Grab your popcorn & a coke - this is a long one.
Here's the "Table of Contents" if you will:
- The Backstory
- The MO Republican Platform
- Fast Forward - Rep McGaugh and Her Bill, HB 781
- Truth is Revealed in the Hearing
- Threats?? I Wish I Was Joking
- Her LEA Friends are Worn Out
- Rep Stacy Asks Questions and Leadership is Mad
- Call to Action
the backstory - 2022 mo Election bill passed
During the 2022 Missouri legislative session, the republicans cheered, shouted & waved their banner of victory because of the amazing election integrity bill they passed. They carried it like a trophy back home to their districts touting what a success the session had been. After all, they were the ones responsible for the new requirement for voter ID!
To that Missourians responded, "Yay!"... and there were pats on backs of republican legislators all across Missouri.
Well, part of that bill (HB 1878) included the OPTION for Missouri voters to affiliate with a political party on their voting record. The summary of this portion of the bill as per the bill page linked here is as follows:
DECLARING A POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION
Under current law, voters are not required to declare a political party affiliation when registering to vote. This amendment requires any person registering to vote to declare a political party affiliation, beginning January 1, 2023. The options for political party affiliation shall include all established political parties. Voters are entitled to choose to be unaffiliated with any political party as well. If a voter does not designate any political party affiliation, then the election authority shall designate the voter as unaffiliated. A voter can change his or her political party affiliation at any time by notifying his or her election authority in the manner described in the amendment.
NOTE: It was Representative Dan Stacy who submitted that language and although he was unsuccessful getting it added to a bill in the House he was successful in getting it added as an amendment when it went through in the Senate. If you ask me, this is what good legislators do. They work hard to get their language added to acceptable pieces of legislation in order to accomplish their goal. Great job, Rep Stacy!
the missouri republican platform
Not many voters know the actual platform of either party. I'm not judging. I didn't either, until a few short years ago when I got more involved. However, I did know the gist of what is considered to be the republican priorities - small government, lower taxes, fiscally conservative, pro-life, etc. and I did know that there seemed to be a lot of republicans who weren't voting that way.
The reality is that the Missouri Republican Platform is pretty lengthy and specific. In truth, when you run as a republican on any ballot, you are expressing to voters that you align with these principles and voters can expect you to vote and represent your constituents accordingly.
And frankly.. if you decide to run as any type of candidate, you ought to be expected to READ and understand the platform you’re running on!
That's the way it should be, at least.
Anything less than that is a misrepresentation of yourself and your intentions, imho.
Candidates are literally lying to the people just by running on a platform they have no intention of supporting. It happens every election cycle and it's why the Republican party is such a train wreck and not unified. We've got every party under the sun - including life long democrats - who run as a Republican because that's the only way they can get elected.
In regard to this issue of voters declaring a party affiliation, the Missouri Republican Platform says this:
"...the Missouri Republican Party SUPPORTS: ...
Establishing closed primaries requiring all voters casting a ballot to declare a partisan affiliation and make maintaining such declarations as public record."
Therefore, our republican representatives should be EXPECTED to uphold this tenet. Republican voters would assume that our republican legislators would cast their vote in support of this principle. We shouldn't have to voice our support, because it would be expected that a republican elected official in Missouri would agree with and support closed primaries and working toward that end.
Thank you, Rep Stacy for including it in the election bill last year and working toward our republican goals!
Fast forward to thursday, feb 2, 2023
Representative peggy mcgaugh & her bill
Representative Peggy McGaugh was appointed Chair of the Elections and Elected Officials Committee by Speaker of the House Dean Plocher. As Chairperson, Rep McGaugh gets to choose which bills the committee will hear. Of course, all the Chairs choose theirs as early as possible - that's part of the benefit of being the Chair, after all.
NOTE: Rep Dan Stacy is the Vice-Chair of the Elections and Elected Officials Committee
So Rep McGaugh has filed HB 781 with a couple of primary goals in mind and she brought it before her committee Thursday, February 2, 2023. Her bill does the following:
1. Removes the ability for voters to affiliate with their party which repeals the language that was passed in 2022. It's interesting to note that she voted for that bill. This repeal would directly contradict the MO Republican platform goal of closed primaries and she knows it. See video clips below!
