Obiter dictum and Disingenuousness

ob·i·ter dic·tum

ōbidər ˈdiktəm/

noun: obiter dictum; plural noun: obiter dicta

1. a judge's incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the decision and not establishing precedent.

   • an incidental remark.

Judge Dierker's Obiter Dictum

In 2001, Judge Robert Dierker of Missouri's 22nd Circuit ruled invalid an ordinance requiring the City of St. Louis to contract only with entities that pay a living wage. Judge Dierker ruled that the City ordinance in question was void due to the City ordinance's vagueness and due to several technical (though fixable) defects. One Missouri statute that the ordinance did not contravene, according to Judge Dierker, was the Missouri statute (RSMO 67.1571) enacted in 1998 prohibiting local minimum wage increases more than the state minimum wage:

"To the extent that [the living wage ordinance] applies to contractors and direct recipients of City financial assistance, there surely is no conflict between the ordinance and the state minimum wage statute. [The City of St. Louis] indubitably has the authority to regulate the terms of its contracts."

Though Judge Dierker himself saw no conflict between Missouri's local minimum wage prohibition statute and the City's living wage ordinance, Dierker nevertheless decided to engage in a bit of obiter dictum regarding the Missouri statute. Dierker found that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Missouri Constitution's "single-subject" provisions (Article III, sections 21 & 23). The statute enacted in 1998 prohibiting local minimum wage increases was part of a bill in the Missouri Legislature that enacted several statutes providing for state "community improvement districts." In Dierker's opinion, this rendered the state minimum wage statute unconstitutional because locally-mandated minimum wages and state community improvement districts are not the same subject.

The plaintiffs in the case, a collection of business associations, appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. The plaintiffs appealed on two very narrow questions: 1. whether the question of the constitutionality of the minimum wage statute had been properly raised, and 2. whether the state minimum wage statute itself did not violate the "single subject" rule and therefore was constitutional.

The City of St. Louis asked the Missouri Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. The City's reasoning was that it did not matter to the case at hand whether the state minimum wage statute was unconstitutional; the City's living wage ordinance was voided by Dierker due to its vagueness and due to its technical defects:

"While recognizing that the St. Louis Living Wage Ordinance was enjoined, Appellant seeks to establish that Section 67.1571 is constitutional and bars future living wage ordinances that are not before this Court, and are not the subject of this litigation. [...]  Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that Appellant is not aggrieved by the circuit court’s decision and therefore lacks standing to appeal, and that this Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because no actual controversy is before it. That motion was taken with the case. We respectfully refer the Court to our briefs of that motion."

In 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court did just what the City asked it do and did it based on the City's reasoning:

"[The] ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed [the] appeal. Noting that the lower court had struck down the original ordinance, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction in the case."

The Missouri Supreme Court, at the urging of the City of St. Louis, took as obiter dictum a 22nd Circuit Court judge's finding that the state minimum wage statute was unconstitutional. Dierker's finding as such was not essential to his decision in the living wage ordinance case and did not establish precedent.

The City Counselor of St. Louis' Minimum Wage Ordinance Case

Fast-forward 13 years to 2015. At the urging of the Mayor of the City of St. Louis, the City's Board of Aldermen has passed (and the Mayor has signed) a local minimum wage ordinance mandating a gradual increase of the minimum wage to $11 by 2018.

In June, while the City and its Board of Aldermen were hotly debating both the legality and the merits of raising the minimum wage, local media raised the subject of the Missouri statute prohibiting local minimum wage increases. St. Louis City Counselor Winston Calvert was quick to reply:

@MODavidMJackson @550KTRS @McGrawMilhaven @kells_jackson @MayorSlay that statute was declared unconstitutional by a court in 2001

— Winston Calvert (@wcalvert) June 4, 2015

Now litigation has commenced over the City's minimum wage ordinance. In a memorandum to the court defending the City's minimum wage ordinance, Calvert cited Judge Dierker's obiter dictum as rendering unconstitutional Missouri's local minimum wage prohibition statute:

"There is no enforceable state statute that expressly preempts the ordinance. Plaintiffs incorrectly contend that § 67.1571, RSMo., preempts the ordinance. That statute provides that "[n]o municipality . . . shall establish, mandate or otherwise require a minimum wage that exceeds the state minimum wage.” § 67.1571, RSMo. On its face, this statute seems to preempt the City’s ordinance. However, § 67.1571 is unconstitutional. See Missouri Hotel and Motel Associationn v. City of St. Louis, Case No. 004-02638 (Mo. 22nd Jud. Cir. Ct. July 31, 2001)"

The City Counselor's case for the legality of the City of St. Louis' minimum wage ordinance rests upon a state circuit court judge's obiter dictum from 14 years ago. But how ever persuasive the circuit court judge's pronouncement on the constitutionality of the state statute, it is not precedent.

Furthermore, it is now too late to raise the issue of whether Missouri's local minimum wage prohibition statute, enacted in 1998, is unconstitutional for violating the "single-subject" rule:

"516.500. No action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law shall be commenced, had or maintained by any party later than the adjournment of the next full regular legislative session following the effective date of the bill as law, unless it can be shown that there was no party aggrieved who could have raised the claim within that time. In the latter circumstance, the complaining party must establish that he or she was the first person aggrieved or in the class of first persons aggrieved, and that the claim was raised not later than the adjournment of the next full regular legislative session following any person being aggrieved. In no event shall an action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law be allowed later than five years after the bill or the pertinent section of the bill which is challenged becomes effective." 

I find it difficult to believe that the Mayor and his City Counselor, both of whom are attorneys, were ignorant of the facts that Dierker's 2001 pronouncement is not precedent, and that it is too late to challenge Missouri's local minimum wage prohibition statute as unconstitutionally violative of the "single subject" rule. I find it much easier to believe that, like so many other things as of late, Room 200's "fight" for a local minimum wage is heavy on the show and light on the substance. A fancy word for that kind of thing could be disingenuous.

I hope a jury of city residents decides the fate of the city's minimum wage. #fgs

— MayorSlay.com (@MayorSlay) September 17, 2015

Last Year, A Thin 5 "Points" From Civilian Review

On September 15th of last year, Alderman Ogilvie, Alderwoman Ingrassia and Alderman Cohn were 5 "points" away from sponsoring and introducing legislation in the City of St. Louis Board of Aldermen establishing an independent civilian review board for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. This was the day of Potluck PAC #1, a policy "crowdsourcing" event funded in large part with funds from Alderman Ogilvie's campaign committee. (Some three days later, Ogilvie would host an official reelection campaign fundraiser, recouping the $1,100 his campaign committee spent on Potluck PAC #1 plus $1,184.)

Anyway, back to the 5 "points." Potluck PAC #1's ballot was weighted. There were four policy proposals on which to vote, while the ballot allowed for the voter to rank three policy proposals. 1st preference = 5 "points" for the proposal. 2nd preference = 3 "points" for the proposal. 3rd preference = 1 "point" for the proposal. When Potluck PAC announced the winning proposal the day following the vote, Potluck PAC said only that the vote was "very close." After polite requests from both me and another presenter, Potluck PAC provided the "point" totals for each proposal:

1. Citizen Police Review Board — 30.8% (178 out of 577 total points)
2. Land Asset Cooperative — 31.7% (183 out of 577 total points)
3. Reauthorization of Street Closures — 25.8% (149 out of 577 total points)
4. Prohibition of Tenant Application Fees — 11.6% (67 out of 577 total points)

Following Potluck PAC's publishing of these point totals, I asked both publicly and privately of Potluck PAC to provide the data as to the number of first place, second place and third place votes for each proposal. Despite private assurances from Potluck PAC that such data would be made available in due time, nearly a year has gone by without Potluck PAC making such data available. Making available such data, the number of place votes for each proposal, would present a more clear picture of preferences and priorities of the Potluck PAC #1 "electorate." Moreover, I can think of no more practical audit of the vote than to compile and provide such data.

