Election Results

Here is how we fared during the November 4th general election in Boone County and MNEA recommended races (* indicates MNEA recommended candidate): 

PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 60) .  .  .  .  .        60  100.00
           REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL .  .  .  .  .    95,943
           BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL.  .  .  .  .  .  .    41,815
           VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL  .  .  .  .  .  .             43.58

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRIC
          US REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 4
          (VOTE FOR )  1
              (WITH 60 OF 60 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           NATE IRVIN (DEM) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    16,753   41.63
           VICKY HARTZLER (REP).  .  .  .  .  .  .    21,083   52.39
           HERSCHEL L. YOUNG (LIB).  .  .  .  .  .     2,409    5.99

          STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 44 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 44
          (VOTE FOR )  1
              (WITH 17 OF 17 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           *THOMAS (TOM) PAULEY (DEM) .  .  .  .  .     3,012   37.11
           CALEB ROWDEN (REP)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     5,104   62.89

          STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 45 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 45
          (VOTE FOR )  1
              (WITH 18 OF 18 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           *KIP KENDRICK (DEM)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,888  100.00

          STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 46 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 46
          (VOTE FOR )  1
              (WITH 16 OF 16 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           *STEPHEN WEBBER (DEM).  .  .  .  .  .  .     7,946  100.00

          STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 47 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 47
          (VOTE FOR )  1
              (WITH 17 OF 17 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           *JOHN WRIGHT (DEM).  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     4,018   50.73
           CHARLES (CHUCK) BASYE (REP)  .  .  .  .     3,902   49.27 

(Chuck Basye won with 51% of the votes within the 47th district)

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 STATE OF MISSOURI
          (VOTE FOR )  1
              (WITH 59 OF 59 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           YES  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     7,522   18.28
           *NO.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    33,631   81.72

(Constitutional Amendment #3 failed statewide with 72% of the votes)

THANK YOU!!

Thank You Columbia and Mid-Missouri

for Protecting Our Local Schools

and Defeating

Constitutional Amendment 3!!!!!

Get Out TO VOTE...TODAY!

This is one Way to Vote!

I am...

Who Are You and What Will You Do Tomorrow?

Are You Voting November 4th?

Teachers Who Recommend John Wright for 47th Missouri House of Representatives

Vote Tuesday, Nov. 4th!

CMNEA Pres. Susan McClintic Speaks Out Against Amendment 3

KOMU-What Amendment 3 Means

Amendment 3 - A One Size Fits All Approach to Education

Commercial About Amendment 3

Protect Our Local Missouri Schools

Hannibal Superintendent Says "No" to Amendment 3

Amendment 3 Will Bring Too Many Tests for our Students

Vote No On Amendment 3

Video- Why You Should Protect Our Local Schools

Video- Amendment 3 Take Away Money from School Districts

Columbia Tribune View on Amendment 3

Amendment 3

An easy ‘no’ vote

By HENRY J. WATERS III

Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 10:02 am

Amendment 3 would impose an external evaluation system for school districts and teachers based in part on student performance as shown on standardized tests. Teacher contracts would be limited to three years, and teachers and their organizations could not bargain collectively regarding teacher evaluations.

This proposal was launched and funded by conservative activist Rex Sinquefield, who has since abandoned the campaign for lack of apparent public support. However, the issue remains on the ballot and opponents continue to wage an energetic campaign against passage.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the proposal establishes teacher evaluation in part based on student performance as shown by standardized tests. Evaluating entire school districts using student test scores is chancy enough. Drilling down to individual teacher evaluation is even more questionable. Not only does this short-circuit evaluation of teachers by school principals and other district officials; it revisits difficult questions about what such student tests reveal.

Shall teachers in high-performing districts get automatic advantage when, in fact, a teacher whose students score worse might be doing a better job?

The idea of more critical teacher evaluation has merit, but Amendment 3 is no way to do it. We should vote “no.”

HJW III

Columbia Tribune - Wright for 47th District

47th District

Wright vs. Bayse

By HENRY J. WATERS III

Monday, October 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm Comments (10)

For state representative in Missouri’s 47th District, incumbent Democrat John Wright defends his seat against Republican Chuck Basye. Wright clearly is the best choice.