2. Adds a class one election offense and felony which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for,
"Disseminating through any means, including by posting on the internet, the personal information of the family of an election official with the intent to harass, intimidate, or influence such official in the performance of his or her duties. For the purpose of this subdivision, "personal information" includes home address, Social Security number, federal tax identification number, checking or savings account numbers, marital status, and identity of a child under eighteen years of age. For the purpose of this subdivision, the term "election official" includes election judges, challengers, watchers, and other volunteers or employees of an election authority."
The problem with this last addition to the statute is that the crux of it is proving intent, it applies to literally thousands of election volunteers and it carries a punishment of up to 5 years in PRISON & up to $10,000 in fines for what could be a text or a social media comment.
The language is too broad and is a potential risk to Missourians ESPECIALLY if they are sue happy or paranoid or just angry and have an axe to grind.
Also, marital status is included. So... if I make a phone call, send an email or text or make a post or comment on social media that somehow connects a person to their spouse, that could fit this definition.
This is too broad and it's concerning as to how this would affect someone's 1st amendment right of free speech since it only requires a judgement about intent to be made.
I'm not trying to defend harassment and our election officials shouldn't be bullied -ever - but you'll see in the videos below that Rep McGaugh is pretty quick to throw out the question, "Are you threatening me?" when that was obviously the furthest thing from the truth. In fact, she referenced being threatened at least twice in the hearing when as far as I could tell, she was just angry that she was being asked questions she didn't want to answer.
What happens when a volunteer or election worker perceives or even just claims there was a threat that could land you in prison for 5 years?
She's filing this same language in another bill that would apply to ALL elected officials. Yikes!
What happens to me if I write this blog and mention that she's married a year from now and this statue is in place and she sees it and gets mad? Am I going to be taken to court by someone in a position that uses government funds to prosecute me because I've told the truth and someone is offended and claims my intent was to harass or intimidate?
It's time to hold them accountable, not turn a blind eye. And I think that's ok. I'm so sick of the censorship. BUT...that's not even what caused all the ruckus at the hearing.
Everyone but Rep Windham seems to agree with her. He’s my favorite democrat. He’s really a smart guy and always thinks critically, has great comments and questions and he offers them respectfully.
truth is revealed in the hearing
If you don't have snacks & a coke...GET THEM NOW!
I actually attended this hearing myself but had to leave early. However, some friends stayed for the duration so when the texts started coming in I had to find the archive and watch it for myself.
Holy cow! It got interesting so I’ve got to share it with you.
I've clipped snippets of the hearing and uploaded them to my You Tube channel so you can watch them quickly. They are numbered for your convenience. However, I have also uploaded both of Rep McGaugh's introduction videos (1 & 2) if you'd like background info on her and her complete presentation on the bill as well as Rep Stacy's entire inquiry in case you want to watch those sections in their entirety. I do not want to be accused of grabbing sound bites and leading you astray so if you have time, please watch the larger sections all at once.
Also, you can watch the entire hearing on the House website. Just find the Elections Committee hearing on the list that met on 2/2/23 and click on it.
Remember: Rep Peggy McGaugh is Chairperson & Rep Dan Stacy is Vice-Chair
Peggy is trying to repeal Dan's party affiliation language from the 2022 election bill. Can you see how this is gonna go already??
In this first clip, Representative McGaugh says parties shouldn't vet their candidates. Excuse me!? Uh...yep. Peg... It's high time the Republican Party starts vetting their candidates! And btw, your clerks have to run on a platform so that's a lame excuse. Everyone knows they run on a party platform and I dang sure think the voters deserve to know if they are being honest about that or not.
In fact, I don’t care if we are talking about a nonpartisan race like school board. Your party affiliation helps voters know your ideology and how you will run your office.
Maybe there was a time it didn’t matter. But today, there’s a night & day difference between a Republican and a Democrat and I would prefer NOT to have a democrat sitting on my school board if I can help it… And definitely not my health board.
In fact, I’d choose Republican every time in every race at this point to avoid putting an official in place that support and make decisions in alignment the democrat platform.