At any rate, the Potluck PAC #1 vote appears to have been a close one. Independent civilian review board legislation was reported by Potluck PAC as being but 5 "points" from sponsorship and introduction in the Board of Aldermen by Alderman Ogilvie, Alderwoman Ingrassia and Alderman Cohn. Given the recent police shooting deaths of Michael Brown and Kajieme Powell, I believe it safe to assume that, were the Potluck PAC #1 vote held this year in September, independent civilian review legislation would have more than closed such a thin 5 "point" gap.

As introduction of independent civilian review board legislation in the Board of Aldermen draws near, one question is whether Alderman Ogilvie, Alderwoman Ingrassia and Alderman Cohn each will sign on to such legislation as sponsor or co-sponsor. Last year, each was 5 "points" from doing just that. Last year, Michael Brown and Kajieme Powell had yet to be shot dead in the street by police officers.

Avoiding Another Veto of Civilian Review

It would appear that the City of St. Louis Board of Aldermen will soon entertain legislation that would establish a civilian review board for the City's police department.

In 2006, City of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay vetoed aldermanic Board Bill 69, which would have established a civilian review board for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). The legal reasons for Mayor Slay's veto of the civilian review board bill, well-supported by law as discussed in a City Counselor's Office legal memorandum, were threefold:

1. A civilian review board for SLMPD in and of itself would contravene Missouri statutory law. At the time of Slay's veto, SLMPD was, by state statutory law, under the exclusive control of the State of Missouri. 
2. The procedures of civilian review of SLMPD as set forth in Board Bill 69 would violate officers' US and MO Constitutional rights as set forth in the Garrity line of case law.
3. The procedures of civilian review of SLMPD as set forth in Board Bill 69 would contravene certain legal duties of confidentiality borne by SLMPD, particularly those duties to maintain the confidentiality of materials of or related to SLMPD investigations.

Reason number 1 for Slay's 2006 veto, that a civilian review board for SLMPD in and of itself would contravene Missouri law, cannot be a reason for veto now. SLMPD is no longer under the exclusive control of the State of Missouri. Now, SLMPD is under the "local control" of the City of St. Louis. Currently, this "local control" is vested exclusively in the Mayor's Office.

Reason number 2 for Slay's2006 veto, that the procedures of civilian review as set forth in Board Bill 69 would violate officers' Constitutional rights, can still be a valid reason for a veto. On this point, the Mayor will likely again rely on a legal memorandum by the City Counselor's Office with regard to the decision of whether to veto civilian review board legislation.

Reason number 3 for Slay's 2006 veto, that the procedures of civilian review as set forth in Board Bill 69 would contravene SLMPD's certain duties of confidentiality, can still be a valid reason for a veto. On this point, the Mayor will likely again rely on a legal memorandum by the City Counselor's Office with regard to the decision of whether to veto civilian review board legislation.

In conclusion, I don't predict that Mayor Slay signs a civilian review bill without a City Counselor's Office legal memorandum attesting to the bill's legality. If the City Counselor's Office now is not part of the new legislation's crafting, then the City Counselor's Office soon ought be given its part.

Messages

Here's how the St. Louis American characterized the City License Collector's race in its endorsement of Mavis Thompson: "We believe Slay [who endorsed Boyd and whose operation directed financial and logistical support to Jeffrey Boyd's candidacy] ultimately is trying to send a message, in this largely insignificant race, that he is the sole king-maker in the city and can do as he pleases, regardless of what anyone – and especially the city’s black community – thinks about it."

The Boyd campaign for License Collector came up short by a little more than 400 votes. Boyd carried his home ward, the North Side's 22nd, but failed to carry any other North Side ward. In most other North Side wards, Thompson ran up large margins over Boyd. While 9 North Side wards delivered Thompson at least +200 margins, Boyd enjoyed only 5 such wards delivering to him +200 margins ... and all 5 such wards were South Side wards.

Thompson and Boyd ran basically evenly in the Central Corridor's 28th and 7th wards and in the South Side's majority-black 20th. In the Central Corridor's 17th, Thompson won by 83 votes. In the Central Corridor/Near South Side's 6th (much of which is Lewis Reed's home turf), Thompson crushed Boyd by 266 votes.

While after-primary campaign spending reports won't be available until next week, it looks to be that the Boyd campaign outspent the Thompson campaign by a more than 2-1 ratio. It would appear, however, that each Boyd campaign dollar spent yielded an increasingly-diminishing return.

Perhaps the American is largely correct that the License Collector's race is "largely insignificant." There is, however, significance to the numbers that the License Collector's race yielded. A likely-contested President of the Board of Aldermen race approaches. Consider this License Collector's race a rehearsal of sorts. Consider it a message.     

City of St. Louis License Collector (Dem) citywide result:

Mavis Thompson: 14,167
Jeffrey Boyd: 13,756

Mavis Thompson: +411

Mavis Thompson margin of vote vs. Jeffrey Boyd, by ward:

21: +422
01: +380
18: +373
27: +354
26: +317
04: +314
06: +266
19: +250
02: +243
05: +105
03: +100
17: +083
07: -002
20: -018
28: -027
09: -067
25: -073
08: -075
11: -109
14: -123
10: -127
15: -140
22: -172
24: -251
13: -275
12: -313
23: -457
16: -567

Let's GO to the Tape.

It's no "Rose Mary Stretch," but the City's Board of Estimate & Apportionment's providing the wrong audio of its 05/20/14 meeting does raise an eyebrow. Instead of providing audio of its May 2014 meeting, E&A provided audio for a most perfunctory E&A meeting in May of 2013. Have a listen and hear for yourself.

Could be an understandable clerical error of mixing up 2013 and 2014, right? Could be. But here's the eyebrow-raiser. Aldermanic President Lewis Reed claims that at this particular May 20, 2014 meeting of E&A (of which an audio record has not been provided), both Mayor Slay and Comptroller Green urged that $29 million in a proposed bond go for infrastructure in Paul McKee's Northside Regeneration TIF zone. On June 23 Reed, citing this 05/20/14 E&A meeting (of which an audio record has not been provided), warned of a possible "sweetheart deal" for Paul McKee.

On June 26, Reed presented a GO bond proposal to the Board of Aldermen's Ways & Means Committee with specific project lists. Reed's proposal separated a controversial police 'real time intelligence center" ballot question from the larger bond, so that voters had the opportunity to support or reject RTIC separately from supporting or rejecting the rest of the bond issue.

Reed's substitute bill presented to Ways & Means on July 2 eliminated money for a home repair program and, perhaps most importantly for a possible "sweetheart deal," eliminated the specificity of the project list.

Mayor Francis Slay wasn't a fan of the level of detail outlined in the bill, saying the city needed flexibility to address changing capital needs. And comptroller Darlene Green didn't like the home repair money because it would cost the city more to sell those bonds.
Eventually, Reed reached a compromise with Slay and Green that kept the real-time intelligence center separate, but eliminated home repair funds and the specific list of projects.

The compromise, however, broke down as "Reed would be one of six aldermen to vote to restore $5 million in home repair, plus make other changes."

With the deal now kaput between Reed on one side and, on the other side, Mayor Slay and Comptroller Green, it's a question of to what extent Slay and Green will involve themselves in what (if any) bond bill gets out of BoA. It already appears likely that the home repair program funds won't survive, but what else could get axed or eliminated? The Capital Committee recommended a bond issue of $155 million total for "critical" departmental requests and set a ceiling of no more than $175 million total. Will a number around $175 million be what gets out of BoA?

