From Missouri Voter Jason:
Here are my thoughts about the proposed constitutional amendments.
#1. “Right to Farm.” The language is so broad that it is, to me, meaningless. There are statutes on the books (Section 537.295 of the Missouri Revised Statutes) that address the issue of “nuisance suits” that seem to be the core argument in favor of the amendment. I’m leaning against the amendment, but am open to argument in favor.
#5 “Unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” While I think the language of this amendment has been poorly drafted, it aims to solidify the right to keep and bear arms and removes an impediment to concealed carry. I favor the amendment.
#7 “Increase Sales and Use Tax for Transportation.” I am opposed to this tax increase. I’m taxed enough already. More philosophically, I question whether sales tax should be used for transportation expenditures. I generally prefer charging service users, and a fuel or tire or other ratable tax more directly associates the funding source with the expenditure purpose. (The advent of hybrid and electric vehicles, however, foils the purpose of the gasoline tax in making road users pay for roads; so, another (fair) way of apportioning the cost of roads to users needs to be developed.) If more money is needed for roads (and I must be persuaded of the need), then a roads-related tax needs to be proposed. I am opposed to using road-related funds for mass transit projects, aviation, ports, and the other transporation systems that would be funded by the proposed sales and use tax amendment. Again, philosophically, I would generate funding for these type projects from the users of those modes of transporation.
#8. “Veterans Lottery Ticket.” I am opposed to the state operating a lottery, so the specification of a particular kind of lottery ticket to fund the state veterans homes, etc., is not something I support. I believe these expenditures should be covered by everyone in the state (which means sales and/or income tax sources), not just those who gamble.
#9. “Security of Electronic Communications and Data.” I support the amendment to include “electronic communications and data” in the list of protections against unreasonable search or seizure. This amendment, incidentally, is consistent with the recent US Supreme Court ruling (Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie) that held a warrant was required before a cell phone could be searched by the authorities. This ruling essentially extends Fourth Amendment (US Constitution) protections to at least some forms of electronic communications and data. Amending the Missouri constitution to explicitly include electronic communications and data brings the state constitution into the modern world where we have not only papers and effects that are safe from warrantless search, but electronic information as well.