Website | Newsroom | Columns | Legislation
This week, I hosted the second annual Sex Trafficking Awareness Day in the Capitol. There were thirty organizations in attendance that presented exhibits during the informational assembly. Also present were a number of individuals to advocate for sex trafficking legislation to their senators and representatives. It is my belief that in order to combat sex trafficking, we have to raise awareness about the seriousness of the issue and promote support for those affected. St. Louis has been noted as one of the top trafficking destinations in the country; we have a responsibility to address this growing concern in St. Louis’ own back yard. We have to stand up for the most vulnerable in our communities, in our cities and in our state. I look forward to continuing to advocate for survivors of abuse, sexual violence, stalking and other forms of harassment.
On the Floor
On Monday, Jan. 23, the Missouri Senate began discussing the contentious issue of Right to Work through Senate Bill 19, and debate continued for the duration of the week. Before granting Senate Bill 19’s final passage, the majority party rejected an effort by the minority party to put the measure on the statewide ballot. The majority party in the House of Representatives likewise blocked efforts to let Missouri voters have a say on the issue. Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a Right-to-Work proposal when it last appeared on the ballot in 1978.
Senator Nasheed vehemently opposes any legislation that would weaken the clout of workers and belittle their rights and bargaining efforts. Last year, the senator spoke against House Bill 1891 — what she called the “paycheck deception” bill. Thanks to the vigor of Sen. Nasheed and others, HB 1891 did not become law, which continued the strong protection for workers’ bargaining efforts. Like the debate last year, this week’s debate focused on the serious and unintended consequences of chipping away the means for workers to negotiate with their employers.
The number of senators that voted against SB 19 is more than the number (in total and from the majority party) that voted against the Senate’s version of HB 1891. But that is not enough. And through a long and exhausting week of debate, Sen. Nasheed remains strong in her stance: Right to Work is wrong for Missouri.
Bills & Committee
Senate Bill 52 – The bill was heard in the Committee on Education on Tuesday, Jan. 24. The bill would require public institutions of higher education to develop and implement policies that advise students and staff through suicide-prevention programs available on and off campus. These policies would also inform students and staff about ways to identify and address the needs of students exhibiting suicidal behavior.
Senate Bill 341 – On Tuesday, Jan. 24, the bill was filed on the floor. This Juvenile Prostitution Offenses bill would protect underage individuals who are suspected of prostitution. And it would provide harsher penalties for those committing heinous crimes connected to sex trafficking. It would prohibit the state of Missouri from charging underage persons with the offense of prostitution. This bill would also heighten the charge for those patronizing prostitutes. A Class A misdemeanor will be increased to a Class E felony in the cases where the individual patronized is 15, 16 or 17 years old. A Class E felony will be changed to a Class D felony when the individual patronized is 14 years old or younger.
Senate Bill 344 – On Wednesday, Jan. 25, the bill was filed on the floor. It recognizes those affected by sex trafficking as victims of a crime of coercion, not criminals. This bill would allow the victims of sex trafficking to have prostitution charges expunged from their record.
Senate Bill 217 – The bill will be heard in the Economic Development Committee on Jan. 31. This bill would add donations to soup kitchens to current tax credit for donations to food pantries.
“Senate Bill 217 is a step in the right direction to address the issue of homelessness not only in St. Louis but also across the state of Missouri,” said Sen. Nasheed. “I have filed bills like Senate Bill 217 that pertain to homelessness in our state; and I have no doubt that these bills will help improve our city.”
Appropriations
On Wednesday, Jan. 25, the Appropriations Committee began hearing public testimony regarding funding for the state’s departments.
Other News
On Monday, Jan. 23, the Senate gathered at the local bowling alley for some bipartisan fun. The annual Senate Bowling Tournament, hosted by Sen. Kehoe, raised $7,800 for the St. Raymond’s Society.
House Passes Resolution Rejecting Pay Increases
The House of Representatives on Jan. 23 voted 154-5-1 to reject pay increases that are set to take effect on July 1 for statewide elected officials and lawmakers. The House sent the rejection resolution, HCR 4, to the Senate, which must also pass it by Feb. 1 to stop the raises from kicking in as scheduled.