How about $180 million? That's the $155 million identified by the Capital Committee as critical, plus $25 million for unspecified (or, if you will, flexible) infrastructure improvements. Keep in mind the proposed funds for things like building demolition that will "incidentally" touch upon McKee's Northside Regeneration, and it's not difficult to see how a $25 million pot for unspecified infrastructure spending gets us to a figure of $29 million for Northside Regeneration.

Perhaps the audio of that 05/20/14 E&A meeting can shed some light. Voters won't have a specific project list to illuminate the issue. Let's GO to the tape. (Get it? GO. Like a GO bond.)

MO Transpo Tax Part 3: What's Its Chance?

Part 3 of 3; part 2 is here; part 1 is here.

Yesterday, the pro-Amendment 7 campaign committee, Missourians for Safe Transportation and New Jobs, received donations totaling $97,500. That's yesterday alone. Since the committee's inception, it's raised $586,022. According to Scott Cannon of the Kansas City Star, financial support of the pro-Amendment 7 effort is expected to total "upward of $5 million."

Meanwhile, the anti-Amendment 7 campaign committee, Missourians for Better Transportation Solutions, "likely will rely on social media and public events."

The pro-Amendment 7 committee has Normington & Petts, a DC-based polling and strategy firm with a load of experience winning tough races. It also has valuable experience in statewide Missouri campaigns, as it polled and consulted for Jay Nixon's victorious 2008 campaign for governor.

That's not to say that the dramatic resource disparity of the pro- and anti-7 campaigns automatically makes passage a slam dunk. Conventional Missouri political wisdom holds that Missouri's August primary electorate has a generally anti-tax disposition. Nevertheless, the dramatic resource disparity very well could "level the playing field," if not tilt the playing field in the pro-7 forces' favor.

And a "level playing field" very well could be sufficient to pass Amendment 7. The pro-7 forces need for success but a bare majority: 50% of Missouri's August 5th voters plus one.

And that's the St. Louis regional transportation policy dice-roll. St. Louis' multi-modal transportation advocates have decided to put their public organization efforts seemingly entirely into defeating Amendment 7 on August 5th rather than recently-and-now organizing public pressure on the County Executive's Office for a more multi-modal County project list. St. Louis' multi-modal transportation advocates should hope that they've correctly assessed the potential outcomes and have strategized accordingly. The stakes in this dice-roll are the next ten years (at least) of St. Louis regional transportation policy.

MO Transpo Tax Part 2: Sales Tax in the City (and County)

Part 2 of 3; Part 1 is here.

While a sales tax may be less regressive than a fuel tax in rural Missouri, a sales tax is still regressive in rural Missouri. In urban and inner-ring suburban St. Louis, the opposite relationship tends to occur. A sales tax is more regressive than a fuel tax in urban/inner-ring suburban St. Louis (though a fuel tax would be regressive, too).

For Missouri communities more urban in character, state sales tax revenue can do things that fuel tax revenue cannot. Missouri gasoline/diesel taxes can only be used for roads, per Article IV Section 30(a) of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri sales tax revenue isn't limited as such, and can be used for any kind of transportation infrastructure such as mass transit, bicycle, pedestrian, river, air, etc. In the Mayor's words, state sales tax revenue provides for flexibility:


Room 200's list of projects submitted to MoDOT takes large advantage of the flexibility afforded by sales tax revenue as opposed to gasoline/diesel tax revenue. Only 25% of the City's "90%" category allotment of revenue ($255 million) would go to road and bridge projects. The other 75% (of $255 million) would go to Complete Streets projects, transit projects, bicyle/pedestrian path projects, airport projects, river port projects and a law enforcement "total transportation center." The City of St. Louis is further projected to receive an additional $2.5 million per year in discretionary, flexible transportation funds. 

In St. Louis County, it's a different story.

After a issuing a statement that the Missouri transportation sales tax issue is "not a top priority" for his administration, the County Executive (at least figuratively) mailed it in to MoDOT. Alex Ihnen's nextSTL piece estimates that approximately 98% of the County's "90%" category allotment of revenue ($841 million) would go to road and bridge projects. It's almost as if the County's "90%" category allotment might as well be gasoline/diesel tax revenue.

Obscured in the story so far has been the fact that these "90%" category county project lists are not final until approved by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission upon presentation by MoDOT's district heads. There was and is still both time and opportunity for a more multi-modal set of projects for St. Louis County.
 
It appears to me here that City Aldermanic President Reed refers to the County Executive Office's current ability to revise and/or amend the County project list:   

@mattfredstl @dbeganovic timeline seems too short for any major changes to the project lists. Tho, fingers crossed @SaintLouCo will amend.
— Lewis E. Reed (@PresReed) June 6, 2014

It's anyone's guess as to what, if any, revisions or amendments the County Executive's Office will make to the County list. What's apparent is the lack of an effort to organize public pressure on the County Executive's Office to take a more multi-modal transportation approach that would be in line with the Mayor's Office's approach.

Instead, efforts at organizing the public for "better transportation solutions" are going toward a campaign to mobilize votes against the state-wide measure, 56 days from now, on August 5th.

MO Transpo Tax Part 1: Rural Road Politics

MSR "farm-to-market" road in Nodaway County, Missouri (2012)

Part 1 of 3

In order to understand the politics of the proposed Missouri 10-year transportation 0.75% sales tax (Amendment 7), start at the Missouri Supplemental Route. This is the MoDOT-maintained system of single and double-lettered roads (i.e. "A" or "BB") that you drive on mostly in rural Missouri. The MSR system of roads is "within 2 miles of more than 95% of all [rural Missouri] farm houses, schools, churches, cemeteries and stores." Many-to-most of the roads in the MSR system could be called "farm-to-market" roads.

Since 2011 when, due to budget cuts, MoDOT commenced its "5 year plan" of cuts of maintenance facilities and workers, the MSR system roads have degraded and continue to degrade. (Ask anybody who uses the MSR system in rural Missouri, and they'll confirm it. I've noticed it.) Depending on who you believe, the degradation of the MSR road system is either the natural result of MoDOT's dramatically-reduced budget, capital and labor capacity ... or a manufactured crisis in service of "Big Concrete." (Consider me insufficiently informed as to causation and therefore agnostic.)

Manufactured or not, it's pretty bad right now (and appearing only to get worse) for communities that depend on the MSR system. At the same time, the communities that the MSR system serve are communities where a fuel tax would hit much harder economically than would a sales tax. By communities, I mean to include not only ordinary people but also the agricultural & ranching industry.

Both this time and the last time (when the transportation sales tax measure failed to move out of the legislature and onto the ballot), rural-based interests (i.e. Missouri Farm Bureau) and rural-based legislators (i.e. Hinson in the House and Kehoe in the Senate) have initiated the drive for a transportation sales tax. Any tax is tough, but a sales tax is least tough on rural Missouri's people and industry when a fuel tax is the alternative. It's both a pocketbook issue and a bottom line issue.

And the MSR roads are bad and getting worse ...   

Would Participatory Budgeting Boost Anemic Voter Turnout in the City of St. Louis?

Many City of St. Louis politicians talk a good game while other politicians, much more quietly, make good things happen. For so many of the talkers, the default explanation for why their ideas don't get implemented is that St. Louis City's government and politics are fractured into fiefdoms that are controlled by hard-headed pols. Of course, this default explanation never seems to apply to those pols who tender it.

In the 2013 race for Alderman of the City's 6th Ward, Christine Ingrassia soundly defeated Michelle Witthaus by a 2-1 margin. After such a sound victory, Ingrassia could have taken-on Conan the Barbarian's philosophy. But she didn't. Instead, Ingrassia immediately reached-out to Witthaus in order to collaborate on what was largely the raison d'être of Witthaus' aldermanic campaign: participatory budgeting in the 6th Ward.

