The Obtuse Precedence of Missouri

“Rule-following, legal precedence, and political consistency are not more important than right, justice and plain common-sense.” –W. E. B. Du Bois It’s no secret that Missouri is steadily becoming the “Florida” of the Midwest when it comes to politics. I mean, we even have our own version of “Florida man” that makes the news. But to be fair, most of our “Florida” men typically linger in the Missouri House and Senate (when not being appointed to an official state government seat) trying to pass insane legislation, but I digress. All we’re missing is some naturally inhabiting alligators and a big old mouse. And while we look like Florida with an outright Christo fascism movement running amuck and trying to legislate folks out of existence. We also have a constant battle with our lawmakers, ignoring, blocking, and trying to silence outspoken Missourians. We even had a journalist come under political prosecution by the Governor, who makes DeSantis look smart. Of course, that’s not even talking about the small acts of court activism that have been a kind of running rampant since 2019 in our state courts. And while Florida has to deal with a villain that looks like one of Disney's animatronics, who went rogue, and put on a “human” suit. While Missouri lawmakers look more like they took a page out of the script of an Indiana Jones movie and decided its villainy is what a lawmaker should be. However, the one cartoon caricature of a secretary of state is Jay Ashcroft. Aside from being the prime example of Nepotism at its finest. If you’re unfamiliar with the Ashcrofts- Jay’s dad is the former Attorney General under the Bush administration who had the “Spirit of Liberty” covered statues in the DOJ building because of its bare breasts showing. He’s also told the world that Al-Qaeda wasn’t a threat to national security before the 9/11 attack. Needless to say, Jay is a chip off the “old block” when it comes to toeing the party line. His entire tenure as Secretary of State has proven that. But unlike his dad, Jay has more despot tendencies leading to a lawsuit after lawsuit from agencies like the ACLU, because of his gross Constitutional negligence, and trying to keep abortion off the ballot so voters can have a say. But there is one case that sticks out.. Not because it’s a potential initiative, but rather because it essentially sets the stage for timing to get a petition in to start the process of becoming a ballot measure. What folks need to understand is that the ballot initiative has a pretty lengthy process with a very limited time to do it. It takes 51 days just to be processed by the SOS (Secretary of State) before it can go through reviews and be “perfected” or certified, and that’s before collecting signatures. Collecting signatures can’t happen until the day after the election according to the law, and there’s another lengthy process with a small time window to get it certified and put on the ballot. So, it’s kind of a big deal to get your voice heard and on the ballot for voters to express theirs--while racing against the clock. And it even gets harder if the Secretary of State refuses to do their job and wants to complicate things. This is what Ashcroft is all about because he wants to fulfill his political career ambitions to be governor. So this recent case that Ashcroft is trotting around as a “Victory” against the abortion initiatives–it isn't. In fact, the only thing that he claims that's note worthy is the status quo that pretty much let's Jay Ashcroft do whatever he wants and the GOP's bidding - with little to no consequences. But as disappointing as that is, this case also always the general public to see behind the the curtain pe say. And highlights the courts' and Ashcroft's repeat offenses of hindering Missourians from getting their ideas on the ballot, and staying within the existing conditions - that's only encouraging the far right extremism.

The thing about this case is that it argued that there isn't a set time period for when an SoS can start the filing process of a potential ballot petition.. And the argument is right.. There isn’t a state statute or a law that bars the SOS from actually getting the petition filed and ready for the next part of the process. In fact, the only thing the law specifies is the amount of time signatures can be collected and sent to SoS’s office to meet the criteria to get the issue on the ballot as a measure, but that's it.

One could argue that the authors of the Missouri Constitution purposely left the petition filing unrestricted because they understood just how slow the bureaucratic process can be. I mean, if you ever had to deal with a government agency– you learn very quickly that they move about as fast as a molasses drip in the middle of February. So, it’s fair to say that is why that “grey” area exists when it comes to this type of civic engagement. We could also say that the authors probably didn’t foresee a partisan despot with a history of obstructing folks from civic engagement with the state government–getting into that official position, either. What makes this case different, and dare say flirts with the notion of “trail brazing” when compared to previous and current cases; is that it raised an important question that nobody has really asked before about timing. But it also raised a question about changing the current precedent of letting Ashcroft do whatever in the hell he wants to–opposed to Ashcroft be obligated to do his job and work for Missourians everywhere. According to Ashcroft, it's far too unreasonable and unrealistic that he should let Missourians get a small jump on a short time table or do his job that doesn't revolve around his governor campaign... And that brings us to the unwillingness of the court to put an end to the nonsense of the super majority. And one would call it court activism. Folks often seem to be a little taken back by the idea that judges are just as much of a “political” animal as anyone, but they are. In a lot of places, judges are not elected officials, but state appointed. Which means they’re going to be aligned with whichever party’s values as much as possible. Sure, their court case records and levels of professionalism do (or are supposed to) come into play somewhat, but not as much as their willingness to “play ball” with the state. In fact, there was an opinion in the Kansas City Star recently that implied that Parson’s picks for the court will make the court “conservative”. This came as a shock to some folks but if one was actually paying attention to the courts since 2019–One could easily argue that the court is already conservative-leaning and not very good at hiding it either, based on a few of its decisions. But what does court activism look like? Is it outright corruption? Is it favoring one way over another? Well, it’s a mixed bag of things in all honesty. I mean, we see it in the SCOTUS where it runs rampant. Look at the 303 creative decision or even the fall of Roe-implies that it was not a nonpartisan decision. Hence, everyone started digging into the personal lives of the Supreme Court's justices and found a mountain of questionable skeletons. But in Missouri, it’s a little more subtle, as judges still like to pretend they are nonpartisan and apolitical. A really good example of "partisan play" in the courts is the Missouri State Supreme Court’s ethics ruling that essentially protected an old pervert posing as a lawyer from being dragged off to the nearest prosecutor's office and charged with sexual assault. Another prime example goes back to the ACLU’s “Referendum” case back in 2019 and the opinion was basically “Well.. We agree with you that a few of your constitutional rights had been violated… But our hands are tied because that’s in the past…”--all because a judge was salty over another statute surrounding the topic that had been ruled unconstitutional earlier. And with the Basinger case– The judges flat out ignored the “arguments” that the “grey” area of the law existed for a reason, and tied everything back to the signature aspect of the law. Despite the fact, common sense should have told the justices that clearly Ashcroft was playing politics with the courts, and trying to restrict Missourians' ability to get something important on a ballot. Because why change the precedent when it seems to be working so well, right? Well.. I should say it works well for the Mo GOP crazies, but not so much for the rest of us. And it could be also argued that the court’s reluctance to change the status quo and refusal to make our government officials do their job is a dangerous precedence to keep going. As the superseding attitude of the court just opens the door for full-on fascism to creep in. Especially when our government officials clearly don’t care about the constitution– be it state or the US Constitution. Leaving our very last institution that is designed to protect our democracy at the mercy of the wannabe nazis and extremists. Which means we continue to see justice, common sense, and liberties slowly fade into the background, leaving us with nothing but a pile of ash of what once was. And while you might not find reading legal opinions as exciting as reading Hemmingway-(There have been a few that have bored me to tears, I won’t lie) as they’re not meant to be it’s something to watch at the end of the day. Just so you can be aware that we have long swayed out of the political theater and into a completely different and uncharted territory that is a threat to our liberties and promised rights. As always and much love, Jojo