Why? Because they said so
By NewsPress Now
On Nov. 5, Missouri voters weigh in on the race for the White House and determine the fate of ballot measures on abortion, sports gambling and the minimum wage.
These high-profile issues will dominate the last nine weeks of the election cycle and drive record-high turnout. By contrast, Amendment 6 will likely fly under the radar. However, this proposed constitutional amendment, described as a common-sense measure involving law enforcement retirement benefits, deserves more than a free pass.
The Missouri Supreme Court, in 2021, struck down a 1983 law that allowed courts in every county to assess a $3 fee on civil and criminal cases and deposit the money into the sheriff’s retirement system. In a case involving two Kansas City men who objected to the $3 tacked on to a $230 speeding ticket, the high court ruled that this fee sounded more like executive compensation for retired sheriffs than the administration of justice.
The Missouri Legislature responded with a constitutional amendment to specify that the administration of justice shall include costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for sheriffs and retired sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys and former prosecuting attorneys and circuit judges and former circuit judges.
Amendment 6, if passed, could clear up any legal ambiguity and allow the state to assess the $3 surcharge that goes into the sheriff’s retirement fund.
The Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System reported an $800,000 decrease in its balance this year on $38 million in assets. Active deputies contribute 5% of their salaries for retirement, but the state still needed to make a $2.5 million infusion this year to help stabilize the fund.
From the sheriff’s perspective, there is a need for more. The general public may prefer shaking the money from those charged with crimes or infractions as opposed to taxpayer funds that could go to other purposes.
But that doesn’t change the strange feeling that this constitutional amendment, as written, carries all of the logic of a parent answering a child’s question of “why” with the lazy response of “because I said so.”
The Supreme Court ruling was not unreasonable or without logic. A retired deputy doesn’t have anything to do with pulling someone over, writing the ticket or administrating the case. The court found that the fee violated a provision in the State Constitution that justice be administered “without sale.” It compared the court fee to a $4 surcharge, previously ruled unconstitutional, that was used to pay county officials for attending training programs.
That training fee was more egregious and didn’t merit a constitutional carve-out, but the sheriff’s retirement fund gets its chance on Nov. 5. But before voters head to the polls, they deserve an answer to one question amid all the other noise in this general election.
If the need is so great, how does this $3 fee not create a perverse incentive to start writing as many tickets as possible to fund retirement?
