|
House sends bill to governor renewing taxes critical to funding Missouri Medicaidby Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent A set of medical provider taxes that fund a large portion of Missouri’s Medicaid program won quick approval Wednesday in the House, two weeks after it took 41 hours for the bill to pass in the state Senate. The controversies that stalled the bill in the Senate received scant attention during Wednesday’s debate, except for being cited as an example of what to avoid in the future. The bill taxes hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes and ambulance services to raise about $1.3 billion for Medicaid services and leverage nearly $3 billion in federal matching funds for the $17 billion program. “This shouldn’t be used as a hostage in a terrorist negotiation,” said House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat. The renewal bill extends the taxes for five years, one of the longest sunsets since the tax was first enacted in 1991. Since then, the levies have been renewed 17 times, most recently for three years in 2021 during a special session. For the second time, renewal of the taxes became enmeshed in the debates over abortion and whether Planned Parenthood can receive reimbursements for services covered by Medicaid. Members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus tried, and failed, to delay action on the provider taxes until a bill targeting Planned Parenthood was signed by Gov. Mike Parson and a proposal making it harder to pass a constitutional amendment is finished and set for a vote later this year. Parson did sign the Planned Parenthood bill, but almost a week after the filibuster ended. And the record set by the Freedom Caucus, by holding the Senate floor for 41 hours, has been surpassed by Democrats this week as they block a vote on the constitutional majority changes. As he asked for support, House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, a Carthage Republican, said the bill’s importance to financing Medicaid was the only issue to concern members. The taxes, he said, “have become an integral part” of the Medicaid program and renewal “is very critical” to balancing the $51.7 billion budget passed last week The debate and 136-16 vote took about five minutes. Quade said there was no controversy in the House on the bill. “Most of us… absolutely, desperately want this passed today,” she said. Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter.
0 Comments
Key lawmakers say Missouri budget talks close to completion as deadline approachesby Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent The most difficult Missouri budget process in years entered the final 48 hours before the constitutional deadline for spending bills with no final agreement on how much the state should spend in the coming year. Missouri House Republicans, who hold an overwhelming majority in the lower chamber, caucused behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon for about 30 minutes for a progress report from Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith. When he emerged, he said there are still several points of contention with the state Senate that need to be resolved. “We are moving in a good direction,” said Smith, a Republican from Carthage running for state treasurer. “My priorities are the balanced budget, the bottom line, those types of things, and as long as we can work within those parameters, working towards a solution, I think we’re in a good place right now.” Need to get in touch?Have a news tip?Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Lincoln Hough said the remaining differences were over the wording of restrictive provisions, some of which set maximum rates for services such as child care and others that are more general, including a provision penalizing cities that enact immigration sanctuary policies. Hough, a Springfield Republican running for lieutenant governor, said he still expects to meet the 6 p.m. Friday deadline for spending bills. “I don’t know what the timeframe is or I would tell you, but I think we’re gonna be in really good shape,” Hough said. “We’ll be in really good shape getting to the numbers that we all want to be at, like within the (consensus revenue estimate) and a healthy cash balance to carryover for next year.” Throughout Wednesday, there was anticipation that the Senate budget debate was at hand. The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m., then quickly recessed until 2 p.m. with Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin saying the debate would commence “if the budget is ready.” It was not ready when the chamber reconvened. After several hours of work on other bills, and another recess, the Senate adjourned for the night without action on any spending bill. The chamber is scheduled to return at 9 a.m. At that time, there will be 33 hours left to complete spending bills. This week’s negotiations began with significant differences between the House and Senate on how much to spend overall, whether to dip into the massive state surplus for ongoing programs and which of more than 300 earmarked items will make the final plan. The House-passed budget spends $50.8 billion, including $14.9 billion in general revenue. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $53 billion spending package, with $15.7 billion in general revenue. In the budget proposed in January, Gov. Mike Parson called for $52.7 billion in spending, with $15 billion coming from general revenue. If the regular process was being followed, the full Senate would have already debated the budget and this week would be the time for final negotiations in a formal bipartisan conference committee with members from both chambers. Instead, the rapidly approaching deadline means Smith and Hough have been negotiating behind closed doors, keeping Republican leadership informed but leaving House Democrats complaining they have been frozen out. Democrats have been told nothing about the negotiations between Hough and Smith, said state State Rep. Peter Merideth of St. Louis, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “This is just one more step in what has been the least transparent budget process in my time here,” said Merideth, who joined the House in 2017. Democrats complained during committee work that Smith delivered his plan late, with little time to go over the details before being forced to vote. Republicans knew going into the session that the budget would have to navigate through the political ambitions of key players and the stall tactics of the Senate Freedom Caucus, Merideth said. “We’ve known from the time we were elected what the deadline was,” Merideth said. “They’ve known from the beginning how to get it there. And again, Republicans have failed to do that.” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUBSCRIBE
