Missouri governor wants to repeal voter-approved fair redistricting amendment - Polidicks

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/missouri-governor-repeal-redistricting-law-59985801 When then-Missouri state Sen. Mike Parson didn't agree with a voter-approved law imposing tough regulations on dog breeders, he led a legislative effort to repeal the measure and replace it with a tamer version. Now eight years later as governor, Parson believes a similar repeal-and-replace effort is necessary for a new voter-approved constitutional amendment revising the way Missouri's legislative districts are drawn. Beyond that, Parson said in an interview with The Associated Press, it may also be time to raise the bar for initiative petitions to appear on the ballot. The Republican governor acknowledges that neither of those things may sound good to voters. "Fundamentally, you think when the people vote you shouldn't be changing that vote," Parson told the AP. "But the reality of it is that is somewhat what your job is sometimes, if you know something's unconstitutional, if you know some of it's not right." Voters last month overwhelimingly approved Constitutional Amendment 1. Dubbed "Clean Missouri" by supporters, the measure limited lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, subjected lawmakers to the state open-records law and changed the process for redrawing legislative districts after the 2020 census. Republican legislative leaders also have said they may consider changes to Amendment 1 during the session that starts Jan. 9. Officials in other states also have sought to undo voter initiatives. South Dakota is a prime example. Lawmakers in 2017 repealed voter-approved ethics regulations. House Speaker Mark Mickelson then spearheaded successful measures for the 2018 ballot requiring initiatives to stick to a single subject and banning out-of-state funding for initiatives. Voters rejected a third proposal that would have required a 55 percent threshold for voters to approve future constitutional amendments.

He can try. He'll get dragged to court for it.

Get fucked you corrupt hick.

You say that, but the courts historically have protected the sovereignty and power of executive offices over limitations on those offices. So going to the mat and fighting it out in court isn't a particularly bad deal for him.

Feed this man a high-velocity brick.

ya but this is a constitutional amendment, like you can't overturn the state's constitution in a state court.

This "man" sounds like he wants a re-enactment of the French Revolution in his front yard, because overriding a direct democratic action like a public referendum is how you get to star in a live-action re-enactment of the French Revolution. *note, I'm not condoning violence, I am only predicting it. Tarred and feathered, yes. Killed? No.* My only hope is that when he tries, every single activist group in the state files mass lawsuits to teach this reptilian cuntflap a lesson in democracy.

its the courts sole job to uphold the states constitution if they say something about it in an attempt to disable it (any branch really) then there needs to be violent riots because there'd be precedent for them to, say, bring back slavery

Guillotine 2018

GOP is scared their coruption may become illegal.

The governor he replaced, Eric Greitens, was forced to resign in the midst of corruption and sexual assault investigations. So lovely to see that our new governor is well on his way to being every bit the son of a bitch his predecessor was.

Or a high velocity 5.56.

This a state matter, the Supreme Court has already basically tossed the idea that they will get involved in state matters. They did it with the PA redistricting.

My girlfriend has taken to calling them a criminal cartel at this point. And honestly, I can't think of any evidence to the contrary.

It’s really less of a party problem and more of a state politics problems. Eg the Democrats in Illinois are hardly exemplars of good governance and democracy. Subnational governments all over the world suffer from political corruption, even as far away as here in Australia. What needs to change in state politics in America is the willpower to actually keep local and state governments accountable. Examples of that in Australia include 1) an entire, corrupted city council (Ipswich City Council), was recently sacked and temporarily replaced by an administrator. And 2) a few years ago, a NSW state premier (equivalent of a US governor) had no choice but to resign after it was discovered that he failed to declare receiving a gift of a bottle of wine. I can’t imagine either of those things happening in the US.

The Bothsiderism here is neglecting the fact that the GOP as a party are, at this very moment, defending and upholding the most nakedly corrupt public official in the entire country -- and one of the most unapologetically corrupt leaders throughout the entire world. You don't get to make the argument that Democrats are just as bad when Democrats aren't the ones unanimously falling into lockstep with somebody who literally stole the the presidency by committing Treason through a criminal conspiracy involving our greatest geopolitical foe on the planet. The Democrats aren't the ones exerting themselves, as a party, to systematically tear down the very investigative bodies seeking to bring justice to that man and his co-conspirators, and pervert it into a weapon to be pointed at their political foes. This is to say nothing of the nationwide efforts of the GOP to disenfranchise as many voters as possible via gerrymandering, over-restrictive Voter ID laws, stripping (and refusing to reinstate) voting rights to minor criminals, refusing to uphold overwhelmingly supported voter initiatives to remove dark money from politics, and so forth. While I'm more than capable of recognizing that the Democrats have had their share of issues, they are nothing in comparison to the vast and rampant corruption of the modern GOP, and Bothsiderism has lost all valid standing as a position of anybody other than the ignorant.