Provides for the levying of certain court costs and fees to support the salaries and benefits of certain law enforcement personnel
If adopted, SJR46 would have significant implications for how justice is funded in the state. By allowing the government to levy fees related to court processes to maintain law enforcement operating costs, the resolution aims to ensure sustained financial support for law enforcement agencies. This shift could potentially lead to increased costs for individuals seeking access to the courts, thereby intertwining the funding of the justice system with the burden of its users.
Senate Joint Resolution 46 (SJR46) seeks to amend the Missouri Constitution by repealing Section 14 of Article I and replacing it with a new section that emphasizes the administration of justice and the funding of law enforcement personnel. The new section stipulates that courts shall remain open to all individuals and that justice must be administered fairly and without undue delay or cost. Additionally, it specifies that court costs and fees can be levied to support the salaries and benefits of state and county law enforcement staff associated with the criminal and civil justice system, including sheriffs and former sheriffs.
The sentiment surrounding SJR46 appears to be mixed, with supporters arguing that the resolution is vital for maintaining a well-funded law enforcement system, which is crucial for the effective functioning of justice administration. Critics, however, may express reservations about the fairness of increasing court fees, particularly for lower-income individuals who are already disadvantaged within the legal system, raising concerns about accessibility and equity in accessing justice.
There are notable points of contention regarding SJR46, particularly about the potential implications of relying on court fees to fund law enforcement. Opponents voice concerns that this could lead to a system that prioritizes funding based on monetary contributions rather than equitable resource distribution, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. Furthermore, there are worries that this legislative change might set a precedent for similar amendments that could unintentionally undermine the principle of justice being accessible to all, regardless of financial status.