Missourians approve Prop C, the Health Care Freedom Act

by Jessica Machetta on August 3, 2010

in Uncategorized

Proposition C, also known as the Health Care Freedom Act, has been approved by Missouri voters.

Prop C was placed on the ballot as a referendum after being passed by the Missouri Legislature and authorizes Missourians to opt out of the federal healthcare plan passed by Congress earlier this year.

With 2,681 of 3,354 precincts reporting, 72.7 percent of Missouri voters approved the measure.

“Tonight is a historic night,” said Lt. Governor Peter Kinder. “Missourians have the distinction of being the first Americans to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health care takeover. From Massachusetts to Virginia to Missouri, voters are rejecting the extreme liberal agenda being forced upon our nation by an out-of-control federal government.”

Kinder has filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Missouri, claiming the federal healthcare plan is unconstitutional.

Clearly the measure is split down party lines.

Kinder is the only Republican to hold statewide office. Democrats Gov. Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster did not support the move.

Sen. Jane Cunningham, a Republican, fostered the bill through the Missouri Senate.

“Missourians have sent Washington a clear message: stay out of our health care decisions,” she said. “For more than a year, Americans have taken to the streets to protest the federal government’s irresponsible agenda. Washington liberals didn’t listen when they rammed through Congress their reckless health care bill — but they can’t help but hear us now.”

Cunningham noted that Prop C does present a conflict with federal law and the case will likey come down to a decision by the Supreme Court.

She also noted that Prop C does not prevent Missourians from participating in the federal healthcare system, it simply gives them a choice.

Four other states will vote on a similar measure in upcoming primaries.

via Missourians approve Prop C, the Health Care Freedom Act.

We want to thank all those amazing organizations who have helped Missouri break free from the shackles of the federal government on this issue.  We realize that with the passage of this issue, the fight is not truly over.  However, today we won a major battle and have told the federal government to back off.

Missouri to Vote on Health Law
By KEVIN SACK
Published: July 31, 2010

ST. CHARLES, Mo. — For all its symbolic import, the first plebiscite on the Obama health care law, to be held Tuesday in Missouri, seems likely to be a low-turnout affair among an electorate dominated by Republican primary voters and conservative activists.

State Senators Jim Lembke and Jane Cunningham watching a commercial for Proposition C at a fund-raiser last week.

Missouri is the first of at least three states with ballot measures this year aimed at nullifying the federal health care law by invalidating its keystone provision, the requirement that most people obtain insurance or pay a tax penalty. A recent statewide poll in Missouri found that not even likely Democratic voters could muster a majority against the proposition.

The referendum on the measure, known as Proposition C, is seen as an organizational test for the Tea Party and like-minded conservatives in a swing state that President Obama lost narrowly in 2008 and that has since moved measurably away from him.

But the campaign has been a low-key affair, with no television advertising, debates or celebrity Facebook endorsements. Leading Democrats, from Mr. Obama to Gov. Jay Nixon, have kept their distance, seeing little to be gained by contesting what strategists dismiss as a Republican straw poll with a foregone conclusion.

The most competitive elections in Tuesday’s primary are on the Republican side, meaning turnout should be higher among those with natural sympathies for Proposition C. There are 291 Republicans competing for state and federal office, compared with 208 Democrats.

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, who is herself expected to coast to the Democratic nomination for United States Senate, predicted that only 24 percent of voters would turn out.

Of 20 Missourians interviewed at random in St. Louis last week, only five knew that there was a primary on Tuesday, much less a referendum on the health care law.

“Really, there is?” said Jeff R. Swaney, 53, a lawyer from Chesterfield, a St. Louis suburb. “I wasn’t even aware it was on the ballot. I haven’t seen any commercials.”

Supporters of Proposition C are hoping for a substantial victory that will convey a message of discontent with expansive federal government and rally other states and candidates to press the issue through the fall campaign.

“This is a throw-down by the states, saying, ‘Not in our state, you don’t,’ ” State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican, said at a rally for the proposition here on Wednesday. “This health care thing is just a vehicle, a vehicle for the debate about what is the role of the federal government and what is the role of the states.”

