Dropping the Ball on Amendment 7

As a whole, the media, including yours truly, failed in our pre-election coverage of Amendment 7.

This is an instance where the critics are right: We failed the public, big time.

And I'm kicking myself for not covering it before the election. Live and learn.

Watch my story about the confusion and controversy surrounding Amendment 7 HERE.

Confusion about the language in a new constitutional amendment approved overwhelmingly by Missourians last week has some regretting their vote.

84 percent of voters approved Amendment 7 on election day. That's the highest percentage any ballot measure received. But as some voters look closer, they are finding the devil is in the details.

"It's just one of those things," said Christian County Clerk Kay Brown. "It looks like it makes perfect sense." Brown said she has fielded some calls over the confusion.

The bulk of the sixty-five words on the ballot asked voters if elected officials and judges convicted of felonies should forfeit their pensions.

To Ozark voter Greg Rhodes, it seemed like a slam dunk, so he voted yes.

"I thought it was clearly black and white," Rhodes said.

"The first part talks about felony convictions, but the last part is the clincher," said Brown. "I don't think it was clear what people were voting for."

What Rhodes, and others did not realize is that he was also voting to make it harder for lawmakers to reject pay raises for elected officials and judges.

"I absolutely regret it, absolutely 100%. If I would've known a smidgen what was in this amendment, I wouldn't voted for it," Rhodes said.

"Previously, it took a simple majority to reject a salary change. now the change requires a two-thirds vote," he added. "Perhaps, it wasn't as clearly stated as it should've been."

But those words never appear in the language on the ballot approved by the secretary of state.

"I just feel we were mislead," he said.

Brown said the Secretary of State is responsible for placing the language on the ballot. "Perhaps it wasn't as clearly stated as it should've been," she said.

It's also notable that this amendment was not proposed by a concerned citizens group - but lawmakers themselves.

"They slipped that in there, they didn't want us to know that." Rhodes said.

In a big election year, with a long ballot, amendment seven received little attention.

"I never heard anything on TV about it. I think honestly it got away from you guys," Rhodes said referring to the media.

Rhodes knows people must responsible for votes they cast, but he also believes political leaders should be more accountable to items they try to pass.

"They should go above and beyond the call of getting information out to us. They wonder why in Jeff. City and Washington, the American voters do not trust them, and this is an example why," he said.

Rep. Mark Wright noted that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is responsible for writing "the title," on the ballot. He said the idea behind the joint resolution for the Amendment was to give more power to a commission of citizens to impact salaries. "This was politically motivated in a way, because any type of salary raise is political, especially in election years. The members of the judiciary were really the ones who were pushing this. They are the ones with lifetime appointments," Wright said.

Wright also added that this probably wasn't the best way of going about the change. "People were poorly educated about this," he said.

Rep. Bob Dixon was also contacted for this story, but has not returned a call for comment.