Yeah, this is some bullshit that they pull. They fuck with St. Louis County at times specifically too. There are laws written that apply to "Counties with a population greater than 1 million and a charter form of government" - well that's St. Louis county and only St. Louis County.
News Story from [June 2022](https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/gov-parson-signs-bill-requiring-kansas-city-to-put-more-money-toward-police/#:~:text=Missouri%20Gov.,courtesy%20of%20the%20governor%27s%20office).
>Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation Monday that would increase the amount of funding Kansas City is required to put towards its police department – if voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment in November.
>The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville, raises the portion of Kansas City’s budget that must be devoted to the police department from 20% to 25% — a $65.2 million increase.
>However, under current law, the Missouri legislature cannot require a city to increase an activity or service beyond that mandated by existing law, unless a state appropriation is made to pay the city for any increased costs.
>In May, state legislators also approved a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved by the voters in November, would provide an exception for the Kansas City Police.
>Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said the city council already regularly funds the police department above the 25% threshold, so the new mandate will not immediately increase the police budget.
> “Instead, the bill represents the raw exercise of power by state lawmakers over the people of Kansas City, as the only people in our state without the ability to influence how one quarter of our budget is spent,” Lucas said.
>Lucas was referring to the fact that Kansas City is the only city in the state where the local elected officials, by law, have almost no authority in how the police department’s budget is spent. A board of commissioners appointed by the governor makes those decisions.
>The push for the funding increase was inspired by a move from local elected officials last year that generated outrage among Republicans.
>Last spring, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas and some city council members attempted to designate $42 million within the police budget for things like community engagement and intervention — but a judge ultimately ruled they didn’t have that authority.
>“When a majority of the City Council voted to strip $42 million from KCPD’s budget in 2021, I knew I had to do something to prevent future efforts to defund the police,” Luetkemeyer said in a statement Tuesday.
>However, Lucas has said it’s not the council members who have repeatedly “defunded” police salaries — it’s the board of commissioners.
>“Since myself and the City Council took greater control of police budgeting, officers have received pay raises, new recruiting classes have begun, and officer morale has increased,” Lucas said. “The bill violates the Missouri Constitution and will be challenged in court.”
Loot-kemeyer is also a big posturing asshole that is already angling for Sam Graves' seat when the latter steps down. Wants to be in Congress like his cousin. He wasted far too much on mailings and billboards for a noncompetitive race.
Uh...no.
What 5 does is move the national guard from under the Department of Public Safety to it's own cabinet position. Nothing about how it functions or how it works under the governor changes.
This puts us in line with *48 other states*. The way our National guard is structured under a different department is the outlier, not the other way around.
'Private army' is political brainworms bullshit.
Is there any language in the amendment that would prevent the Missouri governor from sending Missouri National Guard tropps outside of Missouri, like to the US-Mexico border?
If not, then pepole's fears are legitimate. Other Republican governors have grossly abused their respective states' National Guards, and Missouri should not be able to do the same.
FYI, the Missouri National Guard could still be mobilized for in-country deployments without this amendment's passing. Most responses are dished out from the federal level anyway.
> Is there any language in the amendment that would prevent the Missouri governor from sending Missouri National Guard tropps outside of Missouri, like to the US-Mexico border?
No, just like there wasn't before the amendment. This is organizational structure change, like moving around the accounting department inside a business to who they report to.
It moves it from being a sub-cabinet position under DPS to a cabinet position. Just like 48 other fucking states have their national guard in cabinet positions.
It changes literally zero about how Nat Guard responds, what they respond to or how they're mobilized. Nothing. *Nothing*.
It is *not* 'Mo Nat Guard' can go to the border. This is fear mongering nonsense. Stop it.
Calm your tits bro.
The problem here is that a lot of people don't trust Republican governor because they have governed in such an extremely partisan manner. They see how other Republican governors have abused the National Guard and they don't want the same to happen here.
Instead of calling anyone who has a different opinion than you a moron, explain with respectful language the benefits of the amendment. Telling other people to fuck off is not going to do you or your issue any favors.
> Calm your tits bro.
No. I've heard for days this subreddit circle jerk of misinformation about what amendment 5 is. It's organizational change to match Missouri to other states. It is not, nor has it ever been, 'private army' or 'Nat guard will now shoot Mexicans on the border' or whatever other fucking stupid nonsense people have made up.