The collaboration between two former rivals, one electoral victor and one electoral defeated (and don't forget dozens of volunteers and the community at large), has proven to be soundly successful. The 6th Ward's experience with participatory budgeting is especially encouraging because of the 6th Ward's socioeconomic diversity. For a City of St. Louis increasingly segregated along lines of race and social class on the macro and the micro level, the 6th Ward provides an example to follow.

So where in the City of St. Louis should participatory budgeting go next? What would make most sense to me are those City wards where municipal political participation is most anemic. In such wards, citizens apparently aren't connected and therefore not invested in their City government. Participatory budgeting would foster a powerful social and political opportunity for citizens to get directly connected and therefore invested.

In the March 2013 Democratic primary for Mayor of the City of St. Louis, the mean (average) total raw vote for a City ward was 1573. Below, I express each ward's mayoral raw vote turnout as a percentage of the mean (1573), listing the lowest raw turnout first.

Ward 20: 50%
Ward 25: 61%
Ward 19: 69%
Ward 17: 76%
Ward 22: 76%
Ward 09: 76%
Ward 18: 77%
Ward 11: 82%
Ward 05: 83%
Ward 04: 84%
Ward 14: 86%
Ward 07: 87%
Ward 02: 91%
Ward 03: 94%
Ward 10: 96%
Ward 26: 97%
Ward 24: 98%
Ward 15: 104%
Ward 13: 106%
Ward 01: 107%
Ward 27: 110%
Ward 28: 114%
Ward 08: 116%
Ward 21: 122%
Ward 06: 133%
Ward 23: 137%
Ward 12: 157%
Ward 16: 185%

Of course, some of these wards had down-ballot aldermanic contests while others did not. Still, the mix of even-and-odd-numbered wards at both the top and the bottom of the rankings indicate that attribution of such a down-ballot contest explanation does not suffice. I can't help but see in these rankings that there are wards where citizens are connected and therefore invested in their City government and wards where citizens are not.

Why not do participatory budgeting in the three most anemic turnout wards (20, 25 and 19)? Perhaps connected citizens would translate into invested citizens. Perhaps each of these three wards would surpass 75% of the mean next Mayoral election.

The Locally-Preferred Alternative

Good thing that I didn't bet money, because I would have lost. The Take Back St. Louis initiative indeed was enjoined, but on different grounds than what I'd bet that the grounds would be. I'd bet that the threshold issue of whether a citizen initiative to amend the City Charter was allowed by the Missouri Constitution would go against Take Back St. Louis. Well, unbeknownst to me because I didn't do my research, citizen-initiated Charter changes already have been enacted, and nobody at the time ever challenged their constitutionality. The Court wasn't going to overturn a bunch of Charter articles on which everybody's relied for decades as valid. The Court instead invalidated the Take Back St. Louis initiative because, on its face, the initiative would have contravened Missouri TIF statutes. State statutes trump municipal charter articles and ordinances. 

It's too bad that there won't be a Take Back St. Louis vote on April 8, because it would've been fun. It would've been fun, and it would've allowed some good people to develop their electoral campaigning skills. It would've been interesting to see how opponents of the initiative would have campaigned against it. Ah, well.

Anyway ...

On the same day that Take Back St. Louis was swatted-down before there could be a campaign and a vote, PotBoA Lewis Reed and 24th Ward Alderman Scott Ogilvie each soft-launched a campaign to build the "Locally-Preferred Alternative" North-South MetroLink Line. Unlike the "Original" South Line, the "Locally-Preferred Alternative" North-South Line would include a station at Jefferson & CHEROKEE. (Click the pics to embiggen them.)

"Original" South Line

"Locally-Preferred Alternative" North-South

   












On the same day of Reed's and Ogilivie's soft-launches, there was this from Ogilvie with regard to building the "Locally-Preferred Alternative" North-South Line: 

.@jstriebel22 I think a citizen group that encourages / supports local leaders (biz & political) to make this a priority would be great.
— Scott Ogilvie (@ward24stl) February 11, 2014

The funny thing is that there already is such a "citizen group." Well, it's a PAC.

It's a PAC called Civic League of Saint Louis. Its mission includes "to organize a constituency for progressive endeavors [and] support and empower visionary candidates." CHEROKEE real estate developer Jason Deem is the PAC's treasurer. It makes sense why both Reed and Ogilvie decided upon the "Locally-Preferred Alternative" North-South Line. The "Locally-Preferred Alternative" line would have a station at CHEROKEE whereas the "Original" would not.

And "visionary candidates" require "support."

Can the Charter of the City of St. Louis be amended by citizen initiative?

The Charter of the City of St. Louis says "Yes."

Article V, Section 1 of the City Charter:

The people shall have power, at their option to propose ordinances, including ordinances proposing amendments to this charter, and to adopt the same at the polls, with the same effect as if adopted by the board of aldermen and approved by the mayor, such power being known as the initiative.

However, the attorneys representing those opposed to the Take Back St. Louis initiative, which if enacted would amend the City Charter, say "No." They point to an article in the Missouri Constitution that they argue precludes amending the City Charter through citizen initiative.

Article VI, Section 32(a) of the Missouri Constitution:

The charter of the city of St. Louis now existing, or as hereafter amended or revised, may be amended or revised for city or county purposes from time to time by proposals therefor submitted by the lawmaking body of the city to the qualified voters thereof, at a general or special election held at least sixty days after the publication of such proposals, and accepted by three-fifths of the qualified electors voting for or against each of said amendments or revisions so submitted.

So, the anti-Take Back St. Louis attorneys are claiming that the Missouri Constitution allows proposed City Charter amendments to originate only from the Board of Aldermen. They argue, therefore, that a citizen initiative to amend the City Charter violates the Missouri Constitution.

This is a powerful argument, because, in deciding whether to agree or disagree with it, the Bench need not delve into the thicket of conflicting policy claims. The Bench merely needs to decide whether an article of the Missouri Constitution precludes a certain process, namely citizen initiatives to amend the City Charter.

My bet is that if the Bench grants the injunction, it will be on such grounds that, as the anti-Take Back St. Louis attorneys claim, "to the extent Charter, Art. V, §1 allows Charter amendment proposals to arise from the initiative petition process; it conflicts with Mo. Const. Art. VI, §32(a) and is unconstitutional."

The Flyswatter Strategy vs. Take Back St. Louis

The expected litigation never materialized, and so the Take Back St. Louis ballot initiative appears set for an April 8 Citywide vote. As I've written before, the initiative has a snowball's chance of 60% approval by City voters. Still, the initiative should be taken seriously by City pols who are opposed to it. Take Back St. Louis has some potential to be troublesome for a Room 200 that enjoys close relationships with Peabody Coal and Laclede Gas. Right now, though, Take Back St. Louis is like a housefly buzzing annoyingly near Room 200's ear. Going at the housefly with a sledgehammer will only draw attention to the issues that Take Back St. Louis aims to raise. The best strategy for Room 200 is to bring sufficient force to soundly defeat Take Back St. Louis, but no more force than what is necessary. A flyswatter will do fine.

The strategic problem to be solved (the swatting of the fly) comes down to solving the problem of April 8 voter turnout. The pro-Take Back St. Louis vote is small, but it's organized and motivated and it most certainly will turn out on April 8. Soundly defeating this pro vote requires an organized and motivated anti vote roughly twice as large as the pro vote. In what quite likely will be a very low-turnout election day, this twice-as-large anti vote won't need to be numerically huge. We're talking a flyswatter strategy here ... not a sledgehammer strategy.