No grass-roots organization has formed to oppose the measure, and the unions and consumer groups that lobbied for the federal health care law have steered clear. Mr. Obama did not take time to denounce Proposition C when he visited Missouri in early June.

“The proposition will have no legal standing, so I don’t know why there’d be a reason to focus on it,” said Brian B. Zuzenak, executive director of the Missouri Democratic Party. “From the beginning, we’ve said it’s meaningless and unconstitutional. At best, it’s a ploy by the Republicans to get their base excited.”

Comparable measures have already been enacted by legislatures in five states — Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia — according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that is pushing the initiatives. Arizona and Oklahoma are scheduled to vote in the November general election on state constitutional amendments to nullify the insurance requirement. A judge in Florida tossed a similar constitutional amendment off that state’s ballot last week, sayings its language was too overtly political.

The nullification laws are expected to have little immediate practical impact, because the insurance requirement does not take effect until 2014. And by then, the federal courts are likely to have had much to say about whether the new health care law is constitutional, and thus beyond the reach of state efforts to invalidate it.

Elected officials in 22 states, almost all Republicans, have filed lawsuits challenging the so-called individual insurance mandate. Among them, Virginia has made a direct claim that the federal law conflicts with its own 2010 statute, which asserts that residents of the commonwealth cannot be compelled to obtain health insurance.

The most recent lawsuit was filed individually by Missouri’s lieutenant governor, Peter D. Kinder, a Republican who acted without the support of Governor Nixon.

In the Missouri referendum, voters will be asked whether state law — not the State Constitution — should be amended to “deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.”

In May, Republican legislators, who control both houses, cut a deal with Democrats to put the question on the ballot. The Democrats agreed not to filibuster if the referendum was held during the August primary rather than the November general election, said State Senator Jane Cunningham, a Republican who sponsored the bill. With an open seat for the Senate on the line, the Democrats did not want to encourage heavy turnout among conservatives in November.

The legislation passed each chamber comfortably, winning a number of Democratic votes. By addressing the issue as a statutory ballot measure, the lawmakers managed to bypass Mr. Nixon, whose signature would otherwise be needed.

A spokesman for Mr. Nixon declined to reveal how the governor would vote on the referendum. The governor acknowledges that the health care law is not popular in his state, but has said he will work to maximize its benefits for Missouri. “This isn’t about protest,” he said recently. “It’s about progress.”

Support for the proposition is being rallied by Missourians for Health Care Freedom, which formed as an outgrowth of the legislative debate. The group raised $75,000 as of July 24, enough for radio advertising, yard signs and get-out-the-vote telephone banks, but not enough for television commercials.

“Do you think Washington knows what’s best for you and your family?” asks the group’s radio ad, which is playing on Christian and conservative talk stations.

The referendum is supported by the Missouri State Medical Association. The only organized opposition — beyond a Facebook page — has been mounted by the Missouri Hospital Association, which has spent more than $400,000 to send mailings to hundreds of thousands of homes, according to financial disclosure reports. The brochures warn that approval of Proposition C could burden hospitals, and their insured patients, with the cost of uncompensated care for people without health coverage.

“There’s an argument that a vote for Proposition C is a vote in support of freeloaders,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the hospital association.

Mr. Dillon said there was no corresponding get-out-the-vote operation.

“I don’t even have someone I can direct people to,” he said. “There really isn’t an organized opposition. Frankly, we don’t want it perceived that we’re opposing it. But we certainly want people to understand that their choice has some implications.”
A version of this article appeared in print on August 1, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition.

There is an election next Tuesday, August 3rd.  On that ballot you will find Proposition C, the Health Care Freedom Act which was passed in the last legislative session by a bipartisan, super majority vote of the House and Senate.

Proposition C provides Missourians a voice in the future of their own health care.

A “Yes” vote on Proposition C preserves your present right to keep your own health insurance plan or choose any other private plan or no plan without being penalized for that choice.  It also allows Missourians to select the federal government designed and approved insurance plan.

A “No” vote on Proposition C would limit Missourians to only a government designed and approved plan.

