October 20, 2026

Last Wednesday, Bryant Wolfin and I held a forum at the Catalyst Center in Perryville. I thought it was a good debate – not because of brilliant oratory but because it made clear areas where we agree and where we differ.  Here’s my completely unbiased opinion of the debate.  (You can watch it in its entirety on my Facebook page.)

At the forum Mr. Wolfin, the incumbent in our district, said he wants to go back to Jeff City as our state representative to be “a champion for liberty.” For him, that means small government. He believes the current minimum wage is too high.  He said he believes we’ve all grown too comfortable with big government. 

I said I want to go to Jeff City because, as our state motto proclaims, “the welfare of the people is the supreme law.”  I want to work in the best interests of the people of Perry and Ste. Genevieve counties. 

I believe that sometimes means making the government smaller.  But it also sometimes means giving the government the tools it needs to work for the people. 

Mr. Wolfin recognized that he’s been called “Representative No” because he has voted against bills 297 times - more than any other Republican, Democrat, or Independent.  He is proud he was the only state representative that voted “No” on all 13 bills that make up Missouri’s state budget.

I said that this made Mr. Wolfin rather a pariah within his own party. It’s why he can’t get any of his proposals out of committee. He acknowledged that’s true, but said he hopes he can do better with whoever becomes the next speaker of the Missouri house.  

I pointed out that the next Missouri House and whoever becomes our next state rep will face tough problems – how we deal with data centers and flock cameras and the budget wall Missouri is fast approaching. Mr. Wolfin agreed that we are facing a fiscal disaster.

I said we need to consider all our options when it comes to the budget – where to tighten the belt and what to do with taxes. 

I pointed out how the Republican legislature completely eliminated any income tax on capital gains. (That’s money you make from selling stocks, bonds, real estate, cryptocurrency, and the like. It’s an advantage Missourians who live paycheck to paycheck seldom get.) We were told state revenues would “only drop” by $100 million a year. In fact, the figure is more like $500 million. 

Mr. Wolfin appeared to agree that ending all capital gains tax may have been part of the reason for our budget problem.  But he also said that no one could see the budget disaster coming, and that in Missouri the revenue stream isn’t the problem – it’s just that we’re spending too much.

I pointed out that Missouri has around 230 sales tax exemptions, including the mining sales tax exemption that’s decimated Ste. Genevieve County’s budget. Mr. Wolfin acknowledged that the mining sales tax exemption has been devastating to Ste. Genevieve. He admitted he hasn’t been able to get the legislature to address the problem.  

I noted that in the current budget the legislature has increased money allotted for private school vouchers from $40 million to $60 million and continued to grant full tax credits for “certified public assistance organizations.” (Those are groups that help private schools pay for individual education programs.  This is one of Gov. Kehoe’s pet projects.) 

I suggested those provisions might be an area for belt tightening, especially since the legislature has failed to fully fund public schools according to its own formula.  

Mr. Wolfin appeared to agree.  But he thinks the real problem in Jeff City is the concentration of power in the Republican leadership. He said he’s drafted rule changes in how the state legislature is run.  I suspect that given his reputation as “Representative No” these proposals will go nowhere, no matter how good they might be.

Mr. Wolfin spoke at some length about the “single subject” provision in  Missouri’s constitution. He said the provision’s often why he votes against bills, even those he likes. The state constitution says any proposed bill or amendment has to deal with a single subject.  

That sounds simple, but the provision has problems. If no one challenges a law within a specific time window, it becomes the law, no matter how many subjects it covers.  Besides, it isn’t always clear when a law addresses multiple subjects.

Mr. Wolfin suggested that I would be a patsy for party leaders and not uphold the single subject provision. I’ve practiced law as Ste Genevieve county’s prosecutor for twenty years and as a public defender and in private practice for nearly as long. I've learned there’s a time to speak and a time to listen, a time to fight and a time to compromise.  (See Ecclesiastes 3:1-18.) 

If a bill clearly violates the single subject provision, I’ll vote against it.  If it isn’t clear whether it does or not but it promotes the welfare of the people, I’ll vote for it. The welfare of the people of Missouri should always be our first consideration.

Please visit this space again in the next few days for more on how Mr. Wolfin and I differ on the single subject provision and how it relates to the proposed Amendment 3 and abortion. 

October 11, 2026

The Mineral Area Activities Association (MAAA) is not generally politically active. It is a high school athletic and academic conference for schools in the Mineral Area, including the Ste. Genevieve school district and Valle Catholic schools.  It is governed by the Missouri State High School Activities Association and mainly coordinates conference-wide activities like basketball tournaments and scholar bowls.

But on October 8th, the MAAA issued statement which included the following warning:

“At the September State Board meeting, the State Board of Education chose not to request full funding for public education. If this funding is not restored, our local school districts could face significant financial losses. These cuts could affect the services and opportunities we provide to students and families in our communities.”

(Emphasis in original.)

The MAAA estimates the funding loss for Ste. Genevieve next year will be $838,000.  The warning further says: 

“We are asking our families, staff, community members, businesses, and local organizations to stand with our schools and advocate for full funding of public education.  Our students deserve the resources they need to learn, grow, and prepare for their futures.

The Missouri Legislature has the ability to provide additional funding and full support public education.  We encourage you to contact your state legislators and ask them to support full funding for our schools. . . . Our Governor and/or the Legislature can restore funding for schools in the coming months, but they will only do so if everyone advocates for this together.”  

(Emphases in original.)

Article IX of the Missouri Constitution provides, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools.” Indeed, public schools are the legislature’s constitutional priority. 

Since 1999, public schools include charter schools, but by statute they are limited to Kansas City, St. Louis City, Boone County, and school districts that aren’t accredited or are only provisionally accredited.  So Ste. Genevieve and Perry counties aren’t allowed to have charter schools.  Charter schools have at best had mixed reviews.  Some have abruptly closed their doors leaving families and school districts scrambling.

For years Missouri has used a formula for how much state money each school district should receive. And for years, Missouri’s budget fell short of the formula.  Only briefly has the budget met the formula.  And in 2024, the Missouri general assembly amended the formula to reflect anticipated increases in the costs of educating students. 

But in May of this year that changed. We went back to falling short, largely because wildly optimistic estimates of state lottery revenues flowing to schools were wrong. We’re not gambling enough. The shortfall is around $190 million below what the formula would have required.

And yet while the legislature abandoned fully funding the formula in May, it somehow saw fit to increase private school vouchers 20%, from $40 million to $60 million. The legislature somehow continued allowing tax credits for contributions to “certified education assistance organizations.” 

These contributions are supposed to provide scholarships for private school students who need individual education plans (IEPs).  In truth, these tax credits are a boondoggle for the wealthy. Unlike other contributions to charities, which just reduce taxable income, these contributions reduce tax bills dollar for dollar.

And now for the first time ever in its history the State Board of Education has decided it isn’t even asking for full funding under the formula. It’s going to ask for about $300 million less than the formula amount. That’s what has the MAAA up in arms.  What’s the point of having a target, if you don’t aim for it?

The situation in Missouri is likely to get worse – and not just for public schools. Missouri has almost completely spent the surplus we have used to balance our budget during the last few years – money that we largely got from the federal government during Covid. In the words of our Republican State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri’s “going 100 miles an hour into the brick wall.”

Republicans have controlled both houses of the General Assembly for more than 20 years.  They have controlled the governor’s office since 2017.  During this time, they passed a raft of tax cuts and exemptions, often at the request of lobbyists for special interests that happen to also contribute to Republican candidates on the state and national level. 

They’ve slashed the top state income tax bracket and eliminated tax on capital gains. That capital gains tax change means if you make money selling your stocks, there’s no state income tax.  That’s great if you own loads of stock. Not so great if you’re living paycheck to paycheck. 

The Republicans predicted these steps would only drop state tax receipts by $111 million per year. In fact, it has ended up costing the state more than $500 million annually.

And that’s why we’re running into a brick wall. State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick predicts the state’s general revenue fund will run bone dry early in the Fiscal Year 2028. 

To make it through this fiscal debacle, we are going to need state legislators who understand everything needs to be on the table – belt tightening, reforming and eliminating tax exemptions and yes, maybe increasing some folk’s taxes. We need legislators who will be honest about the difficult choices Missouri will face and who will consider all possible approaches. We need legislators who will negotiate.  Nothing should be off the table. 

My opponent, Bryant Wolfin, has been tagged with the nickname Representative “NO” because he has voted against more bills than any other state legislator, Democrat or Republican.  He has called the state Republican leadership corrupt and has acknowledged this has made him something of a pariah in Jeff City. He has voted against bills even though he thinks they’re good because of supposed constitutional defects which it seems only he perceives. He has declared that income taxes are immoral. 

Mr. Wolfin is a man of strong opinions - some of which I agree with, some I don’t, and some I have a hard time understanding. 

But what District 145 and the state of Missouri need is not an ideologue but a representative who can and will work with other representatives, of either or no party, to see Missouri through its looming budget crisis. A representative who believes in our state motto – the Will of the People is the Supreme Law. A representative who recognizes that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.  

All of which brings me back to the Mineral Area Activities Association statement.  I think I know why the State Board of Education for the first time ever will not request full formula funding for our public schools. It’s not that they believe they’ll get full funding in the next budget. 

They don’t want to embarrass Gov. Kehoe and the General Assembly by letting the people of Missouri know how far they are missing their own target. At least not before the election in November.

The MAAA, on the other hand, wants Missourians to know.  As do I. 

October 4, 2026

There were seven Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858. Each debate lasted about three hours.

My opponent, Bryant Wolfin, and I have agreed on far fewer debates and they will be much shorter.

We’re calling them forums. The first will be on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, starting at 6:30 at the Catalyst Center in Perryville. The address is 508 N. Main St. 

The second one is on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, at the Ste. Genevieve County Community Center, also at 6:30 pm. I don’t know for sure which building as yet, but will let you know.  

Both forums are open to the public, so you don’t have to be from Perry County to go to Perryville’s or Ste. Genevieve County to go to Ste. Genevieve’s.  We want a large turn-out at both.

The format for the one in Perryville is little unusual. We’ll have a coin flip to see who talks first. Each of us will have 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Then both of us will address 4 questions. The 4 questions will be chosen from those submitted by members of the public that night. They will be reviewed and selected by Bryant’s wife Megan and my wife Susie at least 20 minutes before the forum starts.  Obviously both of us have great faith in our wives. 

Neither of us will know the questions. So please DO NOT tell me or Susie.  We want this forum to be fair to all.

Each candidate will have 3 minutes to answer each question, and we’ll alternate who answers first.

We’ll then conclude with closing statements, again 5 minutes each.  We’ll then mingle. (Unless everyone is sick of hearing us talk.)

I believe the forum in Ste. Genevieve will largely follow the same format as the last forum in July with Mr. Wolfin, his primary opponent Scott Sattler, and myself. In other words. Mr. Wolfin and I may pose questions to each other. Other questions will come from the Ste. Genevieve Herald. 

I believe Mr. Wolfin and I really want these forums to work.  So please attend, invite your friends, and think of good questions for both of us for the Perryville event but keep them secret.

Also, if anyone knows when Jason Smith is going to participate in a public forum with Chris Reichard (or even a public forum without Chris Reichard), please let me know.

October 1, 2026

In early September, at Trumpapalooza, the mid-term Republican convention, our president instructed attendees to raise their right hands and repeat “to the greatest president in the history of the United States” that they would “cheat like hell” and vote whether they were registered or not. And ever since that convention he has urged his MAGA loyalists to “pretend like I’m on the ballot.”

In the meantime, Republicans who in fact are on the ballot and in close races . . . like Susan Collins in Maine and Ted Cruz in Texas for examples . . . are distancing themselves from Trump. The last thing they want is for voters to think the election in November is a referendum on DJT.

I am running for state representative in Missouri House District 145 against Bryant Wolfin. I am the Democrat; Mr. Wolfin, the Republican. 

For once I agree with our president. Pretend Trump’s on the ballot. Because in a very real sense he is. We have never had a president so reckless or full of contempt for the Constitution. He is an existential threat to this country 

My opponent talks a lot about the Constitution – both the state and federal. But I’ve never heard him talk about Trump. That may be a good strategy but it is not good for America.

In ordinary times, we need at least two parties and independents to keep elected officials on their toes so they won’t take us for granted.  You have to rotate crops to keep fields fertile. It’s no different with politics.

But these are not merely ordinary times. We have a president who uses taxpayer dollars to run campaign ads, who demands vanity projects while the national debt explodes, whose insider trading breeds massive corruption, who calls facts fake news and treats criticism like treason. You might not disagree with all his policies, but you should not agree with the man.

Some Republicans have recognized this and been brave enough to say so. Their party then rejected them. Mr. Wolfin has not yet shown such courage.

He helped organize buses to Trump’s January 6 rally where Trump urged supporters to storm the Capitol. Perhaps Mr. Wolfin regrets his decision. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. But I’ve never heard him say so.

Mr. Wolfin has shown some glimmer of guts standing up to the state Republican leadership by voting against gerrymandering. But I’ve never heard him criticize the force behind the gerrymandering. And he must have realized the Republican majority would rubber stamp redistricting so he’d likely dodge Trump’s wrath. That’s unlike those Republican state legislators in Indiana who voted against redistricting and prevailed. Those state legislators lost their bids for reelection to primary opponents funded by Trump’s lackeys.

If, God forbid, there ever is a Democratic demagogue in the White House one tenth as bad as Trump, I will oppose him furiously and call out his name. I’ve yet to hear Mr. Wolfin call out Trump. But I suppose there’s still time.

I believe I would make a better state representative for the people of this district than my opponent even in ordinary times. But these are not ordinary times. It is vital that we remember Trump is also on the ballot.

September 23, 2026

Liberty. My opponent Bryant Wolfin uses that word a lot. In his forum with his primary opponent Scott Sattler, Mr. Wofin declared, “I went to Jeff City to be a champion for liberty.” He often closes his correspondence with “For Liberty!” Liberty’s torch appears on his campaign signs.

This has led me to think about liberty – how it means different things to different people. At least 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slaveholders. And yet that Declaration states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For many, liberty means “Don’t Tread on Me” and is a warning addressed to government officials. Sometimes we forget that there’s a reminder of that in the next few sentences in the Declaration.

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 

The bottom line: To the Founders, an appropriate form of government was vital to protect liberty. 

During this campaign I’ve been struck by how many people I’ve met, of all political stripes, who feel that their liberty is under attack. From Flock cameras to AI, from data centers to government censorship, we sense our liberty is slipping away.

I just finished a biography of Theodore Roosevelt, T.R.: The Last Romantic, by H.W. Brands.  The Gilded Age of the 1890s and 1900s seems awfully similar to current times – economic uncertainty, a widening gulf between the superrich and workers, trusts and monopolies raising prices at will, corruption at the highest levels of government.

The question is what to do about it.

Mr. Wolfin complained at the forum, “You have to align with the special interests. You got to do what the speaker wants. You have to do what the floor leader wants, otherwise you can’t be represented.”  He says he’s “been the loudest voice bringing that to the forefront.”

Mr. Wolfin is known in some quarters as “Representative No,” voting against more legislation than any other state representative – Republican, Democrat, or independent. Pretty much not aligning with anyone about anything.

Maybe that’s why he hasn’t been effective at representing the interests of Perry and Ste. Genevieve counties. He says his reason for voting no so much is “due to house rules that we have,” and his belief that “we’ve squandered away all of our power to a simple few at the top.”  

His promise to the people of the 145th district is “I’m hopeful to go back and fight for at least another two years.” That’s his strategy for championing liberty. 

But just serving as a gadfly has never been enough.

Teddy Roosevelt knew that.  He formed coalitions of members of his own party, of progressives in other parties, of independents.  He used the power of government to fight the monopolies and trusts, to protect our natural resources, to permit workers to organize for decent wages and conditions, to prohibit contaminated meat and quack medications, to stop stock market manipulation.  

He knew how a corrupt government in cahoots with tycoons can stifle liberty and how a decent government can promote it.

Long before T.R., our founders understood that. The government works best for the people when our representatives work with each other. 

Missouri is going to face incredible challenges in the next few years with changing technologies, changing markets, and budget shortfalls. No party has all the answers.  But we need a representative who will build bridges, not walls; who will listen, not just shout no; and who will represent people not causes.  