One useful tactic in support of a flyswatter strategy is to try to foster a contested down-ballot aldermanic election in friendly territory on the same day as the April 8 Take Back St. Louis vote. This past December, Mayor Slay announced the appointment of 13th Ward Alderman Fred Wessels as Director of the City's Community Development Administration. Wessels won't officially vacate the 13th Ward Aldermanic seat until February, thereby scheduling the 13th Ward Aldermanic vacancy election on April 8, the same day as the Take Back St. Louis vote. The 13th Ward Democratic Committeewoman, Beth Murphy, is practically certain to get the Democratic nomination from the City's Central Democratic Committee. There is a not insignificant chance that the Republican Central Committee will nominate a candidate for 13th Ward Alderman. An independent or Green could take a shot at it as well.

Of course, this tactic is most successful if the 13th Ward Aldermanic race is actually contested. It would then be a mere matter of generating a list of likely 13th Ward voters in the aldermanic race based on past turnout history, and directly communicating with these likely voters to vote NO on the Take Back St. Louis initiative. If there's a contested aldermanic race in the 13th Ward, then the total votes cast in the 13th Ward could dwarf the total votes of several wards put together. This effect would be somewhat similar to a "reverse coattails" effect.

Another useful tactic in support of a flyswatter strategy is to generate a list of voters with a certain policy affinity that could perceive the Take Back St. Louis initiative as a threat to that policy affinity. The most exploitable and effective policy affinity would be one associated with progressives, because self-described "progressives" constitute the middle between the Take Back St. Louis boosters on the "progressives'" left and the anti-Take Back St. Louis moderate pro-business Democrats on the "progressives'" right. With a list of such "progressive" voters, they can be communicated-with directly to vote NO on Take Back St. Louis in order to protect their policy affinity.

Generating a policy affinity voter list is a different task than is generating a likely voter list. First, you need to identify the policy affinity (ideally associated with voters aligned in the "middle" of the Take Back St. Louis issue) that you can argue will be threatened. Second, you need to identify the voters (ideally aligned in the "middle" of the Take Back St. Louis issue) who share the policy affinity that you can argue is threatened by the initiative. Okay, let's break it down:

First, identify the policy affinity that you can argue will be threatened by the Take Back St. Louis initiative.

@mattfredstl @TomLeb @ward24stl @stlzoo @STLMetro Metro buys 1 mil $ of gas from an “unsustainable energy producer” making Metro (con’t)
— Jane Dueker (@JaneDueker) August 3, 2013

Second, identify and generate a list of City voters who share the policy affinity that you can argue is threatened by the Take Back St. Louis initiative.

We sailed past 1,000 signatures in under a week. Add your name to the list of people who want state transit funding: https://t.co/ygmdSZSwyz
— Scott Ogilvie (@ward24stl) January 22, 2014

Voila.

With a list of likely voters in the 13th Ward PLUS a list of motivated STL public transit boosters whom you can scare with claims about Metro's demise should the Take Back St. Louis initiative become law, you have the flyswatter to smash the fly. There's no need for a sledgehammer.

The Reducers & Reformers and Black Political Power (Part 2 of 2)

(Part 1 of 2 is here.)

Mayor Control of the St. Louis Police Department: Whither "Citizen Review?"

This Sunday, September 1st, MAYOR takes control of SLPD. The state legislation and City referendum which put SLPD in the hands of MAYOR lacks any provision for a civilian review board of SLPD. This caused many of "local control's" earliest and most passionate advocates (predominantly North Side African-American political and community leaders) to oppose the new "Mayor Control" arrangement:

Protestors picketing outside the petition signing warned the plan would not make city police accountable to enough “civilian review” and “transparency.”

“The trust of the police department is at an all time low,” said Jamala Rogers with the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression, “And they continue to coverup and continue to justify the wrongdoings of the police department.”

Rogers says her group has long sought the establishment of a civilian review board that would give appointed citizens a seat at the table when police conduct internal investigations of officer-involved shootings and allegations of police wrongdoing. She opposes the local control plan outlined in the petition drive, because it fails to set up a civilian review board.   

As MAYOR Francis Slay takes control of SLPD, here's what the St. Louis American's "Political Eye" sees [bolding by me]:

No civilian review yet

The community activists who pushed for local control for many decades, however, feel left off the crime-fighting team. Activists in the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression (CAPCR) always saw civilian review as integral to local control. When Slay suddenly got behind local control in recent years, activists were leery; after all, this same mayor had vetoed civilian review when it was passed by the Board of Aldermen. Now, local control is here – and civilian review isn’t.

“It’s coming,” Dotson said. “The problem is getting it right so that the process is fair to the community and to police officers.” The activists, Dotson said, want “something like the Spanish Inquisition,” while the officers, he said, want a civilian review process that is “meaningless.” Dotson offered no solutions for how to bridge that yawning gap. He did note that a transitional board is collecting ideas for how to revamp the police department and that civilian review is on the table, but at a recent meeting John Chasnoff of CAPCR and Adolphus Pruitt of the NAACP were in the audience but did not offer their suggestions.

In fact, CAPCR and the NAACP were not withholding of their suggestions back when they actually had at least a semblance of a seat at the table. Now, it’s Mayor Slay and Jeff Rainford’s deal table – and the activists are faces in the crowd.

When Slay vetoed the Board of Aldermen's "civilian review" legislation back in 2006, he had a decent-enough reason:

"Under state law, the city of St. Louis and the Board of Aldermen cannot impose anything upon the police board, nor can it cause the police board, or even ask the police board to abdicate its responsibilities and its duties under state law over disciplinary matters, which is what their bill would have done," Slay said.

Why SLPOA is a stakeholder in the Reducers & Reformers

As of Sunday, September 1st, Francis Slay can no longer veto a "civilian review" bill and seek refuge in state law. As of Sunday, September 1st, the "City of St. Louis and the Board of Aldermen" now can "impose" all kinds of things on SLPD.

There are legitimate reasons for the St. Louis Police Officer's Association to be concerned about the shape and scope of any "civilian review board." It's just good politics for SLPOA to stake-out an opening position of, as Dotson characterizes it, a "meaningless" civilian review board. At the same time, NAACP and CAPCR have legitimate reasons to work for as powerful of a civilian review board as possible. It's just good politics for these groups to stake-out an opening "Spanish Inquisition" position.

It's just good politics on the part of SLPOA to do what it can to weaken the bargaining power of its legislator-adversaries on the Board of Aldermen. It will be through the Board of Aldermen that "civilian review" legislation, among other legislation that will effect SLPOA (now and in the future), will be hammered-out. So, it's just good politics on the part of SLPOA to position itself as a stakeholder in the Reducers & Reformers. Why? Because 11/28 = 39%, while 4/14 = 29%.

Why rousing "The Sleeping Dragon" in '15 is critical to the future of black municipal power

If demographic trends continue as they have through 2020, then Downtown and Midtown will be both more populated and more white (check out the dark reds Downtown and Midtown in the racial map), which means that Alderman French's prediction of 4 Central Corridor wards will be a reality. If demographic trends continue through 2020, then North Side will have both lost population and remained just as predominantly black. The prediction of just 4 North Side wards would be a reality. If demographic trends continue through 2020, then Southeast City will both remain roughly the same in population and be racially mixed. From my own personal albeit anecdotal observations, this looks as if it will be the case: 6 Wards on South Side, and the population just as black (if not more black) in the Southeast.

I've written before about Lewis Reed's setting-up shop on CHEROKEE as an effort to rouse "The Sleeping Dragon" of black voters in Southeast City. Not only is Reed's PotBoA shop on CHEROKEE, it's also in WARD 20. I've written about WARD 20, too. It's a majority-black ward surrounded by wards with significant black populations.

