Give Clean Missouri a try

by Darryl Wilkinson
Our own state senator, Dan Hegeman, is leading an effort to revote a new version of Clean Missouri this November. The legislation SJR 39, sponsored by Sen. Hegeman, essentially asks voters, “Are you sure?”
You may recall that the original Clean Missouri constitutional amendment passed last November by a 62% majority statewide. A key provision empowers a non-partisan state demographer to oversee redistricting. It also put strict limits on lobbyist gifts and lowered some campaign contributions for state lawmakers, among other things.
Hegeman’s new proposal (SJR 39) would remove the state demographer from that role and put redistricting power back in the hands of House and Senate commissions. This is the key issue of the proposed revote this fall. Other revisions to what voters have already passed are minor: eliminate lobbyist gifts entirely (the current Clean Missouri cap is $5) and change the limit on State Senate campaign contributions from $2,500 to $2,400.
According to Missouri News Network (for this newspaper via Missouri Press Association), the Senate voted 22-9 in favor of SJR 38 on Feb. 10. That vote fell along party lines. Then, at a hearing of the House General Laws Committee last week, Sen. Hegeman was the only person to testify in person on the resolution.
To be sure, topics when viewed afar from capitol halls are usually more complicated than they seem. Democrats from St. Louis raised questions which tested Hegeman’s proposal in terms of citizens and illegals. There was also a question about how the impact of Hegeman’s proposal might shift from districts drawn based on population to districts based on the idea of “one person, one vote.”
Maybe a revote would never have been suggested if Amendment 1 had been more concise. Last November’s Amendment 1 (Clean Missouri) was not just a single amendment, but actually six amendments packed into one. So, folks like Sen. Hegeman logically argue that perhaps voters were so enthusiastic about passing the ethics portion of Clean Missouri that they overlooked or failed to understand what redistricting, as set by a state demographer, might be.
Perhaps Sen. Hegeman and others should consider that voters recognize the advantage whatever party is in power enjoys when setting redistricting procedures — whether it’s Republicans (this time) or Democrats (the next time). It is possible that voters actually did know what they were voting to change.
It is never an enviable position for an elected official to say they know more than voters, even in circumstances when that literally can be true. It could be that a state demographer (chosen from a list provided by the elected State Auditor) will be more apolitical than our former procedure. We’ll never know unless given the chance. And, yes, certainly the 2nd District (with Rep. J. Eggleston representing Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry and Harrison counties) will most likely change.
Rather than push for a revote, perhaps elected officials should simply admit they failed to adequately educate or convince voters of their position when the first vote was taken. Why not wait and see if an appointed professional demographer will help remove politics from Missouri’s redistricting process? It could be that changing the method of redistricting was viewed in an ethical context much like eliminating lobbyist gifts and limiting campaign contributions.
Thus, a revote smacks of what’s precisely unwanted – more politics. After all, if redistricting by a demographer evolves into failure, the State Auditor puts his or her political future at risk and the cost of a statewide election for reversal is no more than this proposed revote on something already approved by a 62% majority. We don’t want more of the same. Clean Missouri, as is, should be given a try. Only then can a revote, if necessary, more precisely address what revision or refinements should be made and in what ways.