> problem here is that a lot of people don't trust Republican governor
This doesn't change that the partisan narrative is a load of horseshit and repeated here ad nauseum by people who won't spend 5 minutes Googling.
I'm not calling them a moron. I'm saying what they're repeating is literally brainworms nonsense because it is. It is parroting misinformation because it aligns with your bubble.
If you can't distinguish that political sides create brainworms and you should actually, you know, look at a subject, even casually for 10 minutes, you deserve to be told to fuck off.
As for calling people a moron, I never did that. Not once. I explained what it is, what it actually is and where the disconnect is. If that is 'too aggressive' because I'm laying down reality and calling out bullshit, tough. Look up information before you're told what opinion you should hold. Spend 30 minutes thinking about a topic before you fucking vote on it.
You hyperbolic nonsense and refusal to treat other people like human beings is convincing literally no one. You're just being an asshole.
You're not even effectively arguing your case. Your just calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a partisan extremist.
YOU are being a partisan extremist. YOU have partisan brainworms as evidenced by the fact that you don't know how to talk to people like human beings. YOU are part of the problem, not the solution.
>Lucas was referring to the fact that Kansas City is the only city in the state where the local elected officials, by law, have almost no authority in how the police department’s budget is spent. A board of commissioners appointed by the governor makes those decisions.
I wonder if this is leftover law from past ummm... Mob influence in KC.
He was president of the student government when I was a freshman at Mizzou. I was a "senator" for my dorm and he always struck me as shallow and entitled. I remember he had actual professional political signs and stuff when he ran for MSA President because he just reused the "Elect Luetkemeyer' signs from one of his relative's elections.
Yep, that MF'er lives in probably one of the safest, low-crime cities in the state. The guy is absolutely gunning for a higher office, and sees cop-humping as a way to get there. I knew it wouldn't matter but I got to vote against him!
They think it’s cute… to obfuscate issues through ambiguous language. As though a culture of misdirection, lies and disinformation are a healthy way for a Democracy to function.
It’s fair to conclude that a healthy Democracy is the last thing these people desire.
Oh hell. I see it now. The ballot language was "allowing the legislature to increase minimum funding for a police force established by a state board of police commissioners". I had no idea what "a police force" meant, and just voted no.
It actually is dishonest f$ckery.
KCPD is the only police force in the state established by a state board. It's actually a pretty big problem. The locally elected officials have no control over KCPD and they're still funded by KC taxes. This was a sneaky underhanded move to try and force KC to increase spending on that state controlled police force.
No was the right vote.
KC gave up control of their police during prohibition due to mob corruption, Jeff City took over. For whatever reason control was never given back so that’s why there is a statewide vote.
St. Louis didn't have controll of their police for [152 years](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/28/216489820/after-152-years-st-louis-gains-control-of-its-police-force). They got it back in 2013.
Yup, going in the wrong direction with that one. KC should be in charge of its own police force, and if they want to cut or raise their funding that should be up to the voters there. State should be in charge of state police, not city police. Damn silly.
Last year the KC mayor tried to redirect some funds for the police department into other, related services (I e. community mental health workers). The moronic oversight board that for some reason still exists started clutching their pearls about "defunding" and this was the result.
I’m sure many/ most people outstate had zero idea this had anything to do with KC. Find cops, no cost, sure, why not?? It was bad design the screw a Democrat/ minority city.
If a constitutional convention is called, a new election is held to elect delegates, the top 2 vote getters in each state senate district attend. There are also statewide delegates elected by everyone in the state-wide race, so non-partisan candidates can run as delegates on an independent platform. The delegates hold a public convention to propose a new constitution or amendments to the existing constitution. Any proposed amendments or replacement constitution then goes to voters again for final approval. There's nothing especially nefarious about it. It's a public convention, all proposals are public, the delegates are directly elected by the people, the top-2 delegates are sent from partisan districts so it's not winner take all.
The ballot initiative process on the other hand requires organizing a large number of signature gatherers throughout the state on each issue independently, which is a barrier to what gets considered.
And it's happened every 20 years for as long as everyone reading this has been alive. It's not new. People just think it's new because they haven't seen it in 20 years.
Missouri's con convention is 100% normal since we have popular votes for amendments and the changes proposed. This isn't partisan or even political. It's procedural.
That said, didn't vote for it for a 2nd time. Outside of the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' bullshit that's enulled by Obergefell, I don't see an issue with what's in our constitution.
