Republicans accused of using ‘ballot candy’ in push to restrict ballot initiatives

ST. LOUIS (First Alert 4) -- Several of the proposed resolutions that aim to make Missouri’s consitution more difficult for citizens to amend include provisions which critics have branded ‘ballot candy.’

The term refers to a popular or attention-grabbing proposal that is paired with a controversial one in order to conceal a resolution’s true intent.

In the case of recently proposed constitutional amendments to curb citizen-led initiatives, several include a prohibition on voting by non-citizens, something that is already enshrined in state and federal law.

Other resolutions included a ban on any foreign contributions to an initiative campaign, which is also already prohibited by federal law.

“Nobody wants foreign money in our campaigns,” said Jonathan Schmid, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri. “So, when people go and see that, and it’s the first item in the ballot title, they think, ‘Oh, yeah. I don’t want to have China or Russia influencing our elections.’ Absolutely, I would totally understand why people would go for that.”

Sponsors have argued that the provision’s inclusion was merely to clarify an issue with the wording of the pre-existing non-citizen voting ban.

On Tuesday, a Senate committee advanced a version of the initiative petition resolution which, if passed, would require a constitutional amendment on the ballot to win a majority of votes both statewide and in a majority, or 82, of state house districts in order to be adopted.

Supporters of the initiative petition changes have argued that the current process disregards rural voices in policy decisions.

“When you look at where those voices are coming from, they’re more centralized to congested areas instead of the rural areas,” said Johnson County resident Dee Ann Poole. “Our voices are being overwhelmed by those more congested areas.”

Opponents of the initiative petition changes argue the policy dilutes the votes of citizens for the mere act of living in a more-populated, urban area and unfairly empowers rural voters to more easily defeat any initiative they don’t like.

“What these resolutions are trying to do is destroy the one person, one vote, founding principle of our democracy and by weighting rural voters more than urban voters, you’re destroying that principle,” Schmid said.