In this second clip, she says she wonders if this is a step toward closed primaries. Yes, Peggy, it is. You know it and we know it. There are 32 other states that do it and there is case law that says the party has a RIGHT to gather this information AND the people have a right to associate with whomever they choose. The only problem here is the Clerk's Association doesn't like it. This is ALL about Peggy's favorite special interest group, NOT the citizens and NOT standing on the platform she ran on.
If you weren't sure, she's just spells it out in this one:
threats?? I wish i was joking
Here's where it gets interesting. Rep McGaugh seems particularly interested in being a victim and she focused on how her clerk friends could be victims as well. I'm beginning to wonder maybe if she actually belongs with the democrats. All if them were really supportive of her & her bill. That’s interesting.
In her comments early on in the hearing she made a declaration that there are just a lot of angry people out there, especially the ones who have heard or believe that there's been some sort of election fraud. Hmm. Again... yes.
When we see irregularities and election fraud happening around the nation it's pretty upsetting, Representative. I'd sure think you'd make THAT your highest priority... but that doesn't seem to be the case.
You want to preventatively protect election workers. There are another group who want to preventatively protect our elections.
But I digress. Let’s get back on track.
Rep McGaugh is obviously antsy about being threatened and keeping everyone safe from all the bad guys of the world. So much so that in the middle of his inquiry, she gets more and more agitated while he stays calm asking the questions he's prepared for her. She's obviously getting flustered and one of the democrats pops up to accuse him of badgering her!
Then, a little later on, after he asks a question that she doesn't like, she just straight up asks him... check it out.
This attitude of hers makes me wonder just what she'd be encouraging her LEA friends to do in regard to that new language she's trying to implement that adds election offenses. If asking a question is a threat, I'm more than a little concerned about what else might be construed that way.
Check this one out and tell me who is badgering who...
her lea friends are wore out
OK, Rep McGaugh has made her point. The LEA's are worn out and don't want closed primaries. They don’t want to deal with people and their affiliations. That's that.
To that I say that maybe they don’t like the job description and they need to move on.
It doesn't matter too much to McGaugh what the PEOPLE think, apparently, because she's confident in her re-election regardless. I’d venture to say that she needs only to take a gander down the hall to Senator Carter’s office to realize that might not be the case. But I’d better not, because she might feel threatened or claim I intended to harass her. 🙄
rep stacy asks questions and leadership is mad?
Yep! That's the word on the street.
Representative Stacy asked her questions she didn't want to answer, she got triggered and sassy, claims she was threatened by the inquiry and now SHE'S apparently asking for him to be "disciplined" and House leadership is fit to be tied. 🤦🏻♀️
You see, the republicans have been told by leadership not to be fussing out in public. They are supposed to do their deals behind closed doors and then present a united front for all to see. That's why they all vote together all the time and we can’t figure out what’s happening.
Lectured in caucus meetings prior to any votes they take -they get told what to do and they fall in line because they are afraid of what will happen if they don’t.
Bullies... junior high bullies is what we are dealing with here.
Well, that and a grown woman who needs to put her big girl panties on and answer the questions she's asked.
For goodness sakes! Isn't this what the left does? They get all offended and then cry about it until everyone around them changes their tune and they get their way. I can't stand whining. Whining and lying. Those are my biggest pet peeves.
The committee hearings are SUPPOSED to be filled with robust conversations and debate. But instead, they fall in line and obey. Because that's exactly what is expected of them and when they break rank, they get punished.
THAT, my friends, is one reason why we need the House Rules to be overhauled!
So what can you do?
- HB 781 NEEDS TO DIE. It's just not good. It contradicts the Republican platform. It robs the parties and the people of thier right to associate/affiliate and therefore, is in contradiction to our First Amendment rights. It's overreaching as far as the protections for election workers and there's another part I didn't even discuss that just ridiculous. It will come up for a vote soon, so we need to be contacting all the Election Committee members via phone & email until they commit to voting no. Fill up the inboxes & email boxes - make the phones ring and respectfully tell them what you want. They have no power other than their vote, so keep it focused and polite.