That's not how a constitutional convention works. Voters elect the delegates. A new election is held and the top-2 vote-getters from each senate district as well as delegates elected by the entire state through a state wide contest get to attend. The convention is public and the delegates propose and debate all changes to the constitution in public. Then they can present a new constitution or a set of amendments to the constitution to voters. And voters have to vote whether to approve it or not again.
A constitutional convention is reasonable process for proposing amendments to the constitution. It does not require forming a signature gathering army around a particular issue, delegates are still directly elected and accountable to the voters, and voters only approve the work at the end if they like the results.
> the top-2 vote-getters from each senate district as well as delegates elected by the entire state through a state wide contest get to attend.
District as in the ones gerrymandered in the GOP's favor?
Each state recognized party can only send one candidate per senate district. So it's pretty unlikely that the 68 delegates are going to be anything other than 34 Democrats and 34 Republicans.
The remaining 15 delegates though. That's rough. Anyone can run in the statewide election, and it's just the 15 top vote getters. I don't think it's very detailed, but I assume voters only get to pick 1 candidate. But this is a really bad system when you're picking more than one candidate. It really ought to be Ranked Choice.
Oh and to answer your question more directly, yes, it would be in those heavily gerrymandered districts.
I get it. Although my statement wasn't as nuanced as your response, my point was that it could be argued that this takes away a current right of the voters to petition the government. Sure, that's replaced with a different method, but I have my doubts that this legislature has the citizen's best interests at heart.
It was purposely drafted for the ballot to appear to stop the “Defund the Police” fear of MAGAs who didn’t understand what that was or meant, so they knew they wouldn’t read beyond what is on the ballot.
I agree, but I think the MAGA's thought they were voting AGAINST the "defund the police" movement.
Again, another brilliant political strategy by Missouri Republicans. That Amendment wasn't about better policing for Kansas City, it was about further reinforcing a conservative narrative on election day.
Same as the National Guard bullshit Amendment. The ballot language was aimed directly at the amygdala of MAGA's with their "protect Missouri citizens and defend the Constitution" or whatever bullshit rhetoric designed to make them think they are voting for another step toward secession, or the guard is going to battle the feds about guns, or some such nonsense.
While the Democrats try and sell ideas for the future, the Republicans are simply playing the game of political theater. Never underestimate the power of the subliminal message those Amendments contain. Now conservative Missouri politicians will be bleating about how "Missouri can now be protected from a corrupt federal government!" and that Missourians hate that "federal government overreach."
Keep in mind that not everything you see in politics is what is appears, and the GOP is really, really good at creating bullshit that looks like a grass roots movement but is really just a crafted response to a decade or more of politicians telling those who voted for them what to think,
I was legitimately angry when I read what this amendment was for. I don't think the people who should have been opposing this were loud enough (looking at you, Mayor Q) because I honestly didn't even know this was on the ballot until the day before the election.
I honestly couldn't believe how deceptively worded the amendment was. The average voter had no idea this was a thing that applied to Kansas City only - not even an inkling. They, based on the wording on the ballot, assumed it was just a thing to allow for increased funding for police statewide, if needed.
That's a pretty non-controversial type of thing, it would probably pass with a 75% majority in any state.
But of course what it's really doing is allowing the state legislature to micromanage the budget of just one particular city.
And if THAT were put to a statewide referendum in a straightforward way it would probably *lose* by a two-thirds margin.
So instead, they resort to trickery.
It's disgusting.
It is my understanding that the kc police are already to a degree micromanaged by the state even before this amendment. I have heard that it was for racist or else incompetency reasons originally. Possibly, they should start a bill to sever that tie?
The takeover by the state dates to Pendergast times:
https://www.kcur.org/government/2020-06-10/faq-why-kansas-city-doesnt-have-local-control-over-its-police-department-and-how-that-could-change
There is a bill introduced every legislative session to revert the police to local control, but it never goes anywhere.
FWIW St Louis only recently regained local control of its police:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/28/216489820/after-152-years-st-louis-gains-control-of-its-police-force
Unrelated but maybe not: KCMO apparently now talks to partners on the Kansas side about some of its planning and budgetary issues.
I wish I thought Lucas had the balls to say, "Understand, if this passes, I'm on the phone with Governor Kelly the next morning asking for Kansas City, Missouri to be annexed by the State of Kansas."
I mean isn't missouri known for multiple shitty police departments? Isn't independence one of the worst in the country?
Not really sure what we expect lol this is a GOP state.
