A voter casts her ballot at Wydown Middle School Tuesday afternoon as other booths sit empty. Turnout in St. Louis County was under 20 percent as voters overwhelmingly passed a smoking ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

St. Louis County voters approved the smoking ban measure Proposition N by an overwhelming margin in Tuesday’s election, which saw low turnout throughout the county.

The proposition, which passed 65.3 percent to 34.7 percent, will ban smoking in public indoor places in St. Louis County in January 2011, with exemptions for casino floors, private clubs, smoking lounges at St. Louis airport, and some bars. The proposition’s passage also triggers a smoking ban in St. Louis that was passed by the city’s aldermen on Oct. 23.

“We have made a major step forward on cleaner air and obviously a healthy environment for our citizens in the county and city, and hopefully for the whole state in the future,” said County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, who introduced the St. Louis County Council bill that put the smoking ban on the ballot.

Proposition N opponent Bill Hannegan, though disappointed, downplayed the result, saying that “it was always going to be tough in the county” due to its low smoking rate.

Hannegan, who heads the group Keep St. Louis Free, added that “the fight’s not over” and that the opposition could challenge the constitutionality of the casino exemption, bring up a conflict between the two smoking bans and state law, or push to amend the city’s smoking ban.

Campaign leaders reported low traffic at polls throughout the county on Tuesday. Overall turnout was just under 20 percent, which was in line with county election officials’ predictions.

Students turned out in especially large numbers for the November 2008 election, but things were different this time around. Nearly all students when interviewed said they did not turn out to vote, despite most of them saying they supported the measure.

Senior James Mosbacher said it took him “three minutes, max” to cast his vote for Proposition N at his polling place, which he said was virtually empty.

“There was nobody there,” he said. “Absolutely nobody.”

The low turnout underscored the absence of a statewide or federal race on the ballot, an obstacle that campaign leaders attempted to overcome with last-minute mobilization efforts. Leaders from both sides said they called supporters on Tuesday in a final get-out-the-vote push.

Proposition N supporters gathered with posters and signs during the Monday rush hour at five street-side locations, including the intersection of Forest Park Parkway and Skinker Boulevard.

More than 200 Saint Louis University medical students and faculty gathered on their campus on Thursday to rally for the ban.

The Washington University community’s highest-profile supporter of the proposition is Martha Bhattacharya, postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, who served as treasurer of pro-proposition County Citizens for Cleaner Air. Bhattacharya said last week she encouraged students to vote for the measure.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay even made an appeal on his blog on Monday for county voters to vote for the proposition, writing that the ban “will make St. Louis County restaurants safer for their employees and more pleasant for everyone else.” He also noted that the proposition’s passage would trigger the city’s own ban.

Hannegan said members of the opposition had distributed flyers to bars and restaurants in the days leading up to the election. Bowling alley proprietors also rallied against the proposition in Hazelwood on Saturday.

Most restaurant and bar owners opposed the proposition out of concerns that a smoking ban would violate their property rights and drive their smoking customers to nearby counties that lack smoking bans.

Ban supporters pointed to peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking bans have no negative impacts on business.

Proposition N passed even without the support of some health groups that stayed neutral due to the measure’s exemptions.

In a statement issued shortly after the votes were counted, the St. Louis chapter of the American Cancer Society did not back the smoking ban but said the measure’s passage “confirms that smoke-free laws are uniformly popular with the vast majority of the public and brings critical momentum toward achieving meaningful health protection from secondhand smoke for all people who live and work in St. Louis County.”

“The focus now will be on delivering health protection from secondhand smoke for those workers who still do not have it—those in bars and casinos,” the statement said.

Supporters had long argued that the ban, despite the exemptions, was a good start and was the only ban that would have passed the County Council.

“I would prefer if there were not exemptions, but the bottom line is you need to get something passed,” Stuart Slavin, associate dean for curriculum at SLU School of Medicine, said Monday at the Forest Park-Skinker rally.

Fraser’s bill passed as a result of compromise. The initial bill had no exemptions, but the council voted it down. A later version of the bill with the exemptions passed the council by a 4-3 vote on Aug. 25, following weeks of heated meetings.

The Aug. 4 meeting saw Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the University, urge the council to put on the ballot “as broad and as comprehensive a ban as possible.” The University supported sending the final ban to voters but did not endorse the measure itself.