I am no Teddy Roosevelt and I have no political ambitions beyond this election. But I do understand “just saying no” isn’t enough.  

And that striving to work together is not a weakness but is instead our best hope for liberty.

September 15, 2026

I am very leery of campaign endorsements.

They are often not so much endorsements as predictions.  The International Association of Mothball Collectors thinks X is going to win and wants to look powerful and so it endorses X’s campaign. The mothball collectors want taxpayer money for a mothball museum so they want X to think he owes them if he wins.

Early in this, I saw that Scott Sattler was endorsed by the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police.  Mr. Sattler was the unsuccessful Republican challenger to Bryant Wolfin, who is now my opponent in the general election in November.  I don’t know why Mr. Sattler got the endorsement.  My guess is the FOP backed him because Jeff City Republicans wanted Mr. Sattler to win and incorrectly told the FOP that he was the favorite.

(I was the elected prosecuting attorney for Ste. Genevieve County for 20 years. The FOP has yet to contact me.)  

I am also skeptical of campaign endorsements because of how silly the questionnaires that organizations send candidates are.  It reminds me of when I enlisted in the Marines back in 1978. The recruiter told me he was going to ask me 3 questions and if I answered yes to any of them I couldn’t join the Marines. The questions were:  Are you a communist? Are you gay? Have you ever smoked weed? (I answered the first two truthfully.)

Here are word-for-word some questions in a questionnaire I got recently from a major lobbying group in Missouri. I had to answer them “right” if I wanted the group’s endorsement.  

- Do you support or oppose policies that encourage responsible data-center development and investment in Missouri?

- Do you support or oppose civil-justice reforms intended to reduce abusive litigation, improve predictability for employers, and control liability-insurance costs?

- Do you support or oppose efforts to reduce or streamline state regulations that impose unnecessary costs on employers while maintaining appropriate health, safety, and consumer protections?

I’m certain I could have passed the test.  But I didn’t see the point. 

Here’s the real problem with endorsements. An elected official’s loyalty should be to his constituents, not to organizations that back him.  Missouri’s state motto is “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto” – the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.  If I am elected, I will strive to remember that every moment of every day I serve.

I know that sounds corny.  But that’s how I feel.  

Missouri is facing a huge budgetary crisis.  Whoever is elected needs to listen to all points of view, not just those of the organizations who back him.

However, with that said, I got my first non-party endorsement last week.  And I didn’t fill out any questionnaires.  The Missouri AFL-CIO is backing me. 

I am thrilled and honored.  I’m sure I won’t agree with unions on everything.  I figure I got the endorsement because I have good friends who are good union members who put in good words.  I am humbled.

If elected, I promise to do my best for them and all my constituents.

And I promise to try to not use Latin any more in this campaign.

September 11, 2026

I went to the Ste. Gen County Commissioners’ meeting on September 10 for two reasons – first, to hear their response to the state auditor’s report which outlined problems with the county’s budget; second, because my opponent Bryant Wolfin’s name was added in handwriting to the agenda without explanation.

The state auditor’s report cited three areas of concern – overpayment of property taxes, a mid-term increase in the sheriff’s salary, a cost-of-living increase for county employees without approval of the salary commission, and a failure to disburse or account for monies in jail detainees’ accounts.

Here’s a summary of explanations I heard: 

On the overpayment of property taxes, the County Clerk apologized and said it was a result of switching the Excel spread sheet program she used. She indicated the problem has been fixed and that she will be “refunding” the $370,000 overpayment over the course of two years by lowering the property taxes $185,000 each year as the auditor suggested.  Of course, this doesn’t account for interest and does not help those who have transferred their property during the period of overpayment.

On the midterm increase in the sheriff’s salary, the commissioners said this was a result of an error in the language of the law the state legislature enacted raising the pay.  They said the legislature passed the pay raise and set a date for it to go into effect.  They said they checked with the county’s attorney, Ivan Schrader, who told them they had to comply.  The state auditor’s position is that the county violated Article VII, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution which prohibits midterm increases for county officers unless the increase is the result of a formula in place when the officer was elected.  The state legislation was not based on such a formula.

The sheriff’s annual salary in 2022 (before the effective date of the legislation) was $80,457.  His annual salary based on the formula in the state legislation is now $109,000. I do not know how much his salary would have increased under the pre-legislation formula that should have remained in effect.

Apparently, this mistake was committed by many counties in Missouri, which like Ste. Genevieve, may have relied on incorrect legal advice.  The county commission indicated that the state auditor did not require any effort to “claw back” any overpayment to the sheriff.  I need to point out this defective legislation was enacted before Mr. Wolfin took office. 

   On the cost-of-living increase to county employees, the commission acknowledged it was not passed by the salary commission.  The salary commission is composed of all elected county officials and has to meet every two years (although it can be more often.)  This COLA was for a year without a mandated meeting.  I know from my experience as the county’s prosecuting attorney that the salary commission routinely goes along with what the county commissioners suggest.  Again, the state auditor did not suggest and the county commissioners are not seeking a claw back.

On the sheriff’s department's failure to disburse or account for monies in detainee accounts, the auditor’s report estimates the total amount to be around $60,000.  The county commission had no explanation and suggested that any questions be directed to the sheriff. The commissioners said their only power over an elected county official is to provide a lump sum for that official to run the office and while that lump sum is based on what the official says he or she needs the commission has limited control on how the funds are used. (Although they can reduce an official’s budget for the coming years if they are dissatisfied.)  

Given Ste. Gen County’s dependence on money the Sheriff’s Department brings in for housing state and federal prisoners and ICE detainees, I have concerns about the efficacy of county commission oversight of the Sheriff’s Department’s operations.  In any case, there was no mention of how to get the monies to the prisoners to whom they belong.

My opponent Bryant Wolfin spoke at around 9:00 am.  He talked about the legislature’s calendar which is unlikely to include anything that would give third class counties without planning and zoning authority the power to regulate data centers.  (He did indicate his support for some level of county control.)

I suggested, in the interest of openness and considering how important the issue is to their constituents, that the County Commission make it clear when they are going to discuss matters relating to data centers.  I also suggested to Mr. Wolfin that any state law regarding data centers should set a floor with conditions developers have to meet so that poorer counties don’t engage in the proverbial race to the bottom.  I added that the legislation should empower and require the Department of Natural Resources or some other agency to look into the developer’s proposal, especially since counties may well lack the resources to conduct their own investigation.

Finally, I suggested that whoever is elected as state representative seek legislation to the effect that fixtures be treated as real property, not personal property.  “Fixtures” is a legal term for items like built-in cabinets, conveyor systems, ceiling fans, and central air conditioning that are so attached to real estate that when the real estate is sold they are assumed to come with the property.  This is the main issue in Holcim’s dispute with Ste. Genevieve County that is now before the State Tax Commission.  While it seems obvious to me as a lawyer that a fixture is part of the building, I do not have great confidence in the tax commission and I think this sort of legislation can protect the county if the commission rules in Holcim’s favor.

One of Mr. Wolfin’s daughters was present during the meeting.  She was very polite and took diligent notes in her coloring book.  

September 9, 2026

I went to Chin’s restaurant in Perryville last night to listen to Ike Skelton, the presiding commissioner for Camden County, talk about Flock cameras.  (This Ike Skelton is no relation to the former U.S. congressman Ike Skelton, a Democrat who served from 1977 to 2011 and passed away in 2013.) 

I left with more questions about Flocks than answers.  Flocks are automatic license plate readers that law enforcement agencies ostensibly use to catch car thieves, rescue children in Amber alerts, and the like. There have been a few instances where rogue officers have used them to track ex-girlfriends.  Texas has apparently used them to try to catch women who might be leaving the state to seek abortions elsewhere in violation of Texas law.

This meeting had a far smaller crowd than previous events, but there were a fair number of folks wearing my opponent’s T-shirts. (One brave soul was wearing one of mine, God bless her.)  The crowd was very concerned that Flock cameras portend the coming of a police state.  Given the current political climate, this does not seem a ridiculous fear. 

Mr. Skelton and others described their efforts, largely unsuccessful, to get answers to some basic questions. These include:

- What data are the cameras collecting? Just license plate numbers or images from which drivers and passengers can be identified?

- Who has access to this data? Just law enforcement? The folks who own the cars? Anybody Flock wants to give it to?

- How long is the data stored? Just 30 days, as some folks said the Perry County Sheriff told them?  Or forever, as a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Missouri Department of Public Safety seems to suggest?

- What if any safeguards against misuse are there ?

- What happens next?  Mr. Skelton discussed technological advances that may allow devices to keep constant watch on who goes where or track the use of electronic devices in the car or even eavesdrop on conversations.

It would be very helpful to get answers we could trust to these basic questions.   

Mr. Skelton wants Flocks completely outlawed in Missouri.  He recounted how Camden County has an ordinance banning them so he took one down that the Highway Patrol had put up.  He said the local prosecutor charged him with felonies and he ended up pleading a misdemeanor because taking the case to trial would have been much more expensive than just getting a fine on a misdemeanor.  

Mr. Skelton indicated he was sure this would be a major issue for the state legislature in the next session, just behind data centers. He expressed his fear that the Missouri Association of Sheriffs would try to water down any limits on Flocks. He urged the audience to demand a full ban.  He said that my opponent Bryant Wolfin backs a ban, as does Mike Moon, his co-plaintiff in a lawsuit against the State of Missouri regarding the “Show-Me Sports Investment Act.” 

I would love to tell you my position on Flocks, but I don’t have one right now.  I just don’t know enough.

The meeting was frustrating in that respect. But it quickly shifted to a general conversation about conspiracy theories.  Mr. Skelton talked about a $10 million slush fund Gov. Kehoe put in the budget called “Blue Shield” which he can award to law enforcement agencies which apply for grants.  He talked about how in 2009 MIAC (the Missouri Information Analysis Center, part of the Highway Patrol) set forth characteristics of possible “sovereign citizens” and members of the Militia movement.

Folks in the audience expressed opposition to the TransAmerica Corridor.  I had heard about this before – it’s a proposal for an east-west interstate possibly through Cape Girardeau.  Last winter, I attended a “town hall” meeting which Mr. Wolfin held. He indicated his opposition because of concerns it may be funded by the United Nations and may include huge wildlife preserves along both sides which might hinder commerce between Perryville and Cape.  (I’ve looked into this – there is a website backing such an interstate, but there seems little progress.  There’s no United Nations involvement and no wildlife preserves.)

I do not want to belittle these fears.  The people who voice them are sincere and articulate. They were generous enough to let me into their meeting. But I couldn’t help think of FDR’s famous words during his inauguration speech in 1933: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

There are good reasons to worry about the state of the Republic.  I kept looking at my phone during the meeting. Some courts are trying to block and some courts are backing the gerrymandering that lackeys of President Trump have pushed through the Missouri state legislature. Our president wants to block mail-in voting, which many of our senior citizens depend upon.  He has fomented violence in the face of electoral defeat before and he may do so again.  These all appear to me to be more immediate threats than Flocks are right now.

Sometimes the worst enemies of the Republic hide in plain view. May God protect us from them all.  

September 3, 2026

Last May, as talk of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals moving across state lines was heating up, Gov. Kehoe introduced a plan called the “Show-Me Sports Investment Act,” but it stalled and the state legislature adjourned.  He then called for a special legislative session which passed his baby, which offers up to 50% funding support for projects to keep sports teams from moving out of Missouri.

Bryant Wolfin voted against the act.  It passed anyway (90 to 58 in the state house, 19 to 13 in the state senate.)  But it didn’t work as Kehoe hoped, at least not with the Chiefs.  In December 2025, the Chiefs officially announced they were moving to a new domed stadium in Kansas for the 2031 season.

Now it’s the Royals’ turn.  The Royals want a new downtown Kansas City stadium.  The City Council there voted last month to enter into an agreement with the Royals. The plan is for city and state resources to contribute $1.14 billion to the project (60% of the total), with private sources providing $760 million (or 40%).  The Royals would not be liable for any city-backed bonds. The State of Missouri has not agreed to the terms.

There are loads of reasons to oppose this scheme, even for sports fans.  Why are we bankrolling some billionaire’s sports franchise when the state’s facing a budget disaster? And the “Show-Me Sports Investment Act” likely violates key provisions of the state constitution.  Its funding mechanisms are convoluted. Income taxes the state gets from Royals employees would be funneled off to pay for state issued bonds.  That means the income tax which Royal players owe wouldn’t go toward Missouri schools and roads, but for the new stadium. 

Also, people who donate to the new stadium the billionaire wants (like the billionaire himself) get a 50% tax credit. As always, other taxpayers would have to pick up the slack or our schools lose money and the potholes get bigger.  

Mr. Wolfin was right to vote against this billionaire ransom demand. But it passed the legislature, and there majority rules.  Nevertheless Mr. Wolfin has seen fit to sue the State of Missouri. He’s joined in his suit with Ron Calzone, the head of Missouri First, a group that according to its website is “Dedicated to the Sovereignty of Missourians.” Wolfin’s also joined by State Senator Mike Moon, who is probably best known for his position that it’s okay for children as young as 12 to marry.

Opposing this trio are Gov. Kehoe, President Pro Tempore of the Missouri Senate Cindy O’Laughlin, and Jon Patterson, Speaker of the Missouri House.

Why is Mr. Wolfin part of this lawsuit? Does it help the people of Perry and Ste. Genevieve counties?  Or is it grandstanding and burning bridges?

Mr. Wolfin’s side has already lost at the trial court level on the legal issue of standing.  Standing requires that parties show they were damaged by the person or entity they’re suing.  Since no state money’s been set aside for the Royal’s proposed stadium or any other project, the trial court ruled the plaintiffs don’t have standing. In other words, they jumped the gun.

So lawyers for Mr. Wolfin and Mr. Moon came up with another basis for standing. Basically they’re saying that since they sit in the legislature and voted against the act they automatically have standing.  The trial court rejected that argument too, noting that there’s no Missouri statute or case that supports their proposition.

I suspect this claim of legislative standing is part of why Mr. Wolfin’s something of a pariah to the Republican leadership.  He’s known as “Representative No” for voting against more bills than any other state rep, either Republican or Democrat.  He explains that he votes “no” even though he might  like what the bill does if he thinks the bill somehow violates the state constitution.  If Missouri courts accept the idea of legislative standing, Mr. Wolfin (or any state senator or representative) may well be able to tie up in the courts practically any action taken by the Missouri General Assembly.

That would make Missouri practically ungovernable.

Mr. Wolfin, Mr. Moon, and Mr. Calzone have appealed the trial court’s decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, which heard oral argument on September 1. I was able to watch it on a livestream. (Sort of – the sound kept going out.)  It was odd in the arguments that no one mentioned legislative standing – not the lawyers on either side and not the judges.  It seemed like the issue had been dropped.  The focus was on taxpayer standing – has any state money been expended on the “Show-Me Sports Investment Act?”

So then why did Mr. Wolfin join in the lawsuit?  If there’s taxpayer standing, then any taxpayer, including Mr. Calzone, can bring the action.  And if there hasn’t been any state money spent yet, why pick the fight now when the court’s just going to toss the action out?

I believe Mr. Wolfin’s correct in saying that Kehoe’s Show-Me Sports Investment Act is bad law. But he has burnt bridges which may be impossible to repair. And if somehow he wins with his novel legal theory of legislative standing, he will have paralyzed the legislature. 

It’s foolish to predict what the Missouri Supreme Court will do based on oral arguments. But my guess is the court will find there isn’t standing and affirm the trial court’s decision.  I suspect they will hold that the dismissal should be “without prejudice,” meaning Mr. Wolfin, Mr. Moon, Mr. Calzone or any other taxpayers may pursue the issue if the state starts spending money.

I’ve practiced law for 40 years.  There have been many times I wanted pick fights for my clients because I thought we were on the side of the angels. But I learned to hold back if the fight won’t help the client. Or might wind up hurting him. 

Mr. Wolfin may be on the side of the angels with the “Show-Me Sports Investment Act” but I am afraid his lawsuit hinders his ability to get things done for the constituents in District 145.

August 28, 2026

On Tuesday I went to a presentation regarding data centers in Perry County and the City of Perryville. It was very different from the Perryville aldermanic meeting of a few weeks ago – much less boisterous, no public forum, and more like a series of power point presentations.

