MISSOURI WATCH: IT'S TIME TO REVISIT EARLIER DECISIONS BY THE VOTERS

Because today's hectic living seldom affords the luxury of sober contemplation, much less personal research to learn facts first-hand, most of the decisions reached by voters in past elections rarely get a second look. The excuse offered for this inattention is understandable: we're so concerned with what's happening at the moment that we have no time to look around to see what mistakes might have been made in the past.

This absence of public introspection is particularly true at the state level, where significant changes are still often made by the voters themselves. At the federal level, Congress has done a pretty good job of pre-empting initiative referendums, which nationally are rather rare. At the state level, voters are often handed issues that either cannot be resolved by the Legislature or which are viewed as too controversial to be decided in Jefferson City.

There are now pending in this second session of the 88th General Assembly some 26 proposed amendments to the Missouri Constitution. While not all of them will be approved before lawmakers adjourn May 17, enough will take it through to raise objections from those voters who don't like to be burdened with the responsibility of sober thought and reflection. Some of the proposed constitutional amendments deal with relatively simple subjects, such as making technical changes in previous legislation. Others require voter attention because they expand or diminish powers that have already been granted, and some deal with latter-day subjects that hadn't been faced years ago.

A few of these changes are rather revolutionary in their scope, heralding needs envisioned by some and ignored by others. We could even have a couple of still-to-be-written amendments that will deal with matters the General Assembly's members may not be anxious to resolve themselves, issues such as abortion, concealed weapons, school standards and ethics.

The point is, most of these issues are introduced because sponsors feel they are deserving and because it is felt the public has a right to resolve them.

The problem at this point is that the public never reviews earlier decisions, nor do voters understand that just because they approved a change a decade or two earlier, there's no reason to review whether the original intent is being met and the changes are still proper and needed today.

Let's take a look at some earlier voter decisions and see whether they have met expectations and whether, in light of unforeseen difficulties, some revisions are needed.

Example No. 1 is term limits. Voters eagerly approved this unduly restrictive limitation and then sat back to await the rewards. It will be a long wait, since there are few positive results and numerous negative ones. The most recent example is the decision of one of the Legislature's most valued members not to seek re-election this year. The legislator in question is state Sen. Emory Melton, a stalwart Republican from Cassville. Losing the services of Sen. Melton will be like losing the best treasury watchdog ever invented. This is a lawmaker who not only guards the public's money as if it were his own, he actually reads every bill under consideration. As shocking as this may seem, there are only a handful of legislators who devote the time to read every bill that is under consideration in both chambers. Such a self-assigned task requires long hours of study and reading, and if readers will recall the books they have been meaning to read for weeks, months or even years, they will get some appreciation of the numerous "books" that Sen. Melton reads every session. Miss him? Of course we will, in ways undreamed of at this moment.

Although he won't admit it, one of the reasons Emory Melton is leaving public service is the result of term limits, a law that has already changed the tone, tenure and membership of the General Assembly. More changes, few of them to the liking of John Q. Public, are coming in the next several years. We're stuck with term limits, because the public won't demand another vote and because, politically speaking, it is still regarded as a needed "fix" by the vast majority of Missourians.

There are other statutes and amendments that deserve a second look. One is the Hancock Amendment, which will shortly create a financial crisis in Jefferson City that will result in the diminishment of essential services; another is Missouri's confusing campaign restrictions that have already put Republican candidates on a starvation diet while favoring incumbent Democrats; and still another is a hodge-podge of gambling franchises that have turned our state into another Las Vegas.

Missourians need to revisit some earlier decisions to determine if they have helped or hindered good government.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of the Missouri News and Editorial Service.