JEFFERSON CITY — Boone County Sheriff Dwayne Carey wants the people of ºüÀêÊÓƵ to pay for his retirement. And the people of Kansas City. And anybody, anywhere in Missouri, who gets a speeding ticket.
That’s what he told Missouri lawmakers earlier this year as they considered a ballot initiative that would weaken one of the state’s oldest constitutional protections.
“There’s no way that when I reach the end of my career, there’s going to be any money left,†Carey said about the sheriffs’ retirement system during a Senate hearing on . “I’m crying on your shoulder for all the sheriffs and prosecutors who will be without this money.â€
The resolution, which was passed by the Missouri Legislature on the last day of the session with little debate and barely enough yes votes, would reverse a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision from 2021 that said a $3 fee that was charged on every court case in Missouri to fund the sheriffs’ retirement system was an unconstitutional “sale of justice.â€
People are also reading…
Since 1875, Missouri has had a constitutional provision in known colloquially as the “open courts†provision. With its roots in England’s Magna Carta, it provides that the courts are not to put up barriers to justice, such as costs that some people can’t afford.
Twice now, in 1986 and 2021, a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court has ruled that using the courts to collect money to pay for executive branch functions — such as sheriff retirements — violates the state constitution. It’s not that the courts don’t want sheriffs like Carey to have a retirement, they just don’t want judges to have to collect backdoor taxes from poor people — especially in jurisdictions far from where a sheriff or prosecutor works — to pay for such retirements.
As soon as the state’s top court took away the ‘s $3 fee, the sheriffs began lobbying the Legislature for a fix. They were joined this year by prosecutors, whose retirement system is funded by a similar fee that a Jackson County court has found is similarly unconstitutional.
The Legislature’s response to sheriffs and prosecutors was to put an initiative on the ballot that will overturn the Missouri Supreme Court and weaken the state constitution. But that’s not what the Legislature is telling voters. Instead, it produced ballot language that state Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, D-ºüÀêÊÓƵ, called “nefarious†on the last day of session as the House rushed it through.
“Let’s be clear what we’re doing: It is going to be a burden on citizens throughout the state,†Bosley said.
Here’s what voters will see when they vote on the ballot initiative in November: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to preserve funding of law enforcement personnel for the administration of justice.â€
Nowhere does the question tell voters they are overturning unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decisions and undermining nearly 150 years of state history. State Rep. Tony Lovasco, R-St. Charles County, told his fellow lawmakers that he was offended by that.
“This isn’t telling the voter really at all what they are voting on,†Lovasco said. “You might as well say, ‘Do you like cops and babies?’ Who is not going to vote for that? It doesn’t tell you what this measure does.â€
Lovasco’s fellow Republican, Rep. Ben Keathley of Chesterfield, chided House members for failing to do their duty. It’s the Legislature’s job to fund sheriffs’ and prosecutors’ retirements, he said. And using the courts to fund retirements for those elected officials creates a perverse incentive to increase traffic tickets and overcharge offenses, to ensure more payments toward the retirement system.
“There’s a reason why that system was taken away by the courts in the first place,†Keathley said. “Funding their pension is determined by how many tickets they write. It’s a strange incentive. … It’s our job as a legislature to fund those programs.â€
It’s a job the Legislature has failed at for decades. The Missouri Supreme Court only became involved after a long effort jump-started by former ºüÀêÊÓƵ County municipal judge Frank Vatterott, who on his own stopped collecting the $3 fee. Soon other municipal judges followed his lead, and eventually the case was filed that got the issue properly before the court.
“This new attempt to force an insidious tax is designed to make the Missouri Constitution itself be the source for requiring litigants to pay to support law enforcement, in every court, including municipal courts,†Vatterott says. “No one is against adequate retirement funds for prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel. But funding should not be on the backs of those who either seek redress in our courts or who are dragged into courts involuntarily.â€
Add to that the attempt to enshrine that funding permanently in the Missouri Constitution by lying to voters? That’s absurd.
“A person who gets a traffic ticket in Richmond Heights Municipal Court should not have to pay retirement money for sheriffs or for prosecuting attorneys who had nothing to do with the ’administration of justice’ of that court,†Vatterott says. “This is nothing more than a money grab.â€