It’s always good to hear from officials, especially on controversial issues.  They can try to dodge the bullet, but the presenters on Tuesday seemed to speak plainly and openly, for which they should be commended.  Also, they should be given credit for trying to stay ahead of the issue and not just wait for something to happen.

Which isn’t to say I always agreed with them.  Their policies generally  seemed reasonable, but they often sounded like cheerleaders for data centers.  And they would often and unnecessarily veer into national politics. 

  Jared Kutz, the county clerk, pointed out that Perry County doesn’t have planning and zoning. He said the county can’t do anything right now to stop a hyperscale data center from going up.  He called on the Missouri state legislature to give counties without planning and zoning the tools to regulate data centers, including establishing setback requirements.

But I don’t believe it’s fair to declare that our counties are powerless.  Ste. Genevieve County faced developers who wanted to open a silica sand mine operation across from Hawn State Park.  Silica sand particulates are similar to  what causes black lung disease in coal miners.  The county commission and county health department enacted regulations and ordinances requiring setbacks and other protections for people in the area.  The developers sued, but the case never got heard because the developers abandoned it when the market for silica sand took a dive and their application with the state mining commission was found deficient.  (Had the case continued, I think the county and health commission likely would have won on the merits.)

There are at least three Missouri counties that have enacted moratoriums on data centers ranging from 6 months to 1 year to study the issue.  These include Nodaway, Ralls, and Webster counties.  

Mr. Kutz did not support a moratorium for Perry County.  He said that Hill County, Texas tried a moratorium but then rescinded it after the data center developer brought a lawsuit in federal court seeking millions of dollars in damages.  While I know little about this lawsuit, the developer dismissed the claim after Hill County withdrew its moratorium.  Hill County enacted a checklist for the data center to comply with.  The Hill County judge (“judge” is what Texas calls a county commissioner) said he considered the moratorium a success. 

I agree with Mr. Kutz that the legislature needs to give counties the power to regulate data centers.  I also think it should set some basic statewide requirements so counties don’t engage in a proverbial race to the bottom. But I’m very afraid if Jeff City smells money (and data center developers have money), they’ll keep any regulatory authority to themselves. That’s what they did with CAFOs, those huge hog farms in northwest Missouri which counties wanted to regulate. The legislature stripped them of that power.

Mr. Kutz said if data centers aren’t built in Perry County they’ll be built elsewhere.  That may be true, but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.  He then displayed an image of the Great Wall of China.  I’m not sure I got the significance.  I’m sure China is and will use data centers to spy on its own people and the rest of the world.  I definitely don’t want America imitating China.

Brent Buerck, the Perryville city administrator then spoke.  There were more images and charts. Many I didn’t quite get, like the one that showed how Chicago’s population grew to exceed St. Louis’s. Mr. Buerck suggested this was because Chicago had developed railroads heading west quicker.  (I’ve always understood that happened because railroads from Chicago could cross the Mississippi easier because the river is narrower and shallower to the north. St. Louis had to wait for Eads Bridge to be built. I assume Mr. Buerck’s message was to embrace technology if you want your city to grow.)

Mr. Buerck said data centers won’t bring many jobs but that they’d be high paying jobs, and this might trickle down and create other jobs.  

Mr. Buerck also said that it might not be wise to close the door on businesses Governor Kehoe and President Trump recommend.  Again, I am not sure whether he meant that they are very smart people and we should accept their judgment or that they might retaliate if we don’t do what they want. Let’s remember Elon Musk thinks data centers will be so costly on earth we’d be better off putting them in space.

(There were other remarks I found odd, like his saying Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgam wants a green light for data centers on public lands but wants to keep out any solar panels or windmills.  There was also mention of how AI has helped us shoot down Iranian missiles in the Middle East.)

While some speakers seemed to sing the praises of data centers, they all acknowledged it should be up to the people how to proceed.  The regulation enacted by the City of Perryville appears to take steps to protect the city, maybe in part because the city’s attorney has expertise on matters relating to noise and tonality gained through his military service.

But I suspect some parts of the regulation may be challenged in court, such as that the city has “absolute discretion” in deciding whether to grant permission to a developer and that equipment in the data center will be assessed as real property.  This is very much the issue Ste. Gen County has been fighting over with Holcim.

AI is more than just the latest advance in technology.  As Pope Leo XIV, Bill Gates, and many other folks smarter than me have noted, it has great potential for good and great potential for evil.  Since the dawn of mankind, we have made and used tools.  We have made them better and we have told them what to do.  Now AI is a tool that says it doesn’t need us – it can make itself better.  And AI, unlike any previous tool, is now telling us what it thinks we should do. Autonomous AI won’t even bother with that - it will just go ahead and as it sees fit. Think what that may mean.  

As Mr. Buerck pointed out, AI is not the same as data centers.  But AI feeds off modern data centers and its appetite is insatiable.  AI is already hacking its way into restricted data centers. 

Data centers may provide information AI can analyze to solve humanity’s biggest problems.  But these data centers may also provide the way for governments to create ever more powerful police states, especially as flock cameras pop up around the country.  AI can make fake news seem real and real news seems fake.  AI has written briefs for court with cases that don’t exist.

We are entering a brave new world.  We cannot afford to hide under the sheets. It seems the people of Perry County grasp that and that the officials in Perry County understand that it ultimately should be the people who decide how we regulate data centers.  But regulations, statutes and constitutions are only as strong as the elected officials we trust to enforce them.

Let’s make sure Jeff City gets the message.

August 26, 2026

There should be one overriding issue in every state senator and state representative race in Missouri this year.  How are we going to address the budget disaster we are facing?  Missouri has almost exhausted the surplus lawmakers have relied on the last few years to balance the budget.  That’s not just a candidate’s doomsday prediction – it’s what our Republican State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick says. In his words, we’re “going 100 miles an hour into the brick wall.”

How did we get here? Let’s start with the budget process.  Both houses of the state legislature pass a budget. The governor can do a line-item veto on any expenditure, except for funding public schools and for payment on debt which are protected by the state constitution. The legislature can override a line-item veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

We’ve had Republican control of both houses for two decades.  The Republicans have controlled the governor’s office since 2017.  The Republican legislature has passed a slew of tax cuts, often for special interests (like the mining lobby).  It’s also slashed the top income tax bracket and eliminated any tax for income on capital gains.  This means that if you make money by selling assets for a profit there’s no income tax at all.  Great news if you’ve got loads of assets.  Not so great if you’re living paycheck to paycheck. 

The Republicans predicted this would only cut tax receipts $111 million per year.  Turns out it’s costing the state more than $500 million annually.

So how did we get a budget surplus in the first place? The surpluses peaked at nearly $8.1 billion at the end of the 2023 fiscal year.  It largely came from federal COVID aid, much of it tied to Medicaid.  As of May 31, the surplus had dropped to $5.6 billion but only $2.9 billion can be spent as general revenue, with the balance dedicated to specific projects like work on I-70 and I-44 and renovations to the state capitol building.  

I know these numbers make one’s eyes glaze over.  But they’re real.  The state auditor has predicted the general revenue fund will run bone dry early in FY 2028.

There are really only three things we can do – tighten our belts more, raise taxes, or some combination of the two.  The Republicans always cling to the fourth “option” – growing the economy.  Sometimes they mean stadiums in Kansas City, but generally they mean gutting taxes.  But of course that’s what helped us get into this mess in the first place.

Missouri’s Republicans are repeating the mantra of Republicans in Washington, D.C.  Don’t worry about tariffs, the cost of the war in the Strait of Hormuz, the $40 trillion in national debt? (Which comes to about $120,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.) We’ll grow out of it thanks to AI and data centers. 

When politicians talk about growth and debt, they’re talking about economic growth that increases tax revenues.  If it’s not taxed, it’s not reducing the debt.  And taxable economic growth can be good or bad for Americans. AI and data centers may make a few rich and others poor.  It may create a police state or let us all have lives of luxury.  Pollution can create “growth” – think of all the jobs cleaning up the mess.  And economic “growth” is unpredictable.  That’s why most economists tell us not to rely on “growth” to save us from the hole we’re in.

The only way Missouri is going to avoid a headfirst crash into the brick wall is by putting everything on the table – belt tightening and taxes.  The Republican party of fiscal responsibility is no more.  It’s been kidnapped.  It has made clear it’s not going to consider taxes.

I have heard my opponent declare that income taxes are immoral.  I don’t understand what he means.  They may be too high, too low, unfair to the rich, unfair to the poor.  But “immoral?”  Not putting them on the table strikes me as, if not immoral, at least nonsensical.  It seems like the only tax Mr. Wolfin will consider is getting rid of the sales tax exemption for mining operations.  That’s politics, not principle.  

I don’t know whose belt Mr. Wolfin wants to tighten.  In fairness, I don’t know whose I want to tighten, although I’ve got some thoughts percolating. But at a bare minimum, we’ve got to put everything on the table.  We’ve got to be honest with the voters. 

I recently spoke with someone in Ste. Gen who is actively involved in helping our neighbors with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  She showed me something someone who works in this field wrote. It says, “Behind every budget proposal, policy change, or service cut is a real person.” 

I know that budgets are not as exciting as culture wars. But I believe they’re at least as important. Our nation’s founders declared, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” They gave us representation.  It’s up to use it. 

August 18, 2026

Just the name suggests it’s a boondoggle.  The pet project of Republican State Senator Adam Schnettling of St. Charles, Amendment 7 would create what the amendment calls “a permanent state endowment.”  This so-called endowment would be funded by the state legislature and by gifts, grants, and donations.  

At a time when our state treasurer is forecasting a budget shortfall of $1.7 billion in 2027 and the complete exhaustion of the state general revenue fund in the 2028 fiscal year, it would be lunacy for the legislature to put money into this sort of  endowment.  So any money will have to come from “gifts, grants, and donations.”  In other words, from rich people and businesses with money to burn.  

If you think these folks and enterprises won’t want something in return for their money, you might want to think again.  Imagine Amazon planning on building a huge data center and giving Missouri a “gift” right before the legislature votes.  Think that might affect the vote?  Amendment 7 is a recipe for rampant corruption.

So where would these “gifts” from benevolent citizens like Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk go?  The amendment says, “The state treasurer shall invest the fund in exchange-traded funds tracking the stock performance of the Standard and Poor’s 500, or a comparable successor index to be determined law, in a manner consistent with fiduciary standards applicable to public trust funds.”

What that means is that the money is invested in companiess like Amazon, driving their stock even higher.  Amazon gives the state money which the state invests in Amazon.

Amendment 7’s “permanent endowment fund” is what economists/ call a “sovereign wealth fund” or SWF.  SWFs are typically created when governments have budgetary surpluses and where the government depends on raw material exports for its money.  Think of Saudi Arabia, Norway and Alaska with their huge oil reserves.  That simply doesn’t describe Missouri.

SWFs often make high risk/high return investments because their governments can afford to gamble.  That doesn’t describe Missouri either.

Admittedly, “exchange-traded funds tracking the stock performance of the Standard and Poor’s 500” are generally not considered high risk/high return investments.  But we are currently swimming in murky financial waters, what with AI, tariffs, wars, and all of Trump’s topsy-turvy policies.  (If you think the Standard and Poor’s 500 is rock solid, please read the book “1929” by Andrew Sorkin.)  

And consider the language in the amendment – “or a comparable successor index to be determined by law, in a manner consistent with fiduciary standards applicable to public trust funds.” What that language does is provide enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.

So where would this money from our “permanent state endowment” go?  Nowhere until some distant future.  The amendment says, “No moneys shall be appropriated from the fund prior to notification given by the state treasurer to the general assembly that that the net investment earnings is sufficient to replace the revenue generated by [individual income tax, state sales and use tax, corporate income tax] and 'all other state-imposed tax.'” 

In other words, the permanent state endowment will have to produce investment earnings the size of all of Missouri’s taxes before the legislature can touch it. Missouri state revenue for 2025 was $13.5 billion.  I shudder at the thought of how large the endowment would have to grow to generate such investment earning.

Of course, it’s quite likely the Republican leadership has no intention of sticking with Amendment 7’s own rules.  Missouri’s constitution is routinely amended.  Suppose Missouri goes broke but there’s cash in the endowment fund.  Does anyone doubt the legislature wouldn’t want to tap the till.  I wonder what Amazon would think if its gift could be raided. Maybe Amazon wouldn’t care so long as its data center is up and running.

But let’s pretend Missouri’s SWF is somehow making money like crazy.  What could we spend the money on?  First, we can’t spend more than 3% of the average market value of the fund over the previous 5 years.  Unless of course we amend the state constitution.  But that never happens. (I’m being sarcastic.) Even if there’s an emergency. But those never happen either. (More sarcasm.) 

Second, we can’t spend it on anything!  All we can use the money for is reducing state taxes.  I understand some Republicans think all taxes are immoral.  And maybe in some fantasy world we can do away with taxes because of some incomprehensibly large SWF.  

But this is what really scares me.  The Republican party once claimed it was the party of fiscal responsibility.  It’s now the party of pipe dreams.  The only way Missouri can balance its budget is by tightening its belt or looking at taxes or both.  Lying to the voters is not the solution. 

August 13, 2026

Sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland.

The second Tuesday of every month there’s this group (I’m not sure of the name – it doesn’t appear in its flyers) which hosts a speaker on a political topic at Chin’s Restaurant in Perryville.  I’ve only been there twice.  The group appears to lean Republican, so both times I expected to disagree with them. 

But both times, I’ve been surprised to find out I actually generally agree with them.

       Or they agree with me. Who knows?

The first meeting was about Gov. Kehoe’s crazy plan to let the state legislature impose new sales taxes and raise sales tax rates for three years with the promise that the legislature will then reduce income tax.  The voters overwhelming rejected this “you jump first” proposal in the August election.

This past Tuesday the topic was data centers. The main speaker was Ann Maloney, who narrowly won her Republican primary against David Broach, despite Mr. Broach spending loads more money. (Maybe there’s hope for me.)  She’s running for state rep in District 114 in Jefferson County, so I wondered what she was doing so far south.  I’m still wondering.

She is staunchly anti-data centers.  She did a good job describing the chicanery up in Festus, how the city council tried to sneak approval for a 300+ acre data center without the voters knowing, how the voters voted out half the city council and tried to recall the other half but were stymied by the courts, and how crooked the Republican muckety mucks in Jefferson County were, concealing deals with data centers from their constituents.

She also spoke about how St. Charles (the city, not the county) passed a moratorium on data centers.  She congratulated elected officials in Perry County for dealing openly with the data center issue.  Larry Riney, the Perryville mayor, and Brent Buerck, the city administrator, spoke about the city’s efforts to regulate data centers.  Both of them pointed out that city regulations didn’t cover the county.  

Jared Kutz, the Perry County Clerk, told the audience that the county commission couldn’t do anything because Perry County, like all counties south of Jefferson County, didn’t have planning and zoning.  So anyone could start on a data center in unincorporated areas tomorrow, like any other business.

Bryant Wolfin (the incumbent state rep and my opponent in the general election) spoke at length.  He agreed there was nothing counties could do right now. He said Gov. Kehoe and his crew wouldn’t do anything on data centers until after the general election.  He said if he were reelected he and other state reps would likely work on giving counties without planning and zoning some say in data centers.

There was a public forum. Everyone who spoke had fears about data centers – the risk to aquifers, the noise, the reduction in property values, the pollution, the problems regarding the energy infrastructure, and other concerns.  They seemed appalled that counties could do nothing.

I was eager to speak, in part as a candidate but also because I know counties can do something, even without Jeff City’s blessing.  Folks in Ste. Gen County fought back in a similar situation and won.

I was sitting toward the rear so I didn’t get to say my piece until toward the end of the meeting. Here’s what I said (or what I think I said):

First, don’t trust the legislature.  Back in 2018 when northwest Missouri counties (all Republican) wanted to regulate giant hog farms (CAFOs – concentrated animal feeding operations) the legislature stripped them of any such power.  I didn’t think about it much back then since northwest Missouri is the opposite corner of the state.  But these giant hog farms have hurt the lives of residents in Livingston, Nodaway, Sullivan, and Mercer counties.  And data centers can pop up anywhere.  Every acre in Missouri, every acre in Missouri can potentially become part of a data center.

Second, aquifers and pollution and noise and property values don’t give a hoot about county lines.  This is one of the main reasons why my opponent’s “leave it up to the county commissioners” approach isn’t the answer.  Also, the special interests behind data centers have the lawyers, guns, and money.  It takes a brave county commission to take on Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk.  

