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.