The deadline, a week before the end of the session, has been in place since 1988. Only once, in 1997, have lawmakers missed that deadline and been forced to complete the budget in a special session. This year, the deadline is looming despite efforts that began in December to prevent last-minute votes. House appropriations subcommittees began meeting Dec. 5. But instead of sending its proposals to the Senate before spring break in mid-March, the House completed its initial votes on April 3, almost a week later than it did so last year. Factional warfare in the state Senate, including a 41-hour filibuster last week, means the Senate has yet to vote on any spending bills except one that provides $2.2 million to support a National Guard deployment to the Texas-Mexico border. Hough has been responsive to House Democrats, Merideth said, but the lack of participation in budget talks means they will be forced to choose between voting for the bills to help meet the constitutional deadline or voting against them because of uncertainty about what is included. “We’re all aware that we’re likely to have to vote on something that we don’t know the details of,” Merideth said. “And that’s not good government and I think any one of us would be justified in a no vote.” Hough said the process isn’t very different from previous years, lacking only the formality of a conference committee. “Essentially, we’ve been conferencing right since last week,” Hough said. “We just didn’t go through the show of a formal ‘let’s all sit down and show you this’ conference on all these differences.” A key point for Smith has been to set ongoing general revenue spending at or below expected revenue for the coming year. After more than two years of double-digit growth in revenues, receipts slowed last year. Growth continued, but at the reduced rate of 2.7% in the year that ended June 30. The consensus when the year began was that revenues would decline slightly in the current fiscal year and remain essentially flat the following year. Growth so far has defied that estimate, with revenues growing at 2.7% through April 30. If that rate is sustained until June 30, it would add about $500 million in unexpected revenue to the state’s coffers and again in the following year. Despite slower growth, the surplus of all funds available to lawmakers has not declined considerably in the past year. The state had $6.4 billion on hand on April 30, down from $7.8 billion at the end of the 2023 fiscal year. That does not include $1.4 billion set aside for construction on Interstate 70 or $300 million in a fund for major construction at the state Capitol Building. One way Smith got the House budget total for ongoing spending below the estimated revenue is by designating $807 million in the operating budget as one-time expenditures. The list includes big items, like $373.5 million for improvements on Interstate 44 and $100 million for low-traffic rural roads, as well as small ones, like $18,395 for operational expenses of the Agriculture Business Development Division in the Department of Agriculture. SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
DONATE
Smith also designated the 2% boost his budget included for higher education institutions and about $14 million for public school transportation costs as one-time spending. That is a signal that the money may not be included in the following year’s budget. “Sustainability is the name of the game for me this year,” Smith said. “We need to have a balanced budget and by that I mean we need to balance our expenditures, our ongoing expenditures within the revenue estimates.” Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter. Missouri Independent: Bills making it harder to amend state constitution proceed in Missouri House4/4/2024
Bills making it harder to amend state constitution proceed in Missouri Houseby Anna Spoerre, Missouri Independent Two bills seeking to make it more difficult to amend the state constitution through the initiative petition process advanced through the Missouri House this week. On Wednesday, legislation sponsored by Republican state Rep. John Black of Marshfield was approved on a 106-49 vote. The only Republican to vote against the measure was House Majority Leader Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit. Earlier in the week, a House committee approved a different version of the bill sponsored by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman that the Senate passed last month. If either version is approved by both chambers, the question would go on the statewide ballot in either August or November. Citizen-led initiative petitions currently require signatures from 8% of voters in five of the state’s eight congressional districts. To pass once on the ballot, a statewide vote of 50% plus one is required — a simple majority vote. Both the House and Senate versions make the process harder, but in very different ways. The House joint resolution would: The Senate joint resolution would: Require that constitutional amendments pass by both a simple majority of votes statewide and a majority of votes in at least a majority of the votes in Missouri’s congressional districts. Require the General Assembly to have the approval of at least four-sevenths of the members in each chamber to make any modifications to citizen-led constitutional amendments within two years of when it goes into effect.