The ballot language reads:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

*”Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.

*Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?”

The entire language of the two page bill may be found at the following link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/truly/HB1764T.HTM.  It simply states that government may not, “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.”  It does not require that the state opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including the federally designed plan.

If Proposition C passes on August 3rd, it will become a Missouri statute.

Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on this issue.  It is a very important election.  Many people around the country will be watching for the Show-Me State election results.

For even more information, check out this website:  http://www.mohealthfreedom.org/

The Liberty Restoration Project held a counter protest/rally in SUPPORT of Prop C yesterday on the Plaza in Kansas City.  There was a rally AGAINST Prop C at the same time, same place as well.  We had well over 30 people come out in support of Prop C, handed out fliers educating the public on the issue, and urging voters to vote YES on Tuesday, August 3.  We had a great amount of positive feedback from passersby.  Many honked their horns and gave us the thumbs up!!  Below are photos and a video from yesterdays rally:

Yes On Prop C: What You Won't Read In the Kansas City Star

July 28, 2010 10:40 PM

By Jane Cunningham

(The following is a rejected submission to the Kansas City Star)

I encourage your readers to vote yes on Proposition C, The Health Care Freedom Act, on August 3. It is a critical election since Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on Obamacare. Many around the country will be watching the election results from the Show-Me State.

In response to your July 23 editorial on Proposition C, my first reaction as the sponsor of the bill was, had you bothered to check with its sponsors you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of bold face inaccuracies.

The language of the measure simply states that the government may not “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.” It does not require the state to opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including any federally designed and approved plan. It would only keep them from being penalized, including criminally, for exercising their choices regarding healthcare.

The Health Care Freedom Act passed the Missouri Legislature with an overwhelming, bipartisan, supermajority vote of the House and the Senate with 68% of elected Representatives and Senators supporting the measure. Legislators in 42 States, or 84% of the states in the union, introduced similar measures in a push back of historic proportions against the intrusive overreach of the federal government in the area of health care.

If the Health Care Freedom Act is ratified by a majority of the voters on August 3, it will become a statute that will authorize Missouri’s Attorney General to defend Missourians against the mandates and penalties of Obamacare. Unlike you, that is hardly what I would call “futile.”

Eventually, the Missouri law, joined with similar laws and constitutional amendments from other states, will work its way to the US Supreme Court for a decision that has never been made in the history of America – is the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution so broad that the federal government can force individuals and employers to purchase a product — any product — with their own money against their will. Many constitutional attorneys and scholars believe that it is not. If the Kansas City Star believes that is a “futile” question to have addressed, perhaps you need to review the historical account of the Boston Tea Party with the resulting revolution and sacrifice that was made to protect similar rights.

With regard to your prediction that premiums would be reduced under the federal law, we need look no further than Massachusetts where a similar program to the federal mandate law has been tried. The results: premiums rose 40% and uninsured visits to the emergency rooms remained the same or rose slightly.

You stated that Proposition C was “instigated by an advocacy group amply funded by health insurers and drug companies.” This is just flat untrue! Had you done your homework by checking the Missouri Ethics Commission financial reports where all donations are required to be disclosed, you would have seen that no donations to the campaign committee, Missourians for Health Care Freedom, came from insurance or drug companies. I will accept your public apology for this misrepresentation of our effort on behalf of hundreds of citizens who flooded the Capitol urging relief from the federal takeover. This is the people’s bill and the people’s campaign from the bottom up.

Contrary to your statement about the ballots, Proposition C cost nothing to add to an already available ballot. Had you bothered to check the publicly available fiscal note on the bill from the Capitol Fiscal Oversight Office, you would have seen that a nonpartisan review showed a fiscal note of zero. Fiscal notes are required of all legislation that is considered in the House or Senate.

How you conclude that this will increase legal costs I don’t know since the Attorney General’s office is responsible for defending Missouri Statutes. That budget item remains the same no matter how many or how few state cases the office tries.

And, by the way, there is precedent for state laws to trump federal law contrary to your assertion.

I hope you will check your facts first for future recommendations, but perhaps there was never an intention for facts to interfere with your viewpoint.

