Website │ E-Mail Me │ Past May Reports

The Week of Jan. 26, 2026

Bills and Committees

Judiciary Committee:

The committee heard several bills this week:

Commerce Committee:

The committee heard three bills this week. Senate Bill 838 would add “nuclear power sources” to the definition of “renewable energy sources.” Senate Bill 914 would modify provisions relating to sewage regulation. Senate Bill 917 would create provisions relating to a post-consumer paint recycling program.

Appropriations Committee:

The following departments and offices shared their funding requests for the fiscal year 2027 state operating budget in this week’s hearing:

Other News

2026 Election Cycle Standoff

The validity and implementation timeline of the new congressional maps that were passed by the Legislature currently sits in a legal standoff, causing confusion for voters. While state officials - including the governor and attorney general - claim the new maps went into effect in December 2025 and are to be used for the upcoming midterm election cycle, there is currently a citizen led referendum effort (more than 300,000 signatures gathered) to put the issue to voters. A pending lawsuit claims the district changes should have been put on hold immediately upon the submission of the signatures, while the defense says the signatures must be verified first. 

Despite the legal ambiguity and clear opposition from voters, the new map is currently being implemented for candidate filings, which will begin in a few weeks. 

House committee considers plan to hike sales taxes

On Jan. 28, the House Commerce Committee heard a pair of constitutional amendments that would nullify existing restrictions on taxation and empower state lawmakers to impose a massive sales tax hike on all goods and services. The committee took no immediate vote, but swift action to advance the measures is anticipated since the issue is a priority for the governor.

The identical proposals would nullify existing state constitutional prohibitions against taxing services or real estate transactions and broadly authorize the Missouri General Assembly “to impose taxes on transactions involving any goods and services.” The legislation also would exempt sales tax expansions from being subject to provisions of the Hancock Amendment that limit growth in state revenue and prohibit lawmakers from imposing major tax hikes without voter approval.

In addition, the measures would override existing constitutional restrictions that require fuel taxes to be earmarked for road and bridge projects and grant the director of the Missouri Department of Revenue unprecedented and sweeping constitutional authority to unilaterally define the meaning of state sales tax laws – a power typically reserved for lawmakers and the courts, not executive branch officials.

The speaker of the House of Representatives. sponsoring what is expected to be the lead measure, House Joint Resolution 174. The other proposal is House Joint Resolution 173.

The revenue generated by the massive expansion of sales taxes would be used to eliminate the state’s individual income tax, which currently provides about two-thirds of the state’s general revenue fund. The move would drastically shift the tax burden from affluent Missourians to lower- and middle-income taxpayers, who would experience an overall tax increase.

During the hearing, support for the measures was largely limited to conservative groups opposed to income taxes, while the response from the business community was tepid at best. Although groups such as Associated Industries of Missouri and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry were generally supportive of lowering income taxes, they expressed significant concerns about the sweeping scope of the proposed sales tax hike.

The Missouri Association of Realtors opposed the measures and promised to fund an opposition campaign if one makes it on the statewide ballot. The group spearheaded both the 2010 initiative petition that amended the constitution to ban taxes on real estate transactions and a follow-up measure in 2016 that prohibited taxing services.

The Missouri AARP also testified against the measure, saying it would prove especially harmful to senior citizens. Since Social Security checks aren’t currently subject to state income taxes, senior citizens would receive no benefit from the tax’s elimination while being smacked with significantly higher sales taxes on their purchases.

If it clears both legislative chambers, HJR 174 would automatically go on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot for voters consideration. However, the governor could exercise his constitutional authority to set the vote for the Aug. 4 primary.

Court strikes down law on ballot wording, injunction appeals

On Jan. 23, a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court struck down a 2025 state law that sought to restrict judicial tinkering with deceptive ballot language and authorize the attorney general to skip normal procedures to immediately appeal judicial injunctions blocking state laws. The court ruled lawmakers violated constitutional prohibitions against bills being changed from their original purpose or containing multiple subjects.