OTHER KEY RACES

Proposition E-911: YES, 67.7 percent-32.3 percent
A 0.1 percent sales tax increase, revenues from which would go toward upgrading emergency communications equipment in St. Louis County.

Special election, Missouri House 74th District: STACEY NEWMAN (D) 61.3 percent, DANIEL O’SULLIVAN (R) 38.7 percent
Special election in the 74th Missouri House District to fill the seat formerly occupied by Democrat Steve Brown, who resigned the seat on Aug. 25 after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Special election, Missouri Senate 4th District: JOE KEAVENY (D), unopposed
Special election in the 4th Missouri Senate District to fill the seat formerly occupied by Democrat Jeff Smith, who also resigned on Aug. 25 after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Countywide turnout: 19.55 percent
Source: http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/elections/

Known as Proposition N, the measure would ban smoking in most public indoor places in the county, effective January 2011. Bars that earn less than 25 percent of their sales from food, casino floors, smoking lounges at the St. Louis airport, and private clubs would be exempt.

The ban’s passage would also trigger a smoking ban in St. Louis that city aldermen passed on Oct. 23.

While the local community has been strongly divided, Washington University community members appear to favor the ban for public health reasons.

Senior James Mosbacher, a St. Louis-area resident, said he supports banning smoking in restaurants and will vote for the measure because it exempts bars.

“Part of the population that I think has made cities like Chicago so successful is young people,” Mosbacher said. “For businesses that conduct their sales not entirely on alcohol, I think that smoking is a drawback for those people to patronize these places.”

Martha Bhattacharya, postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, has become perhaps the University community’s strongest advocate of the smoking ban, serving as treasurer of the pro-proposition campaign, County Citizens for Cleaner Air. Bhattacharya said she has encouraged some students she knows to vote.

In a recent op-ed submission to Student Life, Bhattacharya pushed students to turn out for the election, writing, “Last year, many of you registered to vote in St. Louis County in order to make a difference in the choice of our president. Please don’t let your civic responsibility stop there.”

When interviewed, some students who live in St. Louis County said they are not sure if they will vote, or they plan not to vote at all.
Sophomore Amy Plovnick said she supports the ban but has not decided if she will vote.

“This is really the only big issue people would be voting about,” Plovnick said. “I think it’s an important issue, but I don’t know if it’s that important to get me to go, but I’m going to try to vote.”

Turnout is expected to be very low throughout the county, largely because it is an off-year election with no high-level races on the ballot.

“We don’t have a Clinton or a Bush or even an Obama, much less a Senate race or House of Representatives race,” said Dave Robertson, a political scientist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “The people who will turn out are people who feel unusually strongly about the issue, for the most part.”

It’s not clear whether low turnout would sway the vote. Representatives of both sides have said they are working to mobilize voters.

The referendum originated over the summer in the St. Louis County Council as a bill, which was sponsored by Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City. Fraser has said the ban would not be perfect due to the exemptions but would still improve air quality without harming businesses.

Business and bar owners opposed to the ballot measure have argued that the ban would infringe upon their property rights.

Bill Hannegan of the anti-ban group Keep St. Louis Free has touted air filtration as an alternative to a smoking ban and said many bar owners are “worried sick” about the ban because it would drive customers to nearby counties.

Cicero’s Restaurant, which recently went smoke-free only in its dining area, will have to go completely smoke-free if the proposition passes. Bobby Francis, front-of-house manager of the popular destination for students on the Delmar Loop, said a ban would be “problematic” for bar customers who smoke, but did not know how it would affect business.

Ban supporters have said peer-reviewed studies show that air filtration is ineffective and that smoking bans do not negatively affect business.

Supporters have also said the ban on the ballot, though not comprehensive, would be a step in the right direction.

“There are a lot of bans that have started as local ordinances, and most of the local ordinances are not 100 percent comprehensive,” Bhattacharya said in an interview. “We have to start with something maybe a little less than perfect, but something that will substantially help the health of the county.”

Due to the trigger provision in the city’s smoking ban, county voters effectively will be determining the fates of both jurisdictions’ proposals.

