Fate of ballot measure rests with appeals court

The fate of an ethics reform package slated to appear on the November ballot rests with a state court of appeals.

A special panel of the Western District Court of Appeals will decide whether to keep Amendment 1, backed by the group Clean Missouri, on the ballot. The initiative would bring six changes to state government. Those include a limit on campaign donations, a ban on lobbyist gifts to state lawmakers, a two year “cool off” period before a state lawmaker or staff member can become a lobbyist, opening state lawmakers’ emails to the public, prohibiting campaign fundraisers on state property and a change in the legislative redistricting process.

A Cole County judge ruled the measure was invalid because it violated the state’s single-subject provision, which requires an initiative petition, such as Amendment 1, to deal with one subject. Clean Missouri appealed that decision.

Judges Alok Ahuja, Thomas Newton and Rex Gabbert asked several questions of the attorneys present. Ahuja and Newton in particular focused on the redistricting provision and wondered if it was too far outside the scope of Clean Missouri’s ethics reform.

Chuck Hatfield, attorney for Clean Missouri, said the six provisions in Amendment 1 dealt with regulating state government. The redistricting process under Clean Missouri’s plan would let the state auditor choose candidates to serve as a “state demographer” who would draw the legislative districts and seek approval from a citizen commission. Leaders in the state Senate would get to weigh in on the demographer pick.

Hatfield said that although the initiative might touch on other parts of state government besides the legislature, it should not invalidate the entire question on the ballot.

Todd Graves, representing the Miller County man who filed suit against Clean Missouri, said the changes to the state’s redistricting process went beyond the single topic of regulating state government.

“Avoid the dangers of fundamentally changing our foundational aspect of our democracy by putting several things that I would call ‘vote candy,’ that are very popular and people want to vote for it with something that it very substantive, very dense and has an extreme impact on how districts are drawn,” Graves said.

Ahuja said at the end of the hearing that he expected the panel to make a decision before Tuesday’s deadline for court-ordered placement of issues on the November ballot.