A Cole County judge previously had ruled the injunction provision unconstitutional on equal protection grounds since it granted the special appeal power only to the attorney general and no other litigants. However, it upheld the remainder of the legislation, Senate Bill 22 (2025).

But the Supreme Court said that because the injunction provision had nothing to do with the bill’s original purpose of “relating to ballot summaries,” the whole bill had to be struck down since the state was unable to demonstrate that lawmakers would have passed the overall bill without the unconstitutional provision.

The Legislature enacted the ballot language provisions of SB 22 in response to several court ruling in recent years striking down deceptive questions written by lawmakers or the secretary of state’s office. The bill granted the secretary of state three chances to revise language deemed unfair by a trial court before the court could write its own question.

The only time this process was used was on a proposed constitutional amendment lawmakers passed last year to repeal protections for reproductive rights that voters ratified in 2024. After a trial judge ruled the language lawmakers prepared for the measure was unfair, the secretary of state wrote two more versions before the judge finally signed off. The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District later ruled the secretary’s last version was unfair and completely rewrote it. The Western District’s version will be used when the measure goes on the ballot Nov. 3 as Amendment 3.

The injunction provisions, which were added to SB 22 later in the legislative process, were intended to empower the attorney general to challenge a trial judge’s order blocking various state anti-abortion laws that were rendered unconstitutional by voters in 2024. The attorney general ‘s appeal attempts failed as appellate courts allowed the injunctions to remain in effect.

The case challenging SB 22 is Sean Soendker Nicholson v. State of Missouri.

Chief justice’s speech canceled after some senators protest

In retaliation for ruling legislation unconstitutional just days earlier, the annual State of the Judiciary address by Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice W. Brent Powell was cancelled minutes before it was scheduled to begin on Jan. 28 amid a boycott by some senators of the majority party.

The chief justice authored the unanimous Jan. 23 ruling striking down a state law enacted last year that sought to limit the authority of courts to rewrite deceptive language prepared for statewide ballot measures and grant the state attorney general unique powers to challenge preliminary injunctions blocking state laws.

The sponsor of SB 22 was one of several senators to take to the Senate floor on the day of Chief Justice Powell’s scheduled speech to rail against the court for this and several other rulings in recent years declaring laws passed by the Legislature to be unconstitutional

These senators called for changes in the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, which significantly limits the role of partisan politics in judicial selection. Lawmakers last attempted to amend the Missouri Constitution to weaken the nonpartisan plan in 2012, but Missouri voters destroyed their proposal with an astounding 76% voting against it. Possibly the most lopsided defeat of a statewide ballot measure in state history.

During the annual speech before a joint session of the General Assembly, the chief justice typically outlines general issues facing the judiciary and its goals for the coming year. While it isn’t uncommon for lawmakers to take issue with the court’s decisions, until now such disagreements had typically remained respectful.

Governor pulls ethics panel picks over redistricting dispute

On Jan. 27, the governor was forced to withdraw two of his appointees to the Missouri Ethics Commission following a dustup in the state Senate over which boundaries for Missouri’s congressional districts are currently in effect. Under state law, no two members of the six-member commission, which handles complaints involving state conflict of interest and campaign finance laws, can reside in the same congressional district. 

After the Legislature redrew the state’s eight congressional districts earlier in September to try to gain a partisan advantage in the upcoming elections, opponents of the new congressional map gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto to the Nov. 3 statewide ballot. Under the Missouri Constitution and a century of state Supreme Court precedent, the new districts are suspended until and unless approved by voters.

However, the secretary of state and attorney general falsely have claimed the new congressional districts are nonetheless in effect and therein lies the problem for the governor’s ethics nominees. While the four nominees live in different districts under the 2022 congressional map that remains in effect due to the referendum petition, they are doubled up in two districts under the 2025 version.

After senators pointed out that the governor must agree that the 2025 map is suspended since he appointed his nominees based on the 2022 map, he moved to pull two of the doubled-up appointees.

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.