In a debate on Monday in Clayton, Fraser said the trigger effect invalidates opponents’ argument that the proposition’s passage would create an uneven playing field between county and city businesses. She added that nearby counties “are looking seriously at this legislation, and that the domino effect will take place.”

Hannegan responded that the ban would cause non-exempt businesses to lose money to those that would be exempt.

“That’s not a level playing field,” Hannegan said.

Some public health groups, including the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, have taken no stance on the proposition because they say it has too many exemptions.

Tuesday’s election will end a heated countywide battle that started in August, when the County Council debated multiple bill versions. The initial bill, which had no exemptions, was rejected, but a later bill version with the exemptions passed the council by a 4-3 vote on Aug. 25 and was later signed by County Executive Charlie Dooley.

At the Aug. 4 council meeting, Medical Public Policy Specialist Robert Blaine delivered a statement on behalf of the University urging the council to put a ban on the November ballot that was “as broad and as comprehensive as possible.” The statement came five months after the University announced a tobacco ban on its campuses, effective July 2010.

Despite the final bill’s exemptions, Blaine later said the University still supported putting the ban on the ballot, but he did not endorse the measure itself.

“If you had asked me two months ago if I thought the voters in St. Louis County would have this opportunity in November, I would have said no,” said Robert Blaine, a medical public policy specialist at the University. “So I think it’s a significant step forward.”

The signature virtually assures the ban will go on the county ballot, meaning students registered to vote in Missouri who live west of the Brookings parking lot can vote on it. The bill’s sponsor, County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, has said the final step of getting a court order is a formality.

The final bill, its third version, will ask voters if they want to ban smoking in most indoor public places in the county. The ban would exempt bars—places where 75 percent of sales come from alcohol—casino floors and smoking lounges at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Areas west of the Brookings lot, including a major chunk of the Delmar Loop, would fall under the ban.

On Aug. 4, the University pushed the County Council to put as comprehensive a ban on the ballot as possible. That day, the council was considering the first two bill versions: one with and one without exemptions for bars and casinos only.

Despite the final bill’s exemptions, Blaine said the University supports the ban going on the ballot and letting voters decide the issue.

“I think the University would encourage any individual to educate themselves about this issue and make a decision on their own,” Blaine said.

Many in the school community are in favor of the ban going on the ballot. Some have also praised the University for supporting a ballot measure and planning to go tobacco free in July 2010.

Still, some on campus remain unhappy with the University’s tobacco ban, saying officials failed to weigh student input before announcing it.

The University’s support of the referendum has sparked some debate over how much student input school officials should seek when taking a stance on local issues.

“The issue of student input on these sorts of decisions is an interesting thing we should look into more,” said senior Chase Sackett, speaker of the Student Union Senate, which passed a resolution last April decrying the lack of student input that went into the school’s tobacco ban.

The ballot measure will likely face an uphill battle because there are opponents on both sides of the debate. Smoking ban opponents, including a coalition of business owners led by Bill Hannegan of Keep St. Louis Free, worry a ban would drive business from St. Louis County.

Some supporters of a comprehensive smoking ban, including the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Society, oppose the ballot measure because they say it’s too weak. They also say the county will have trouble working its way up to a strong ban if it enacts a weak ban first.

“Tobacco Free Missouri is disappointed that it’s not a comprehensive law,” Nancy Mueller, chair of Tobacco Free Missouri statewide coalition, said Tuesday night. “I think that the county is not setting the precedent and the model that the rest of the state should be following.”

Mueller also said she’s glad to see the University go tobacco free and hopes the county will consider passing a stricter ban.

Fraser initially favored the first bill version, which had no exemptions, but the council voted it down on Aug. 4. After she amended the bill that same day to include the exemptions for bars and casinos, the council voted 4-3 to move it to a final vote.

But then Fraser opted to reintroduce the bill on Aug. 11 due to worries that a procedural problem at the Aug. 4 meeting would open the bill to legal challenge. The reintroduction, which added the airport exemption, caused the council to miss its deadline last Tuesday for putting items on the November ballot without a court order.

Public-health groups opposing the ballot measure preferred the bill version without exemptions. Their opposition could be a major blow to the ban’s chances of passing. The low turnout characteristic of off-year elections could also harm the ban’s chances.

It’s unclear, though, how the vote will be affected by the special election that day to replace former state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, who resigned last Tuesday due to a federal corruption scandal.

