Missouri Voters Reject Amendment 6: Implications for Law Enforcement Funding and Access to Justice

Silhouette handshake over United States flag background.

Missouri voters decisively reject Amendment 6, blocking the use of court fees to fund law enforcement salaries and pensions.

At a Glance

  • Amendment 6 sought to reinstate a $3 court fee for sheriff pensions, previously ruled unconstitutional
  • Voters’ rejection aligns with Missouri’s efforts to limit court fee dependency
  • Critics argued the amendment could lead to “policing for profit” and compromise public safety
  • The decision highlights the need for sustainable law enforcement funding solutions

Voters Stand Firm Against Court Fee Hike

In a clear message to lawmakers, Missouri voters have overwhelmingly rejected Amendment 6, a proposal that aimed to change the state constitution to allow court fees to fund law enforcement salaries and retirement benefits. The amendment sought to reinstate a $3 court fee to support the Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement System, which had been struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2021 as unconstitutional.

The court’s decision was based on Article I, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution, which ensures open access to justice without unreasonable charges. Amendment 6 would have effectively nullified this ruling by redefining the administration of justice to include the levying of court fees for law enforcement funding.

Concerns Over “Policing for Profit”

Critics of Amendment 6 raised serious concerns about the potential for creating perverse incentives in law enforcement. Lauren Bonds, Executive Director of the National Police Accountability Project, voiced opposition to the amendment, citing worries about “policing for profit.” This term refers to the practice of law enforcement prioritizing revenue generation over public safety.

“It ties salaries and benefits for law enforcement to them enforcing the law, so it kind of creates this policing for profit incentive. Maybe not at the rate of $3 per filing, but it can definitely, it definitely opens the door to that. There’s statistics that show that enforcement goes up, that there are more arrests, that there are more citations, when there is a connection between citation revenue and that citation revenue going directly to a law enforcement agency.” – Lauren Bonds

These concerns are not unfounded. The Department of Justice’s investigation into the Ferguson Police Department highlighted issues with revenue-focused law enforcement practices, finding that such approaches can compromise the integrity of policing and raise due process concerns.

Implications for Law Enforcement Funding

The rejection of Amendment 6 underscores the need for lawmakers to reprioritize funding and develop sustainable solutions for law enforcement pensions. Jefferson County Sheriff Dave Marshak had warned that without the fee, the retirement system could face bankruptcy within nine years. However, relying on unstable court fees for pension liabilities is widely regarded as poor public finance practice.

“It’s important that we have qualified sheriffs and prosecutors in the state of Missouri that step forward and want to do the job, and I think these benefits are a critical part of that.” – Jefferson County Sheriff Dave Marshak

In response to the funding challenge, Governor Mike Parson’s administration has proposed a temporary $5 million appropriation to cover pension contributions while a long-term solution is developed. This move highlights the importance of finding alternative funding mechanisms that respect both justice system accessibility and law enforcement needs.

A Victory for Constitutional Principles

The rejection of Amendment 6 is seen by many as a victory for liberty and constitutional principles. It preserves the Missouri Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article I, Section 14, which protects citizens from unreasonable charges that could impede access to justice. This decision aligns with Missouri’s previous efforts to limit court fee dependency, including legislation passed to cap court fines and fees at 20% of local government revenues.

As Missouri moves forward, the challenge remains to find a balance between ensuring the financial stability of law enforcement pension systems and maintaining the integrity of the justice system. The voters’ decision sends a clear message that alternative funding solutions must be explored, prioritizing both public safety and constitutional rights.

Sources:

  1. Missouri voters overwhelmingly oppose court fees to help fund law enforcement pensions
  2. Missouri Voters Reject Court Fee Hike for Police Pensions
  3. Mo. amendment to reinstate court fees that funded sheriffs’ pensions fails
  4. Missouri voters reject funding sheriff and prosecutor pensions through court fees

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR