Website │ E-Mail Me │ Past May Reports

The Week of Feb. 12, 2024

On the Floor

This week, we debated Senate Joint Resolution 74, which would make it harder to pass initiative petitions in Missouri. The Missouri Constitution currently sets a simple majority of the statewide vote for ratifying constitutional amendments. The latest version of SJR 74 would require future amendments to win both a statewide majority and majorities in at least five of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. The concurrent majority requirement would apply to both amendments placed on the ballot by the Legislature and those proposed by initiative petition.

My colleagues and I stood against this bill twice this week. To put it plainly, I would call this bill a form of legal and political oppression. This legislation aims to take away our state’s one person, one vote standard. The initiative petition process is designed to give Missourians a form of direct democracy to enact change when they feel their elected officials aren’t properly representing them. I do not think as lawmakers we should be proposing taking away the people’s power. The bill has been put aside for further discussion with pending amendments to require that SJR 74 will only go into effect if it passes with a majority of the votes statewide as well as a majority of the votes cast in at least a majority of the state’s Congressional districts.

The requirements in SJR 74 could lead to situations in which a proposed amendment overwhelmingly wins statewide with strong support in highly populated urban and suburban areas but still fails because of narrow losses in rural areas. A mathematical analysis of an earlier version of SJR 74 conducted by the Missouri Independent showed it would be possible for as few as 20% of voters statewide to defeat an amendment supported by the other 80%. Similar legislation, House Joint Resolution 86, cleared the House Elections Committee on Feb. 13 by a party-line vote of 11-4, with the minority party opposed. The full House of Representatives is expected to debate the measure in the coming weeks.

If both legislative chambers approve one of the concurrent majority measures, it automatically would go before Missouri voters in November. However, the governor could exercise his authority to move the election to August. Barring an amendment, ratification would require approval from just a simple majority of voters statewide. 

Supporters of this legislation want to put the issue before voters in August in hopes of thwarting a petition to provide state constitutional protections for abortion and other reproductive rights. An initiative petition is currently being circulated to put the abortion issue on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot.

Bills and Committees

Judiciary Committee:

The committee heard three bills this week. Senate Bill 984 establishes the “Intoxicating Cannabinoid Control Act.” Under this bill, intoxicating cannabinoid products will be considered marijuana so it can be regulated by the Department of Health and Senior Services to ensure testing, packaging and labeling requirements are implemented to help prevent the consumption of these products by children. Senate Bill 1096 establishes procedures for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. Senate Bill 1221 modifies provisions relating to estate planning, including notice for transfers of the principal place of administration of a trust, electronic wills and estate planning that happened during the COVID-19 state of emergency.

The committee also voted to pass Senate Bill 1266, which allows prosecuting and circuit attorney offices to use funds from the "Pretrial Witness Protection Services Fund.” Funds are currently used to provide for the security of witnesses and immediate family members during criminal proceedings.

Appropriations Committee:

The following departments and offices shared their funding requests for the Fiscal Year 2025 state operating budget in this week’s hearing:

 Other News

Kansas City Super Bowl Parade

On Wednesday this week, a terrible tragedy took place shortly after the parade celebrating the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory. A mass shooting at this sort of event will always be shocking, but unfortunately it has now become commonplace in America and Missouri. My prayers continue to go out to those injured and their families. I am grateful for the swift response by law enforcement and their continued efforts to reunite families in the wake of this mass shooting. It is clear now more than ever that our state needs to work towards solutions to address the glaring gun violence crisis. For anyone impacted by this tragedy, I would encourage you to reach out for help by calling the 9-8-8 hotline.

High court again sides with Planned Parenthood on funding

The Missouri Supreme Court on Feb. 14 unanimously ruled the General Assembly can’t use the budget process to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for providing women’s health care services unrelated to abortion. Given that the court had sided with Planned Parenthood in a similar case in 2020, the outcome of the latest litigation was expected.

At issue is a provision some lawmakers routinely insert into appropriations bills purporting to prohibit organizations affiliated with abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursement for non-abortion services. Because Missouri outlaws abortion in nearly all circumstances, no Planned Parenthood clinics in the state offer the procedure. However, affiliated clinics in other states continue to provide abortions. Medicaid funding for abortion is prohibited by federal law.

In both the current Planned Parenthood case and its 2020 predecessor, the Missouri Supreme Court followed its longstanding precedent holding that appropriation bills must be limited to appropriating funds and cannot establish policy, which must be done by separate legislation. 

In a concurring opinion, Judge Zel Fischer, who was the lone dissenter in the 2020 case, agreed precedent compelled this outcome but encouraged the court to reevaluate its precedent in the future and find appropriation bills are exempt from the Missouri Constitution’s requirement that bills be limited to a single subject. The case is Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, et al., v. Robert Knodell, et al.

Supreme Court upholds new Missouri Senate districts

In a split 5-2 ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court on Feb. 14 rejected claims that the state’s new state Senate district map violates the state constitution by splitting Buchanan County and the city of Hazelwood among multiple districts.

A commission of six appellate judges created the new districts in 2022 to reflect population shifts under the 2020 U.S. Census. Because only half of the Senate’s 34 seats are up for election every cycle, the current map was used to elect senators from even-numbered districts in 2022. Senators representing odd-numbered districts will be elected under the plan for the first time this year, with candidate filing for the Aug. 6 party primaries opening Feb. 27. 

The plaintiffs, who included residents of Buchanan County and Hazelwood, sued to block the districts from being used for this year’s elections and sought to have them redrawn, arguing the current lines dilute their communities’ voting clout. Although the state constitution discourages the splitting of county and municipal boundaries, it permits it when necessary to comply with other constitutional factors.

In its ruling, written by Judge Kelly Broniec, the Missouri Supreme Court majority sided with the trial judge in finding the constitution doesn’t require perfectly drawn districts and that the plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence the judicial commission’s Senate map violates constitutional standards.

Writing in dissent, Judge W. Brent Powell said he would have found for the plaintiffs since they had shown it was possible to craft Senate districts that kept Buchanan County and Hazelwood intact while complying with other constitutional requirements. Judge Paul Wilson joined the dissent. The case is Clara Faatz, et al., v. John Ashcroft.

Bills seek to punish presence of undocumented immigrants

The House Homeland Security Committee on Feb. 12 considered legislation that would make an undocumented immigrant’s mere presence in Missouri a crime and allow those accused of other offenses – including municipal ordinance violations – to be charged with felony trespassing.

House Bill 2470 would create the crime of “illegal entry” for an undocumented immigrant to enter the state. A first violation would be a misdemeanor, with subsequent violations elevated to felonies. The bill also establishes the felony trespassing charge for immigrants who commit other offenses, no matter how minor. In addition, the bill creates a felony crime carrying a minimum penalty of 10 years in prison for knowingly harboring an undocumented immigrant.

The committee also heard two other similar bills – House Bill 2523 and House Bill 2367 – that are limited to imposing felony trespassing charges on undocumented immigrants accused of other offenses. The panel took no immediate action on any of the bills.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Thank you for your interest in the legislative process. I look forward to hearing from you on the issues that are important to you this legislative session. If there is anything my office can do for you, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 573-751-3599.