A great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, understood that one of the roles of government is to stand up for the people against trusts and monopolies and the titans of business that otherwise would rule this country.  I understand Mr. Wolfin champions local government.  But that approach plays into the divide-and-conquer strategy special interests have long pursued and leads counties to a race to the bottom.  

The legislature should establish a floor, a minimum standard which data center projects must meet before their projects can even be considered.  The legislature needs to give counties the authority to go above that floor so, if the people of the county want, they can ban or place a moratorium on data centers.

Most importantly, counties can do something even if Jeff City does nothing. In 2023, NexGen Silica applied with the Missouri Mining Commission for a permit to mine fracking sand in the shadow of Hawn State Park.  That sand’s what causes black lung disease in coal miners.  The mining process threatened the water tables and aquifers in the Weingarten area. The community was outraged.  

I was and am on the Ste. Gen County Health Board. A group of concerned citizens formed Operation Sand, LLC to fight NexGen. Operation Sand’s lawyer was Steve Jeffery (who happens to now be the attorney for Wake Up Jeff Co, a group fighting the Festus data center.) The Ste. Gen County Commission and Health Board passed ordinances and regulations requiring monitoring systems and setback distances for silica sand mines.  

These ordinances and regulations put the skids on NexGen’s plans.  NexGen hired silk-stocking St. Louis lawyers but eventually abandoned the project when the Mining Commission ruled against NexGen on a technicality and the pricing for fracking sand dropped.

Missouri law gives health departments considerable power to make regulations to protect public health.  Courts generally uphold these regulations if there are “reasonable” public health concerns. They generally defer to the discretion of elected officials.  I believe the regulations would have withstood attack at trial, but we never got that far.

Health concerns about data centers are even more reasonable. They are alarming.  If, God forbid, a data center wants to move in and the governor and the state legislature sit on their hands, county health departments and county commissions can take action.  

More importantly, voters must protect themselves by electing representatives who will fight tooth and nail for their interests. 

August 6, 2026

On primary election night, since I was unopposed I didn’t wait around for results. Instead, I went to a Perryville aldermen meeting about data centers.  The way the agenda was written, a lot of people thought the city was trying to slip through a deal for a data center.

None of my opponents were present, but they had more riding on election night.  

There was a large crowd – 60 to 70 people.  The meeting was moved from city hall to the Catalyst Center.  People who wanted to speak had to sign in. Around 25 residents spoke.  All were either skeptical or opposed to any data center.  They raised concerns about noise, water contamination, water bills, electric bills, what would be done by artificial intelligence with data stored at the center, why the resolution was buried in the agenda, who would the data center benefit, how a data center would affect property values, change the community and make it a less desirable place to live, whether the operator would have to post a bond, what assurance the city had the operator was solvent, how the money might lead to corruption, whether the city would enter into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to hide what was going on, whether aldermen had visited other data centers or were aware of problems they created in other communities, including dead cattle and health problems.  

In other words, people were upset and angry.

I did not envy the city manager, Brent Buerck, who responded. 

Mr. Buerck said that while the city had inquiries, there was no proposal.  He apologized for the agenda and notice and acknowledged that he could see why people thought a data center might be coming down the pike.  

He said the city in January passed a regulation to “get ahead of the problem.” He said that in the absence of any regulation a data center would just be treated like any other business, with no special requirements.  But he indicated that the new regulation they were going to pass that night was meant to beef up the one passed in January. He thought there might be additional measures to tighten requirements.

He also said the new regulation would limit the location of a data center to the Perry County Industrial Park. The park has about 143 acres undeveloped in separate tracts. He said that therefore any data center would be small, maybe creating 10 to 15 high paying jobs.  

He added that the new regulation required a closed loop for waste water. The cost of additional electricity generation would be borne by the operator. Upon the data center ceasing operations, the property would have to be restored to its previous state or sold to the city for one dollar.  

He said that the regulation prohibits NDAs.  (NDAs have a bad reputation in Perry County. I’ve heard the recent school bond issue in Perry County failed because the school district signed an NDA with its insurer and couldn’t disclose how much money they got after the tornado destroyed and damaged some buildings.)

I don’t know if Mr. Buerck’s remarks placated those at the meeting.  Clearly, the aldermen wanted to avoid any fiasco like what happened in Festus.  But right after he spoke, a resident said that he remembers what Nancy Reagan said and then asked “why can’t we just say no”.  This led to what was probably the loudest applause of the meeting.

One point Mr. Buerck made clear was that the city regulation does not affect property in the county.  Perry County, like Ste. Gen, doesn’t have zoning.  So there’s little to keep data centers from popping up in unincorporated areas.

I'm familiar with this problem . I am on the Ste. Genevieve County Health Board and was on it when some developers wanted to place a silica sand mine next to Hawn State Park. Silica sand is used in fracking. The health board and county commission passed regulations regarding silica mine operations. These were challenged in court.  The developers claimed only the state could regulate silica mines.  Fortunately, the developers made a technical error on their application with the Missouri Mining Commission. The developers abandoned their plan when the market for fracking sand dropped. (But only after felling a lot of trees.)

Whoever’s elected state representative will likely vote on what say . . .  if any . . .  counties have on data centers.  Clearly, the voters want their say. We’ve seen how the state legislature denied counties any input on CAFOs – Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, namely hog farms, in northwest Missouri.  

They’ll try the same on data centers. We need to sleep with our eyes open.

August 6, 2026

First, congratulations to Bryant Wolfin on his overwhelming win in the Republican primary.  He ran a clean campaign, and I look forward to forums, town halls, and old-fashioned debates with him so we can present our positions to the voters in the 145th state house district.

Second, I want to express my appreciation to Scott Sattler.  I know how difficult it can be to lose a campaign that you believe in, having lost a Democratic primary 20 years ago against an incumbent judge who I thought was not right for the job.  Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) said after losing the 1858 Senate race to Stephen Douglas in 1858 that he felt like when a kid stubs his toe – “It hurt too bad to laugh, but I was too big to cry.”  

Mr. Sattler also ran a clean campaign. To quote Theodore Roosevelt (also a Republican), “It’s not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.”  Mr. Sattler is such a man.

One final observation regarding last night’s results: Missouri voters continued their tradition of rejecting the Republican leadership’s positions on constitutional amendments. And last night, the voters rejected some of Mr. Wolfin’s positions as well.

Take proposed Amendment 4. We have a lot of verbiage in our state constitution that more logically should be included in the language of a law and not in a constitutional provision.  But Republicans can only blame themselves.  Back in 2010, voters statewide approved a law to regulate puppy mills.  Jason Smith (then a state representative, now our illustrious representative in the U.S. Congress) and his family made their money from puppy mills. Mr. Smith and he didn’t like the voters’ decision.  So he convinced the state legislature to “rewrite” the law the voters passed.  The trick worked. Ever since, if voters want their decisions to stick, they have to get the state constitution amended.   

The voters did so in 2018, rejecting so-called “right-to-work” and legalizing medical marijuana, then again in 2020, providing for Medicaid expansion, again in 2022, establishing a framework for legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana. In 2024,voters reinstated reproductive rights after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.  

Mr. Wolfin, through Amendment 4, wanted Missouri voters to strip themselves of the power to amend the state constitution by a simple majority.  He wanted to require a majority in each of the eight congressional districts of Missouri.  While maybe amending the state constitution ought to require more than a simple majority, there should not be an impossible hurdle. Amendment 4 would have been just that.

The people of the 145th district rejected Amendment 4 by almost 80% to 20%.  Perry and Ste. Genevieve County voters understand the principle of one person, one vote, and all votes equal.  They understand everyone wins when the people’s voice is heard, even if some of us might disagree with an election result.

Mr. Wolfin was also against proposed Amendment 1, intended to renew the existing sales tax of .1% which provides revenue for state parks and soil and water conservation.  We vote on this tax every 10 years and it has always passed.  This time, it passed with more than 80% voting yes. Missourians love their land. 

Mr. Wolfin was against the amendment.  He said he believes all expenditures should be approved by the state legislature and none by the people directly.  I don’t know why he thinks that. I’ve never heard an explanation.   

It continues to amaze me how Missouri’s become so “red” when the voters so often disagree with what our “red” representatives want.  Perhaps that’s because Republicans are better at wedge issues than Democrats even though it’s the bread and butter issues that usually matter most.

Perhaps this election year we’ll see a change, especially with the core principles of our country under threat.  The voters understood these core principles on August 4th.  May they understand them come November.

July 30, 2026

The Almighty Dollar

       There was a candidate forum for people running for state rep this week.  Bryant Wolfin, Scott Sattler, and myself got a chance to make our pitches.  I urge voters to look at the video on Ste. Genevieve Community Access Television.

      There was a lot of talk (at least by Bryant Wolfin and myself, if not Scott Sattler) about how special interests with money run Jeff City.  With the primary election coming up next Tuesday, I thought it was high time to look at campaign finance disclosures.  These are public records open for all to see.       

       Of course, I’m unopposed in the primary.  That’s part of the reason I’ve raised and spent the least. Also, I haven’t had to file a financial report for 8 days before the primary since I haven’t raised or spent money on the campaign since July 15. But here’s some of what I’ve  found out when I looked at the records.

Total Money Raised As Of 8 Days Before the Primary

       Wolfin for Missouri - $36,149.06

      Friends for Sattler - $14,777.91

      Kinsky for 145 - $4,197.61

Total Expenditures As Of 8 Days Before the Primary

       Wolfin for Missouri - $27,012.69

      Friends for Sattler - $6,162.04

      Kinsky for 145 - $2,749.96

Part of what I wanted to see is also who got what from political action committees. I’ve taken nothing from PACs except the Ste. Genevieve County Democratic Club.  In part this is because I’m leery that PACs will want something in return which I can’t or won’t deliver.

      For the same reason, I haven’t sought endorsements. (Often these are not really endorsements – they’re guesses made by an organization about who the organization thinks is going to win.  They figure if they’re right folks will think they’re powerful when the truth is they just made a good bet on who they thought would be the winning horse.)

Here’s what I found out about the PAC money Wolfin for Missouri has taken in.

        Missouri Gaming PAC - $2,000

        Real Action PAC - $1,265

        When I did a Google search on this, the AI Overview described the Real Action PAC as an organization that’s “funneled millions of dollars in dark money into the Missouri Promise PAC to support Amendment 5,” which is Gov. Kehoe’s proposal to eliminate personal income taxes and replace them with new and increased sales taxes. Mr. Wolfin has said he opposes the amendment, but I’ve also heard him call income taxes “immoral.” I oppose the measure which will cost most of us a lot more money.

         Wolfin also picked up money from the Missouri Republican Attorneys for Civil Justice PAC - $2,000  This appears to be an organization composed overwhelmingly of personal injury attorneys.  Republicans historically have opposed personal injury lawsuits believing they hurt business interests. I doubt this PAC has singled out Mr. Wolfin for its contribution – it likely gives money to all Republican incumbents in hope this will dampen their enthusiasm for restrictions on PI cases. And PI lawyers, mostly from Kansas City and central Missouri, have individually contributed an additional $2,500 to Mr. Wolfin’s campaign in the 8 days before Tuesday’s primary vote.

        Candidate Wolfin also got money from the LOZ Missouri PAC - $250  [Note:  This is a PAC that purports to support local interests around the Lake of the Ozarks region.]

        Here’s the PAC money Friends for Sattler has taken in:

        MBA River Heritage Region PAC - $500 [Note: MBA stands for the Missouri Bankers Association and describes itself as supporting candidates for the Missouri General Assembly whose views align with the banking industry.]

        Missouri Chamber PAC – $ 1,000 [Note: This is the PAC of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.]

         Missouri Realtors PAC - $500

         Missouri Insurance Coalition PAC - $1,000 [Note: This PAC describes itself as “a separate entity which lets insurers pool their monetary contributions to fund candidates for the state legislature.” In other words, like so many PACs, it provides a way to hide who is actually contributing to a candidate.]

      Kinsky for 145

       My report is pretty short. The Ste. Genevieve Democratic Club PAC provided $500 in support of my campaign. I did not seek funding from any special interest groups.

      Of course dollars don’t vote.  In local elections, it’s easier to communicate directly with the voters.  And I am not suggesting Mr. Wolfin or Mr. Sattler have done anything wrong or illegal in accepting PAC money.  But let’s understand PACs give a huge advantage to the incumbent or a perceived successor with similar views. 

       I guess that’s not unfair. But PACs are out for themselves and want something in return for their money.  We need to be careful so what they want won’t trump the welfare of the people of this district.

July 18, 2026

The second town hall I attended this week was the morning of July 14 at the Robinson Event Center near TG USA.  It was sponsored by the Perryville Chamber of Commerce.  The audience was a lot smaller than that at Chin’s, maybe a little better dressed and with fancier cars and trucks.  We were spread out, perhaps to make the crowd seem larger. 

The audience included Mike Sauer (Perry County’s presiding commissioner), Scott Sattler (Bryant Wolfin’s opponent in the Republican primary), Bryant Wolfin, and yours truly.   

After introductions, the first speaker was State Senator Jamie Burger, who represents Perry County but not Ste. Gen County in the general assembly.  He immediately distanced himself from the proposed Amendment 5 (the amendment to abolish the state’s income tax and replace it with more sales tax.)  Even though Sen. Burger stood in front of an “Axe the Tax” sign, he said he was just there to help provide voters access to people with information.  He had to leave early.

A little footnote on State Senator Burger:  His bio says he worked 30 years in management for Buzzi Unicem USA – a huge cement operation with kilns in Jefferson County, Cape County, and throughout the region.  In all likelihood it’s a huge beneficiary of the mining sales tax exemption that the legislature passed which has decimated Ste. Genevieve County’s budget.

The next speaker was Dennis Ganahl who is a co-founder of MO Tax Relief Now.  MO Tax Relief’s website describes Mr. Ganahl as “an experienced campaign strategist” who has collaborated with “projects to recruit conservative office holders.” He claims his group has provided more than a billion dollars in tax relief.  (For whom?  Buzzi Unicem, perhaps?)

But the main speaker was Bishop (name, not title) Davidson, a state representative from Republic, Missouri, near Springfield. He sponsored the bill that puts Amendment 5 to the voters. His employment history on the Missouri State House of Representatives webpage consists solely of working for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute which he describes as promoting ‘conservative thought on college campuses.” If he wins reelection this year, he will be term-limited out in 2028.

Mr. Davidson struck me as glib but vague.  He fielded a lot of questions with responses along the lines of “Here’s a general plan of what we want to do if Amendment 5 passes.  Yes, we could do something else.  But trust us. We won’t.”  

I’d been hearing a lot about “trust” the last two days.  The Shield Maidens say don’t trust the state legislature or the Republican leadership.  I’m inclined to agree. Especially when it comes to taxes.  Mr. Davidson says he and his colleagues want a broad sales tax with few exemptions to take the place of the income tax.  But currently Missouri has 132 sales tax exemptions, including the mining sales tax exemption I mentioned . . . the one which has crippled Ste. Genevieve County.  I’m reminded of the old saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”  So let’s not get fooled again. 

July 16, 2026

“Politics makes strange bedfellows.”  Charles Dudley Warner, 1870

I went to two very different “town halls” in Perryville.  The first was Tuesday evening at Chin’s, a good Chinese restaurant that was jam-packed.  Most of the audience were strong Bryant Wolfin supporters.  Scott Sattler was a no-show.  I thought I’d disagree with the presenters on everything.  I was wrong.

The first speaker was Jennifer Barker. She’s the director/founder of Informed Health Choice Missouri.  She’s an anti-vaxxer.  She’s against abortion in practically all circumstances.  She falsely suggested abortions are legal on demand  in Missouri up to nine months.  She railed against cowardly Republicans who won’t support “personhood” for fetuses.

And yet she is solidly against the proposed Amendment 3 we’ll be voting on in November.  In fact, she believes in many ways it’s worse than the “old” Amendment 3 voters approved in 2024.

She pointed out that the proposed amendment allows but does not require the legislature to enact laws that regulate abortion.  She said the definitions of “medical emergency”, “fetal anomaly”, and “reasonable medical emergency” were vague and that doctors get things wrong. She claimed that the amendment would allow abortion if the woman simply claimed she was raped even if she hadn’t called the police.  

