This article was originally published by Beacon, an online news outlet focused on in-depth local journalism in the public interest.
Missouri voters will decide on November 5 whether the retirement benefits of sheriffs and prosecutors should be paid for with court fees.
The fee used to fund sheriff’s pensions was established by state law in 1983.
The Missouri General Assembly placed Amendment 6 on the ballot, overturning a 2021 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that found the fees unconstitutional.
The state high court ruled against using litigation costs to increase the compensation of executive branch employees, including retired county sheriffs, because pension litigation costs were “not reasonably related to the costs of judicial administration.” The court ruled that it violated the constitutional prohibition.
If approved by a simple majority of voters, the Missouri Constitution would be changed to allow the state Legislature to collect a $3 fee for each case resulting in a guilty verdict or plea, allowing the state’s 114 elected county sheriffs or It will be possible to cover benefits to the surviving spouse. . The prosecutor’s retirement benefits are included and the fee is $4.
The exact wording on the ballot is as follows:
Should the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide for the administration of justice to include the collection of costs and fees to support the salaries and benefits of certain current and former law enforcement employees?
State and local governments are estimating unknown fiscal impacts.
Fair voting language:
A “yes” vote would amend the Missouri Constitution to support pay and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecutors, and circuit attorneys to ensure all Missourians have access to the courts of justice. Costs and fees will be collected.
A “no” vote would not amend the Missouri Constitution to impose costs and fees associated with current or former sheriffs, prosecutors, and circuit attorneys.
If this measure passes, taxes will not be affected.
What happens if the Sixth Amendment is rejected?
If it fails, the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System will have its funds insolvent within nine years, Executive Director Melissa Loets said.
“We feel that the $3 fee is actually a fee for using the court system,” Roets said.
Sheriffs are responsible for transporting defendants from jail to court, and also administer warrants and other aspects of criminal cases, he said.
“So we have a lot of influence over what happens in the court system,” Lortz said.
Roets said more than 200 former sheriffs and their surviving spouses are currently receiving benefits.
The amendment dates back to two speeding tickets in Kansas City and a subsequent state Supreme Court decision.
The two men admitted to traffic violations in 2017 and ultimately paid $223.50 in fines and fees to the city’s district court.
However, the men later claimed they had no idea that $3 from each incident would go toward the sheriff’s retirement fund.
They led a class-action lawsuit filed in Jackson County Circuit Court, arguing the additional charges amount to “unjust enrichment” and violate the state constitution.
The case remained in court until 2021, when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Roets said.
The court’s decision cited a 1986 decision that established a “clear rule” prohibiting litigation costs that benefit administrative officials “that are not reasonably related to the costs of the administration of justice.”
Lortz said the traffic lawsuit decision cost the retirement system about $9 million in litigation costs and settlements, leaving it without the ability to recover that money.
As of December 2023, the fund had $38.4 million in assets, down $800,000 from the end of the previous calendar year, according to the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System annual report.
Starting in January 2024, active sheriffs will begin contributing 5% of their salaries to a retirement fund, a change enacted by Congress.
Lortz said Congress approved $2.5 million to help stabilize the fund, but that amount is being requested again next year.
What are the arguments against the Sixth Amendment?
Critics of the fees allowed by the Sixth Amendment argue that each county should pay for pensions and other costs associated with law enforcement and courts.
The Washington, D.C.-based Fines and Fees Justice Center told lawmakers that salaries and benefits for prosecutors and sheriffs should be adequately funded, but court costs are “ineffective and counterproductive.” He said it was an approach.
“If a fine or fee is not paid, a judge may issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay, which can lead to law enforcement arresting people who have not paid their financial obligations. in cases where they are too poor to pay,” Priya Sarathy Jones, deputy executive director of the Department of Justice, testified. Fines and Fees Justice Center.
“The time spent on these debt collection and enforcement activities diverts law enforcement and courts from their primary responsibilities…In fact, the collection of fines and fees by law enforcement is associated with lower clearance rates for more serious crimes. We know that they are related.”
Some studies have shown that the cost for local governments to collect fines and fees can exceed the revenue generated.
The Missouri NAACP argued that the fee “creates a negative incentive to award more tickets and prosecute unnecessary crimes.”
Leonard Charles Gilroy, vice president of the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles, wrote that changing the state constitution to authorize the fee violates “the fundamentals of public finance and fiscal management.”
Public pensions are constitutionally protected benefits that must be paid in full regardless of market conditions or income.
“Law enforcement and the courts are core functions of government and should be funded through legislative spending, not fees,” Gilroy said in a statement.
“It would be unwise to reinstate a policy of funding pension contributions with dedicated fines and fee income, because while pension obligations are always fixed, these incomes can fluctuate over time. Body.”
Meanwhile, the Sixth Amendment came under fire for the language of the ballot summary, which the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled was insufficient and unfair.
The court made clear that passing the measure by voters in the general election would enshrine the broader administration of justice in the state constitution.
The court reworded the text on the ballot that voters would see to read: “Should the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide that the administration of justice includes the collection of costs and fees to support the salaries and benefits of certain current and former law enforcement employees?”
