011 seeking voter approval of their 1 percent earnings tax, and it would also require the cities to seek re-authorization of the tax every five years. If voters fail to approve the tax, it would be phased out by one-tenth of 1 percent annually over 10 years.
It also would repeal the authority of cities to use the tax to fund general revenue budgets, and prohibit other cities from instituting an earnings tax.
Brooke Foster, a spokeswoman for Let Voters Decide, said the measure was important for two reasons — letting voters in both cities have the right to vote on the tax, and encouraging businesses to locate in the cities that might be reluctant to do so because of the tax.
“We think it is kind of a modest proposal. It allows a phase-out of the tax over time and it lets the voters decide, which is a right they haven’t had before. A lot of corporations say the earnings tax is one of the reasons they don’t want to go there, so it acts as a deterrent. This isn’t a repeal, and if voters don’t see a good reason to eliminate it they won’t support it,” Foster said.
She added that debate around the proposal has “sparked a healthy dialogue about efficient operations in city governments.”
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser, among others, has voiced opposition to the measure.
In a statement sent to The Democrat on Friday, Funkhouser said his office “will do everything possible to defeat it.”
“Should it succeed in November we will continue to try and defeat it, both in Jefferson City and at the polls here in Kansas City,” Funkhouser said.
He was critical of the measure, which could cost Kansas City nearly $200 million a year in revenue.
“Kansas City should be allowed to chart its own course, without outside interference from parts of the state unaffected by our earnings tax. ... Citizens statewide need to understand the damage this ballot issue could do to Missouri’s two largest cities, and to our state budget, and defeat it in November,” Funkhouser said.
Proposition B
An anti-puppy mill measure that would limit the number of breeding dogs a breeder could own at one time and create a misdemeanor crime for puppy mill cruelty violations has found an opponent among Missouri’s agricultural concerns, who fear the measure could be broadened to limit livestock or animal confinement operations.
It would also require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and veterinary care.
Barbara Schmitz, campaign manager for Missourians for the Protection of Dogs — the measure’s petition drive sponsor — said Missouri is known as the “puppy mill capital” with about 3,000 such facilities operating in the state.
“Right now in Missouri it is perfectly legal to have a dog as small as a beagle in a cage with a wire floor and be housed there for her entire life. That is the situation here and it is legal. The laws in Missouri relating to large-scale breeding facilities are vague and inadequate. We are trying to ensure basic, humane care for these dogs,” Schmitz said.
Kelly Smith, director of marketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said members voted overwhelmingly at their annual meeting last December to oppose the measure.
He said the group opposes the measure because laws regulating pet breeding operations already exist, and the measure would not provide additional funding to the state’s Department of Agriculture, which “lacks the manpower and resources to provide the inspections they already have statutory authority for.”
He said the cost to legitimate breeders could drive them out of business, and believes the measure is part of a broader move by animal rights activists to “eliminate all domesticated animals, from livestock to dogs and cats.”
“This is a dog breeder issue. Does this particular initiative affect livestock farmers? The truthful answer is no, but we have seen this kind of legislation used in other states to try and limit and regulate livestock and our members are concerned,” Smith said.
Other measures
The 95th regular session of the Missouri General Assembly also approved two constitutional amendments for the November ballot.
Amendment 3
Amendment 3 will ask voters if the state constitution should be amended to prevent the enactment of a real estate transfer tax.
Thirty-seven states impose fees or taxes when a property changes hands. The tax is usually based on the value of the property sold. Some state statutes stipulate if the buyer or the seller is responsible for paying it, others do not. Tax rates run from a maximum of 2 percent in Delaware to 0.01 percent in Colorado, Georgia and Hawaii.
In some states, transfer taxes are levied on the state, county and or municipal level.
Still, no Missouri municipality has a transfer tax.
Missouri real estate agents say a transfer tax amounts to double taxation in that homeowners already pay property taxes and shouldn’t be taxed for a percentage of their home’s value when they sell it.
There has been little organized opposition to Amendment 3, but in recent weeks, the St. Louis-based Missourians for Tax Justice has released a press statement saying the amendment is not necessary.
Members of the group believe in a “fair and balanced state tax structure that will produce adequate revenue for needed public services,” according to their website.
“Missouri hasn’t increased taxes in more than a decade and, in fact, has instituted a number of unwise and poorly conceived tax cuts during that period,” said Bob Quinn, a member of the MTJ executive committee, in a press release. “Strong majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have ruled out any increased tax or any other revenue-generating measure, even though our state has an obvious need for growth in this era of job-killing budget cuts.”
Amendment 1
Amendment 1 would require that assessors in charter counties be elected officers, affecting St. Louis County and any county that adopts a charter form of government.
Amendment 2
Amendment 2 would exempt Missourians who are former prisoners of war with a total service-related disability from property taxes.
Fair ballot language
Proposition A
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of 10 years.
A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes.
If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.
Proposition B
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.
A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
Amendment 3
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to exempt from property taxes all real property used as a homestead by any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability.
A “no” vote will not add this exemption to the Missouri Constitution.
If passed, this measure will decrease property taxes for qualified citizens.
Amendment 1
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that assessors in charter counties be elected officers. This proposal will affect St. Louis County and any county that adopts a charter form of government. The exception is for a county that has between 600,001-699,999 residents, which currently is only Jackson County.
A “no” vote will not change the current requirement for charter counties.
If passed, this measure will not have an impact on taxes.
Amendment 2
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to exempt from property taxes all real property used as a homestead by any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability.
A “no” vote will not add this exemption to the Missouri Constitution.
If passed, this measure will decrease property taxes for qualified citizens.