Under the Missouri Constitution, the state Salary Commission sets the pay rates for statewide elected officials, lawmakers and judges every two years. The new rates automatically take effect unless timely rejected by two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate.
The Salary Commission’s latest report, issued in December 2016, calls for the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor and state treasurer to receive 8-percent pay raises in each of the next two fiscal years. Lawmakers would get a pair of 2.5 percent bumps — the first in FY 2018, which starts July 1, and the second in FY 2019.
The pay rate denoted in the commission’s 2010 report was the last the Legislature has allowed to take effect. While it provided no pay hikes for lawmakers and statewide elected officials, it did authorize a one-year pay increase for judges. In recent years, however, judicial officials have argued that the 2010 report provides judges with automatic annual pay increases, even if the Legislature rejects future Salary Commission reports.
After some resistance, the Republican-controlled Legislature finally acquiesced to that point of view last year by providing funding for the unscheduled pay hikes. As result, judges will receive a roughly 1-percent pay hike this year even if HCR 4 passes.
Chief Justice Disputes Need for Civil Courts Changes
Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Breckenridge on Jan. 24 disputed the need to overhaul laws governing civil litigation in the state, noting that only about 5 percent of civil cases in Missouri involve tort claims, such as those involving wrongful death of personal injury. These claims can lead to large damage awards. Breckenridge made her comments during the annual State of the Judiciary address before a joint session of the General Assembly.
“Our citizens can be proud of our courts, where they go to resolve their disputes peaceably and where their constitutional rights are protected …,” Breckenridge said. “We, more than anyone, want our courts to live up to their responsibilities to properly administer justice.”
A week earlier, the new governor had described Missouri as a “judicial hellhole” for businesses that are sued for wrongdoing, although he offered no evidence to back up his claim that corporate defendants are treated unfairly in Missouri. Nonetheless, the Republican-controlled Legislature is advancing various bills that would make it more difficult and costly for injured parties to sue over alleged wrongdoing unless they have substantial financial means.
New Attorney General Refuses to follow State Law
The new attorney general has offered shifting rationales for why he believes he doesn’t have to follow a state law that requires the attorney general to live in Jefferson City. Hawley, who has never held public office, lives nearly 25 miles away in Columbia and has said he won’t move.
State law says the attorney general “shall reside at the seat of government and keep his office in the Supreme Court building” — both of which are in Jefferson City. When the St. Louis Post-Dispatch first reported the residency violation on Jan. 23, the attorney general initially claimed the law only requires him to have his official workplace in Jefferson City. A day later he shifted his analysis, arguing he can continue to live in Columbia because it is “within an ordinary commuting distance” of the capital.
The new attorney general is believed to be the first Missouri attorney general in history to refuse to comply with the residency requirement. Critics have said that he can either serve as attorney general or live in Columbia, because the law doesn’t allow him to simultaneously do both. He must choose which one he wants more.
However, it doesn’t appear that much can be done to force the attorney general to comply with the law. The normal remedy when an elected official is in violation of the law is for the attorney general to file a writ of quo warranto to remove the official from office, an action the attorney general is unlikely to take against himself.
Court Upholds County’s Ban on Traffic Cameras
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, on Jan. 24 upheld a 2014 amendment to the St. Charles County Charter that prohibits both the county government and municipalities within the county from operating automated traffic camera enforcement systems. The lawsuit claimed the voter-approved amendment unconstitutionally encroaches on the authority of cities, a notion the three-judge panel unanimously rejected.
While counties typically lack power over the affairs of cities within their boundaries, St. Charles County has a charter form of government, and the Missouri Constitution specifically allows such counties to adopt charter provisions granting them authority over municipal services and functions.
The use of traffic enforcement cameras to catch red-light or speeding violations essentially has been blocked throughout Missouri since the Missouri Supreme Court issued a trio of rulings in August 2015. These rulings make it practically impossible for cities to use such cameras without changes in state law that the Legislature as of yet has shown little interest in enacting. The current case regarding this issue is Jim Pepper, et al., v. St. Charles County.