If a black political newcomer campaigns for and wins WARD 20 in '15 and then wins re-elect in '19 to indicate that she/he is a legitimate player, then 1 of the 6 South Side wards will be drawn in 2021 in order to be a black ward, expanded out of the "old" WARD 20. This would (albeit, not entirely) roll-back what the Reducers & Reformers have wrought: moving from a projected 4/14 black caucus to a 5/14 black caucus.

Perhaps just as importantly, it would signal that black power isn't just North Side. The Reducers & Reformers have trained their sights on eliminating black-held Citywide offices. If the Reducers & Reformers are successful, then there is the real possibility that the only black municipal politicians left will be four aldermen representing North Side and a long-time incumbent Comptroller who seems quietly satisfied with where she is. The four aldermen will probably need to redouble their energy on parochial neighborhood concerns, with little time for the kind of Citywide relationship-building necessary for higher office. A black alderman on South Side means that a larger black political organization toward truly Citywide coalitions can develop.

None of this can happen without rousing that "Sleeping Dragon." Lewis Reed for PotBoA '15 is on CHEROKEE now, but '15 can be about a whole lot more than just Lewis Reed ...

The Reducers & Reformers and Black Political Power (Part 1 of 2)

"Never question another man's motive. Question his judgment but never his motive."

The Reducers & Reformers

In September '12, the formation of a new campaign committee, Reduce & Reform StL, was duly filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Reduce & Reform StL's purpose was to campaign in support of Proposition R which, if passed on November 6, '12 with at least 60% of voters in favor, would reduce the number of City of St. Louis aldermen from 28 to 14 effective in 2022 (after the 2020 census). 28th Ward Alderwoman Lyda Krewson was treasurer of Reduce & Reform StL, and 8th Ward Alderman Steve Conway was the committee's deputy treasurer.

Over the life of the Reduce & Reform StL campaign committee, from September '12 until its termination in December '12, the committee brought in a total of $15,450. $10,750 of the total receipts, 70% of the money, came from standing incumbent aldermanic campaign committees:

• Lyda Krewson for Alderman (28th Ward) - $3,000
• Citizens for Wessels (13th Ward) - $2,500
• Conway for Alderman (8th Ward) - $1,000
• Friends of Phyllis Young (7th Ward) - $1,000
• Committee to Elect Scott Ogilvie (24th Ward) - $750
• Citizens for Donna Baringer (16th Ward) - $500
• Citizens for Shane Cohn (25th Ward) - $500
• Citizens to Elect Jennifer Florida (15th Ward) - $500
• Citizens to Elect Carol Howard (14th Ward) - $500
• Committee to Elect Roddy (17th Ward) - $500

Joe Keaveny for Senate (in addition to serving as a state senator, Keaveny serves as 28th Ward Democratic Committeeman) kicked-in $500 to Reduce & Reform StL.

Three other entities made notable transfers to Reduce & Reform StL of $1500, $1000 and $1000, respectively:

• Chameleon Integrated Services, a Midtown-headquartered company that "provides IT services to federal government agencies, state agencies, and private industry"
• EMB Development, a Downtown-headquartered "real estate development firm focused on innovative adaptive reuse of historic structures, and on Leed-certified, high-quality new construction"
• St. Louis Police Officers' Association PAC Account (their hall is in Southwest City and many consider SLPOA to be the "white" police officers' organization, for whatever that's worth)

The transfers made to Reduce & Reform StL from these 11 standing incumbent campaign committees and from these 3 corporate/PAC entities total $14,750. This was 95% of the money brought in by Reduce & Reform StL during its life as a political campaign committee.

Corporate/PAC entity donations aside, if you map the 10 donating standing incumbent aldermanic campaign committees' wards, you get a rather Central-Corridor-Southwest tilt:

(Click on the pic to embiggen it.)

The "Good First Step": 4 North + 4 Central + 6 South = 4/14

One week before the November 6, '12 election in which Prop R was to be decided, Jo Mannies wrote a pretty decent article on the subject in the Beacon. Mannies put North Side's 21st Ward Alderman Antonio French on the "con" side, and Central Corridor's 7th Ward Alderwoman Phyllis Young on the "pro" side. The "policy" discussion was actually quite thorough (on the "policy," I personally agree with Alderman French), but the "politics" discussion was, for me anyway, the more salient issue:

[S]ome also were concerned about [Prop R's] effect on African-American representation.

French said that the likely division of a smaller 14-member board would mean only four aldermen from the predominantly African-American north side. Six of the new wards would likely be in south St. Louis, while four would be along the central corridor, he predicted.

As it stands, the 28-member board now has 12 aldermen in its Black Caucus.

Young said that reducing the size of the Board of Aldermen could be the first step in a longer process to revamp various city operations.  About a decade ago, city voters rejected proposals to do away with the city’s independent, so-called “county offices,’’ such as recorder of deeds and collector of revenue.

[...]

Young said the fact that the aldermen – pro and con – voted to put [Prop R] before voters is a good first step, win or lose on Nov. 6.

On November 6, 2012, Prop R passed with one percentage point of yeses to spare: 61%.

On December 4, 2012 the Reduce & Reform StL campaign committee was terminated and its surplus funds ($929.16) were transferred into the newly-formed and still-active Reduce & Reform StL PAC. Alderwoman Krewson and Alderman Conway, respectively, are treasurer and deputy treasurer of the Reduce & Reform StL PAC.

On March 5, 2013, Christine Ingrassia won the Democratic Primary for Central Corridor's 6th Ward Alderwoman (a de facto winning of the seat). Alderwoman Ingrassia replaced out-going 6th Ward Alderwoman Kacie Starr Triplett, thus decreasing the Aldermanic Black Caucus from 12 to 11.

According to the 2010 Census, 49.2% of the citizens of the City of St. Louis are African-American. Currently, 39% (11/28) of the City's aldermen are African-American. If Alderman French's prediction of just 4 black aldermen among a reduced 14 aldermen is accurate, then the percentage of black aldermen will drop to 29%. (I think it highly unlikely that, by the next census in 2020, African-Americans will comprise just 29% of the citizenry of the City of St. Louis.)

"Independent" Offices as Avenues to Black Municipal Political Power

In her Beacon Prop R article, Mannies describes the City's "so-called 'county offices'" as "independent." By independent, I suppose that Mannies means that such political offices are independent of (e.g. separate from) the City's municipal government. Though while such offices are independent, it has historically been the case that, by or through offices independent of City municipal government, black politicians have achieved the highest executive offices in City municipal government.

Two and one-half examples:

The first example involves a white incumbent mayor yet again seeking re-election and the white incumbent mayor's courting the endorsement of a black North Side U.S. congressman by the name of Clay ... but I'm talking about 1989 here, not 2013! I'm talking about the Great "Job Swap":

Racial arithmetic is always part of the equation in the race for citywide office. But local politicians believe that [Mayor] Schoemehl defused the race issue last November by deftly engineering an unusual job swap among top city officials.

Virvus Jones, who is black, became city comptroller, a job that automatically brings a slot on the powerful Board of Estimate, a three-member panel [Mayor and PotBoA are the other two members] that approves all city budgets and contracts. And Paul Berra, an aging white politician, agreed to switch to Jones' former job of assessor.

The move won Schoemehl the powerful endorsement of Rep. William Clay (D., Mo.), the city's most authoritative black leader.

By the power of a black-held office independent of City municipal government, the office of U.S. Congressman, the powerful City municipal office of COMPTROLLER became black-held in 1988. The Comptroller's Office has been black-held ever since (even if, on one occasion, it meant facing federal fraud charges in order to ensure that it remained that way).