She noted that Missouri already has a law prohibiting gender transition surgeries and all the legislature has to do to keep it on the books is  delete the sunshine clause they had put into it.

In other words, Ms. Barker hit on many of the flaws I have pointed in earlier posts.  She thinks the vagueness is a back-door way to make abortions easier while I think it is a back-door way to make them harder.

Ms. Barker is also against proposed Amendment 4, which makes it virtually impossible to use an initiative petition to amend the Missouri state constitution.  She thinks this will carve in stone that new Amendment 3 if it passes.  I agree.

I had a cordial discussion with her after the presentation.  I pointed out that the new amendment only allows the general assembly to regulate abortion “to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother” and not the fetus.  

My guess is that this is a holdover from before the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.  It’s the language anti-choice advocates used back then to make abortions harder to get –  their “we’re just protecting the mom” argument.  In any event, Ms. Barker seemed genuinely upset by this language and it appeared to solidify her opposition to the new Amendment 3.  

We both agreed the proposed Amendment 3 is designed to mislead the voters.

The next speakers were Stacy Shore and Lisa Pannett.  They call themselves the Shield Maidens of Missouri – a name that frankly filled me with dread. 

In fact, they gave an outstanding presentation against proposed Amendment 5, which we’ll be voting on in August.  This is Gov. Kehoe’s effort to eliminate the state’s income tax basically by jacking up the state’s sales tax.

The Shield Maidens pointed out how this proposal is a “trust us” amendment. 

This amendment gives the state legislature a five-year window to enact sales taxes without voter approval, something currently prohibited by the Hancock Amendment to our state constitution.  So the legislature can add a sales tax on whatever they want – including services which are currently not taxed at all.  Your dentist bill could start including sales tax.

Supposedly, as the state collects more general revenue from sales taxes it will lower income taxes by about the same amount.  The problem is the proposed amendment also includes changes in the definition of “general revenue”.  It doesn’t include “dedicated directed revenue” . . . in other words, tax revenue that has to be spent on specific purposes.  By expanding “dedicated directed revenue” to reduce “general revenue” the proposal allows the legislature to make sales taxes balloon without a corresponding reduction in income tax.

The Shield Maidens’ position is that the legislature spent federal money they got during Covid like drunken sailors.  And The Shield Maidens believe proposed Amendment 5 is just a sneaky way to duck the Hancock Amendment.

So here I am again, finding myself largely agreeing with presenters.  At least with their opposition to these proposed amendments to the state constitution.

There’s a lot the Shield Maidens said that I disagree with.  They want to completely do away with the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  They claim our schools make children ashamed of America.  I think what children should be proud of is that America has owned up to its mistakes and tried to make amends.  

The Shield Maidens claim the Republican top dogs are beholden to the billionaires and not the people.  They loathe data centers and want moratoriums on their construction. 

And yet they want to shrink the power of the government (which really is the power of the people) to deal with such issues.     Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican in a previous Gilded Age, used the government to bust monopolies.  Yes, government can be a tool of the Elon Musks and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world, but it also can be a tool to keep them in check.  In fact, at this critical point in our country’s history, that is what our government must be for our Republic to survive.

Coming Soon – A Tale of Two Parties – The Second Town Hall

July 9, 2026

          In addition to banning almost all abortions in Missouri, the proposed Amendment 3 bans parents from getting gender transition procedures for their children.  My so-called libertarian, small government opponents think the government, not parents, not children, should decide on gender transition treatments.

         This is a classic Republican tactic: Exploit the culture wars . . . even an issue that affects a tiny number of people . . . push your agenda and make people angry.

         I tried Googling to find out how many such under-age transition surgeries and treatments there are in Missouri and couldn’t find an answer.  There’s some data saying only 108 minors received such surgery from 2018 to 2021 in the whole United States.  The not-at-all neutral “Stop the Harm” database says there were fewer than 30 “hormone and puberty blocker patients” in Missouri in 2023, the last year reported.

         What makes this ballot bait even less relevant is that Missouri already bans such procedures under its “Save Adolescents from Experimentation” Act.

         So why is it even included in the proposal? It’s ballot bait, pure and simple. And it’s shameful.

         Whatever the data, most of us (myself included) can’t understand why anyone would want their child to undergo such procedures. And if we don’t understand something, we’re usually against it.  So the Republican legislature thinks if they can appeal to folks who can’t fathom why anyone would want their child to switch genders, it’ll be easier to get the “new” Amendment 3 with its abortion restrictions passed.

         I haven’t learned much in life, but I have learned that the fact that I don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I don’t think parents flip a coin to decide if they want to force such procedures on their children.  And I don’t believe the government is better than parents at deciding what’s right for their children.

         This text-book example of ballot bait ought to especially upset a libertarian like our current state rep Bryant Wolfin, the self-appointed champion of the single-subject provision of the state constitution.

         That provision says a ballot presented to the people can only cover one subject.  It’s meant to prevent log-rolling – passing a law because you like how it deals with one subject even if not other ones. What do gender-transition procedures for children have to do with abortion? I can’t figure that one out.

         But like I said the fact that I don’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.  The Western District Missouri Court of Appeals has held that abortion and child gender transition procedures are a single subject since they both deal with reproduction. Personally, I think that’s bull. But some judges are political animals, not good arbiters of jurisprudence.

         I understand prohibitions hope they can eliminate abortions by the amendment. But I suspect these prohibitionists, even the amendment passes, will succeed about as well as those in the 1920s.

July 7, 2026

          My last post was about how if Amendment 4 passes in August the initiative process to amend the state constitution would become unworkable and how if the “new” Amendment 3 passes in November it would basically be carved in stone. So let’s take a dive in the abortion provisions of this “new” amendment.

         For starters, it’s a masterpiece of vagueness.  It says abortions “may be performed or induced upon a woman in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape or incest.”

         It doesn’t expressly say what abortions would be illegal except that “in cases of rape or incest, the abortion may be performed or induced no later than twelve weeks gestational age of the unborn child.”

         The amendment does say, “The general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother.” So does that mean the legislature can only enact laws that are designed to ensure the mother’s health and safety? How does a law restricting a mom’s choices make her healthier or safer?

         I assume the drafters of the amendment mean no abortions will be allowed except in the cases of medical emergency and fetal anomaly and if it’s a case of rape or incest only if the abortion is performed or induced within 84 days of conception. I also figure the drafters think the general assembly should be able to enact whatever law it wants not just laws to keep Mom healthy and safe.  Surely our politically ambitious judges will see it that way.

         But what is actually considered a medical emergency?  The proposal defines it as “a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”  The definition includes “an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis and treatment for a miscarriage.”  The proposal defines “reasonable medical judgment” as “a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.”

         “Fetal anomaly” is defined as “a structural or functional anomaly in the unborn child’s gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible.” It’s not enough that the fetus would probably die - if they’ve got a chance at living, even comatose in a bubble, no abortion. Sorry, Mom.

         Strangely, neither “rape” nor “incest” are defined in the proposed amendment. In Missouri, a minor has to be 17 years old to consent to intercourse.  So is any pregnancy of a woman under 17 a rape?  Or does it only cover “forcible rape”, which requires the sexual intercourse be by the use of forcible compulsion, or the victim’s incapacity.  Who decides if there’s been a rape?  The pregnant mother? A criminal court?

         Remember, the decision has to be made super quick – before 12 weeks of gestational age.

         With DNA testing, incest may be easier to prove definitively than rape.  But I was the elected prosecuting attorney in Ste. Gen County for 20 years. I know the anguish children have disclosing what someone they trusted did to them.  I can’t imagine many tasks as nightmarish as telling a child that she waited too long to talk to authorities, or that since her doctor can’t fit an abortion into the schedule until after 84 days, so she must carry the baby to term.

         There are more mysterious provisions in the amendment. “Fetal organ harvesting” is prohibited, except to determine why a fetus died, or who’s the dad, or for law enforcement purposes.  But apparently not to save another baby who’s desperately in need of a transplant.  How is that “pro-life?"

          Any sensible discussion of abortion in America today must include mifepristone, the “abortion pill.”  The “new” Amendment 3 does not.

         Mifepristone is a prescription drug that terminates pregnancy up to 70 days from gestation.  It’s been around since 2000. It’s so safe it’s available through the mail. Within 24 to 48 hours, the pregnancy’s terminated. If those who are for the “new” Amendment 3, are going to try to make mifepristone illegal in Missouri, at least have the courage to say so.  And how are you going to do so when the pills are so readily available.

         I’m voting against Amendment 4 in August and the “new” Amendment 3 in November. But as a true constitutionalist I believe in the rule of law.  Let the people decide. One person, one vote, all votes equal.

July 5, 2026

           I wrote recently about how Amendment 4, if passed in August, will make it virtually impossible for voters to amend the state constitution by initiative petition.     Amendment 4 will require a majority in each and every single one of Missouri’s gerrymandered congressional districts for any such initiatives to pass.  Missouri will have the most difficult initiative amendment process in the Nation.

         We will be voting on Amendment 4’s proposed requirement for geographic unanimity in August. Then in November we’ll be voting on the “new” Amendment 3. That amendment would strip away women’s reproductive rights guaranteed by the “old” Amendment 3, which the voters passed in 2024.

         No matter what happens to Amendment 4 in August, the “new” Amendment 3 will not require geographic unanimity – just a simple majority. That’s because the “new” Amendment 3 doesn’t come from an initiative petition.  It’s something the Republican state reps and senators decided we should vote on.  Ever since 1910, Missouri has just required a simple majority to amend the state constitution, no matter how it gets on the ballot.  Now, the Republicans want to make it impossible to amend the state constitution by initiative but still let a simple majority amend the state constitution if it suits the legislature.

         So if Amendment 4 passes in August and the “new” Amendment 3 passes in November, don’t count on the initiative petition process ever again to let the voters’ voice get heard.  The unanimous geographic majority requirement will kick in, and the “new’ Amendment 3 will be carved in stone.

         My two Republican opponents have said that that any proposed amendment which comes from the legislature should have to get the same stamp of geographical unanimity as any proposed by an initiative petition.

         But both of my opponents have also said they’re going to vote for Amendment 4  because they think it’s too easy for the people to amend the state constitution.

         So what they’re really saying to Missouri voters is “You jump first. You strip your power, then we’ll strip ours. But only after we vote on the ‘new’ Amendment 3.”

         I’m voting against Amendment 4 in August and against the “new" Amendment 3 in November. (More about that later.)  Because as a true constitutionalist I believe in the rule of law. What the voters decide they want should become our constitution.  Unless and until the law lets them change their mind.

June 25, 2026

          I want to thank local resident Gina Bennett for asking all state rep candidates to make public their positions on the state constitutional proposals on the ballot in August.  Here’s a quick summary.

         On Amendment 1, renewal of the one tenth of one percent sales tax for state parks and soil and water conservation, Carl Kinsky (me – a Democrat) and Scott Sattler (a Republican) are for it. Bryant Wolfin (the Republican incumbent) is against it.

         On Amendment 2, making the county assessor position elected for all counties, every candidate is for it.

         On Amendment 5, eliminating the state income tax and replacing the revenue lost with sales taxes, every candidate is against it.

         It’s on Amendment 4, changing the initiative process to amend the state constitution, that things get interesting. They’re both in favor of Amendment 4. I’m definitely not.

         Right now, if enough voters sign a petition to amend the state constitution, the petition’s put on the ballot and it’s a simple one-person-one vote majority rule election.  Wolfin and Sattler think that’s too easy, and that’s what they hope to see changed.

         Too “easy” for the people to get their voices heard?  Really? That’s the problem?

         If it’s a problem, it’s a problem of the Republican party’s own making. Missouri has a referendum process by which the voters can pass laws. It takes fewer signatures to get a petition on the ballot for a referendum than to amend the state constitution. So that’s what folks used to do.

         But then in 2010, Missouri voters passed a law to regulate puppy mills.  Then state representative Jason Smith (now our illustrious congressman) didn’t like the bill (his family owns puppy mills). So in 2011 he got the state legislature to gut the law the voters passed.  That’s why you don’t see referendums much any more.  If it’s not in part of the state constitution and if special interests don’t like it, the Republican majority will rip it to shreds.

         Amendment 4 wouldn’t up the number of voters needed to get a petition on the ballot. And it wouldn’t require a super-majority for an amendment to pass. Instead, it would require a simple majority in every single one of Missouri’s 8 congressional districts, which is a near impossibility.

         On the other hand, Amendment 4 won’t make any similar changes the state legislature’s power to amend the constitution.  If the majority of the legislature wishes, a proposed amendment will get put on the ballot and it’s simple majority rule, with no geographical diversity required.

         Both Wolfin and Sattler think that’s wrong – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  They both say (Wolfin directly, Sattler less so) that if there’s a geographical diversity requirement for an amendment originating by petition, there should be a geographic diversity requirement for an amendment proposed by the legislature.

         I definitely agree with them on that.

         But are Wolfin or Sattler going to vote against Amendment 4 come August. Nope. Do they say why not? Nope.  So what gives?

         The answer is hidden in Article XII, Section 2(b) of the Missouri Constitution.  It provides that a constitutional amendment goes into effect 30 days after the election.

         So if Amendment 4 passes in the August election, it will apply to votes on changing the state constitution that will come up in November.

         That would include the “new” Amendment 3, an anti-abortion amendment by which the legislature  want to repeal the “old” Amendment 3 - the reproductive rights amendment voters passed in 2024. Since the “new” Amendment 3 came from the legislature, it won’t require a unanimous congressional district majority vote.  It will pass or fail by a simple majority.

         Here’s the strategy: By then Wolfin and Sattler think Amendment 4 will have passed and it will be practically impossible for the people  to amend the state constitution by an initiative petition.  And if the “new" Amendment 3 fails, they can keep on tinkering with it until somehow it slips through.

         Gov. Kehoe and his cohorts came up with this “change-the-rules-before-the-second-half” plan.  Wolfin and Sattler understand the tactic doesn’t pass the smell test, but they won’t say so, and in fact will go along with it.

         That’s not right. Or fair, and I’ll have more to say about it soon.

June 19, 2026

Missouri voters will decide on 4 proposals to amend the state constitution on August 4th, the same date as party primaries, but you don’t need to declare a party affiliation to get a ballot on them. All of these proposed amendments are on the ballot because Gov. Kehoe and the Republican majority put them there.  None of them wound up on the ballot because of petitions signed by voters.  Since these August proposals come from Jeff City, we better give them close scrutiny.

The Worst of the Worst – Amendment 4

The vote on all of the proposed amendments that started as initiatives with petitions signed by voters will be held this November, at the time of the general elections.  But there also will be one more proposal from Kehoe and the Republican majority – the new Amendment 3 which rescinds the old Amendment 3.  Confused?  They want you to be. 

The old Amendment 3 has only been around for 2 years.  Old Amendment 3 restored reproductive freedom (abortion rights) which the legislature had taken away right after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The new Amendment 3 (Kehoe’s and the Republican’s plan) completely reverses the voter-approved old Amendment 3. It bans almost all abortions except in medical emergency cases or for fetal anomalies, and from rape or incest (although those too are banned fully after 12 weeks of gestation.)

So why are Republicans not in a great rush to put in their restrictions when they claim to hate abortion rights so much? The reason is set forth in proposed Amendment 4, the one the same Republicans are having us vote on this August 4.

Amendment 4 basically makes it impossible forever to pass a voter-supported initiative to amend the Missouri Constitution.

The initiative process provides a way for voters directly to address issues that concern them. It’s majority rule, pure and simple. 

And that’s proven less susceptible to special interests than backroom deals made in Jefferson City. It lets the people be heard on matters the legislature wants to duck. 

Think of the legalization of marijuana.  For years, Missouri had among the harshest marijuana laws in the nation.  It was a felony for distribution of any amount – passing a joint could be a felony.  It was a felony for having as little as an ounce.  More lives were harmed by marijuana laws than by marijuana itself.  The voters had to step in because the legislature wouldn’t.

Well, we won’t be able to step in ever again if Amendment 4 passes in August.

Amendment 4 requires that an initiative to change Missouri’s constitution must pass by a majority in each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts.  No more simple majority rule.  You’ll have to get a unanimous geographically spread-out majority vote.  Which is basically impossible.  Especially when our Missouri legislature revises the boundaries of congressional districts at the whim of Donald J. Trump. 

If the current legislature were honest, Amendment 4 would simply repeal the whole darn initiative process. 