Peggy McGaugh, Chair - email@example.com 573-751-2917
Dan Stacy, Vice Chair - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573-751-8636
Joe Adams - joe.adams@ house.mo.gov. 573-751-4265
Brad Banderman - email@example.com. 573.751.0549
Donna Baringer - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573-751-4220
Tricia Byrnes - email@example.com. 573.751.1460
Jeff Coleman - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.1487
Bill Falkner - email@example.com. 573.751.9755
Roger Reedy - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.3971
Alex Riley - email@example.com. 573.751.2210
Adam Schwadron - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.2949
David Tyson Smith - email@example.com. 573.751.9753
Justin Sparks - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.0562
Cheri Toalson Reisch - email@example.com. 573-751-1169
Ken Waller - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.4451
Kevin Windham - email@example.com. 573.751.4726
Eric Woods - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.2199
2. SHARE THIS POST FAR & WIDE. The more we educate citizens and grow participation, the faster we see results.
3. Contact your Central Committee Chair & Share the Info. You can find your committee chair by using this interactive map. Share the info and ask them to write and submit a resolution opposing this bill from your county central committee.
And PRAY! Actually please do that first.
We’ll see what happens next week.
Subscribe to the blog so you don’t miss “the rest of the story!”
We knew Cierpiot's weighted voting bill wouldn't stay down for long and indeed, it is up for a hearing again next week.
Sorry, Senator Cierpiot, your tricky shenanigans aren't going work this time. Even those constituents who traveled in to Jefferson City last week to testify, only for it to be pulled at the last minute will be back and with even more determination this week. Good try.
Nothing about the bill has changed so although he may have hoped that pulling it from committee a couple weeks ago would mean we'd forget or not be willing to take up the fight again, that is certainly not the case at all.
This bill is important, so please take action and do whatever you are able.
call to action
If you aren't aware of the bill and the details, please read my previous post, Dictatorship Is Coming To Your County.
SB 16 is scheduled now to be heard in the Local Government & Elections Committee on Monday, February 6 at 2:00 pm.
1. PRAY! Please pray the committee would vote down this horrible piece of legislation. It needs to die in committee and not waste the time, effort and energy of our legislators or citizens.
2. Come testify in person. Plan to arrive at the hearing room approximately 1/2 hour early, around 1:30 pm. It will be located in Senate Committee Room 2. This is located in the back hallway (behind the rotunda) on the first floor. Walk behind the rotunda and turn right. The committee rooms are on the left.
2. Contact Your Central Committee Chair. Express to your county chair that you feel this bill is bad for Missouri and would request your central committee to write and submit a resolution to this effect. Click on the link to find your chairperson and their email address.
3. Email and Call Every Committee Member. Every senator on this committee is serving the entire state in their position on this issue. Contact each of them by phone & email to let them know your thoughts.
Senator Elaine Gannon, Chair - email@example.com 573.751.4008
Senator Sandy Crawford, Vice Chair - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.8793
Senator Jill Carter - email@example.com. 573.751.2173
Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman - firstname.lastname@example.org 573.751.1492
Senator Andrew Koenig - email@example.com. 573.751.5568
Senator John Rizzo - firstname.lastname@example.org. 573.751.3074
Senator Barbara Washington - email@example.com. 573.751.3158
If you feel passionate about the boys in girl's sports issue, PLEASE use your voice and participate in working toward a solution. And I'll go ahead and say this, if you aren't going to participate and use your voice when you can, then stop complaining.
This government was created BY the People, FOR the People. That means THE PEOPLE ...YOU...NEED to participate!
what to do
The senate hearing is TOMORROW, 1/31/23, at 10:00 am. There are a couple of ways you can express your thoughts on these issues.
My personal recommendation is to SUPPORT Senator Jill Carter's SB 165 and SUPPORT Senator Mike Moon's SB 48. OPPOSE Holly Rehder's bill, SB 39. You can read overviews or the full text of those bills if you look at my previous blog article.
1. Call and email the committee members.
Leave a voice mail if no one answers. Let them know which bills you support and oppose.