It really boils down to whether you want government to make your health care choices or you want to make them yourself. If you want to make them yourself, you should vote yes on Proposition C.

via Yes On Prop C: What You Won’t Read In the Kansas City Star.

Vote “YES” on Prop C Rally – The Plaza

Today · 5:00pm – 6:30pm

Location Across from the Fountain at the Kansas City Plaza

47th and JC Nichols Parkway

Kansas City, MO

There is a rally for Vote “NO” on Prop C in the same location, we will be across the street. They're spreading misinformation about the bill and we need to educate people on the TRUTH!

Vote “YES!” on Prop C – August 3rd

via Facebook | Vote “YES” on Prop C Rally – The Plaza.

KANSAS CITY, MO. – People pushing for a proposed law banning red-light cameras in Missouri rallied for support in Kansas City Saturday. A red light camera ban already has passed the state senate.

There are 29 red light cameras across Kansas City. And every time one of them flashes a photo, a vehicle owner gets a $100 ticket in the mail. The city claims the cameras have made intersections safer, citing police statistics showing a drop in the number of accidents at these locations.

“It is a proven program, that it works, the police are very supportive of it,” said Steve Glorioso, former aide to the mayor. “It frees up officers to fight crime, violent crime, burglary, etc. And yet, it allows the city a way and the police a way to cut down on people violating our traffic laws.”

But a group calling itself The Liberty Restoration Project said red-light cameras are all about seeing green for municipalities and vendors that sell them. Supporters of a red-light camera ban say there more effective ways to make intersections safer that don’t cost drivers a dime.

“If you extend the yellow light times by one second, it reduces accidents by 70 to 80 percent,” said Tracy Ward, protester. “All red, which means all the streetlights are red for an extra half a second also increases safety in intersections, it doesn’t cost taxpayers any extra money.”

The state transportation bill currently includes a prohibition on photo red light enforcement systems. Supporters believe there’s a good chance lawmakers will pass it, and then it will be up to the governor.

This is the first in a series of open letters to Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser on behalf of the Missouri Citizens who support The Liberty Restoration Project.

We, The Liberty Restoration Project, have been public in our opposition to the red light photo-enforcement systems since January of 2009. We hold the belief that photo-enforcement systems are installed and implemented in conflict with Missouri State Law and we support the proposed state legislation, which would specifically ban the use of any photo enforcement against citizens of Missouri or citizens of any other state who operate vehicles in Missouri. We believe these systems encourage corruption, fuel and promote negative attitudes towards government and law enforcement, and abuse the rights of citizens. We also stand firmly on the belief that photo enforcement systems are not implemented for safety, but for a revenue source through force and coercion. While we recognize photo-enforcement systems are not unique to Kansas City in the state of Missouri, our organization is based in and receives the most support from the Kansas City area and its surrounding communities and, therefore, we ask you, Mayor Funkhouser, to publicly respond to the following:

1. There are several proven actions that can be implemented for little or no cost at all that reduce red light running and improve the safety of intersections.

Extending yellow light times by a minimum of 1 second
Adding a brief “all red” signal in the cycle stopping traffic in all directions
Increasing the size of stoplights
Clearing unnecessary obstructions that affect a driver’s view of either stoplights or traffic
Synchronizing stoplights to allow a more fluid flow of traffic and adjusting timing to allow sufficient time for vehicles making left turns
Painting chevrons on the surface of the road leading into intersections, which visually tricks drivers into slowing down and leaving larger gaps between vehicles

Why were none of these actions undertaken by the city before the implementation of the photo enforcement systems?

2. In reference to the intersections on 71 Highway, history has shown these intersections are not only dangerous for vehicles but also for pedestrians. A choice was made during the design/construction of this highway to include the three intersections instead of overpasses with pedestrian walkways. These three intersections are the primary source of traffic congestion and stoppages, which unfortunately promotes frustration and unsafe driving behaviors as drivers attempt to avoid stopping. Traffic congestion and stoppages decrease the air quality of the urban core as drivers sit through multiple stoplight cycles at each intersection during their commute.