That’s why I’m against Amendment 4.  We’ve had a workable voter initiative process since 1908.  Let’s not strip away our power to amend the state constitution.

The Second Worst of the Worst – Amendment 5

The second worst constitutional proposal being pushed by Gov. Kehoe and the legislature in August is Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 calls for eliminating the state’s income tax and relying on sales taxes. I’ve already dealt with Kehoe’s pet project (see “The Republican Leadership’s Latest Tax Con Game” in my blog).  Suffice it to say, this suck-up to the rich is fiscal suicide.  Even our current state rep Bryant Wolfin had the sanity to vote against it.  Mr. Wolfin’s primary opponent, Scott Sattler, has yet to express an opinion. As usual.

The Not So Bad and Even Okay – Amendments 1 and 2

So what about the rest of the amendments on the August ballot? The “Not So Bad and even Okay” Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 1 continues the one-tenth of one percent sales tax for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites.  The tax comes up for renewal every 10 years.  Which brings me back to the problem with Amendment 4.  If Amendment 4 passes, effectively doing away with voters having the ability to  amend the constitution, what’s going to happen to soil and water conservation and state parks and historic sites in 10 years? In any case, I plan on voting yes on 1.

Far and away, the silliest amendment is Amendment 2.  We can thank our U.S. Senator,  Eric Schmitt, for that.  Amendment 2 would require that all county assessors be elected.  Back in 2011, when Schmitt was just a lowly state senator, he wanted the St. Louis County assessor position to become elected, not appointed by the county executive. The then St. Louis County executive had put this issue to his own voters less than a year earlier and they overwhelmingly rejected it, keeping the assessor an appointed post.

But rich folks in Schmitt’s district believed appointed assessors placed property values too high because they didn’t have to run in elections.  So Schmitt wanted a constitutional amendment, notwithstanding what the voters chose.. 

Schmitt’s problem was that Jackson County (Kansas City) also had an appointed assessor. Schmitt was afraid he could not get his proposed constitution amendment passed if he peeved off Jackson County. So he put in his proposal a restriction on the population of the counties it covered so it would only apply to St. Louis County.

Now 15 years later, the Republican leadership wants it to apply to Jackson County as well.  But in November of 2025 Jackson County voted 9 to 1 for the position to be elected anyway. So the only thing Amendment 2 does is prevent Jackson County voters from ever getting to change their minds.

I have no strong opinion on this. But since I like elections I guess I’m voting for Amendment 2. 

June 14, 2026

In August of 2024, Bryant Wolfin won the Republican primary for state representative. There was no Democratic opponent so he was a shoo-in for our next state rep.  Back then, he told the Ste. Genevieve Herald his number one priority was to try to reverse the sales tax exemption for mining operations.  This exemption (which our previous Republican state rep failed to catch) was snuck into the state budget at the last minute in 2023. It has slashed Ste. Genevieve County revenues by roughly 20%.

Now, in a story that ran on June 10, apparently because he considers himself a “strict constitutionalist,” Mr. Wolfin told the Ste. Genevieve Herald, “I will vote against all multi-subject bills no matter what the subject matter.”  

We have to take him at his word – all bills means ALL bills. So if a bill is introduced to end the exemption but also names the daddy long-legs as the state spider, I guess he’ll vote against it.

The Missouri state constitution does have a provision that says a bill should only cover a single subject. (This provision has been a gold mine for lawyers and a nightmare for legislators.)  The truth is the “one idea at a time” restriction is so problematic that in the early 1990s a Missouri supreme court judge felt obliged to strike down a law but also told the legislature in his opinion how the rule should be changed. The legislature followed the judge’s advice and now if anyone’s going to challenge a statute on single-subject grounds he’s only got until the end of the next legislative session after it passed to raise the claim.  

It turns out Mr. Wolfin, as a “strict constitutionalist,” finds this rule more important than any other problem facing people in this district. In fact, it is so dear to him that he’s used it as the reason to vote “No” on more bills than any other state rep, even though he belongs to the current majority party.

In the recent Ste. Genevieve Herald article (which is posted on its website), the Herald noted that no one should have been surprised by that. When Mr. Wolfin was a Ste. Genevieve city alderman, he was frequently the lone dissenter in 7-1 votes taken by the board.

It was strange reading the Herald article to find myself agreeing with some of the positions raised by Mr. Wolfin’s primary opponent Scott Sattler.

Mr. Sattler told the paper, “Rep. Wolfin has been independent against the Republican party. Being independent, having your own opinion is one thing. Voting against the party on every single issue, you’re likely to make enemies.” That is seldom any good for one’s constituents.

To be fair Mr.  Wolfin is hardly against the Republican party on everything. After all, he is running as a Republican. (It’s also legitimate to question whether there’s any position held by Republican bigwigs with which his primary opponent, Mr. Sattler disagrees, including their efforts to gerrymander congressional districts, abolish all income taxes, and make Missouri a “right-to-work” state.)

According to Sattler the tension between Wolfin and his party means the likelihood of any legislation proposed by Wolfin “seeing the light of day is slim.”

Mr. Sattler goes on, “And the likelihood of his legislation, regardless of how good it is, seeing the light of day is slim.” On this point, I agree with Mr. Sattler 100%.  (I can’t think of much else on which we might agree but that could be just because he hasn’t made clear his opinions on many issues.)

I think at some level Mr. Wolfin understands that. At a “town hall” meeting he had in Perryville last winter he said that the only way to change the power of special interests over the Republican leadership is to educate everyone in the state as to how corrupt they are. In last week’s Herald article, his reply to Sattler was quite different.  He now says,  “I have a great relationship with the incoming floor leader. And so, I think there is a very good opportunity for us to continue to have this conversation.”  

We’ve had two years of continuing the conversation.  Mr. Wolfin continuing the conversation will get us nowhere.

Of course, Mr. Sattler will likely get us nowhere also.  The Republican bigwigs want special interest money for state-wide campaigns.  For them, the greatest sin is insubordination.  Mr. Sattler may well be the marionette they’re looking for.

I am not promising I’ll get us anywhere either.  But if I fail, it won’t be for lack of trying or because I won’t consider horse-trading or because I won’t work  with Republicans. I believe a majority of Democrats would vote to rescind the exemption and so would Republicans who vote their conscience and not tow the party line. At the very least, my election would scare the heck out of the Republican bosses. Who knows? It might just scare them enough.

My parents were Independents.  When one party screwed them over, they voted for the other party.  That’s precisely the message Jeff City needs to hear.   

June 9, 2026

I suspect a wiser politician than me would not write this.

Ste. Genevieve County has seen a number of Democratic incumbents in county positions switch to running as Republicans in this year’s elections.  Their excuse is that they don’t think they can win as Democrats against Republican challengers and that the local Republican party told them they’d be challenged in the general election if they didn’t jump ship.  So they jumped. 

As a Democrat, I feel lied to.  Every Republican should also feel lied to.  These are true RINOs, not the decent Republicans Donald Trump bashes when they dare to disagree with him. 

I also think their timing is off.  Pendulums swing.  People are realizing that the current Republican party is not a party of principle but a party of one egomaniac who is mentally deteriorating.  For a Republican party of principle to emerge, the current incarnation of the party needs a thrashing.  Just like we Democrats need a thrashing every now and then.

One local Ste. Gen incumbent has the worst timing of all – Wayne Williams, Ste. Gen’s current prosecuting attorney.  He jumped ship the day before the filing period ended because Terry Sue Sheehan filed as a Republican.  There is no Democrat running.  Whoever wins the Republican primary will almost certainly be Ste. Gen’s next prosecutor.  And Mr. Williams has thrown away all the votes of Democrats who won’t lie and say they’re Republicans in the August primary election.

The Ste. Gen Republican party has a history of nominating and getting elected some less than stellar candidates, including a public administrator and a county collector who each resigned rather than face investigation for their conduct.  To be blunt, I believe Terry Sue Sheehan would fall into that category. 

I believe she has never tried a criminal case to a judge or jury.  She has provided no real explanation as to why she is running.  Her only qualification is that she has a law license. 

I tried cases against Mr. Williams when he was a district public defender.  (In full disclosure, I hired Mr. Williams when I decided to not run for reelection so that he could get his feet wet as a prosecutor should he run and get elected, which is what came to pass.)  Mr. Williams is a formidable opponent in the courtroom.

There is an old saying in local politics – sheriffs always get the most votes and prosecutors always get the least.  I know I peeved plenty of folks for decisions I made as prosecutor, and I suspect Mr. Williams has peeved a few.  But I trust Mr. Williams’ judgment and abilities far more than Ms. Sheehan’s. 

But that doesn’t really matter, because I won’t have a vote.  Only those who choose a Republican ballot in August will decide.  And the track record of their decisions, as noted above, is not great.

I believe Mr. Williams made a tactical mistake switching parties when Ms. Sheehan decided to run as a Republican.  I believe Ste. Gen County will make a tragic mistake if Ste. Gen County elects her. 

June 7, 2026

I thought county commission meetings were boring.  I was wrong.  

I went to the Ste. Genevieve County Commission meeting on May 30 and learned that Madison County (Fredericktown) got shafted by the Missouri state legislature this session the same way Ste. Gen got shafted five years ago, namely by a new provision exempting another special interest from county sales tax.

This was what our commissioners told me.  There was a meeting of county commissioners from Southeast Missouri at Fredericktown on May 28.  Representative Bryant Wolfin participated via Zoom.  He reported on SB 1553 which goes into effect August 28 this year. 

The Republican leadership slipped something into SB 1553 at the last minute. It now exempts “critical materials” and “critical pharmaceuticals” from sales tax.  This is after Evolution Metals and Technology took over Critical Mineral Recovery’s lithium-ion battery recycling facility which shut down in Fredericktown after a major fire in October of 2024. 

Rep. Wolfin reported that he was unaware of this new exemption and that the Republican leadership neglected to tell other state reps about it.  

Poof! Whatever sales tax Madison County had hoped for is gone with the wind.

At least, Madison County learned about its bad luck fairly quickly.  It took months for Ste. Genevieve County to discover why its sales tax revenue took a nosedive five years ago.

I know I’ve bashed Mr. Wolfin for his naïve belief he can somehow reform the Republican leadership.  But I do want to thank him for informing Southeast Missouri county commissioners of the latest shenanigans in Jeff City.  

In the meantime, Mr. Wolfin’s primary opponent Scott Sattler continues to post happy photos of him campaigning while not discussing the hard issues facing voters in Perry and Ste. Gen counties.

June 4, 2026

     This last legislative session, 148 state representatives voted to restore funding for services to child and domestic violence victims.   Only two voted “No” – one of them was Bryant Wolfin. 

     No surprise.  He racks up more no votes than any other rep, even though he runs as a Republican, the supermajority party in the legislature.  No wonder he is a pariah to other Republicans. You can see it in clips of his speeches on the house floor.  The speaker winces when he recognizes Mr. Wolfin and when he speaks his cohorts ignore him and chat and wait for him to sit down.

     Mr. Wolfin will say he votes no so often because of the “single subject” provision of the state constitution.  This provision says that every bill can only have a single subject it addresses.  The “single subject” language had loads of problems – if a bill does more than one thing, is it unconstitutional?  Can it be attacked even if everyone assumed it was valid for decades? 

     (To deal with these problems, in 1994 the state legislature passed a law saying if you’re hurt by a statute that violates the “single subject” provision, you got to file your lawsuit no later than the date the next legislative session is adjourned. Otherwise, the statute becomes constitutional.)

     I’m not sure why Mr. Wolfin is so gung-ho about the “single subject” provision.  Maybe it’s that Ste. Genevieve County has a lawsuit pending against the State of Missouri for stripping it from the power to collect sales taxes from mining companies.  Missouri’s lawyers said it was too late to file the lawsuit under the 1994 statute, but the trial court has ruled that Ste. Genevieve’s attack wasn’t based on the “single subject” clause and denied the state’s motion to dismiss.

     Mr. Wolfin is on occasion right to vote “no”, like when he stood with Democrats and some other Republicans to unsuccessfully oppose Donald Trump’s ploy to gerrymander our state’s congressional districts.  But by voting “no” all the time, he has made so many enemies among his own party that he can do little or nothing for his constituents in Perry and Ste. Genevieve counties.

     I don’t doubt Mr. Wolfin’s sincerity in his devotion to the “single subject” clause.  At least, Mr. Wolfin generally lets folks know his positions on issues.  I have heard hardly any positions staked out by his primary opponent, Scott Sattler, (and have only seen photos of him at golf tournaments).

     While the Republican party has been in power in Missouri for decades, the Republican party of twenty years ago has morphed into the party of Donald Trump. It needs a shellacking so it can go back to its core principles.  While it remains in power it needs checks. 

     But the only thing the current batch of Republican state leaders hate more than  Democrats are “disloyal” Republicans, like Mr. Wolfin.  That’s why his voice falls on deaf ears in Jefferson City. 

May 29, 2026

I will now venture where angels fear to tread.

First and foremost, I believe Sheriff Stolzer, Chief Deputy Schott, and every deputy, jailer, and employee of the Ste. Genevieve Sheriff’s office would never mistreat or violate the rights of anyone in the Ste. Genevieve County Jail.  Not anyone, from the worst murderer or child molester to the hardest working, most decent detainee.  As a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney I have known Gary and Jason for close to four decades.  I have disagreed with them and they with me. While I am no fool-proof judge of human character, I have found them to be devoted public servants who would not tolerate such conduct.

The last few months, I’ve done volunteer work helping detainees take care of matters involving their children, their loved ones, the cases, and their futures, primarily getting their signatures on legal documents.  The jail staff has shown a level of cooperation and consideration above and beyond the call of duty.  I speak no Spanish.  They have aided me in explaining things to detainees with translation apps on their phones.  I have never seen the slightest sign that they view detainees as anything other than human beings deserving our compassion and good will.

The Ste. Genevieve County Jail is by no means Alligator Alcatraz.  I wish all facilities housing detainees would be as good as ours. 

With that said, I want to make it clear that I am disgusted with Donald Trump’s treatment of people who want to live and work in America.  He promised to go after “the worst of the worst”, but instead is attacking those who followed the rules but now are facing deportation.  We should not forget that in 2024 Republicans and Democrats in Congress forged a bill that would have provided border security and a coherent path towards citizenship. This bi-partisan bill was on the verge of passage until Trump demanded his party kill it for no reason other than to gain his own political advantage.  We have a president who wants to build monuments to his glory and tear down the Statue of Liberty.

I also want to make it plain that I think our elected officials need to be open with their constituents.  I understand our sheriff is a proud man and believes we should take him at his word. But not everyone knows him like I do.  Our system of government depends on candor with the voters.  I’m asking the sheriff’s office to consider showing us the “boats” detainees sleep in.  I think many folks would be surprised at how they are not crude mats on the floor. 

I would ask the sheriff’s office to explain and show us pictures of how detainees are housed.  I believe detainees were initially housed separately from those facing criminal charges or serving time but that has changed as detainee population has soared.

I would ask for the release of information regarding the suicide of Luis Cruz Silva while in detention at our jail.  I believe the Highway Patrol conducted an investigation which showed that our jail staff repeatedly took steps to inform ICE about his mental state and yet ICE took no action.

I would ask for information about medical treatment for detainees.  I understand the jail has a doctor and staff who provide care.  But as a former criminal defense attorney, I am aware of situations where the doctor employed by the jail has refused to give medication which doctors with the Missouri Department of Mental Health prescribed because he disagreed with them.

I believe this information will reassure the folks in Ste. Genevieve.

I also believe our elected officials, particularly the Ste. Genevieve County commissioners, need to be candid with the voters. From a budgetary standpoint we have no real alternative to continuing to house ICE detainees.  For what seems like forever, Holcim has been fighting its property assessment, claiming its buildings are not real property subject to higher taxes but are just personal property.  The money Holcim owes sits in escrow, unusable by the county.  

Additionally, as we should be aware, special interests got our state legislature to rescind the county’s ability collect sales tax on mining operations.  The county owes money on bonds for the community center which the voters passed when we had no reason to suspect the legislature would strip us from the power to collect such sales tax.  

Our sheriff’s department is likely the only department in Missouri that brings in more money than it spends.  It contributes close to $1,000,000 annually to the county’s coffers. It does this through getting payments from the state and federal government for housing sexually violent predators, U.S. Marshal prisoners, and most recently a huge influx of detainees.  The voters are entitled to know we basically have no choice for the foreseeable future but to keep housing detainees.  The voters deserve a breakdown of the dollars coming in and going out from the sheriff’s department operations.