In his first two years in office, Wright has become an outspoken champion of education (early education in particular) and ethics reform. He collaborated with Republican Kathy Swan of Cape Girardeau to pass a bill providing state aid to schools offering pre-kindergarten classes. In his campaign, he pushes hard for banning lobbyist gifts and limiting campaign donations.

Basye does not endorse either idea.

The two diverge on other hot-button issues. Wright favors taking federal funding to expand Medicaid. Basye says he opposes expansion without reform, but so far majority Republicans have no reform plan. Basye says he is uncertain about Right to Work. Wright is adamantly opposed. Basye is anti-abortion; Wright is pro-choice.

In short, this is a race between a progressive Democrat running his own campaign and a doctrinaire Republican funded and scripted by the Republican Party.

This is not to say Basye is merely an empty-headed tool of the party, but he is supported because he perfectly fits the mold, earning the bulk of his campaign funding from party coffers. He would be a thoroughly dependable Republican vote in the legislature. Give him credit for being a true believer, but it says here we need to preserve what partisan balance exists, particularly in the thoughtful person of John Wright.

Wright is wealthy and able to fund most of his own campaign. He uses his independence in behalf of modestly crafted progressive ideas. He is smart and honest, a real asset to the General Assembly, just getting started.

His election is not assured, however. His district is evenly split between Republican and Democratic voters, and past patterns show the Republican voting base is more likely to show up in off-year elections like this one. Wright won his seat in the 2012 presidential election, when Democratic voters rushed to the polls. If tradition prevails, Democratic voting will diminish this year more than Republican, posing a potential problem for Wright and his party.

Chuck Basye is a respectable conservative, but the welfare of the state will be better preserved if John Wright remains in office. For this to happen, Democrats will need to get to the polls.

John Wright for 47th District, Missouri House of Representatives.

HJW III

Columbia Tribune - Toss Up for 44th District

44th District

Caleb Rowden vs. Tom Pauley

By HENRY J. WATERS III

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 1:00 pm Comments (7)

In the race for representative in state House District 44, incumbent Republican Caleb Rowden defends against Democratic challenger Tom Pauley.

Rowden was a young newcomer who came out of the woodwork to defeat veteran Democratic lawmaker Ken Jacob in 2012. Since then, Rowden has been on a learning curve. He is a smart, well-intentioned representative who creeps toward moderation more than most of his partisan colleagues. He recently became one of the first to openly agree to ban lobbyist gifts, a position harder to avoid in the heat of a campaign. He shows signs of being willing to buck party leadership.

Rowden has a record of working well with Rep. Chris Kelly in support of the University of Missouri. He says he learned from Chris not to take disagreements among lawmakers personally. He realized Columbia is largely dependent on public funding. He believes money is speech but favors campaign spending limits. He says he would favor Medicaid expansion with reforms and thinks it will happen soon.

Caleb Rowden will continue to be a dependable Republican vote on such staples as guns and abortion but says he has come to favor gay marriage rights. He believes he is the best candidate largely because of his position in the majority party, particularly on the budget committee, where he has direct access to the chairman.

The 44th is a 50-50 district, half urban, half rural. Rowden is from Columbia.

His opponent is a Democrat from out-county Hallsville who says he is not afraid to make tough decisions.

Tom Pauley is past president of the Hallsville Chamber of Commerce and a current member of the Hallsville Board of Aldermen, a former union sheet metal worker and an MU alumnus. He has been a lobbyist for motorcyclist interests. Like Rowden, he favors abolition of helmet requirements.

Pauley decries Republican refusal to expand Medicaid and support for tax cuts threatening the infrastructure. He says it is not good for either party to have a veto-proof majority, alleging if more Democrats are elected, the body will move toward the center.

His background as a lobbyist and staffer for former Sen. Chuck Graham gives him a good understanding of how the legislature works.

Tom Pauley would support Democratic positions. Because he has a child with Down syndrome and another who is a high achiever, he sees how public education must pay attention to kids of diverse abilities rather than cater excessively to the middle. He criticizes Rowden for supporting tax cuts that damage education.