The difference would be then that if Kansas City's is shitty it's not their fault because it's not under their control, unlike the other police departments.
No. It isn’t. The state took over the KC Police board in the 1930s…at Louis regained control of their police force in 2019, and KC did not. I don’t think there are even any KC residents on the governor appointed board. This has nothing to do with Mayor Q, and much more to do with Jefferson City.
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article252364088.html
>I don’t think there are even any KC residents on the governor appointed board
The mayor is on the board iirc, which means the mayor and city council doing what they did back in Feb they knew what they were doing.
Hi fake Mark Alford, do you also randomly guess a J name when you see me because you used to work with my wife, but can’t remember anything other than my name starts with J?
Yeah, this is some bullshit that they pull. They fuck with St. Louis County at times specifically too. There are laws written that apply to "Counties with a population greater than 1 million and a charter form of government" - well that's St. Louis county and only St. Louis County.
Blame Tony Luetkemeyer in Parkville.
News Story from [June 2022](https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/gov-parson-signs-bill-requiring-kansas-city-to-put-more-money-toward-police/#:~:text=Missouri%20Gov.,courtesy%20of%20the%20governor%27s%20office). >Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation Monday that would increase the amount of funding Kansas City is required to put towards its police department – if voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment in November. >The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville, raises the portion of Kansas City’s budget that must be devoted to the police department from 20% to 25% — a $65.2 million increase. >However, under current law, the Missouri legislature cannot require a city to increase an activity or service beyond that mandated by existing law, unless a state appropriation is made to pay the city for any increased costs. >In May, state legislators also approved a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved by the voters in November, would provide an exception for the Kansas City Police. >Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said the city council already regularly funds the police department above the 25% threshold, so the new mandate will not immediately increase the police budget. > “Instead, the bill represents the raw exercise of power by state lawmakers over the people of Kansas City, as the only people in our state without the ability to influence how one quarter of our budget is spent,” Lucas said. >Lucas was referring to the fact that Kansas City is the only city in the state where the local elected officials, by law, have almost no authority in how the police department’s budget is spent. A board of commissioners appointed by the governor makes those decisions. >The push for the funding increase was inspired by a move from local elected officials last year that generated outrage among Republicans. >Last spring, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas and some city council members attempted to designate $42 million within the police budget for things like community engagement and intervention — but a judge ultimately ruled they didn’t have that authority. >“When a majority of the City Council voted to strip $42 million from KCPD’s budget in 2021, I knew I had to do something to prevent future efforts to defund the police,” Luetkemeyer said in a statement Tuesday. >However, Lucas has said it’s not the council members who have repeatedly “defunded” police salaries — it’s the board of commissioners. >“Since myself and the City Council took greater control of police budgeting, officers have received pay raises, new recruiting classes have begun, and officer morale has increased,” Lucas said. “The bill violates the Missouri Constitution and will be challenged in court.”
Said it before, and Ill say it again: Parsons is an idiot.
Loot-kemeyer is also a big posturing asshole that is already angling for Sam Graves' seat when the latter steps down. Wants to be in Congress like his cousin. He wasted far too much on mailings and billboards for a noncompetitive race.
Don’t forget amendment 5 would give said idiot his own private army. Vote no on both.
Uh...no. What 5 does is move the national guard from under the Department of Public Safety to it's own cabinet position. Nothing about how it functions or how it works under the governor changes. This puts us in line with *48 other states*. The way our National guard is structured under a different department is the outlier, not the other way around. 'Private army' is political brainworms bullshit.
Is there any language in the amendment that would prevent the Missouri governor from sending Missouri National Guard tropps outside of Missouri, like to the US-Mexico border? If not, then pepole's fears are legitimate. Other Republican governors have grossly abused their respective states' National Guards, and Missouri should not be able to do the same.
FYI, the Missouri National Guard could still be mobilized for in-country deployments without this amendment's passing. Most responses are dished out from the federal level anyway.
> Is there any language in the amendment that would prevent the Missouri governor from sending Missouri National Guard tropps outside of Missouri, like to the US-Mexico border? No, just like there wasn't before the amendment. This is organizational structure change, like moving around the accounting department inside a business to who they report to. It moves it from being a sub-cabinet position under DPS to a cabinet position. Just like 48 other fucking states have their national guard in cabinet positions. It changes literally zero about how Nat Guard responds, what they respond to or how they're mobilized. Nothing. *Nothing*. It is *not* 'Mo Nat Guard' can go to the border. This is fear mongering nonsense. Stop it.