The second example involves the first (and, some in quiet quarters on both sides of town would argue, only) black MAYOR of the City of St. Louis: Freeman Bosley, Jr.. From 1982 (with an initial assist from the mysterious Clara Jo Roddy) to 1991, Bosley, Jr. held the independent Office of Circuit Clerk for the 22nd Judicial District. At the same time, Bosley Jr. worked the City Democratic Party, first as (his father's) 3rd Ward Committeeman all the way up to Chairman of the City Central Committee and then to Chairman of the St. Louis Democratic Party (Bosley, Jr. was the first black chairperson of each). Interestingly, Bosley Jr.'s ascent to Chairman of the St. Louis Democratic Party involved collaborating with another "county officeholder's" committeewoman who had South Side party clout:

I decided to run for chairman of the St. Louis Democratic Party. This undertaking was more than a notion. I was the vice chairman. Only when the chairman moves on does the vice chairman move up. Not to my surprise, white committeepeople didn't want me to have it and black committeepeople wondered why I wanted it.

I made an alliance with Marie Lammert, Sherriff Jim Murphy's committeewoman. They controlled, and still do, a lot of the politics in South St. Louis. Marie wanted to be vice chair and brought eight South Side wards to the table. With my 11 North Side wards we ran over the obstructionists like a hot knife through butter.

Bosley Jr. then parlayed his St. Louis Democratic Party Chairmanship into organizing black politicians:

It was at this time that I began to think about running for mayor. I began to raise money and convince other black elected officials to support other people running for office in the city and county. Several of us began to bring the black elected officials together. We formed an united front called the Council of Black Elected Officials, and they made me chairman.

On March 2nd,1993 (with a very special and at least half-collaborative assist from Tony Ribaudo), Freeman Bosley, Jr. marshaled the black political organizational power accrued through ten years of holding multiple offices that were, functionally, independent from municipal City government into the first (and, some would maintain, only) successful black bid for MAYOR.

The one-half example is recently-former License Collector and recently-appointed President of the Urban League Mike McMillan. McMillan's first political job was Administrative Assistant to then-Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr.. In 1997, McMillan was elected North Side/Central Corridor 19th Ward Alderman (historians of the Board say that, at the time, he was the youngest alderman in the City's history). In 2006, McMillan successfully ran for License Collector (one of those independent offices) and handily won re-election in 2010.

McMillan long has been heralded by many as "The Great Black Hope" for MAYOR. He's almost prodigiously young (41 years old) for a City pol of his stature. As alderman and then furthermore as Citywide License Collector, McMillan has developed strong relationships and rapport with interests both north and south of the "Delmar Divide" (many casual political observers don't know that McMillan is African-American ...). Perhaps most importantly, McMillan has a penchant for deliberate and collaborative political organization not unlike his old boss in Room 200. McMillan's new position as President of the Urban League is somewhat like Bosley Jr.'s Council of Black Elected Officials, but on the proverbial steroids:

The Urban League has been around for 95 years. It provides social services and advocates civil rights and self-reliance for African-Americans and others in the city and St. Louis and St. Clair counties.

As the longtime leader of the organization, [out-going president] Buford helped expand the budget from $2.5 million to $23 million.

[...]

The office has been a highly sought-after position because of its size and connection to the business community.

McMillan is a one-half example, because he's half-way there ...

"This Good Governance Goal": Closing the Avenues

Not soon after Mike McMillan left the office by which he accrued a good deal of his black political organizational power, Reducer & Reformer Alderwoman Donna Baringer (16th Ward) announced her intentions for the now-vacated office:

A St. Louis alderman says she would like control of the city's license collector office so she can eliminate it.

[...]

"The only way to make this good governance goal come to life is to have a license collector who agrees that blending license collector duties into another office makes the most sense for St. Louis taxpayers," Baringer told the Post-Dispatch.

Such a task would require approval from the state legislature and changes to the city charter.

It's up to Governor Jay Nixon as to who serves the remainder of McMillan's License Collector term. Given Nixon's, at times, strained relationship with North Side's black community and his dependence on strong African-American St. Louis turnout should he seek, perhaps, a U.S. Senate bid in the future, I bet that Nixon will appoint someone other than Alderwoman Baringer.

While eliminating the elected office of License Collector would require both state legislative action and City Charter reform, eliminating Circuit Court Clerk as an elected position requires just state legislative action. Last year, the Missouri Legislature took such action. It's now the judges who will appoint the clerk:

The judges have wanted to curb the power of the circuit clerk’s office for at least 20 years, saying that it was unseemly that a job set up to serve the courts had become an elective post in which the officeholder often wielded far more clout than those on the bench.

The next Democratic Primary for License Collector will occur roughly 11 months from now on August 5th, 2014. Time will tell whether the office remains a target of the Reducers & Reformers. Time will tell whether Charter Reform is the "good second step" toward "this good governance goal." Is November 4th, 2014 too early to take the shot for Charter Reform? The last time Charter Reform was on the ballot was 2004, which, being a Presidential year, was a high-turnout affair. Perhaps the Reducers & Reformers see a better shot in a November '14 mid-term. This, too, is a matter of judgment, not motive.

(Part 2 of 2 is here.)  

Snowball's Chance

With the requisite amount of signatures certified (and with 900 signatures to spare), the Take Back St. Louis initiative is one step away from appearing on a March or April '14 Citywide ballot. Opposition to the initiative has coalesced around a legal and political gravamen: that the signers of the petition were duped into signing it.

@TomLeb @ward24stl Unfortunately, the populous was mislead, ie. not told it cuts off all vital city services to the @stlzoo & @STLMetro
— Jane Dueker (@JaneDueker) August 1, 2013

22,000+ signatures certified for @TakeBackStL. Great gathering effort, misleading information, poorly crafted language, expect litigation.
— Scott Ogilvie (@ward24stl) August 12, 2013

Should the Take Back St. Louis initiative survive the legal challenge(s) and make it to a Citywide vote, it most likely will fail at the polls. The initiative's well-healed opposition has and will present a parade of horribles that, should the initiative be passed, includes everything from the de-funding of everyone's dearly-beloved Zoo to the shutting-down of every "urbanist-progressive's" dearly-beloved Metro. Add to the parade of horribles claims about investment and, especially, JOBS leaving due to the "anti-business environment," and the chance of passage is the proverbial snowball's chance. (Personally, I would vote "no" on the proposition should we get the opportunity to vote on it.)

But the snowball's chance of the initiative's approval by Citywide voters has never been what should spook the initiative's opposition. What should spook the initiative's opposition is the Citywide election organization that the initiative would foster and develop if the initiative makes it on the ballot. The Citywide electoral calculation has been very stable since (it feels like) time immemorial: win your North/South Side of town + Central Corridor. If they're given some oxygen with a ballot initiative, the folks involved with Take Back St. Louis would develop specifically Citywide municipal electoral organizing skills. With lessons learned in '14, by '15 and/or '17 the Take Back St. Louis folks could, among other destabilizing things, help rouse that "Sleeping Dragon."

But if the initiative doesn't actually get on the ballot, then the folks with Take Back St. Louis don't get the electoral-political oxygen to grow and develop into a potentially destabilizing influence on the Citywide electoral calculus. So, "expect litigation" in an effort to kill the initiative before it gets that far. Material misrepresentations that induced petition signatures is the perfect gravamen because it's procedural rather than substantive; a court need not weigh-in on policy, constitutionality, et cetera and still kill the initiative. It's also a perfect political gravamen for basically the same reason; a politician can maintain her/his vaguely-professed sympathy for the substance of the cause while coming out against the cause on specifically-professed procedural grounds.    