The county ban would take effect in January 2011.

“If you had asked me two months ago if I thought the voters in St. Louis County would have this opportunity in November, I would have said no,” said Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the University. “So I think it’s a significant step forward.”

The signature virtually assures the ban will go on the county ballot, meaning students registered to vote in Missouri who live west of the Brookings parking lot can vote on it. The bill’s sponsor, County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, has said the final step of getting a court order is all but a formality.

The measure would ban smoking in most indoor public places in St. Louis County. The ban would exempt bars—places where 75 percent of sales come from alcohol—casino floors and smoking lounges at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Areas west of the Brookings lot, including a major chunk of the Delmar Loop, would fall under the ban.

On Aug. 4, the University pushed the County Council to put as comprehensive a ban on the ballot as possible. Despite the final measure’s exemptions, Blaine said the University supports putting it on the ballot and letting voters decide the issue for themselves.

“I think the University would encourage any individual to educate themselves about this issue and make a decision on their own,” Blaine said.

The final bill was its third version, after weeks of heated debate, close votes and bill amendments.

Read Student Life on Monday for full details.

Washington University Associate Professor of Medicine Walton Sumner speaks out in favor of the County Council’s smoking ban bill at the County Council meeting Tuesday night. Sumner is one of several school community members who have spoken in favor of the ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

The St. Louis County Council voted 4-3 Tuesday evening to approve a bill that would put a smoking ban on the November ballot, three weeks after Washington University endorsed the bill.

The bill sponsor, Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University, praised the council’s vote. The bill’s passage “means the same thing [to students] as it means to citizens of the entire county, that we’ll have cleaner air,” Fraser said after the meeting. “They can go to restaurants and go to places where there will be clean air.”

County Executive Charles Dooley said he will decide in the coming days whether he’ll sign the bill. If he signs it, the county must get a court order to put the measure on the ballot. The measure would ban smoking in all indoor public places except bars—places where alcohol makes up 75 percent of sales—casinos and certain spaces at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

At the Aug. 4 council meeting, Blaine gave the University statement endorsing the bill. Blaine said the University wants the council to protect workers and customers from the ill health effects of secondhand smoke with the strictest ban possible.

“We recognize the dangers posed by secondhand smoke, and as an employer, the University has taken its own steps to protect our workers and eliminate smoking on our campuses,” Blaine told the council, mentioning the school’s recently announced tobacco ban for all five campuses.

Students living on campus or in St. Louis County and registered to vote in Missouri would be able to vote on the ban. Most of the Danforth Campus lies in St. Louis County, as do many popular social spots for students, including most of the Delmar Loop.

Many school community members are praising both the bill and the University’s endorsement, especially in light of the University’s tobacco ban, which takes effect in July 2010.

“It’s good that someone spoke up and said this was in the interest of our employees,” said Martha Bhattacharya, a postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, who also spoke in favor of the county bill on Aug. 4.

But the bill has been controversial, with several crowded and heated council meetings last summer. Opponents say a ban will harm local businesses and perhaps force some to close.

Walton Sumner, associate professor of medicine, said he understands libertarians’ concerns over a ban’s potential economic effects but said he supports the county’s bill.

“I hope that the libertarians in the debate will acknowledge that there are property seizures going on every time a smoker or non-smoker gets sick in a room that is thick with smoke,” said Sumner, who spoke before the council Tuesday night. “Part of our job is to protect public health, and I hope we get there.”

Many students approved of the University’s tobacco ban. Others, including Student Union, criticized officials for not seeking student input and said the University was being too restrictive.

Some who opposed the University’s ban actually support or are open to a county ban because the University’s ban will be more restrictive, applying to all tobacco products and both indoors and outdoors on all five campuses.

“I don’t think they should ban smoking on campus. I think that’s a bad idea,” said junior Kenny Hofmeister, who criticized the University’s ban and the lack of student input in the University’s decision in an op-ed submission on April 17. “But I don’t disagree with banning smoking city- or countywide, as long as it’s indoors.”

Some students support a county smoking ban and don’t oppose the University’s ban, but do oppose the lack of student input in the school’s decision.

Another factor influencing campus opinion on the bill is the large number of people at the University from states and cities with bans, including Bhattacharya, a former San Francisco, Calif., resident.