Emerging Issues Committee Members
Justin Brown, Chair 573-751-5713. firstname.lastname@example.org
Mike Moon, Vice Chair. 573-751-1480. email@example.com
Elaine Gannon. 573-751-4008. firstname.lastname@example.org
Andrew Koenig. 573-751-5568. email@example.com
Nick Schroer. 573-751-1282. firstname.lastname@example.org
Tracy McCreery. 573-751-9762. email@example.com
Greg Razer. 573-751-6607. firstname.lastname@example.org
2. Submit Online Testimony For SB 165 & SB 48
Click on the link here if you'd like to support one of these bills. These two are the only ones I have links for. If you choose to support the others, you'll need to call and email the committee.
If you've been paying attending to Missouri politics this week, you know that girl's and women's sports is on the agenda.
Last week, I attended the House hearing which covered several bills related to Missouri's kids as they relate to transgender issues. It was a long ordeal and I didn't make it to the end, but it was definitely quite an evening. I did go back and watch the rest of what I missed - I total of about 9 hours worth of bill presentations, testimonies and inquiries.
I highly suggest you take a few minutes of your time to watch. It was divided into three sections, for your reference. I've noted the approximate times to help you find the section you'd like to view.
1. Women's sports bills. (4:30 pm to 8:00pm)
2. Transition surgeries & hormone therapy/puberty blockers for children. (8:00pm to 12:00am)
3. Drag shows (12:00am to the end)
Scroll to the hearings on 1/24/23 and find General Laws. Click to open video window.
The House General Laws Committee will vote on those bills this week in their executive meeting, I expect.
The Senate is handling these issues a little bit differently. They are hearing the girl's sports bills only this week. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, 1/31/23 at 10:00am in Senate Committee Room 1.
They are hearing a total of six bills having to do with girl's sports. Below you'll find a list, linked to the bill text along with a bulleted overview for comparison.
- SB 2 by Senator Denny Hoskins
- Prohibits males from playing in female sports based on genetics
- No adverse action against compliant schools
- Middle school through college
- Allows intramural games regardless of gender
- Withholds state funds if school is in violation
- SB 29 by Senator Tony Luetkemeyer
- Prohibits males from playing in female sports based on birth certificate or other government document
- Girls can compete with boys if a girl's team is not available to her
- Girls not allowed to play due to violation of policy may bring suit against school in violation.
- Implied to be K-12 as it mentions public school and charters, but not postsecondary
- SB 39 by Senator Holly Thompson-Rehder
- Includes "Where As" section referring to Title IX and past issues of discrimination
- Prohibits males from playing girl's sports based on genome and reproductive biology at birth. Also included is sex stated on birth certificate or other government documents
- References the Federal Title IX policy AS AMENDED. This is a red flag.
- Schools in violation will not receive state funding
- DESE shall promulgate all rules and regs. This is a red flad in regard to expanding DESE's authority. The legislation needs to be complete without allowance for DESE to create more rules. DESE, unelected bureaucrats, need to be removed from this policy making process.
- Applies to all grade levels and post secondary
- Does not prohibit adverse actions against schools OR allow schools to sue for being penalized for compliance
- SB 48 by Senator Mike Moon
- Prohibits males from participating in girl's sports based on genome and reproductive biology at birth
- Prohibits adverse action against schools in compliance
- Allows for action to be taken against organizations penalizing the school for complying
- Middle school through college.
- Public and private schools
- SB 87 by Senator Ben Brown
- Public K through 12th grade
- Private middle school and high school
- Every sponsor, organizing entity or facilitator of youth sports shall comply
- Intramural games open to all genders
- Gender determined by assignment at birth per birth certificate UNLESS it was changed due to specific physical disorders
- State funds withheld for schools in violation
- Schools may bring suit against any entity penalizing them for complying
- SB 165 by Senator Jill Carter
- Middle school through college
- Public or private schools
- Gender based on sex at birth as see on birth certificate
- Student who miss the opportunity to participate or suffer retaliation due to violation of policy may bring suit against the school
- Schools penalized by associations or agencies for complying may bring suit for damages
- Locker rooms and areas of "undress" shall be designated and separated for biological girls and boys. Students who choose not to use those facilities based on biological sex will be provided with alternative accommodations.
My personal favorite is Senator Carter's SB 165 because she included bathrooms and locker rooms as well as provision for students to be able to bring suit against the school if the school is in violation.
Senator Mike Moon has actually carried this bill for the past few years. I applaud him for that. I like his bill, also.