Do you, Mayor Funkhouser, publicly support the decision that was made during the construction of 71 Highway to include stoplights at 55th St., 59th St. and Gregory Blvd?

Would you, Mayor Funkhouser, support changing the aforementioned intersections to overpasses?

3. The selection of intersections for photo-enforcement is quite suspect. Nearly every intersection has a higher complexity of infrastructure and design than most standard intersections including highway on and off ramps, is part of a highly traveled commuter router or both, and in the case of 71 and 152 Highways, higher rates of speed approaching the stoplights. There is notably a lack of photo-enforced intersections in neighborhoods of higher affluence, i.e. Ward Parkway, Brookside Boulevard, Briarcliff or 64th Street north of the river.

Do you, Mayor Funkhouser, agree with our opinion that the photo-enforced intersections appear to be purposefully placed in fundamentally flawed intersections and in areas of lesser affluence to increase the volume of tickets while reducing the amount of challenges in court?

4. We have seen in the past few months of 2010, statistics published and quoted by city officials regarding the perceived increase in safety since the implementation of the photo-enforcement systems. However, no or very little data accompanies those statistics regarding how the data was collected, analyzed and how it was compared. For example, stating that a 20% drop in accidents occurred at a certain intersection because accident data for 2008 was 5 accidents and in 2009 was 4 accidents is not a statistically sound or accurate representation of what actually took place over those two years. What was the definition of an accident? Did the definition change between 2008 and 2009? What was the traffic volume? What is the ratio of accidents to volume of traffic? Were there extenuating circumstances in either year such as construction, weather or other factors that changed normal operating circumstances of these intersections? Who collected the data? How was the data collected? If in 2008, 200,000 vehicles passed through the intersection with only 5 accidents while in 2009 traffic was reduced and 100,000 vehicles passed through with 4 accidents, the 20% improvement goes away. You see Mayor Funkhouser, just a simple comparison of one year to another does not provide an accurate picture of whether or not photo enforcement systems are actually working.

In an effort to achieve more transparency and in keeping with the trust placed in your elected leadership by the citizens and voters of Kansas City to not mislead or misrepresent them, will you, Mayor Funkhouser publicly release the details of how and by whom the data was collected for the statistics city officials and area media outlets are using?

5. The most recently released monetary statistics state that the city has collected over $5 million dollars from citations mailed to homes of individuals listed as the owner of a vehicle that was photographed despite the fact there in no proof the owner was operating the vehicle. City officials have claimed that these systems are installed for “safety” purposes only. During testimony on March 17 of 2010 in the Missouri Senate Transportation Committee, individuals testifying in favor of photo enforcement on numerous times indicated that these systems both cost more to lease and operate than hiring human officers and also admitted the removal of such systems would cost municipalities large amounts of revenue. We at the Liberty Restoration Project and the citizens we represent believe that by leasing the camera systems from a private company encourages both the leaser and the lessee to engage in corrupt behavior to maintain the systems.

Mayor Funkhouser, if Kansas City’s one and only intention is safety, then why are the photo- enforcement systems leased from a company in Arizona and not purchased? If the intention is only safety, we feel that 100%of the profits collected from these systems should be donated to charities in the communities where the photo-enforced intersections are located. Could you share specifically what the profits from photo enforcement are used to fund?

6. Through our own observation of photo-enforced intersections, citizen testimony and actions taken by Kansas City to temporarily shut down photo enforced intersections due to errors, we have concluded the accuracy and reliability of the leased photo enforcement systems is not consistent with how they are being represented to the citizens of Kansas City by city officials and most media outlets. In addition to the accuracy concerns, we have greater concerns regarding the privacy policies of both the company in Arizona that operates the cameras and the company in Ohio that collects the money from citations. Kansas City is essentially selling the personal information of Missouri citizens for a profit to out of state companies.

What are the privacy policies for American Traffic Solutions and the collection agency in Ohio?

What are these companies authorized to do with the personal information provided to them?

Do these companies run background checks before hiring their employees?