The best reasons to vote for Caleb Rowden are his support for the university and position as a majority member of the budget committee. He is a decent moderate conservative.

The best reasons to vote for Tom Pauley are support for Democratic positions on health care, abortion choice and education, and simply to provide more partisan balance in the legislature. He is a decent moderate liberal.

We need another reasonable Democrat in the legislature, a good reason to vote for Tom Pauley. If voters return Caleb Rowden to office, the district will be well served.

Columbia Community Member Says No to Amendment 3

Data and Accountability in the Classroom

Amendment 3 would add to schools' growing burden.

By DAVE OVERFELT

Sunday, October 26, 2014 at 12:00 am

We live in the age of data. Every facet of our lives is analyzed in great detail to better understand how and why we do the things we do. One can find data for travel patterns based on cellphone usage, demographic data on spending habits from purchases made, data on the use of any given health care service by any given segment of the population, opinion data on every product and service imaginable, and much more. The technology of the digital age has pushed us to collect and store an immense quantity of data on every sort of human interaction, and the classroom has been no exception. But while we enjoy collecting all this data, we haven’t put much thought into how to analyze and use it.

Teacher assessment is a central focus of improving student outcomes. To collect relevant data, we conduct classroom observations to check teachers’ attitudes and approaches, give standardized tests to check student improvements, pore over teaching materials and plans to check for effectiveness, give surveys to students, parents and peers to check what others think about any given teacher, and more. This approach gives us a massive trove of data for every teacher in every classroom, in every school, in every district in the nation.

The trouble with data collection and analysis is that the data don’t just collect and analyze themselves! The proposed constitutional Amendment 3 ignores the fact that we are still learning what data are most relevant and how to best use them. It mandates the use of student standardized test performance data and pushes us away from our current process of experimentation and exploration that will at some point uncover the most relevant data and best performance management solutions.

Amendment 3 also ignores the cost and work it would take to make the kind of quantitative data it mandates useful for its intended purpose. A recent study from Vanderbilt (principaldatause.org) found that school administrators get this teacher performance data “like a fire hose” and lack the time it takes to adequately and appropriately collect, record, analyze and implement performance measures. As it turns out, simply telling people to use data to make evaluative decisions doesn't mean data suddenly become available or useful. If we want these data to be available quickly enough to make performance management decisions, we are also going to have to create user-friendly data management tools that provide easily readable assessments to administrators as soon as the data are validated.

Because our school systems are based on a year-to-year cycle, we have very little time to move from data collection to a set of information that can legitimately be used for teacher performance assessment. It is foolish to assume our administrators can do all this without some sort of tool or other additional resources to help along the way. Luckily for us, complicated statistical wizardry has largely been automated; we just need to create and implement something akin to Google Trends for school performance data. The teachers and public both have to be involved in this evaluation process for it to be useful in matching performance assessments to community expectations and to classroom realities.

In the process of creating and implementing elaborate and expensive standardized testing tools for assessment, Amendment 3 takes the authority to make key decisions away from the communities, parents and school boards that really understand their school districts and moves it toward state and federal politicians with very different goals.

In fact, data are often collected and reported not as a tool to promote public understanding and improve our public schools, but as a weapon to attack and undermine them. This does not improve public education, our communities or our political processes. There is still much to be learned to develop a truly useful performance-based measurement system for our teachers and schools. If we want to make the best decisions for our youths, we need to be adaptable to local needs and we need this to be a highly localized discussion that we all can learn from together. We are still exploring what information is relevant, how to collect it, how to analyze it and how to best apply what we learn. Neither politicians nor computers can adequately answer these questions for us.

Dave Overfelt is owner of Research Results LLC in Columbia.

Local MSTA President Voices Opinion on Amendment 3

Amendment 3 would harm our community

Thursday, October 30, 2014 at 12:30 pm

Editor, the Tribune: The November election is an important election due to the adverse effect Amendment 3 could have on our community if passed. Every day in classrooms in Columbia, rich and diverse learning occurs. Whether it be through the creation of art projects, lively classroom discussions, or crafting a product on a 3-D printer, learning is taking place that is not easily measured through testing. Skills that students learn through diverse classroom activities teach them how to think, plan, problem-solve and to navigate life’s ups and downs. Our classrooms are preparing students for their future. Should we dismiss those valuable experiences in favor of students scoring well on a standardized test? Please join me in voting “no” on Amendment 3.