Senator Denny Hoskins is a good conservative voter and we can usually count on him to be standing on the right side of things. He's great on the floor and a stand up guy we can trust, which is hard to say about most of these politicians. Props to Senator Hoskins for including specific language for intramural sports. I like this language and I feel that it allows for the opportunity to play recreational sports, experience the fun and teamwork in an environment that everyone is agreement with.
Senator Tony Luetkemeyer's bill is ok. What he has included is fine but it doesn't cover the necessary bases in my opinion.
Senator Ben Brown's bill is the only one to include ALL youth sports. Although it would include community organized sports and he does have specific provisions for intramural sports.
Senator Holly Rehder's bill is just BAD. I do not support it and I don't recommend that you support it. DESE should not be mentioned as they need to promulgate NOTHING. And there's no reason to refer to the amended version of the federal Title IX in the "Where As" section. This section shouldn't be considered enforceable law, but it does not need to be codified in this manner. Here's an excerpt of the proposed amendments to Title IX:
The proposed regulations would clarify that Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They would make clear that preventing someone from participating in school programs and activities consistent with their gender identity would cause harm in violation of Title IX, except in some limited areas set out in the statute or regulations. By providing this protection, the proposed provisions would carry out Title IX’s nondiscrimination mandate and help to ensure access to education free from sex discrimination for LGBTQI+ students and others. The Department plans to issue a separate notice of proposed rule making to address whether and how theDepartment should amend the Title IX regulations to address students’ eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletics team.
For those of you coming to testify in the Senate Hearing, you are able to support/oppose multiple bills. Be specific in stating that information in your testimony. Personally, I would support Senator Carter's SB 165, Senator Moon's SB 48 and Senator Hoskin's SB 2. I would opposed Senator Rehder's SB 39.
Missouri's county central committees are being attacked by a bitter senator, Mike Cierpiot, who happens to be pretty angry that he had a primary opponent and ended up not being endorsed by his own committee. Frankly, I'm not at all sure what his problem is, because he won the race. But Joe Nicola sure did a great job and those constituents learned a lot of truth.
That, I think, might be Cierpiot's problem. Truth.
Cierpiot snuck in a 3rd candidate to split the opposing votes, which isn't really surprising. That strategy is used often and it definitely worked. Maybe Cierpiot didn't know, I guess. But considering the 3rd candidate (Rachl Aguirre) was talking, even sort of bragging about being good friends with Cierpiot and his wife, they've been seen out to dinner together and such...I'm pretty certain that it was a strategic move. But I digress.
The Bill, SB 16
Senator Cierpiot filed SB 16 which creates a weighted voting system for our central committees. It's a horrible system and in order to understand the implications you first need to know two things.
1. What's a central committee?
2. How does weighted voting work?
what's a central committee?
The Republican Party (GOP) is divided into several different committees. The Democrat Party has them, too. These committees actually ARE what make up the Republican and Democrat Party. These committees that make up each party are codified in Missouri statute. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have the same list of committees.
- State Committee
- Congressional Committee
- Judiciary Committee
- Senatorial Committee
- Legislative Committee
- County Central Committee
Each committee has different functions and contributions to our political system. For example, the county committees can write resolutions about specific issues which indicates their stance or opinion. The county committee generally endorses and financially supports the party candidate in the general election. They are supposed to remain neutral in the primaries, but they do have influence and can actually keep candidates from running on their party ticket. Frankly, I wish they'd do more of that with a pledge to the Republican Platform as the filter.
The county committees in question are actually elected positions. There's a good chance you didn't know that. If you haven't seen that on your primary ballot lately, it's because no one is filing to fill it or it's been filled and the seat holder continues to hold it until they are challenged on the ballot, which rarely happens. We'll talk more about that another day.
The county committees are made up of 1 man and 1 woman from each voting precinct or township. I.e., If your county has 10 voting precincts/townships then you have 20 central committee seats. That means YOU have a committee man and a committee woman on your county committee that is supposed to be representing you. If you don't know your committee people, please take time to reach out to your County Clerk and find out who they are.
Each county committee has its own set of bylaws. And it's interesting to note that the party itself via these bylaws can choose ANY process they want as far as how their committee functions, how they control their party ballot, etc. as long as nothing they do conflicts with Missouri statute.