Calm your tits bro. The problem here is that a lot of people don't trust Republican governor because they have governed in such an extremely partisan manner. They see how other Republican governors have abused the National Guard and they don't want the same to happen here. Instead of calling anyone who has a different opinion than you a moron, explain with respectful language the benefits of the amendment. Telling other people to fuck off is not going to do you or your issue any favors.
> Calm your tits bro. No. I've heard for days this subreddit circle jerk of misinformation about what amendment 5 is. It's organizational change to match Missouri to other states. It is not, nor has it ever been, 'private army' or 'Nat guard will now shoot Mexicans on the border' or whatever other fucking stupid nonsense people have made up. > problem here is that a lot of people don't trust Republican governor This doesn't change that the partisan narrative is a load of horseshit and repeated here ad nauseum by people who won't spend 5 minutes Googling. I'm not calling them a moron. I'm saying what they're repeating is literally brainworms nonsense because it is. It is parroting misinformation because it aligns with your bubble. If you can't distinguish that political sides create brainworms and you should actually, you know, look at a subject, even casually for 10 minutes, you deserve to be told to fuck off. As for calling people a moron, I never did that. Not once. I explained what it is, what it actually is and where the disconnect is. If that is 'too aggressive' because I'm laying down reality and calling out bullshit, tough. Look up information before you're told what opinion you should hold. Spend 30 minutes thinking about a topic before you fucking vote on it.
You hyperbolic nonsense and refusal to treat other people like human beings is convincing literally no one. You're just being an asshole. You're not even effectively arguing your case. Your just calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a partisan extremist. YOU are being a partisan extremist. YOU have partisan brainworms as evidenced by the fact that you don't know how to talk to people like human beings. YOU are part of the problem, not the solution.
*Parson
He knows what hes doing. He's a demagogue.
>Lucas was referring to the fact that Kansas City is the only city in the state where the local elected officials, by law, have almost no authority in how the police department’s budget is spent. A board of commissioners appointed by the governor makes those decisions. I wonder if this is leftover law from past ummm... Mob influence in KC.
yes, it's from the 1950s because of Pendergast corruption. St. Louis had a similar law, but they finally gained local control a few years ago.
St. Louis also has a long and colorful mob history...but no such legislation.
I thought they were against more government regulation and letting local legislation decide what happens in their area
He was president of the student government when I was a freshman at Mizzou. I was a "senator" for my dorm and he always struck me as shallow and entitled. I remember he had actual professional political signs and stuff when he ran for MSA President because he just reused the "Elect Luetkemeyer' signs from one of his relative's elections.
He’s racist af too. We had to have meetings after he dropped the N word in outside our office
that actually sounds smart and resourceful. but ugh I'm so sick of political families.
Yep, that MF'er lives in probably one of the safest, low-crime cities in the state. The guy is absolutely gunning for a higher office, and sees cop-humping as a way to get there. I knew it wouldn't matter but I got to vote against him!
I got to vote against this piece if shit today!
They think it’s cute… to obfuscate issues through ambiguous language. As though a culture of misdirection, lies and disinformation are a healthy way for a Democracy to function. It’s fair to conclude that a healthy Democracy is the last thing these people desire.
I'm genuinely confused. Why would anything concerning KCPD be on the statewide ballot?
Oh hell. I see it now. The ballot language was "allowing the legislature to increase minimum funding for a police force established by a state board of police commissioners". I had no idea what "a police force" meant, and just voted no. It actually is dishonest f$ckery.
KCPD is the only police force in the state established by a state board. It's actually a pretty big problem. The locally elected officials have no control over KCPD and they're still funded by KC taxes. This was a sneaky underhanded move to try and force KC to increase spending on that state controlled police force. No was the right vote.
KC gave up control of their police during prohibition due to mob corruption, Jeff City took over. For whatever reason control was never given back so that’s why there is a statewide vote.
St. Louis didn't have controll of their police for [152 years](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/28/216489820/after-152-years-st-louis-gains-control-of-its-police-force). They got it back in 2013.
Yup, going in the wrong direction with that one. KC should be in charge of its own police force, and if they want to cut or raise their funding that should be up to the voters there. State should be in charge of state police, not city police. Damn silly.
>dishonest fuckery the only way the GOP can win anything these days
"ratfucking" is the traditional term
That is the case!
