By Kurt Erickson for the St. Louis Post Dispatch
A Missouri judge tossed out ballot language Tuesday (August 13) designed to address long-standing underfunding issues in the pension systems covering county sheriffs and local prosecutors.
Acting in a lawsuit brought by a former lawmaker, Cole County Circuit Judge Cotton Walker found that the language approved in May by the Republican-controlled General Assembly was “insufficient and unfair” because it failed to mention the central feature of the proposed change to the Missouri Constitution.
At issue is a question placed on the November ballot seeking to reverse a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision that said a $3 fee charged on every court case in Missouri to fund the sheriffs’ retirement system was unconstitutional.
Former Rep. Nancy Copenhaver, who represented Randolph County during her time in office, called for a rewrite of the question because it “conceals the fact that the funding scheme it would authorize has been twice invalidated by the Missouri Supreme Court.”
In an 11-page decision, Walker agreed, saying the explanation approved by lawmakers on the final day of the legislative session was “blatant” in its omission of the use of court fees to pay for the retirement system.
“That provision — the levying of court costs and fees — appears nowhere in the ballot title summary,” Walker wrote. “The ballot title … is thus insufficient and unfair and must be rewritten.”
Walker rewrote the summary statement to include language about the court fees, ordering Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to adopt his version over the legislative product.
Among his changes are specific mentions of which law enforcement officials are affected by the proposed change. The initial version, Walker wrote, was “unnecessarily misleading.”
Since 1875, Missouri has had a constitutional provision in Article 1, Section 14 known as the “open courts” provision. Based largely on England’s Magna Carta, the language provides that the courts are not to put up barriers to justice, such as costs that some people can’t afford.
Attorney Sharon Geuea Jones, who represents Copenhaver, said the decision clarifies the question for voters.
“We are pleased that the court agreed that any fair summary of the measure should include a mention of levying court fees. It’s a commonsense decision that allows voters to cast an informed vote,” Jones said.
Dylan Hayre, national advocacy and campaigns director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, said the changes approved by Walker will make it easier for voters to understand the proposal.
“This ballot language now reflects its true intentions: to impose unconstitutional financial burdens on Missouri communities to do what the state will not — properly fund its legal obligations as a government,” Hayre said. “Fees are a regressive tax that not only harm whole communities, they compromise our criminal justice system.”
Defendants in the lawsuit include Ashcroft, Senate President Caleb Rowden, House Speaker Dean Plocher and Sen. Rusty Black, who sponsored the resolution.
The Missouri attorney general’s office is reviewing the decision.
If approved by voters in the upcoming election, the fee structure to pay for pension benefits would be set by the Legislature.
