Constitutional Trickery, Reproductive Rights, and How to Vote for Sanity

 

by Bob Randall

(Editor's Note:  Today the Ramble is featuring another submission by my good friend, Ranger Bob.  The politicians Bob is referring to in this piece are members of the Missouri State Legislature, primarily the close-minded Republicans who control the legislature.  Part of his essay takes aim at some ballot trickery which enabled the legislature to pass a state constitutional amendment that prohibits ranked choice voting in Missouri, probably due in no small measure to the fact that our esteemed legislators aren't smart enough to understand it.  The other part deals with the state legislature's attempt  to get Missouri voters to overturn a constitutional amendment that they passed last year which returned the right to have an abortion to the women of Missouri.  What Ranger Bob has to say is, as always, important.  Read it and feel free to get good and mad - like I am!  -  Pa Rock)

Damn the politicians!  Full speed ahead!

Nothing new here, but plenty to see.  Our politicians are at it again.  Once they realized that the devil was in the details, they've been making deviled eggs look like legislation, or maybe the other way around.  Last year they deceptively wrote a proposal for a state constitutional amendment (legislatively referred amendment) with two issues.  Knowing that most of the electorate won't read the details or get past the first issue, they put the uncontroversial first.  It was uncontroversial as it was already the law, it solved nothing but sounded agreeable to most people.   It was a throwaway issue about voting rights that was there just to trick the slackers who won't bother to understand the proposal before they vote.   It was the metaphorical large print.  The important part was in the metaphorical small print listed next.  The issue was to prohibit ranked choice voting.  Most of us didn't read that, we just marked the yes oval.   Most of us don't even know what ranked choice voting is and don't even know that we were manipulated.  Let me cover that later.

Well, if they can get away with tricky wording, why not do it again, but this time with a different issue?  It's abortion this time.   In 2024 the Missouri electorate through an initiative process passed a constitutional amendment reinstating and protecting reproductive rights.   Now, the legislature is saying that the amendment was poorly worded and the electorate didn't understand what they voted for.  They have rewritten it so that the wording is clear and we can all vote again.   They say this clear wording will "protect the health of mothers and babies."   Who wouldn't vote for that?   If they lead with wording like that and can get it on the ballot, most people will read no further and mark yes.  It will override what we voted on last year and it will be in the constitution.  Of course, they will leave out the part about rights to reproductive freedom.  Before I leave this paragraph, let me try to put it all together.  It's description.  The legislature is using the legislatively referred amendment process (which they initiate) to overturn an amendment which was brought forward through the public initiative amendment process.   It doesn't stop there, because their next task will be to change the public initiative amendment process.   That's their plan.  Rewrite the constitution, deceive the electorate, fix it so we can't change it back.

I started this post months ago.  Now it is July and here is the update.  It will be on the ballot November 2026, or sooner if there is a special election.

So what is ranked choice voting (RCV)?  The ranked choice voting system would eliminate the primary system which requires (or encourages) the candidates to out-radical each other.  The dems go further left while the repubs go further right of their rivals.  We end up with radicals as candidates and ultimately get extreme incumbents.

Ranked choice voting has some moving parts, so follow this closely.   The Campaign Legal Center says:  

"RCV is a process that allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference.  Consider a race where four candidates - A,B,C, and D - are running for a single seat such as Governor.  In an election utilizing RCV, voters simply rank the candidates 1-4, with the candidate ranked as "1" being the voter's highest preference for Governor.   If a candidate is the first choice of more than half the voters, that candidate wins the election.   But if no candidate gets the majority of the vote, the candidate with the least amount of the vote is eliminated, the second choice support for that candidate is redistributed, and the process continues until a candidate wins more than half the vote."

This is me talking again.  RCV allows a moderate to have a shot at winning.  What chance does a moderate have of winning a primary in either of our political parties?   Almost none.  Maybe you don't want a moderate?  OK, the radicals of the other party want to run against your radical.  They sure don't want to run against your moderate.   The Missouri Republicans who wrote and promoted the amendment that this started with didn't want to run against moderates because they were afraid they would lose some of their power.   It really works that way on both sides.  Moderates lose the primaries and we end up with the choice of voting for a flaming progressive or a flaming MAGA candidate.  I would like to vote for candidates without holding my nose when I mark my ballot.  For those who want their candidates to go further left or right, I add eventually you will go too far.   I ask if you would prefer to hold your nose while voting for a moderate and win, or take a chance of having the kookie extremist win.