While doing my due diligence for the column “Is a “mob” an example of “Democracy?” appearing elsewhere in this edition, I interviewed District 156 State Representative Brian Seitz about legislation that would help mitigate the impact of what our forefathers called the “tyranny of the majority” on the rural and less populated area of Missouri. Below is the result of that interview, as it pertains specifically to changing the Initiative Petition Process for changing Missouri’s Constitution (MS) to help mitigate the control that very few of the state’s 114 counties have over Missouri’s rural and less populous areas. It is in a Question-and-Answer format with the questions being asked to Representative Seitz (RS) by this reporter for the Branson Globe (BG):
BG: Is there legislation in the Missouri Legislature that will give those living in the rural and less populous area of Missouri a fairer voice in the governing of Missouri?
RS: There is more than one, but the one that comes to mind for this Session is Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) No.74.
BG: What would it do?
RS: Permit qualified voters of Missouri to vote on a constitutional amendment to change how the Missouri State Constitution is changed.
BG: Do you support SJR No. 74 or similar legislation?
RS: Absolutely!
BG: How is the Missouri Constitution changed now?
RS: Once it is on the ballot, Missouri’s Constitution can be changed by a simple majority vote of 50% plus one.
BG: About 60% of Missouri’s voters reside in 10 of its 114 counties. Doesn’t that give them excessive control over statewide actions impacting the other 104 counties?
RS: Yes.
BG: How will legislation like SJR No. 74 change that?
RS: It would still require the 50% plus one vote statewide, but it would also require a majority vote of five out of eight of Missouri’s congressional districts. This would give rural and less populated areas a greater share in deciding whether or not a particular change is appropriate for Missouri’s Constitution.
BG: Why would the elected representatives from those few populous areas that now really control the process want to support this?
RS: In one sense, they wouldn’t, but as far as I am concerned, representing the 156th District, it’s a matter of fairness. We are not a democracy in the United States of America. We are a representative republic. Missouri’s 156th District and other rural and less populous areas should be given a fair chance to determine whether or not we want to change our State Constitution.
BG: So, although the odds might be against it, is the only chance that Missouri’s rural and less populous areas have to get a fairer voice in modifying Missouri’s State Constitution?
RS: Yes, it is.
BG: Does SJR No. 74 also contain some restrictions on who can vote in an election to change Missouri’s Constitution?
RS: Yes. It limits the right to vote on such changes to persons who are “a legal resident of the state of Missouri and a citizen of the United States of America.”
BG: Do you support this restriction?
RS: Yes.
BG: Although SJR 74 didn’t pass this session, will you support it or similar legislation in the future?
RS: As I said before, “Absolutely!
Comments