Summary
Missouri Amendment 6 would amend the Missouri Constitution to include the following words:
In order to ensure that all Missourians have access to the courts of justice as guaranteed by this Constitution, the administration of justice shall include the levying of costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for sheriffs, former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, former prosecuting attorneys, circuit attorneys, and former circuit attorneys.
In plain English, adding the proposed language to the Missouri Constitution would reinstate a $3 court fee that funded the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System. The Missouri Supreme Court found the fee unconstitutional in 2021, but the amendment would nullify the Court’s decision by clearly establishing authority in the state constitution to establish fees and costs to fund salaries and benefits for the specified public employees.
Fiscal Impact
According to a fiscal note issued by the Oversight Division of the Missouri Joint Committee on Legislative Research, the fiscal impact of Amendment 6 is unknown. Prior to the 2021 ruling, the $3 surcharge generated an average of about $2.1 million for the Sheriff’s Retirement System annually.
Proponents’ Arguments
In a written statement, Missouri State Senator Rusty Black (R-Chillicothe), the primary sponsor of the legislative resolution to place Amendment 6 on the ballot, emphasized the importance of ensuring that the Sheriff’s Retirement System is adequately funded:
Senate Joint Resolution 71, a resolution that I filed, would ask voters to enshrine into the state’s constitution that sheriffs play a crucial role in the administration of justice, which would ensure a robust retirement fund for sheriffs as they approach the end of their careers.
Opposition Arguments
The National Police Accountability Project (NPAP) opposes the amendment, arguing that funding sheriff and prosecutor salaries and benefits through court fees may raise a “a conflict of interest.” NPAP has further argued that court fees and surcharges “can create debt so insurmountable that it can lead to incarceration if they [defendants] can’t pay, effectively creating debtor’s prisons.”
Discussion
Amendment 6 is a legislatively referred amendment in response to a 2021 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court that found that state law imposing a $3 surcharge on criminal and traffic cases to fund the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System was unconstitutional. The court found that retirement benefits were not directly related to the administration of justice and, therefore, fees and surcharges to fund the Sheriff’s Retirement System are “unreasonable impediments to access to justice.” The ruling cited language in the Missouri Constitution that states that:
…the courts of justice shall be open to every person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
In effect, the amendment would restore the surcharge that was overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court by enshrining court fees and surcharges as funding mechanisms for sheriff and prosecutor salaries and benefits in the Missouri Constitution. The amendment would also reinstate a set of perverse incentives that tie pension contributions to the volume of arrests, prosecutions, and other aspects of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement and courts are core government functions that should be funded through legislative appropriations, not fees.
In addition to justice and fairness concerns, Amendment 6 also violates some basics of public finance and fiscal stewardship. Proponents of the amendment are justified in their concern for the funding of retirement systems. Public pensions are constitutionally protected benefits promised to public workers, and government employers are obligated to ensure they are paid in full, regardless of market conditions or revenue generation. Revenue from court fees and surcharges can fluctuate over time, while pension liabilities are always locked in. Fine and fee revenues may also hit a plateau while pension liabilities—and the employer contributions needed to fund them each year—keep rising. Long-term pension solvency demands funding discipline and proper methods.
It is rare for states to use fees and other targeted revenue streams to cover public pension contributions. Several years ago, Arizona abandoned a statutory funding policy that explicitly dedicated court fees to its state pension system covering judicial officers and elected officials, opting to instead pay the required contributions from general appropriations and abandon the tether to dedicated fees.
Voter approval of Amendment 6 is unnecessary to ensure the solvency of the sheriff and prosecutor pension systems because governments are legally obligated to fund retirement benefits they’ve promised public workers. If one revenue source is deemed unconstitutional, governments need to follow kitchen-table economics and reprioritize their funding, delay capital purchases, alter spending plans, and the like. Republican Governor Mike Parson’s administration has proposed a two-year, $5 million total appropriation to temporarily cover pension contributions, allowing more time to develop a workable funding solution.