Kansas City to Voters – You have no right to decide
August 16, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
It the state of MO, like other states with large cities, St. Louis & Kansas City both have local earnings taxes. Meaning, in St. Louis at least, by merely working inside the city limits of St. Louis, you have an additional 1% income tax.
Enter the voter initiative (whole thing here via ):
…Proposition A wouldn’t repeal the tax, but it would give residents in the two cities a chance to vote every five years starting in 2011 on whether to continue the tax. If voters approved a repeal of the tax, it would be phased out over 10 years, at one-tenth of a percent each year.
The measure also bans any other cities from enacting an earnings tax….
Seems pretty benign, though I’m sure legal challenges will surface if Prop A passes…. assuming of course Missourians are allowed to vote at all.
Enter Kansas City government with union backing:
KANSAS CITY (AP) — Kansas City’s city attorney has filed a lawsuit seeking to block a November ballot measure that would allow residents of Kansas City and St. Louis decide whether to keep their cities’ earnings tax….
A group called Let Voters Decide submitted the ballot measure after the petition drive. The suit was filed on behalf of acting Kansas City city manager Troy Schulte and Pat Dujakovich, president of the Greater Kansas City AFL-CIO, both as private citizens….
What’s their main complaint?
…The lawsuit argues that the required elections would cost both St. Louis and Kansas City about $500,000, and neither city would be compensated for the cost.
According to the suit, Proposition A “becomes a de facto appropriation by voters statewide on Kansas City funds for the purpose of this (local) election.”…
But…
…Let Voters Decide spokesman Marc Ellinger said the measure wouldn’t require either city to pay for a local election if they just wanted to skip the vote and let the tax phase out automatically….
Please don’t get me wrong here, Kansas City might have a good legal basis for their arguments, but I’m unsure we should be living in a government which chooses to sue the state in order to specifically prevent voters from casting their ballots.
Maybe I’m off here, but I always thought for a law to be challenged it had to exist first, then harm would have to exist to give any client standing.
Of course don’t tell that to the President or Arizona either, but I’m digressing.
The point is only that when the government seeks to actively prevent your voice from being heard through ballot initiatives, people should be concerned.
Categories: Critical Thinking, Judicial System, Legislation, Political Philosophy
| 
Tags: Judicial System, Kansas City, Legislation, Missouri, Political Philosophy, Taxes
|
No Comments
