• Introduction
• Full Text
• Background
• Arguments
• Conclusion

Introduction

Amendment 2 is probably going to be the strangest of the measures on the ballot come August. This measure only applies to Jackson County’s process for picking their assessor, and I think the regional component makes it hard to find a solid position on Missouri-wide. Compared to the others, I have not seen consistent support or opposition to this measure based on political party. Let’s take a look at the full text, give some background on how Jackson County feels about this measure, and ultimately support my position that you should vote ‘YES’ on this amendment.

Full Text

Here is the official ballot language1:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• require all charter counties, including Jackson County, to provide for the election of a county assessor; and

• require assessors in all charter counties to comply with any training requirements established by general law?

State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Here is the provided fair language2 that tries to explain what voting yes or no will actually do:

*** Fair Ballot Language:*** 

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that all charter counties, including Jackson County, elect a county assessor and that such assessors comply with training requirements established by state law.

A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions, which exempt Jackson County from the requirement to elect its assessor and do not require charter county assessors to follow training requirements under general law.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.”

Background

As can be seen from the text above, every county with the exception of Jackson County is legally required to elect their assessor. Here is what it actually looks like directly in the constitution currently³:

VI Section 18(b).  **Provisions required in county charters — exception. — **The charter shall provide for its amendment, for the form of the county government, the number, kinds, manner of selection, terms of office and salaries of the county officers, and for the exercise of all powers and duties of counties and county officers prescribed by the constitution and laws of the state; however, such charter shall, except for the charter of any county with a charter form of government and with more than six hundred thousand but fewer than seven hundred thousand inhabitants, require the assessor of the county to be an elected officer.

Note that Jackson County is not mentioned by name, it just happens to be the only county with a population between 600,000 and 700,000. What this means is that unlike all the other counties, Jackson County is not required to by Missouri law to elect their assessor, and they currently do not.

However, having an appointed assessor has caused some problems⁴ for the region lately. After significant issues involving increases in assessed property values, the region ultimately decided to pass local legislation⁵ requiring the position of assessor to be an elected one. While ultimately it does not seem that passing this amendment at the state level is necessary, I am of the opinion that it helps simplify the language in the constitution and puts the counties on more equal footing.

Arguments

Here are the arguments that I have in favor of voting ‘YES’ on this amendment:

1. The constitutional carve-out on population is bizarre. Why 600,000 to 700,000? Why not 500,000 to 600,000 instead? Without doing more research on this, I could not really come up with a good reason why these numbers were chosen, except to possibly intentionally exempt Jackson County. Removing this exemption cleans up the language.

2. Residents already voted for it. How often do ballot measures get over 90% approval⁶? Although the word ‘mandate’ has been used a lot over the past few years to describe things that are way more evenly split, this is definitely in the realm of what I would call a true mandate.

In contrast, here are two possible arguments against this amendment:

1. This takes away power from the local government and puts it in the hands of Missouri residents who have no stake in the game. This is an argument that I would consider in other situations, but not in this one because of the overwhelming support of a similar local measure.

2. While the measure passed, voter turnout was not high enough to truly reflect the will of the voters. While I can again understand this thinking, it adds an unnecessary caveat on all elections. What should the necessary turnout be for an election for its results to be considered valid? How much does it depend on what the question is? For reference, the special election had a turnout of around 15%. Just this year, the municipal election in Jefferson County⁷ had a turnout of about 14%. Should that election’s results be considered invalid because not enough came out to vote?

Conclusion

I firmly believe this amendment is a ‘YES’. While there seems to be some common objections to it, I think voting yes is not only supportive of the will of Jackson County voters, but it correctly adjusts the constitution language to be more equitable.

Official Recommendation: YES

References

1. https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/HCSHJR23and3WebCert.pdf ↩

2. https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2026BallotMeasures ↩

3. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=VI%20%2018(b)&constit=y&bid=31948 ↩

4. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article305486651.html