It is our belief that citizens in both Kansas City and Missouri have not been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the issue of photo-enforcement. In our research we have found that when photo-enforcement systems are put to a popular vote, they are defeated every time. In response to the concerns we have raised in this letter, we are requesting an immediate meeting to gain answers to our questions. As a matter of transparency, and public disclosure, we will record the meeting, in order to provide the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri and neighboring states with a more complete analysis on the issue of photo-enforcement. Such due diligence is both necessary, and required, in order provide the best service, while protecting civil liberties, for our citizenry.

In defense of the principles our Republic was founded upon,

The Liberty Restoration Project
P.O. Box 413953
Kansas City, MO 64141
816-213-1923

This is a posting of local events and issues coming up in the next week that Liberty Restoration Project will be involved with:

Tuesday, May 4th
We will be in Jefferson City for the CODE BLUE HEALTH CARE FREEDOM ACT RALLY
Show Me State Sovereignty
Code Blue Rally
When: Tuesday, May 4, 10:00 a.m.
Where: Missouri State Capitol – Senate Gallery
Why: We must show up in huge numbers so Senators know we mean business. “We the People” want a ballot option to protect our families from federal health control. (Wear Red)

Rally at noon in the first floor rotunda!

Hear from the sponsors of the resolutions and leaders of the Missouri Sovereignty effort in the Missouri General Assembly – Sen. Jane Cunningham, Rep. Tim Jones, Sen. Jim Lembke, Rep. Brian Nieves and others.

They have set up a fun activity before the rally if you’re interested:
9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. – Join in the Rolling Tea Party circling the Capitol. Decorate your car with balloons, flags, writing on the glass – however creative or not creative you want to be. We are alerting the press and the members of the General Assembly to step out of the Capitol at that time and watch the patriots as they circle the Capitol in support of the Health Care Freedom Act.
At 9:55 a.m., honk your car horn for two minutes.
Drivers should then drop off your passengers so they can go in and find seats in the Senate Gallery. They can save a seat for the driver so the driver can join them after the car is parked.

Wednesday, May 5th
SUPPORT Urban Farming
Kansas City City Hall, 26th Floor
1:30pm

A lovely message from BADSEED:

This is crazy Farmer Brooke and I am down on my dirt-stained knees begging you to drop everything on Wednesday, May 5th at 1:30 PM and get your “organic” booties down to City Hall on the 26th Floor to SUPPORT URBAN AGRICULTURE at the final hearing before City Council to vote on city code changes that will make it possible for urban farms and gardens to flourish throughout KC!!

As you know, this movement to amend the city codes regarding farms & gardens came out of the BADSEED crisis which began last season when our idyllic farm came under scrutiny from the City and was threatened to be dismantled. Consequently, we are in fact moving to a new location. We may have lost the battle here on BADSEED Farm, but all the heart-ache will be worth it IF as a result we get a “greener” Kansas City at large. Heck Yeah!!!

We Kansas Citians are very fortunate to have some awesome “forward-thinking” and “environmentally aware” individuals on our City Council who have pushed this codes change forward. However – there is plenty of opposition and without the showing of community support this thing will get squashed under the pressure of politically powerful “tomato-haters”……ya know…..the same folks who rose up against BADSEED Farm in the first place. Why?? Well, come weed an onion bed with me, and I will tell ya all about it….

Okay Okay – on a more serious note – I need you! My urban eggplant needs you. We need you to support us on May 5th!

Pretty pretty PLEASE with heirloom tomato sauce on top of it……

If you cannot make it down to City Hall you can always e-mail a “short and sweet” letter of support to your City Council representatives at city_council@kcmo.org. PLEASE contact me if you need more info or details.

If this thing passes it will actually be legal for you to come and weed my onion beds with me!! Haha!

Yours Truly,
Brooke
-farmer and mistress of the BADSEED

Saturday, May 8th
Red Light Camera protest at 39th and Southwest Trafficway
Noon to 2pm
You know the drill, you’ve seen us out there at least 3 times this year. This is BIG PUSH!! Details as follows:

For the past year, Senator Jim Lembke and Campaign for Liberty members have worked on banning Red Light Cameras. Senator Lembke’s amendment to ban red light cameras passed in the Missouri Senate this Tuesday. With a little more work, that legislation now has a good chance of passing in the Missouri House.