Susie Adams, president

Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association

Retired Columbia Superintendent Says MO NO ON 3

Amendment 3 a threat to public education

Friday, October 31, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Editor, the Tribune: I have spent more than 40 years in public education and find Amendment 3 to be one of the greatest threats to public education that I have experienced during my long career. Its many provisions take away much local control that has been so important in our society. By using a single standardized test to weigh heavily in the retention, demotion, promotion and pay of teachers, our teachers will be forced to “teach to the test.” The standardized test must be developed by local districts at district expense, approved by Jefferson City and must examine standards developed by Jefferson City. The development of these standardized tests by school districts across the state is estimated to cost $1 billion at a time when school districts are underfunded. None of us wants our children to simply be a test-score number.

Amendment 3 contains additional provisions that are bad for our schools, students and teachers. Remember, it is an amendment and not a law. If passed, it will be very difficult to change. I urge you to vote “no” on Amendment 3 on Nov. 4.

Jim Ritter, retired superintendent

Six Missouri Superintendents Share Why NO ON 3

6 area superintendents:Amendment 3 removes local control from school bds.

Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:34 pm | Updated: 12:28 pm, Fri Oct 31, 2014.

To the editor:

On behalf of the six West Plains area school districts, you are urged to vote “no’’ on Amendment 3. John Mulford, West Plains R-7, More than 230 school boards in Missouri  have adopted resolutions to oppose Amendment 3 and not a single one has supported it. These school boards are part of a growing trend of opposition to Amendment 3, which is a devastating proposal for local school districts. The proposed constitutional amendment  is a state mandate that shifts local control away from parents, teachers, administrators and school boards. Amendment 3 is a poorly drafted and deeply flawed proposal that strips local school boards of much of their authority to make educational decisions related to teacher performance and evaluation. This is an issue that does not belong in the Missouri Constitution.

From the perspective of the six local school districts the following items represent the major concerns that would result if Amendment 3 passes:

Amendment 3 takes away the local control of school boards regarding the ability to make employment decisions based on the unique needs of the school district. Passage of this amendment would mandate that all school districts use an evaluation tool and process that is approved by state appointed leaders in Jefferson City. Locally elected school board members would lose the ability to determine what is best for their students, district, and community as it relates to evaluating and retaining teachers and administrators. Do we really want the state to be given the authority to tell our local school boards who they should be employing and how to evaluate those employees?

Amendment 3 forces taxpayers to pay for additional standardized tests at a time when our public schools remain underfunded. Passage of this amendment requires that “the majority” of a teacher evaluation system be based on “quantifiable student performance data.” This language indicates that additional standardized testing would be required so that all teachers in all subject areas would be evaluated in accordance with this requirement. Some cost estimates for these state-mandated standardized tests are upwards of $1 billion, which school districts and taxpayers would be forced to pay. Given that schools districts have not received full funding since 2009, how will these additional tests be paid for? And, do we really want to take additional time away from instruction to require our kids to participate in more state-mandated tests?

Amendment 3 changes the purpose of teacher evaluation. When done correctly, the purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve teacher performance and promote professional growth as an educator. Research supports this approach as having the greatest impact on the learning of our children. This amendment transforms the teacher evaluation process into a punitive system. It requires hiring, promoting, dismissing, and compensating of teachers to be based solely on the evaluation process while moving control of this process to the state. Again, do we want the state to mandate these responsibilities that have traditionally fallen under the authority of the local school board?

Does teacher evaluation really belong in our state constitution? Over the last few years school districts across the state have completely overhauled the teacher evaluation process, but all decisions were made at the local level based on what best fits the individual districts. Regardless of a person’s beliefs on public education, teacher evaluation, tenure and accountability of schools, we must consider the appropriate avenue for addressing these concerns. Amending the state constitution should not be taken lightly. There are four constitutional amendments on the November ballot. While the idea behind some of the amendments may sound logical, the question we must ask ourselves is, “does this idea really belong in the constitution?”