“When I got here, that was one of the things that really affected where I chose to go in the area, and to this day I haven’t tried certain restaurants,” Bhattacharya said.

Blaine acknowledged that the county ban would further reduce the number of places where smokers living on campus can go. But he said there will still be some places.

“I just think the University’s position is that [where students go to smoke] shouldn’t be in close proximity to those who don’t want to be exposed to that hazard,” Blaine said.

Opinions on whether the University should have taken a stance on the bill are mostly positive. Those who disagree with the University said the school has the right to voice its stance.

Nancy Mueller, associate director of the Center for Tobacco Policy Research (CTPR) in the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, said CTPR supports the concept of comprehensive policies to protect citizens from exposure to secondhand smoke, though the Center did not take a specific position on the county ordinance.

Smoking bans popped up across the region over the summer. In July, Clayton enacted a smoking ban with no exemptions for indoor public places, effective July 2010.

The city of St. Louis is also considering a public indoor smoking ban. The bill, sponsored by Alderwoman Lyda Krewson, D-28th Ward, would impose a ban without a ballot measure. St. Louis includes the medical school and the Central West End, a popular social spot for students.

St. Louis’ ban would only take effect if St. Louis County enacts its own ban. If both bans succeed, all University campuses and most surrounding indoor public places would become smoke-free.

The University, Blaine said, has endorsed only the county bill. But he added that the University hopes that “other municipalities will take these issues into consideration.”

Other anti-smoking measures the University has backed in the past include a 2006 state referendum to raise tobacco taxes. The University invested large amounts of money to promote the measure, Blaine said, because Missouri’s tobacco tax was the second lowest in the United States at the time. The measure failed by a 51 to 49 percent vote.

Blaine said the University also backed a failed effort that same year by the County Council to pass a smoking ban.

Correction: For the record (8/26/09, 1:23 p.m.)
An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that the Center for Tobacco Policy Research was located at the medical school; in fact, it is located in the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. Further, an earlier version of this article stated that the CTPR supported St. Louis County’s indoor smoking ban bill. While the CTPR supports the concept of smoking bans, they do not endorse specific pieces of legislation. Student Life regrets the errors.

Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the School of Medicine, said at Tuesday’s council meeting that the University applauded the council “for tackling the important public health issue of clean indoor air.”

“We encourage the council to keep this issue moving forward and to place a smoking ban that is as broad and as comprehensive as possible on the November ballot,” Blaine told the council. “We believe all individuals deserve the right to work in an environment free of secondhand smoke.”

The bill, sponsored by Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, would put a smoking ban for all indoor public places in the county except bars and casinos on the November ballot.

The council voted 4-3 on Tuesday to move forward with the bill, and a final vote was to occur on Aug. 18.

But Fraser said Friday that the council will reintroduce the bill next Tuesday due to a procedural problem this past Tuesday that could open the bill to a legal challenge. The decision pushes a potential final vote to Aug. 25, likely causing the council to miss the deadline that same day for putting items on the ballot. In such a case, if County Executive Charles Dooley then signs the measure, the County Council must get a court order to put the measure on the ballot.

Fraser originally wanted a bill with no exemptions for casinos and bars, but that version did not have enough support from the seven-member council.

The University’s support for a countywide ban comes after the school announced a tobacco ban for all of its campuses, effective in July 2010.

While some in the school community praised the ban, others criticized the administration for approving the ban without student input. Student Union Senate passed a resolution late last school year objecting to the lack of student input.

Blaine was one of about 65 people to address the council at the heated three-hour meeting.

Supporters of the bill said a ban would improve public health by reducing patrons and workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke. Supporters maintained that a ban would not harm local businesses but attract some new customers, who avoid those places because they allow smoking.

Opponents, meanwhile, said that a ban would drive business away from the county and force some businesses to close. Opponents also said the ban would violate business owners’ right to choose whether to allow smoking.

Smoking bans have popped up across the region this summer. Clayton approved a public indoor smoking ban in July with no exemptions. Clayton’s ban goes into effect in July 2010.

Other cities considering bans include St. Louis, Kirkwood and Wildwood. St. Louis’ ban would go into effect only if St. Louis County approves its own.

Read Student Life this fall for full details on this story.