by Mari Winn Taylor
Missouri's 114 counties (and one independent city) are taking their time to respond to Secretary of State Jason Kander's announcement of the approval of a statewide recount of Constitutional Amendment 1, announced yesterday, August 26, 2014. The recount of the votes on Amendment 1 at the August 5, 2014 election, at the request of Wes Shoemyer on behalf of Missouri's Food for America and represented by Dan Kleinsorge on behalf of Missouri Farmers Care, was made possible by state law (RSMo 115.601). The law triggers a recount at the request of a registered voter whose position on the ballot question was defeated by less than one half of one percent of the total votes cast. Of 996,672 votes cast on Constitutional Amendment 1, there were 499, 581 "yes" votes and 497,091 "no" votes, with a difference of 0.24 percent.
Local election authorities will determine the date and time for recounts to take place in their respective counties conducted by a bipartisan team of election judges. Kander's office has created a webpage found here to make the process more transparent and accessible to anyone. The page will be updated daily at 3 p.m. Certification as to the totals generated by the recount will be made by the secretary of state's office no later than September 15.
Unfortunately, for those who were confused by the ballot language and on second thought would not vote in favor of the bill, there is no recourse. For a breakdown of the vote, go here.
Do few people read newspaper editorials? The Kansas City Star reported:
"Agriculture in Missouri is a profitable industry. Amendment 1 is a concerted effort to shield factory farms and concentrated agricultural feeding operations from regulations to protect livestock, consumers and the environment. Voters should say no to this unnecessary and potentially harmful proposal."
Arguments were that a vote against the amendment would be free range for the Humane Society of the United States to clog the courts with damaging litigation. What pro-amendment supporters should have realized was that they were giving free range to mega-farming that has driven many small farmers out of business. In the Joplin area readers forgot how potential litigation put a stop to the inhumane practices of Moark in Neosho and forced the company to settle by contributing money for a sorely needed animal shelter.
The moral of the story: Read all points of view. Think before you vote. Sometimes the right answer is not evident.
Comments