Amendment 3 will take away local control of our schools, and we are fundamentally opposed to that. The fact is Amendment 3 would implement yet another unfunded mandate on schools that are already facing a shortage of funding. Additionally, Amendment 3 would prevent school boards from hiring, promoting, compensating or dismissing teachers in accordance with board policy.

We believe that this amendment will have many unintended consequences for our school districts. We know our schools and our students best and it’s important that our community maintain control of the schools in our district.

John Mulford, West Plains superintendent

Vic Williams, Fairview superintendent

John Dern, Junction Hill superintendent

Wayne Stewart, Glenwood superintendent

Marvin Hatley, Howell Valley superintendent

Melonie Bunn, Richards superintendent

Missouri: Very Rich Extremist Puts VAM on State Ballot-By Diane Ravitch

This is the worst constitutional amendment to appear on any state ballot in 2014.

It ties teacher evaluation to student test scores. It bans collective bargaining about teacher evaluation. It requires teachers to be dismissed, retained, promoted, demoted, and paid based primarily on the test scores of their students. It requires teachers to enter into contracts of three years or less, thus eliminating seniority and tenure.

This is VAM with a vengeance.

This ballot resolution is the work of the far-right Show-Me Institute, funded by the multi-millionaire Rex Sinquefeld.

He is a major contributor to politics in Missouri and to ALEC.

The Center for Media and Democracy writes about him:

“Sinquefield is doing to Missouri what the Koch Brothers are doing to the entire country. For the Koch Brothers and Sinquefield, a lot of the action these days is not at the national but at the state level.

“By examining what Sinquefield is up to in Missouri, you get a sobering glimpse of how the wealthiest conservatives are conducting a low-profile campaign to destroy civil society.

“Sinquefield told The Wall Street Journal in 2012 that his two main interests are “rolling back taxes” and “rescuing education from teachers’ unions.”

“His anti-tax, anti-labor, and anti-public education views are common fare on the right. But what sets Sinquefield apart is the systematic way he has used his millions to try to push his private agenda down the throats of the citizens of Missouri.”

Opinion Piece About Amendment 3 by Former Columbia Board President

Amendment 3 is unadvisable meddling with constitution

By STEVE SCOTT

Sunday, October 12, 2014 at 12:00 am Comments (3)

Proposed Amendment 3, placed on the Nov. 4 election ballot by initiative petition, should be soundly rejected by Missouri voters for many reasons. One very important reason is that it would improperly inject detailed education policies into the Missouri Constitution. Such matters are best left to local school boards and the state board of education. A constitution, by its nature, should focus on broad governing principles.

One such broad principle is the high value our state constitution places on public education, proclaiming, “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.” This is backed up by another provision declaring the state must devote at least 25 percent of state revenue to supporting public schools.

These broad provisions are in striking contrast to Amendment 3, which would embed details into our constitution concerning the employment status and contract length of teachers, a teacher evaluation system based on standardized student tests, and the use of the evaluation system to determine teachers’ retention, promotion, demotion, compensation and dismissal. The amendment also would prohibit including the evaluation system in any collective bargaining agreement.

As a Columbia school board member from 1985 to 1994, I learned firsthand that evaluation of teachers is best carried out at the local level by principals and administrators who have discretion to take into account the demographics of each classroom and the resulting challenges faced by teachers. It is well documented that students from some backgrounds perform more poorly on standardized tests, and it is unfair and irrational for a teacher’s future to hinge on the chance makeup of her or his classroom.

Amendment 3, however, would mandate a one-size-fits-all approach to evaluating teachers entirely dependent on their students’ scores on standardized tests.

Speaking of standardized testing, who is going to pay to develop Missouri’s testing and evaluation system? The question virtually answers itself. We, the taxpayers, will pay, through local school system taxes and state appropriations. An Amendment 3 opposition group, Protect Our Local Schools, projects the cost to be upward of $1 billion.

