Having dissected Missouri’s three ballot measures, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recommends that voters throw their weight behind Amendment 2, known as New Approach Missouri.
Stating that the devil is in the details, all three measures are different, are in direct competition with each another, and will test the limits of voters’ patience with their complexity, noted the editorial.
Voters can support one, two or all three measures. If more than one of them gets 50 percent support, the amendments supersede the proposition, with the highest vote-getting amendment superseding the other.
Why is Amendment 2 superior?
“The first issue isn’t about marijuana, but our Legislature — which has a history of arrogantly reversing ballot propositions voters pass but that legislators don’t like. If voters legalize medical marijuana via Prop C, lawmakers could reverse it because it’s a mere statutory change. But both amendments would legalize it by changing the state constitution, tying legislators’ hands.”
The major regional newspaper in St. Louis, largest in Missouri, and winner of 18 Pulitzer Prizes, continued.
“Between Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, we prefer the earmarked use of the money in Amendment 2, which will go for veteran health services, a tangible benefit to the state. Amendment 3 would use its proceeds to create and fund a cancer research institute — a goal no one would denigrate, but one that shouldn’t take precedence over Missourians’ more immediate needs.”
The Post-Dispatch pointed out that lawyer and physician Brad Bradshaw, who promoted and primarily funded the effort to get Amendment 3 on the ballot, is the same person who would be in charge of the cancer institute and therefore personally appoint the board that would regulate the medical marijuana.
“That would hand over to a non-elected private citizen enormous power over public policy and substantial tax revenue. The unusual sight of an individual’s name in the language of a ballot referendum should, in itself, give pause.”