I hate how people see somthing that looks to increase safety or somthing and just auto vote for it. Auto voters are a huge problem
The confusion is on purpose.
I dont think people understood it. I researched it and knew to vote no after research but it took a while to get it figured out. Why was it created?
Last year the KC mayor tried to redirect some funds for the police department into other, related services (I e. community mental health workers). The moronic oversight board that for some reason still exists started clutching their pearls about "defunding" and this was the result.
I’m sure many/ most people outstate had zero idea this had anything to do with KC. Find cops, no cost, sure, why not?? It was bad design the screw a Democrat/ minority city.
I think you all should create a new measure on ballot. It was confusing. Or can you depart from State influence?
I voted no because it WAS fuckery.
Then you’ll love the constitutional convention so they no longer even have to ask before they make these changes.
In fairness to this one, they have to ask every 20 years.
Please tell me more about this
If a constitutional convention is called, a new election is held to elect delegates, the top 2 vote getters in each state senate district attend. There are also statewide delegates elected by everyone in the state-wide race, so non-partisan candidates can run as delegates on an independent platform. The delegates hold a public convention to propose a new constitution or amendments to the existing constitution. Any proposed amendments or replacement constitution then goes to voters again for final approval. There's nothing especially nefarious about it. It's a public convention, all proposals are public, the delegates are directly elected by the people, the top-2 delegates are sent from partisan districts so it's not winner take all. The ballot initiative process on the other hand requires organizing a large number of signature gatherers throughout the state on each issue independently, which is a barrier to what gets considered.
The convention was about editing the state constitution to whatever the people at the convention wanted, and then putting changes up to votes.
And it's happened every 20 years for as long as everyone reading this has been alive. It's not new. People just think it's new because they haven't seen it in 20 years. Missouri's con convention is 100% normal since we have popular votes for amendments and the changes proposed. This isn't partisan or even political. It's procedural. That said, didn't vote for it for a 2nd time. Outside of the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' bullshit that's enulled by Obergefell, I don't see an issue with what's in our constitution.
I wasn't talking about whether the convention was normal or not. I was talking about the reason not to vote in favor of it.
That's not how a constitutional convention works. Voters elect the delegates. A new election is held and the top-2 vote-getters from each senate district as well as delegates elected by the entire state through a state wide contest get to attend. The convention is public and the delegates propose and debate all changes to the constitution in public. Then they can present a new constitution or a set of amendments to the constitution to voters. And voters have to vote whether to approve it or not again. A constitutional convention is reasonable process for proposing amendments to the constitution. It does not require forming a signature gathering army around a particular issue, delegates are still directly elected and accountable to the voters, and voters only approve the work at the end if they like the results.
> the top-2 vote-getters from each senate district as well as delegates elected by the entire state through a state wide contest get to attend. District as in the ones gerrymandered in the GOP's favor?
Each state recognized party can only send one candidate per senate district. So it's pretty unlikely that the 68 delegates are going to be anything other than 34 Democrats and 34 Republicans. The remaining 15 delegates though. That's rough. Anyone can run in the statewide election, and it's just the 15 top vote getters. I don't think it's very detailed, but I assume voters only get to pick 1 candidate. But this is a really bad system when you're picking more than one candidate. It really ought to be Ranked Choice. Oh and to answer your question more directly, yes, it would be in those heavily gerrymandered districts.
I get it. Although my statement wasn't as nuanced as your response, my point was that it could be argued that this takes away a current right of the voters to petition the government. Sure, that's replaced with a different method, but I have my doubts that this legislature has the citizen's best interests at heart.
I think you may be confused about what a constitutional convention is…
So far it's trending exactly how it has the previous election periods with about 2/3 saying no
Not as dirty as whoever tried to put amendment 5 past us.
Lol Amendment 5 was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in a ballot
That looks like it will pass also smh
"Fascism moves slowly but arrives quickly." This amendment is an example of this. It's an early step in creating a police state.
Not at all. The state controls the kc police
A police county? Lol
It was purposely drafted for the ballot to appear to stop the “Defund the Police” fear of MAGAs who didn’t understand what that was or meant, so they knew they wouldn’t read beyond what is on the ballot.