I believe our sheriff’s department provides the finest law enforcement of any in rural Missouri.  Our sheriff has boasted of how his deputies’ salaries compare to salaries of officers in other agencies and how great is our retention rate.  But everything comes with a cost.  Every dollar spent on one project is a dollar taken from somewhere else.  The voters in Ste. Gen County deserve to know how the amount we pay for law enforcement compares with what other similar counties pay.

Ste. Genevieve County is facing hard times and hard choices.  The voters deserve openness, not a “just trust us” approach.

I understand it may be insane for a candidate for state representative to address the subject of ICE detainees. But I promised myself when I decided to run to be honest with myself and honest with voters.  I want to make it clear I’m expressing my views only, not those of any organization or anyone else.   

Let me conclude right where I started. I do not believe Sheriff Stolzer, Chief Deputy Schott, or any deputy, jailer, or employee of the Ste. Genevieve Sheriff’s office would mistreat or violate the rights of detainees or anyone else in the Ste. Genevieve County Jail.

May 21, 2026

I’ve been furthering my education on education in Missouri.  The key is to follow the money.

The Missouri state legislature passed a $50.7 billion state budget on May 6. Overall spending is down $2.4 billion from last year.  But even with that reduction, the legislature has to use $2.3 billion from a previous general revenue surplus that it had built up with federal money it had received during Covid.  It’s likely the last time the legislature will be able to use that much extra money from the rainy day fund to balance the budget.

Article IX of the Missouri Constitution provides, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools . . . . ”  Public schools are the state’s constitutional priority. 

Since 1999, public schools have included charter schools.  Ste. Genevieve and Perry counties don’t have charter schools.  By statute, they are limited to Kansas City, St. Louis City, and Boone County and unaccredited or provisionally accredited school districts.

Charter schools don’t have to follow all the rules that regular public schools must comply with.  Theyhave a checkered record – on May 18, for instance, one in St. Louis abruptly closed its doors, leaving about 100 students in the lurch.

Missouri is supposed to follow a formula to determine how much state money each district gets for public schools.  The formula has been summed up as “Student Attendance multiplied by Target Per Student Funding multiplied by a Localized Cost of Living Adjustment Minus Local Taxes equals State Funding.” At least that’s the theory. 

For years, Missouri’s state K-12 education budget fell short. Then for a spell, the state budget met the formula - in part by eliminating an automatic adjustment for inflation.  But now, with the budget just passed in Jeff City on May 6, Missouri has returned to making the formula a broken promise. 

Overall, Missouri ranks about 30th in per student funding for public schools. Missouri ranks near last in the nation for the percentage of state funding, but it ranks near fifth in the nation for the percentage of local funding. 

That doesn’t mean state funding for public education isn’t important.  It just means it is less important for counties which have high assessed property values and more important for counties which lower assessed values.  So it’s less important for counties in metropolitan and suburban areas and more important for rural counties, like Ste. Genevieve and Perry.  It basically comes down to this – an acre in St. Louis County generates more taxes for public schools than an acre in the boondocks.  

The new budget barely passed the finish line.  The major problem was pie-in-the-sky estimates of how much money the Missouri Lottery will generate for schools.  The education budget for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, was based on an assumption the lottery would produce $410 million. But actually it’s only going to be around $350 million.  The new budget is banking on $369 million from the lottery for this coming fiscal year.  The new budget only allocates $4.3 million from general revenue to the formula’s target. 

A conference committee of state senators and representatives met to reconcile the budgets each house had passed.  The conference committee determined that the $369 million estimate from the lottery was as much as $45 million pie-in-the sky. So Democrats and some Republican  asked to add to the final budget bill a $27 million appropriation since the lottery is all but certain to fall short.  But House Budget Committee Chairman Dirk Deaton, a Republican, said in effect “Don’t worry about the lottery projection – it’s just a guess anyway”.  The state house defeated the vote to return the budget to the conference committee for further discussion.  They didn’t let the facts stand in the way of passing a budget so the representatives could go home.

Of course, you might think if Jeff City couldn’t reach the target for public schools they might reduce funds for school vouchers. Wrong.  School vouchers, otherwise known as Empowerment Scholarship accounts, have a sordid history in Missouri.  They’re backed by groups like the Herzog Foundation of Smithfield, Missouri.  The Herzog Foundation claims its mission is to support Christian education.  It sits on about $350 million in assets.  In 2016, it gave $650,000 to Governor Greiten’s campaign. In 2024, it gave Governor Kehoe’s campaign $1 million.  (If you want to read an interesting but terrifying account of vouchers in Missouri, look up The Destruction of our Rural Schools by Andy Slaughter. See link in comments.) The legality of the voucher program is being challenged in the courts.

Despite tightening the belt for public schools, the state legislature decided to up funding for vouchers by 20%, from $50 million to $60 million.

There had been some discussion in Jeff City of making changes to Missouri’s tax credit for contributions to “certified education assistance organizations.” These private contributions are supposed to pay for scholarships at private schools for students who need individual education plans (IEPs) or who are from low-income households.  These tax credits are lovely perks for the wealthy.  Instead of regular donations to charities, which lower the portion of your income subject to tax, a credit reduces your income tax bill dollar for dollar.  It allows the rich to give money to private schools they like and get their taxes cut.  The rest of us pay our taxes with the money going to wherever the legislature decides.  Why donations to private schools merit tax credits while donations to other charities merit only deductions to taxable income is beyond me, except that this boondoggle pleases the “special interests” who fund political campaigns.  In any event, these discussions went nowhere and these tax credits remain in place.

One strange new law passed the legislature despite getting voted down on the first vote.  It moves school board elections in St. Charles County to the November general election date.  The motive’s clear.  Republicans want Republicans to win school board elections and think turn-out will be higher in November so Democrats and Independents won’t be able to “sneak in” when no one’s looking. St. Charles County is just the foot in the doorway.  If Republicans have their way, they’ll make every election in every county partisan. Don’t let them.

May 7, 2026

Last Tuesday, Indiana MAGA voters supported Donald Trump’s revenge campaign against incumbent Republican state senators who dared to vote against his demand for gerrymandering. Six challengers backed by His Excellency prevailed. One incumbent survived.  As I’m writing, one race is too close to call.  There was $13,500,000 spent on Indiana primary campaigns this year compared to $250,000 spent in 2024.

I wonder what our incumbent state rep Bryant Wolfin makes of all this. He voted against redistricting. But the overwhelming number of his Republican peers supported it, as did Governor Kehoe.  Will Wolfin try to apologize to His Highness and the MAGA loyalists and seek mercy?  Will he go down, screaming his catch phrase “For Liberty,” valiant to the end?  Or will he triumph in a blaze of glory, despite his treachery? 

The only thing Trump despises more than Democrats are rogue Republicans. The day after the May 5th election Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed that Trump sent her a text telling her that her son deserved to die because she wouldn’t back down on release of the Epstein files.  MTG says she’s kept the text message but won’t let us see it because she’s afraid Trump would put her in jail. 

With any other president, I’d call that ridiculous.  But not in the reign of King Don.  The same day MTG told us about the text, the Federal Bureau of Intimidation executed a search warrant on the Virginia State Senate President Pro Tem.  Her crime? Spearheading the effort to gerrymander Virginia’s congressional districts so Democrats could offset Trump’s gerrymander of Texas.

Of course, Mr. Wolfin’s stand against gerrymandering failed, unlike the efforts of those Indiana’s state senators.  So maybe Trump doesn’t care about Wolfin.

But Gov. Kehoe does. Missouri’s Republican establishment does.  That’s why Wolfin drew a primary opponent, Scott Sattler.  Even if Wolfin somehow wins the primary and the general election, Kehoe and the Republican establishment will see to it that he’s nothing more than an ineffectual gadfly in the state legislature.

So who do I want to run against – Wolfin or Sattler?  I am a poor political strategist, but I think I’d have a better chance against Sattler. Maybe I’d get some votes from angry Wolfin supporters. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking. Who knows?

But the plain and simple truth is gerrymandering is poison for democracy.  The voters should pick their representatives.  The representatives should not pick their voters.

Contested districts produce better candidates than “safe districts.”  It’s just like the free market – competition is good for the consumer.  Contested districts produce moderation – if the Democrats have a good idea on one issue and the Republicans have a good idea on another issue, a candidate can support both good ideas and still have a chance of winning. The current Republican party ought to lose. If we want to keep Abraham Lincoln’s vision of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”, it needs to lose big.

I remember the saying “All politics is local.”  I’m not sure any politics is purely local now. Not when the country we pledge allegiance to is under such an existential threat.

May 1, 2026

A couple weeks ago when I promised to look deeper into Rep. Wolfin’s “Legislative Survey”, I intended to focus on appropriations and taxes. I’m glad I waited because some very important things have changed. 

On April 21, Gov. Kehoe and the Republican leadership rammed through the legislature a proposed state constitutional amendment that would abolish all personal income tax. Income tax currently makes up about 65% of Missouri’s state revenue.

According to the governor, repealing the income tax will spur the economy by attracting new business and high earners to the state . . . the classic trickle-down “we’ll cut taxes to raise revenue” theory. (By the way, Kansas tried something similar from 2012 through 2017. It led to credit downgrades, fiscal crises, and eventually repeal and tax increases.)

The governor and his cohorts say they’ll replace any lost revenue by enlarging the sales tax to cover nearly all goods and services.  At first, getting rid of state income tax may sound pretty good.  But this proposal is insane. It’s cowardly. It’s unfair. And it won’t work

It’s cowardly because the elimination of income tax and the substitution with sales tax are phased in.  The Republican legislators who support it will have been term-limited out and will not have to answer for what will then have become a huge mistake.

And it’s also cowardly because the language of the proposal actually hides what it is going to do.  Article X, Section 26.1 would say “state and local sales and use taxes . . . shall not be expanded to impose taxes on any service or transaction that was not subject to sales, use or similar transaction-based tax on January 1, 2015.”  But then in the very next sentence Article X, Section 26.2(1) gives the legislature the right to create new legislation that will expand “state and local sales and use taxes . . . to impose taxes involving any goods and services.”

In other words, the legislature can start taxing goods and services that have never been taxed before.

And it’s likely that they will.  They have only 3 ways to make up for the shortfall from eliminating income tax – raise the sales tax rate, expand the base of the sales tax to include items currently exempt, or cut government services.

All of these options are unfair.  They help helps the rich and hurts the poor and middle class. Estimates from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy are that a family earning between $49,000 and $78,000 will pay on average $535 more in taxes and the poor will be hit even harder.

It’s also estimated that the sales tax would have to be raised by 12% to 15% unless the base is expanded. That would mean taxing services . . . things like lawn cutting, gutter cleaning, the apps you download for your phone or computer.  And more importantly visits to the dentist, doctor, physical therapist, or lawyer, none of which have never been taxed before. 

Also, don’t forget the special interests, like mining, seeking exemptions from sales tax, as we in Ste. Genevieve Count are all too aware. Fore every exemption the sales tax has to climb higher. 

So how about cutting government services? A quick AI search shows Missouri already ranks 47th per mile for what’s spent on roads in the U.S., 37th for what’s spent on infrastructure overall, and 33rd for education. We invest less per person in public health than any other state.  The Republican leadership hasn’t told us what services it would cut.

All this has to make you wonder what happened to fiscal responsibility, fairness and honesty in Jeff City.

And here’s a special horror of the governor’s proposal.  The Republican leadership wants the elimination of the income tax to become part of the state constitution.  At the same time they want to make it close to impossible for any future voter initiative to amend the state constitution to succeed ever again.  In other words, they want to elimination of the state income to be carved in stone. 

Our current state representative, Bryant Wolfin, had the courage to stand with all too few Republicans, in opposing the proposal.  I have not yet heard Mr. Wolfin’s reasons for opposing it.  No doubts he will become yet greater pariah to the Republican establishment. 

 Of course, we have no word from Scott Sattler, Mr. Wolfin’s Republican primary opponent.  Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.

April 22, 2026

“Franking” by Any Other Name is Still Franking and We’re Paying for It.

Over the weekend I got Rep. Bryant Wolfin’s “Legislative Survey” in the mail.  This “survey” is nothing more than campaign literature dressed up as what Wolfin calls “one of the most effective ways for me to understand your views on the issues facing Missouri.”  But maybe it’s not your view on how best to spend tax money.

Missouri technically does not have “franking” – that is free postage for incumbents to send out mail to constituents.  But it does allocate budgets for each state representative to send out such mailings . . . at the taxpayer’s expense. 

Since Mr. Wolfin in this mailing says “your interests . . . are the reasons I am here,” I am asking him to let us know just how much Missouri pays for this and other mailings by himself and other incumbents . . . and just how much attention he plans to pay attention to making sure our interests as fairly addressed.

 “Reproductive Health”?

Take this for example. In the mailing under the heading “Reproductive Health” he asks us if we support HJR 73 but doesn’t provide much details on what’s in HJR 73.  This proposed amendment to Missouri’s constitution would repeal the “old” Amendment 3 which the voters passed in November 2024.  That Amendment 3 essentially restored the rights women had under Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in 2022.  HJR 73 – November’s “new” Amendment 3 - does the exact opposite.  If, like most Missouri voters, you voted yes on the old Amendment 3, you’ll likely want to vote no on the new Amendment 3. 

The “new” Amendment 3 would prohibit abortion except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest.  In instances of rape or incest, the mother must report the crime to a law enforcement agency at least 48 hours before the abortion.  Also, no public funds can be used for any abortion, under any circumstances - not rape, incest, or a medical emergency.  Tough luck if you’re poor and raped or a victim of incest, or are suffering a medical emergency.  As I read the “new” amendment, no public funds can be used even to abort ectopic pregnancies.

There’s also a provision that would make anyone who intentionally or negligently causes damage to someone “relating to the provision of prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, miscarriage care or for the performance or inducement of an abortion . . . liable for damages and shall be subject to suspension or revocation of his or her medical license.”  Is this designed to protect women? Or just to scare the heck out of any doctor who performs any abortion even when there’s rape, incest or a medical emergency? 

The “new” Amendment 3 further contains language that prohibits “gender transition surgeries” on children under 18 and also prohibits “cross-sex hormones or puberty blocking drugs . . . for the purpose of gender transition to children” under 18.  So the government gets to override the opinion of the parents of the child.  What this has to do with reproductive health is beyond me.  Could it possibly be attached to the “new” amendment just so people might think if they vote against it they’d somehow be supporting “gender transition surgeries”?

I’m also at a loss as to what “gender transition surgeries” and “cross-sex hormones” have to do with abortion.  Or even the connection between “abortion” and “reproductive health.”  I’ve often heard Rep. Wolfin criticize logrolling – the legislative trick of addressing two or more different topics in one bill so voters have to decide if they like one part more than they dislike the other parts.  The “new” amendment is a classic example of logrolling.

Probably the scariest part of the “new” Amendment 3 is Section 6 – “The general assembly shall have the authority to enact laws to carry out the provisions of this section.”  So what laws will the general assembly enact?  Will they make it a crime to help someone cross state lines for an abortion? Or even criminalize telling them they can get an abortion in some other state?  Will the “morning after pill” or mifeprestone become illegal? If a pregnant women miscarries, could she be prosecuted for murder?

Mr. Wolfin often closes letters with “For Liberty.”  But in this area, he seems to trust state government more than women and children’s parents.  It would be nice to know how much a law is going to restrain Liberty before we’re asked to vote on it.

Petitions.

Then there’s the issue of initiative petitions. Mr. Wolfin is asking us if we think that passing an initiative petition should require a super-majority state-wide (how much of a super-majority is not specified) or that it should require a simple majority, not just state-wide but in each one of Missouri’s eight U.S. Congressional districts. 

Mysteriously, his survey ignores the upcoming duel between Protect Missouri Voters and Respect Missouri Voters, two different initiatives changing the state constitution.

The Republican legislature placed the so-called Protect Missouri Voters initiative on the ballot to change the state constitution.  If passed, a majority vote in each congressional district would be needed to approve an amendment to the state constitution.  This effectively means that just 50% plus one of the voters in any single district could block a constitutional amendment supported by every other voter in the state.  To me, that hardly sounds fair.