Red Light Cameras have been a violation of your rights and they do not provide due process. We need your help to insure that this ban becomes law and is not stripped in committee from HB2111. The bill’s fate lies in the hands of these legislators:

Please call:

your state representative (contact info here www.house.mo.gov )

Senator Stouffer (sponsor of the bill) (314) 751-1507

Representative Dixon (committee chair) (573) 751-9809

Representative Faith (573) 751-1452

Encourage support of this ban.

Here are some talking points associated with the lack of due process:

Due Process: says that government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government submissive to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.

The 5th amendment to the constitution says that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Because of municipality’s use of a ‘rebuttable presumption,’ or a presumption that the driver of the car is the owner of the car, and a failure of the municipality to provide evidence against the driver of the car, individuals are forced incriminate themselves or investigate, provide evidence, and incriminate another.

Forcing the owner of the car to incriminate another, in many cases a family member, can be a violation of a person’s right to spousal privilege (the right to not incriminate or testify against your spouse).

Municipalities use a presumption of guilt, not innocence, and punish our Missouri citizens based on the assumption that the individual who owned the car is the individual who ran the red light. If you are innocent you must provide proof of your innocence vs. the state providing proof of your guilt.

Thank Senator Lembke, Josh Carter and Tracy Ward for leading the effort to stop this violation of Missouri citizen’s rights.

Paul Hamby
Missouri Coordinator
Campaign For Liberty

*Much thanks from Liberty Restoration Project to Paul Hamby for getting this message spread far and wide and helping promote the protest as well!!!

I hope to see some of you at the upcoming events!! If you know of something that Liberty Restoration Project should attend, let me know and I’ll get it posted!!

Yesterday, Senator Lembke introduced an amendment to HB2111 to include a statewide ban on Red Light Cameras, the amendment passed 23-8.

Senator Lembke asked for a roll-call vote so we know who stands where on this issue:

YEAS:
Barnitz – (573) 751-2108
Bartle – (573) 751-1464
Callahan – (573) 751-3074
Champion – (573) 751-2583
Clemens – (573) 751-4008
Crowell – (573) 751-2459
Cunningham – (573) 751-1186
Dempsey – (573) 751-1141
Engler – (573) 751-3455
Goodman – (573) 751-2234
Green – (573) 751-2420
Griesheimer – (573) 751-3678
Lager – (573) 751-1415
Lembke – (573) 751-2315
Mayer – (573) 751-3859
Pearce – (573) 751-2272
Purgason – (573) 751-1882
Ridgeway – (573) 751-2547
Rupp – (573) 751-1282
Schmitt – (573) 751-2853
Scott – (573) 751-8793
Shoemyer – (573) 751-7852
Stouffer – (573) 751-1507

NAYS:
Bray – (573) 751-2514
Days – (573) 751-4106
Keaveny – (573) 751-3599
McKenna – (573) 751-1492
Shields – (573) 751-9476
Vogel – (573) 751-2076
Wilson – (573) 751-9758
Wright-Jones – (573) 751-2606

ABSENT:
Justus – (573) 751-2788
Nodler – (573) 751-2306
Schaefer – (573) 751-3931

However, HB2111 still has to make it through the Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee and then go back to the House and probably a conference committee before it finally passes, and each step carries the possibility that this anti-RLC provision could be stripped, so we’re not done quite yet.

While I appreciate all the Senators who voted in favor of this amendment–and of course Senator Lembke for his tireless fight against Red Light Cameras–it was very nice to see Bill Stouffer vote “YEA” on the amendment. Senator Stouffer, as chair of the Transportation Committee, is key to making sure that this provision stays in the final bill. So while I plan on calling all of the Senators that voted “YEA” and thanking them for their vote, I will be sure to thank Senator Stouffer especially and let him know that I noticed and appreciated his support for this very important measure, and I encourage others to do the same.

I’ll keep everyone updated on the progress of this bill, and if anyone has anything to add to this or any other suggestions on how we might keep this provision in the final bill, please let me know and I will be sure to spread it around. Thanks!