Spending this much on developing more standardized testing would be outrageous, particularly when school needs are already greatly outpacing the funding made available by the state. And haven’t we already learned from No Child Left Behind that more standardized testing is not a panacea for our education woes?

What, then, is the way forward to improving our schools? I often hear it said you can’t solve the education problem by throwing money at it. I beg to differ. Many studies show smaller class sizes dramatically improve educational outcomes by allowing more attention to individual students, and this requires more money.

Unfortunately, Missouri and most of the rest of the country are still in the thrall of cultural attitudes that encourage trying to do education on the cheap. This is nothing new, as the historian Richard Hofstadter documented in his 1964 Pulizer-winning history of anti-intellectualism. From the very beginning of the public schools movement in the United States, Hofstadter said, teachers have been underpaid, underappreciated and confronted with too-large classrooms.

If we truly believe in the value of public education and its importance to the preservation of democracy, we must eschew simplistic and ill-thought-out proposals such as Amendment 3 and advocate instead for some things worth paying for — more school funding, smaller classrooms and more and better-paid teachers.

Steve Scott is a Columbia attorney and served on the Columbia Board of Education for nine years, including two years as board president.

You Have A Few More Hours to Register to Vote on Nov. 4th

Former Columbia Superintendent Shares Facts on Amendment 3

Amendment 3 reduces local control

By CHRIS BELCHER

Sunday, October 5, 2014 at 12:00 am

Dr. Chris Belcher

Elected officials best serve when they are held accountable by the voters. Thus, the more local the governance, the better. School boards are a strong example of representational democracy. The quality of schools plays a vital role in the economic and social vitality of the community. Elected board members understand this and are accountable to the public to set policy, budgets and standards for the school district. Amendment 3, dealing with teacher evaluation, would be harmful to local control and representative governance. It would take authority away from those elected to serve their schools.

I find it ironic that many who oppose federal intervention with state schools are the same people who think a constitutional amendment that outlines the evaluation of teachers is a good idea. Amending the constitution to mandate a form of teacher evaluation is inappropriate for several reasons.

First, teacher evaluation is already prescribed by legislation. The statute is clear in intent but gives authority to the local school district. It reads: “168.128. … the board of education of each school district shall cause a comprehensive, performance-based evaluation for each teacher employed by the district. Such evaluations shall be ongoing and of sufficient specificity and frequency to provide for demonstrated standards of competency and academic ability. All evaluations shall be maintained in the teacher’s personnel file at the office of the board of education. A copy of each evaluation shall be provided to the teacher and appropriate administrator. The state department of elementary and secondary education shall provide suggested procedures for such an evaluation.”

Second, Amendment 3 specifically outlines that 51 percent of a teacher’s evaluation must be based on student achievement data. This might be appropriate for some teachers but might not reflect a realistic approach to specialty teachers. This might also encourage the proliferation of standardized testing of students.

Finally, Amendment 3 is an attempt to void Missouri’s current teacher tenure law. This is attractive on a political level to a certain group that believes tenured teachers cannot be fired. Tenured teachers are given a legally defined due process, but they can be and are fired. The issue of teacher dismissal, especially as mandated in Amendment 3, is more a political agenda than a legal issue. Once again, the local school board has the authority to remove ineffective teachers and does so.

It seems evident Amendment 3 is an attempt to override the local control of elected school board members. What do we believe in if we don’t believe in the power of democracy and local control?

Chris Belcher, former superintendent of Columbia Public Schools, is on the faculty of the MU College of Education.

11 More Days to Register For Voting

11 More Days to Register!!

To register to vote in Boone County, Missouri - please visit:     Online Voter Registration

If you've moved since the last election, have no fear!  You may change your address here: Change of Address

Not sure if your information is current, or not sure if you know where to vote?  Visit: Current Information

Have LOTS of questions about voting?  You may find your answers here: Q&A About Boone County Registration

Notice of Election- Nov. 4th for Boone County

NOTICE OF ELECTION

Notice is hereby given that a General Election will be held in the State of Missouri on the 4th day of
November, 2014 for the purpose of voting on candidates and statewide ballot measures (§115.125,
RSMo).