Then there’s the Respect Missouri Voters - a citizen initiative drive which would also change the state constitution and therefore needing signatures from 8% of legal voters in all the congressional districts to even get on the ballot.  Right now, if the voters pass an initiative that changes a statute but not the state constitution can be amended or repealed by the legislature (as they’ve done on prohibitions of puppy mills, paid sick leave and minimum wage cost of living increases.)  Respect Missouri Voters would require 80% approval in both chambers of the legislature for any change or repeal of statutes passed by citizen initiatives. In other words, if voters pass a statute, the legislature won’t be able to simply thumb their noses at it.

Not A Coincidence.

It is not a coincidence that the Republican leadership wants to amend the state constitution to restrict abortions and at the same time stymie any future citizen initiatives to amend the state constitution to reflect the citizens’ beliefs and interests.  One has to admire the Republican leadership’s craftiness, if nothing else.

April 18, 2026

Of course it can. But it can also get better.

I went to this week’s meetings of the County Commissions in Ste. Genevieve and Perry counties.  As a candidate for state representative, I’m trying to educate myself on the issues facing each county and how each county gets along with Jeff City. Turns out that relationship is not always pretty.

Ste. Genevieve County

The Ste. Genevieve County commissioners talked about the Missouri Association of Counties legislative day held on April 15.  Typically, county officers - especially commissioners - go to Jeff City, get a tour of the Capitol and meet with state representatives and senators to share their concerns.  While Ste. Gen’s Commissioners did not attend this year, they didn’t miss much.  No state representative or senator showed up.  Rep. Bryant Wolfin reported that he was unaware of the event and that the Republican leadership hadn’t told any rep or senator about it.  I understand wires can get crossed.  But it I think it’s indicative of the contempt the Republican leadership has for our county officials, even when they all belong to the same party.

On a more immediate and alarming note, Ste. Genevieve County sales tax revenues continue to plunge as they have since the state legislature decided to rescind county sales taxes for mining operations.  The county saw an approximately 30% monthly reduction in revenues after the rescission – from around $100,000 down to $70,000.  Our then state rep (who wasn’t Bryant Wolfin) and then state senator claimed they did not know of the rescission even though they voted for the law.  It took Ste. Gen county officials months to find out from the Jeff City what caused the steep drop.

Now it seems it might be happening again.  Our March 2026 revenues dipped to $34,000 from March 2025.  The county commission is trying to determine the cause of the latest plunge.   And there may be more grim news – the commissioners mentioned that the County may soon be facing “clawbacks.”  That’s when taxpayers claim they paid more than they should have and seek refunds.  They said there’s talk of some industries seeking clawbacks for sales taxes paid to the county going all the way back to 2018.

I’ve done some digging into where Ste. Genevieve County’s lawsuit against Gov. Kehoe over the rescission now stands.  The County is demanding that the State reimburse the County for lost sales tax revenue, claiming the rescission created an unfunded mandate for the County in violation of the Hancock Amendment.  The County depends heavily on sales tax revenues to pay on bonds it issued before the rescission.

Gov. Kehoe’s lawyers have asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit.  His lawyers claim it’s barred by the statute of limitations because challenges of this kind to state legislation generally must be brought in a specific time frame.  The County disagrees. 

The trial court has heard arguments from both sides and is scheduled to rule on April 20th.  (But don’t hold your breath – the can often gets kicked down the road.)

Perry County

First, kudos to Perry County which led the whole State of Missouri in the April election voter turn-out.  This was likely because of two tax issues which were on the ballot. Proposition K.I.D.S. failed.  The proposition was for funding to repair and improve school district facilities following the tornado damage of March 2025. The other was the senior homestead property tax freeze, which Ste. Genevieve County already has in place.  The freeze passed.

I know little about Proposition K.I.D.S. and only a little bit more about the senior homestead property tax freeze (which I have taken advantage of).  But I want to touch on my general concern - although the politician in me says “keep your trap shut”. We baby boomers seem really good at looking after our own interests but sometimes neglect the interests of generations that will follow.  I wonder how many mansions are now covered by seniors homestead tax freeze.

At the Perry County meeting there was discussion about data centers and in particular what happened in Festus where voters booted aldermen because of citizen opposition to elected  officials’ support for such a data center.  These centers use huge amounts of electricity and water and there is potential existing residents will face significant electricity and water rate increases.  The Perry County clerk pointed out that in one Missouri county officials have said their approval for such a project would have to include guaranteed limits on how these rates can rise for existing residents.

Perry County commissioners seem really on the job, considering whether and how counties can protect their residents by imposing regulations that protect residents from any negative consequences from data centers.  But I was reminded of what happened when Missouri counties tried to regulate super-sized hog farms known as CAFOs - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. 

The state legislature leadership often sings the praises of local control but passed laws in 2019 and 2021 which prohibited counties from creating regulations for CAFOs if the county’s rules are “inconsistent with, in addition to, different from, or more stringent” than what the state requires.  Any bet on what Jeff City will do if data centers or their owners start contributing to candidates in state legislature races?

I am finding County Commission meetings much more interesting than I thought and appreciate the opportunity to listen to the commissioners.  It’s a reminder that regardless of where we live or what party, if any, we belong to, we’re all in this together.

April 9, 2026

The day after high school graduation, I was at Marine Corps boot camp in San Diego. I enlisted for the same reason eighteen year-olds always have signed up – I needed money (the economy in the late 70s was not great).  Also I knew I’d live forever, and I was patriotic. It was a few years after Vietnam, and I knew how rotten that draft was.  And I literally owed my life to America – my dad came to the United States when he was seven, fleeing with my Jewish grandparents from Hitler’s Germany the last year before WW II began.  I had been raised on tales from my mother’s family of ancestors who fought with Ethan Allen’s Green Mountain Boys in the Battle of Saratoga during the Revolution.  I also sensed I needed discipline.  My parents were divorced, and I ran a little too wild in high school.

I learned two key lessons in the Marine Corps.  First, as my drill instructors taught, we all wore green. Black or white, city or country, rich or poor, we were all Marines.  I also learned “Semper Fi,” always faithful.  If you promise to do something, you do it. Period.

I wasn’t a great Marine.  I was much more Gomer Pyle than Chesty Puller.  I was a Remington warrior, a clerk who typed DD-214s, a peacetime reservist for six years.  I got more from the Corps than the Corps got from me.

My parents had been a “Bridgette loves Bernie” couple – an Irish Catholic woman with a Jewish boy.  The marriage was not ideal – they divorced when I was thirteen.  My dad climbed the economic ladder like so many immigrants before him.  He became a professor at Washington University.  As he would later admit, he cared more about his laboratory than his family.  But he taught me this: Work hard. Then work harder.

After my parents separated, my mom needed a job so she went to community college to get certified as a paralegal.  I washed dishes after school and gave her most of the money. We depended on food stamps during that time. Mom needed a hand up, not a hand out, and she got it from the government.  She worked as a paralegal for decades.  From Mom I learned optimism, resiliency, and responsibility.

With scholarships, student loans, work-study, pay from Uncle Sam, and help from family, I graduated from Colgate University magna cum laude in 1983 and Duke University Law School with high distinction in 1986.  I worked for a little more than a year as a baby securities lawyer in St. Louis to pay off my student loans quickly.  The pay was good, but the work was dull.  So I became a public defender in St. Louis.

I tried a lot of cases in St. Louis and learned my trade. And I learned how messed up laws can be, just in time for the crack epidemic that swept American cities in the late 1980s. Crack was a form of cocaine generally smoked by ghetto blacks.  It was severely punished.  Powder cocaine was generally used by suburban rich white kids, snorted in discos, and much more lightly punished.  I tried a lot of cases in St. Louis and learned my trade.

My life had big changes in 1990.  I took a job as a district public defender in Farmington.  It was a promotion and paid better.  My district covered Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, Washington, Madison, Iron, and Reynolds counties.  I was the boss of two other attorneys.  (The Farmington public defender office now has about fifteen lawyers.)  I moved to a house on a hillside near Lawrenceton in Ste. Gen county, a beautiful area ten miles west of Bloomsdale.  About all I knew about Ste. Gen County was from camping at Hawn State Park in wilder high school days.

But the biggest change in 1990 was marrying Holly Gayle Simons from Oklahoma City.  For twenty-six years we lived contentedly in the boondocks.

    My first jury trial down here I defended a guy accused of trying to run over a state trooper in St. Francois County.  I got snookered by the St. Francois County prosecutor, a fine lawyer named Gary Stevenson.  I wanted the trial to be moved away from Farmington and he suggested Perry County.  I figured, why not?  When I arrived for the first day of the trial in Perryville I saw the stone commemorating Trooper James M. Froemsdorf  who died in the line of duty with the Highway Patrol on I-55 near Brewer.  I lost the case. 

But I didn’t always lose cases.  I won a murder trial in Ste. Genevieve.  The sheriff then was Robert “Rabbit” Macklin.  After the trial, Rabbit asked if I’d run for prosecutor in Ste. Genevieve County.  I told him I wasn’t from Ste. Gen, I wasn’t a church goer, and that Holly and I were basically hermits. He said, “Run anyway,” which I did.

I was elected prosecutor and held the post in Ste. Gen for a total of 20 years.  For the first twelve years, the position was part-time, so I had a private law practice as well.  I then ran against an incumbent circuit judge in the Democratic primary in 2006.  I knew I had only a ghost of a chance, in part because our circuit judges seem to always come from St. Francois County.  I came close, but fell short.

After four years in private practice I again was re-elected prosecutor, which then became full time.  I served for eight more years. In 2017,  I decided not to run again, largely because I was tired of judging people.  With so many cases resolved with plea bargains, a prosecutor often does more judging than the fellow on the bench in the robe. 

My last term as prosecutor brought one other change.  My wife Holly went for two days unable to keep food down.  She never liked seeing a doctor, but I badgered her to go. She wound up in the emergency room at Jefferson Memorial.  I drove there like a bat out of hell. 

It was bad. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer.. Chemo didn’t work. Ultimately nothing did.  She wanted to die at home, looking over our beautiful valley. It never came to pass.  She died April 19, 2017 at Jefferson Memorial, age sixty.  I muddled through with help from many.  God bless them all.

I have been amazingly lucky in some respects.  I had Holly for 26 years. And I have since married a wonderful woman, Susie Johnson.  Sometimes lightning – the good kind - strikes twice.

Susie and I now live in an old house (1845) in downtown Ste. Genevieve with two dogs who don’t like the way I garden. For the last eight years, I have continued practicing law but consider myself now retired. 

I was thrilled to receive the award of Contract Public Defender of  the Year last month for work I’ve done representing poor folks accused of crimes. I am still asked how I could bring myself to represent people I knew were guilty.  The answer is simple. The Constitution provides all of us with the right to counsel.  The hard job was representing people I believed were innocent.  They also have that right and you then have the weight of the world on your shoulders, trying to get them justice.

I have dreaded writing this short autobiography.  But I think every candidate owes voters an explanation of who they are and how they got here. I fought loads of fights in courtrooms, although no more. I still have plenty of fire in my belly but feel the fight’s moved elsewhere.  America is under the worst threat of my lifetime.  Please let me fight for you and our country.

April 4, 2026

One thing I learned in two decades as the Ste. Genevieve County prosecuting attorney is that if you want to know what’s going on in a county listen to a county commissioner.  Since I’m running for State Representative in the 145th District (Ste. Gen and Perry counties), I thought it was a good idea to hear from the commissioners and get their input on relations with Jeff City. Here’s a warning: If you’re looking for excitement, you probably won’t find it at a county commission meeting.  This is where the grunt work of government gets done – roads, budgets, roads, the sheriff’s office, roads, more roads, and the like.  When I told the Ste. Gen. and Perry county commissioners why I was there at their respective meetings, they were friendly, cooperative, and appeared genuinely interested.

Ste. Genevieve

First, Ste. Genevieve.  The commissioners are still fuming at the state legislature’s hush-hush removal of the ability of the county to collect sales tax revenue from mining operations.  This sneaky measure by the Republican state legislature leadership has created about a 30% hole in the county’s budget.  The commissioners must plug the hole or the county’s bond rating will collapse.  Apparently our then state rep (who, in all fairness, was not Bryant Wolfin, the incumbent state rep) was unaware of this special interest boondoggle .  . . an example of  why the state rep we elect next needs to know what legislation he or she’s voting on and needs to talk and listen to the commissioners about its potential impact on the county.  (More on the mining sales tax problem in further dispatches.)

One of the ways Ste. Gen. is considering plugging its budget gap is by letting a union represent county employees.  The advantage would be that the employees may be eligible for a union health insurance plan at reduced rates to themselves and the county through a union plan. St. Francois County has taken such an approach. 

But while County Sheriff Gary Stolzer seemed open to the idea he brought up an interesting concern – the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, something I had never heard of.  He said this bit of the state legislature’s handiwork makes it difficult and time-consuming to discipline or fire rogue officers, taking up to six months even if he wants to to deal with the problem right away.  Sheriff Stolzer is worried that union representation might create a further hurdle in addressing the issue of bad officers.  And he pointed out that no state rep talked to him about the wisdom of creating a Law Enforcement Bill of Rights that included such a provision.

On to Perry County

The Perry County commissioners have their own problems with Jefferson City.  I was surprised when they brought up Governor Kehoe’s plan to abolish the state income tax.  They questioned if the state government was going to raise state sales tax rates or just punt more unfunded mandates to counties. I was reminded of what a previous presiding commissioner for Ste. Genevieve county, Donald Schremp, told me when I was first elected prosecutor in 1994 – “Jeff City tells us what to do but won’t give us the money to get it done.”  (I’ll leave my opinions on Kehoe’s income tax proposal for another day.)

Later in the Perry County commission meeting a representative of SEMO NASV (the Southeast Missouri Network Against Sexual Violence) came hat-in-hand asking for money. SEMO NASV provides vital services for sexual abuse victims.  It currently is facing about a 40% reduction in funds being distributed by the Missouri Division of Social Services under the Victims of Child Abuse Act.  I expect we will see more such pleas given the priorities of the current administration in Washington and Jefferson City.

Commissioners also discussed putting on the county’s ballot a proposal to change the funding of 911 services.  Currently those services are funded with a tax on land lines.  Of course land lines are going the way of the buggy whip, so counties all over the state are switching to a per device fee.  The commissioners seemed to question why the switch must be done county by county across the entire state, noting that the reason may be that state politicians want to duck matters relating to taxation and leave it to the counties to address thorny matters of how to pay for necessary services.

 If I am elected I will talk with the officials of the counties I represent.  And more importantly I will listen.  Both before and after I vote.

Have a great Easter or Passover or just enjoy spring in gorgeous southeast Missouri!

March 31, 2026

I am not running because my wife Susie told me to.

​I am not running because of any delusions as to my chances.

​I am running simply because the people deserve contested elections.  Because the people deserve a choice.

​Especially in times like these when elections themselves are under threat.

​

​We have a president who insists he won when we know he lost. 

​Who demands Republican legislatures create gerrymandered congressional districts.

​Who demands our representatives in DC pass his doublespeak “Save America Act” which means married women who chose their husbands’ last names will find it harder to vote.

​Who himself votes by mail but wants to deprive us of that option.

​

​We have a governor and state legislature that want to hamstring the right of the Missourians to amend our own state constitution.

​That want to have the power to override the will of the people when the people speak at the ballot box.

​That want what they call  “right to work” to trump the worker’s right to a decent wage.

​My parents were both Independents.  They sometimes voted Republican, sometimes Democratic, sometimes non-partisan or third-party.

​They had a simple rule – when the incumbent or his party screwed them, they’d vote them out.

​Their rule makes sense.  Democrats need Republicans to keep them straight.  Republicans need Democrats to keep them straight.  And we all need Independents to keep everyone sane.

​The current incarnation of the Republican party has screwed us over.  It’s now the party of billionaires and special interests. 

​Of $4.00 per gallon gasoline and vanity wars meant to distract us from the president’s corruption.

​Of fake news and fake science in hopes we’ll stay confused.

​I long for the Grand Old Party that wasn’t under the spell of a con artist.  ​That accepted facts even if they weren’t what they liked.

​Whose members I could talk with and understand and who would talk with me and understand my concerns.

​

​I believe those days must and will return.

​I believe the people deserve a choice.

​That’s why I’m running.

​And that’s why, in the words of Harry Truman, I intend to give them Hell.