Issues the county committee votes on:
- Candidates for special elections
- How they accept candidates onto their ballot (via bylaws)
- Amending the bylaws
- Fundraising events
- County seat replacements
- Other things that arise as necessary
The Chair & Vice-Chair of each county committee are automatically members of the higher level committees where they have a voice in higher level issues, including Presidential delegates and filling vacant seats in higher offices.
what's weighted voting?
Currently, the county committee votes are NOT weighted. Every committee person gets one vote. This means that every township/precinct has the same amount of representation - just like the senate. We like this system. It assures us that everyone is represented in an equal way regardless of the population of their voting precinct.
Cierpiot wants to weight the votes and worse than weighting the votes, he's created a ridiculous way to do it.
This means that every committee member would have a different number of votes and that amount would be determined according to the number of people who voted for the WINNER of the governor's or auditor's race in the last primary.
Here's a video that explains more about weighted voting. INTRODUCTION TO WEIGHTED VOTING.
example of cierpiot's weighting method
Numbers given are only for informational purposes and easy explanations.
This is a fictional example created based on Cierpiot's method of weighting in SB 16.
There are 6 townships in X County. 12 committee members.
Let's say Fitzpatrick got 1,000 votes total in the August 2022 primary broken down like this:
Township A - 100 = 10% of the 1,000
Township B - 300 = 30% of the 1,000
Township C - 200 = 20% of the 1,000
Township D - 50 = 5% of the 1,000
Township E - 100 = 10% of the 1,000
Township F - 250 = 25% of the 1,000
Weight Calculations. Based on Cierpiot's formula in SB 16. If I learn I'm incorrect, I will publish corrections but this is what we believe to be true. It's more than confusing so give me some grace if I'm wrong here. I've talked to several people and this is the best we can come up with following his language in the bill.
Township A 10 x 2 = 20 votes each member. (40 total votes for A)
Township B 30 x 2 = 60 votes each member. (120 total votes for B)
Township C 20 x 2 = 40 votes each member. (80 total votes for C)
Township D 5 x 2 = 10 votes each member. (20 total votes for D)
Township E 10 x 2 = 20 votes each member. (40 total votes for E)
Township F 25 x 2 = 50 votes each member. (100 total votes for F)
40 + 120 + 80 + 20 + 40 + 100 = 400 total votes
There would be 400 total committee votes every time the committee of 12 people vote on any issue other than county seat replacements.
In this example, both members from Township B & Township F are all that is needed for a majority of the 400 votes. That's a total of 4 individuals instead of 7, which would be required for majority if everyone got one vote each.
PLEASE NOTE: It is OFTEN the case that a husband and wife are the committee man & woman for their township!!
In this case, we end up with 4 dictators from 2 townships that control everything that happens on the committee. And it's based on votes for the winner of ONE executive level primary race. It's INSANITY.
Oh...but is it??
insanity or strategy?
If you were a power seeking politician, wouldn't you LOVE to have this much control over the committee, its bylaws, its endorsements, its selection for candidates?
Cierpiot isn't insane. He's actually very strategic and this is a great way to sneak tons of dictator type control in right under the rug hoping no one notices.
Creating a dictatorship on the committees would mean ...
- All you have to do is put the people in those seats you want.
- You'd never get censured or left behind in the endorsements.
- You could have them write bylaws any way they wanted
- Control who goes on the ballot & how that happens by way of bylaws
- Control who is on the ballot in special elections
- Control Control Control
- Zero grassroots candidates would have a chance which means your reputation wouldn't be tanked when those pesky opponents told the truth.
1. PLEASE PRAY this ends with the senate committee!! The public hearing is today. I'll be in attendance and I'll keep you posted. **UPDATE. They pulled the bill from the committee hearing. It will be heard in the future at an unknown time.
2. Please find out who your central committee members are (check with your county clerk) and then send them the link to this blog. They need to use their voices & power they have on their committee. The committee can pass a resolution to express their opposition to the bill. It's the most effective way to gain traction right now but we need to make sure our county committee members know what's happening.
3. Stay tuned. Your voice may be needed shortly!