PS - A lot of the folks involved with MORE, the group spearheading Take Back St. Louis, used to be involved with the local ACORN chapter. Fairly or not, ACORN is now pretty much a radioactive word in the political discourse. If the Take Back St. Louis initiative finds itself on the ballot, then I bet there'll be a whole lot more of this kind of ad hominem rhetoric from the initiative's opposition and concurrent targeted tribal appeals made to Southwest City.

As Krewson gears up, Reed moves southeast in effort to wake "Sleeping Dragon"

5 months ago, I wrote this in my previous post three days after the March Mayoral primary:

Okay ... now to PotBoA '15: Reed should be fine on North Side, but he took some real damage in Central Corridor that the challenger will exploit. Reed will have to look to WARD 20 and WARD 25 to make up for losses in Central Corridor. WARD 20 is still, I think, a majority-black ward (I think that it's something like 60/40 black). WARD 25 is majority-white, but it's close.  Both wards are South Side, so there isn't the black electoral political organization and municipal election voting habits that there are on North Side. The persistently anemic voter turnout in these two wards are indicative of such. Team Reed really should start spending more time on CHEROKEE, CHIPPEWA and MERAMEC. The Anglers should start doing the same.

I think that two things of note have happened since: one thing somewhat under the radar and one thing somewhat over the radar.

The thing of note that happened somewhat under the radar is that, per her committee's campaign finance filings, CWE alderman Lyda Krewson this past quarter has retained the services of KC-based Swing State Media for "web development." Swing State Media, incidentally (or not), is the firm behind MAYORSLAY.COM.

LydaKrewson.com reads very much like a Citywide candidate's website. Check out especially the "Why Lyda?" section. Of course, the front page still reads "Lyda Krewson for Alderman," but the committee's stated "refund policy" is interesting [bolding by me]:

All financial contributions to our campaign are considered final. We reserve the right to modify, suspend or terminate our campaign at any time without notice or refund.

Meanwhile, the thing of note that happened somewhat over the radar is Lewis Reed's opening of a "campaign office and community space" on CHEROKEE. The press release talks a lot about Reed's wanting to link up with young entrepreneurs and the creative class and whatnot. I don't doubt that's sincere. But I believe that the overriding reason for Reed's situating himself on CHEROKEE has to do with what one of Reed's campaign managers, Glenn Burleigh, laid-out to the St. Louis American last November:

On the eastern half of South City, there are many areas where African-American residents make up large percentages or (in a smaller number of neighborhoods) outright majorities. In both August and November, these oft-neglected voters showed up in numbers stronger than seen in recent elections in middle income neighborhoods (Shaw, Gate District) and lower-income, renter-heavy neighborhoods (Gravois Park, Benton Park West).
For years, African-American turnout rates in many of these neighborhoods have been dwarfed by their counterparts to the north. Big Democratic GOTV operations have traditionally skipped much of this part of town, because they’ve believed that organizing in these neighborhoods is a waste of time and money.
On the other hand, among St. Louis’ political circles, this vote is often seen as a “sleeping dragon,” one that when awoken could shake the balance of power in city politics. In the chronically low-turnout municipal primary elections that decide on our city’s leaders, every vote has an outsized influence, and disorganization among African-American voters in South St. Louis has limited black political power. This is often exacerbated by white-dominated Democratic ward organizations that don’t really try to get African-American voters involved or actively work against this organizing, which they see as a potential future challenge to their power.

So, Krewson looks to be gearing up for a challenge to Reed, in which she most likely will dominate Central Corridor, and so Reed moves southeast in an effort to wake the "Sleeping Dragon."

Taking WARD 20 in '15

WARD 20's shape looks kind of a bit like Cyprus' shape to me.

Anyway, yeah ... so, when you're a Citywide office holder and you run for MAYOR and lose by 10 points, then your position Citywide will appear vulnerable.  When Reed beat Shrewsbury in '07 to take PotBoA, Reed carried Central Corridor.  Versus Slay for MAYOR in '13, Reed lost Central Corridor, including narrowly losing his "home" WARD 6 (and, yes, I know that there's been redistricting of WARD 6 and whatnot, but it looks really bad when you lose your home turf).  Now Reed appears vulnerable at PotBoA.  He's up for re-elect two years from now.  I have to think that somebody with a shot at winning will take the opportunity to challenge Reed for PotBoA in '15.  He or she most very likely will be white.  Look around a bit and you can probably spot the Anglers, but only one will get the shot at PotBoA vs. Reed.

Okay ... back to '07 and back to WARD 20: Gondolfi (with some assistance from none other than Glenn Burleigh) looked like he was going to grab WARD 20, but an 11th-hour mailer accusing Gondolfi of secretly being a Communist (sound familiar?) and profaning Christ with performance art seemed to have had its intended effect (depressing the Gondolfi vote and rallying the Schmid vote).  Schmid pulled it out to keep a hold on the chronically low-voting WARD 20 by a score of 376 - 301.  Shrewsbury more narrowly defeated Reed for PotBoA votes in WARD 20 by a score of 365 - 324.

McGinn took a shot at WARD 20 in '11 versus Schmid, but it seemed that her campaign never quite took hold like Gondolfi's did in '07.  Perhaps McGinn didn't have the constituent services credibility that Gondolfi did through Gondolfi's affordable-home-finding work.  For whatever reason, Schmid won an even lower-turnout affair to hold on to WARD 20 by a score of 281 - 196.  In the '11 General, WARD 20 votes in opposition to Schmid were 249.  Gaither received 197 of those 249 votes as an independent.  The only thing I know about Gaither is that his campaign signs had a photo-portrait of him on them.  If I am remembering the photo-portrait correctly, Gaither is African-American.    

In June '11, the City's wards were redrawn per the census.  During '01's very controversial redraw, which took WARD 20 from North Side, Schmid had been a good South Side soldier.  (Schmid had WARD 10 at the time, and now WARD 10 stayed South Side but now on the Hill.)  So ... for '11's redraw, Schmid was provided a better WARD 20 for holding-onto.  WARD 20's new northern boundary ended at the south curb of CHEROKEE.  On the other side of CHEROKEE were the instigators of opposition to Schmid, and roughly half of the vote that in '07 and '11 was against Schmid.  The '11 redraw cut out the instigators and severed half of the opposition vote.

Okay ... now to PotBoA '15: Reed should be fine on North Side, but he took some real damage in Central Corridor that the challenger will exploit.  Reed will have to look to WARD 20 and WARD 25 to make up for losses in Central Corridor.  WARD 20 is still, I think, a majority-black ward (I think that it's something like 60/40 black).  WARD 25 is majority-white, but it's close.  Both wards are South Side, so there isn't the black electoral political organization and municipal election voting habits that there are on North Side.  The persistently anemic voter turnout in these two wards are indicative of such.  Team Reed really should start spending more time on CHEROKEE, CHIPPEWA and MERAMEC.  The Anglers should start doing the same.  Some Anglers already are spending their time there.

The Candidate to take WARD 20 from Schmid in '15 will need to take it in March when Reed defends PotBoA and the votes are there.  The Candidate to take WARD 20 from Schmid in '15 will need to convince WARD 20's African-Americans that the Candidate will do a better job for African-Americans than will Schmid.  The Candidate to take WARD 20 from Schmid will need to run a change campaign that includes WARD 20's African-Americans in its vision of change.  The crime problem and the problem of lack of economic and social opportunity likely will remain salient.  WARD 20 has an African-American youth gang problem, and it's been a persistent problem for at least the last eight years.  These problems are holding back WARD 20's residents, and these problems are holding back WARD 20's businesses.  These problems should be addressed.  If WARD 20 is organized, then these problems will be addressed.