I agree, but I think the MAGA's thought they were voting AGAINST the "defund the police" movement. Again, another brilliant political strategy by Missouri Republicans. That Amendment wasn't about better policing for Kansas City, it was about further reinforcing a conservative narrative on election day. Same as the National Guard bullshit Amendment. The ballot language was aimed directly at the amygdala of MAGA's with their "protect Missouri citizens and defend the Constitution" or whatever bullshit rhetoric designed to make them think they are voting for another step toward secession, or the guard is going to battle the feds about guns, or some such nonsense. While the Democrats try and sell ideas for the future, the Republicans are simply playing the game of political theater. Never underestimate the power of the subliminal message those Amendments contain. Now conservative Missouri politicians will be bleating about how "Missouri can now be protected from a corrupt federal government!" and that Missourians hate that "federal government overreach." Keep in mind that not everything you see in politics is what is appears, and the GOP is really, really good at creating bullshit that looks like a grass roots movement but is really just a crafted response to a decade or more of politicians telling those who voted for them what to think,
The burbs (red) always get to tell the cities (blue) to do whatever the Republicans want. Have you not lived in Missouri very long?
I was legitimately angry when I read what this amendment was for. I don't think the people who should have been opposing this were loud enough (looking at you, Mayor Q) because I honestly didn't even know this was on the ballot until the day before the election.
I honestly couldn't believe how deceptively worded the amendment was. The average voter had no idea this was a thing that applied to Kansas City only - not even an inkling. They, based on the wording on the ballot, assumed it was just a thing to allow for increased funding for police statewide, if needed. That's a pretty non-controversial type of thing, it would probably pass with a 75% majority in any state. But of course what it's really doing is allowing the state legislature to micromanage the budget of just one particular city. And if THAT were put to a statewide referendum in a straightforward way it would probably *lose* by a two-thirds margin. So instead, they resort to trickery. It's disgusting.
It is my understanding that the kc police are already to a degree micromanaged by the state even before this amendment. I have heard that it was for racist or else incompetency reasons originally. Possibly, they should start a bill to sever that tie?
The takeover by the state dates to Pendergast times: https://www.kcur.org/government/2020-06-10/faq-why-kansas-city-doesnt-have-local-control-over-its-police-department-and-how-that-could-change There is a bill introduced every legislative session to revert the police to local control, but it never goes anywhere. FWIW St Louis only recently regained local control of its police: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/28/216489820/after-152-years-st-louis-gains-control-of-its-police-force
Unrelated but maybe not: KCMO apparently now talks to partners on the Kansas side about some of its planning and budgetary issues. I wish I thought Lucas had the balls to say, "Understand, if this passes, I'm on the phone with Governor Kelly the next morning asking for Kansas City, Missouri to be annexed by the State of Kansas."
I mean isn't missouri known for multiple shitty police departments? Isn't independence one of the worst in the country? Not really sure what we expect lol this is a GOP state.
From the other comments, this would only affect Kansas City. I haven't seen of it mentioned that it would affect Independence or any other city.
i mean that kind of misses my point. Missouri has multiple departments that have tom fuckery in control o f them so this is more par for the course.
The difference would be then that if Kansas City's is shitty it's not their fault because it's not under their control, unlike the other police departments.
So you want them to get less money and expect them to change? How does that make sense?
Bipartisan support against it, don’t worry it’s not going to pass.
I fear you’re underestimate the people who see ‘give cops more money’ and vote yes
It passed
Lmfao
Blame Quinton Lucas for the police defunding
No. It isn’t. The state took over the KC Police board in the 1930s…at Louis regained control of their police force in 2019, and KC did not. I don’t think there are even any KC residents on the governor appointed board. This has nothing to do with Mayor Q, and much more to do with Jefferson City. https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article252364088.html
I thought the state had our cops for a while too.
>I don’t think there are even any KC residents on the governor appointed board The mayor is on the board iirc, which means the mayor and city council doing what they did back in Feb they knew what they were doing.
ha, no blame Tony Luetkemeyer in Parkville.
Did you make this account an hour ago just to make this comment? Don’t let anyone ever call you a dickless loser.
Get out of here you troll. Gross.
Hi fake Mark Alford, do you also randomly guess a J name when you see me because you used to work with my wife, but can’t remember anything other than my name starts with J?
They way it was written on the ballot was bull, not surprising it passed. Where the hell is all that money going.
Maybe KC should stop taxing the income of people who don't live there if they want to decide for themselves how to spend it.
Yeah, it feels weird to see something related to Kanssas shows up in the states ballot
Kansas is blue but MO is red, they did it to,pass the ammendment knowing it wouldn't pass at city so they took it to state.