DEMOCRATIC PARTY

REPUBLICAN PARTY

LIBERTARIAN PARTY

CONSTITUTION PARTY

FOR STATE AUDITOR
(VOTE FOR 1)

TOM SCHWEICH
REPUBLICAN PARTY

SEAN O’TOOLE
LIBERTARIAN PARTY

RODNEY FARTHING
CONSTITUTION PARTY

FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 4
(VOTE FOR 1)

NATE IRVIN
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

VICKY HARTZLER
REPUBLICAN PARTY

HERSCHEL L. YOUNG
LIBERTARIAN PARTY

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 44
(VOTE FOR 1)

THOMAS (TOM) PAULEY
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

CALEB ROWDEN
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 45
(VOTE FOR 1)

KIP KENDRICK
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 46
(VOTE FOR 1)

STEPHEN WEBBER
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 47
(VOTE FOR 1)

JOHN WRIGHT
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

CHARLES (CHUCK) BASYE
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 50
(VOTE FOR 1)

CALEB JONES
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE
CIRCUIT 13, DIVISION 4
(VOTE FOR 1)

JODIE C. ASEL
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT JUDGE
CIRCUIT 13, DIVISION 5
(VOTE FOR 1)

KIMBERLY SHAW
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

MICHAEL R. WHITWORTH
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT JUDGE
CIRCUIT 13, DIVISION 9
(VOTE FOR 1)

MICHAEL W. BRADLEY
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT JUDGE
CIRCUIT 13, DIVISION 10
(VOTE FOR 1)

LESLIE ANN SCHNEIDER
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT JUDGE
CIRCUIT 13, DIVISION 11
(VOTE FOR 1)

DEBORAH DANIELS
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
(VOTE FOR 1)

DANIEL K. ATWILL
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

JAMES B. POUNDS
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR COUNTY CLERK
(VOTE FOR 1)

WENDY S. NOREN
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
(VOTE FOR 1)

CHRISTY BLAKEMORE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR RECORDER OF DEEDS
(VOTE FOR 1)

NORA DIETZEL
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

LISA BALLENGER
REPUBLICAN PARTY

FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
(VOTE FOR 1)

DAN KNIGHT
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR COUNTY AUDITOR
(VOTE FOR 1)

JUNE E. PITCHFORD
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

FOR COLLECTOR OF REVENUE
(VOTE FOR 1)

BRIAN C. MCCOLLUM
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

CHERI TOALSON REISCH
REPUBLICAN PARTY

STATE OF MISSOURI

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT NO. 2

Proposed by the 97th General Assembly

(First Regular Session)

SCS HJR 16
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that it will be permissible to allow relevant
evidence of prior criminal acts to be admissible in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature
involving a victim under eighteen years of age?
If more resources are needed to defend increased prosecutions additional costs to
governmental entities could be at least $1.4 million annually, otherwise the fiscal impact is
expected to be limited.

YES
NO

CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT NO. 3

Proposed by Initiative Petition
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
• require teachers to be evaluated by a standards based performance evaluation system for
which each local school district must receive state approval to continue receiving state and
local funding;
• require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using
quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
• require teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public school districts;
and• prohibit teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and
implementation of the teacher evaluation system?
Decisions by school districts regarding provisions allowed or required by this proposal and
their implementation will influence the potential costs or savings impacting each district.
Significant potential costs may be incurred by the state and/or the districts if new/additional
evaluation instruments must be developed to satisfy the proposal’s performance evaluation
requirements.

YES
NO

CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT NO. 6

Proposed by the 97th General Assembly

(Second Regular Session)

SS SCS HCS HJR No. 90
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period
of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general
elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay
for the increased costs of such voting?
State governmental entities estimated startup costs of about $2 million and costs to
reimburse local election authorities of at least $100,000 per election. Local election authorities
estimated higher reimbursable costs per election.

Those costs will depend on the compensation, staffing, and, planning decisions of election authorities with the total costs being unknown.

YES
NO

CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT NO. 10

Proposed by the 97th General Assembly

(Second Regular Session)

HJR No. 72

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the governor to pay the public debt, to
prohibit the governor from relying on revenue from legislation not yet passed when proposing
a budget, and to provide a legislative check on the governor’s decisions to restrict funding for
education and other state services?
State governmental entities expect no direct costs or savings. Local governmental entities
expect an unknown fiscal impact.

YES
NO

The polling places for said election will be:See polling place listing at 

http://www.showmeboone.com/clerk/PollingLocations.pdf

Polling locations to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

STATE OF MISSOURI
Secretary of State

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the Great Seal of the State of
Missouri, done at the City of Jefferson, this 25th day of August, 2014.

(seal)
/s/ Jason Kander
Secretary of State

OFFICIAL JUDICIAL BALLOT

STATE OF MISSOURI

Submitting to the voters whether the Judge named below, whose term expires December 31, 2014,
shall be retained in office for a new term.

VOTE ON EACH JUDGE

MISSOURI SUPREME COURT JUDGE

Shall Judge LAURA DENVIR STITH of the Missouri Supreme Court be retained in office?
YES
NO

Shall Judge PAUL CAMPBELL WILSON of the Missouri Supreme Court be retained in office?
YES
NO

MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES, WESTERN DISTRICT

Shall Judge LISA WHITE HARDWICK of the Western District Court of Appeals be retained in office?
YES
NO

Shall Judge ANTHONY REX GABBERT of the Western District Court of Appeals be retained in
office?
YES
NO

STATE OF MISSOURI

Secretary of StateIN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the Great Seal of the State of
Missouri, done at the City of Jefferson, this 25th day of August, 2014.
(SEAL)

/s/Jason Kander
Secretary of State

NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION

City of Columbia, Missouri

Notice is hereby given to the qualified voters of the City of Columbia, Missouri, that the City Council of the City has called an election to be held in the City on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, commencing
at six o'clock a.m. and closing at seven o'clock p.m., on the question contained in the following
sample ballot:

PROPOSITION 1

Shall the City of Columbia, Missouri increase the general property tax rate of the City by $0.30
per $100.00 of assessed valuation for the sole purpose of funding an increase in staffing and
operations of the police and fire departments of the City? The increase would be phased in
over a period of five years.

YES
NO

If authorized by the voters, the increase in the general property tax rate received by the City of
Columbia, Missouri shall be segregated from the other general property tax revenues and
used solely for police and fire department staffing and operations, including, but not limited to
personnel and associated equipment and other related expenses.

The election will be held at the following polling places in the City:

See polling place listing at http://www.showmeboone.com/clerk/PollingLocations.pdf

Dated this _____ day of ______, 2014.

Wendy Noren
Clerk of the County Commission

NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION

City of Columbia, Missouri

Notice is hereby given to the qualified voters of the City of Columbia, Missouri, that the City Council of the City has called an election to be held in the City on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, commencing
at six o'clock a.m. and closing at seven o'clock p.m., on the question contained in the following
sample ballot:

PROPOSITION 2

Shall the City of Columbia, Missouri replace the current development charge for construction
of collector and arterial streets of $0.50 per square foot of total floor area of new construction
with a development charge for construction of collector and arterial streets as follows:

Residential - a maximum of $1.00 per square foot of total floor area of new construction; and

Non-residential Low Impact - a maximum of $1.50 per square foot of total floor area of new
construction; and

Non-residential High Impact - a maximum of $2.00 per square foot of total floor area of new construction.

“Non-residential Low Impact” shall be defined as a trip generation rate of less than 3 trips per
1,000 square feet based on the weekday p.m. peak hour for non-residential land uses as set
forth in the most recent edition of Trip Generation, a manual published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers;

“Non-residential High Impact” shall be defined as a trip generation rate of 3 trips or more per
1,000 square feet based on the weekday p.m. peak hour for non-residential land uses as set
forth in the most recent edition of Trip Generation, a manual published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers?

The increase would be phased in over a period of three (3) years.

YES
NO

The election will be held at the following polling places in the City:

See polling place listing at http://www.showmeboone.com/clerk/PollingLocations.pdf

Dated this _____ day of ______, 2014.

Wendy Noren
Clerk of the County Commission