‘This is about reproductive freedom’
Last May, House Speaker Dean Plocher, a Republican from Des Peres, said his party anticipated an initiative petition to legalize abortionwould be brought forward and would pass. Since then, acampaign to legalize abortion to the point of fetal viability in Missouri has raised millions of dollars, most recently bringing in internationally-known model and Webster Groves native Karlie Kloss to campaign on their behalf. Republicans in support of changing the initiative petition process have said their motivation is more wide-reaching than abortion and pre-dates the 2023 session, anti-abortion groups have been some of the main champions of the legislation. But the bulk of Wednesday’s conversation centered on the most recent citizen-led amendment to pass. Need to get in touch?Have a news tip?In 2022, Missourians legalized recreational marijuana with53% of voters in favor of the amendment. In that election, Black said, 15 counties carried the “yes” vote, arguing that urban voters “basically imposed their will on the rest of the state.” Republicans in favor of changing the initiative petition process have repeatedly pointed to the length of the state constitution, which includes 134 amendments, as a reason for reform. State Rep. Robert Sauls, a Democrat from Independence, countered that only 19 of the amendments came from initiative petitions. The rest came from the General Assembly. “This idea that the constitution has gotten out of control, well look in the mirror,” Sauls said. “We’re the reason that it has. Not these 19 amendments that the people have put on.” An analysis by The Independent found that under the concurrent majority standard, as few as 23% of voters could defeat a ballot measure. This was done by looking at the majority in the four districts with the fewest number of voters in 2020 and 2022. “You want a minority to be able to block a majority,” said state Rep. Joe Adams, a Democrat from University City. “That is shameful.” State Rep. Doug Richey, a Republican from Excelsior Springs, said with a simple majority, it’s possible for those leading initiative petition efforts to “ignore” congressional districts and still succeed. “That is a significant move to value the voices of people in the state of Missouri no matter where they happen to live,” Richey said. “No matter what their perspective is.” Reference to the current abortion initiative petition wasn’t raised until late in the debate by state Rep. Patty Lewis, a Democrat from Kansas City.“This is about reproductive freedom,” Lewis said. “And it’s about taking away our vote to restore reproductive freedom in the state of Missouri.” In approving Black’s legislation on Wednesday, the House made little mention of the “ballot candy” written into the resolution. The ballot candy, which refers to provisions added to ballot measures in order to win over voters, has become a major point of contention between Republicans and Democrats. In the proposed initiative petition bills, language has been included that would ask voters if they want to define legal voters as citizens of the US who live in Missouri and are registered to vote and whether they want to prohibit foreign entities from sponsoring initiative petitions. Democrats argue the inclusion of the ballot candy is an attempt by Republicans to mislead voters and distract from the effort to weaken the initiative petition process. In the Senate, a 21-hour filibuster ended with Republicans agreeing to remove the ballot candy in exchange for Democrats allowing the bill to come up for a vote. The House restored the ballot candy at Coleman’s request, setting up a potential showdown in the Senate if the bill makes its way back to that chamber. Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter. Missouri House again votes to cut corporate income taxesby Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent The Missouri House sent a bill repealing the corporate income tax to the Senate on a party-line vote Wednesday, with Republicans saying it will boost economic growth and Democrats calling it a business giveaway. The bill sponsored by state Rep. Travis Smith of Dora would cut the tax rate, currently 4%, to 3% on Jan. 1 and make another one percentage point cut each year until the tax is eliminated in 2028. “When you reduce the corporate income tax you are helping workers more than anything else because the corporation is not going to be paying those taxes,” Smith said. “They’re putting it back in improving their facilities and paying wages.” The corporate income tax is paid by larger companies with many stockholders. A fiscal note for the bill estimates it would reduce state revenues by at least $884 million when fully implemented. The state collected $13.2 billion in general revenue in the fiscal year that ended June 30. The bill passed on a 100-50 vote with Republicans voting for it and Democrats opposed. “We are one of the lowest corporate income tax states in the nation,” said state Rep. Joe Adams, a University City Democrat. Legally, Adams noted, corporations are people with many of the same rights as humans. “As people they should pay part of the freight for the operation of the government of this state,” Adams said. Missouri’s corporate income tax for decades was 5%. In 1993, in a bill that increased revenue to pay for education needs, the tax was boosted to 6.25%. The rate was cut to 4% in 2018. This is the second year in a row that the House has voted to cut the corporate tax. Last year, the House voted to cut the rate in half but the Senate did not go along. A similar bill is awaiting debate on the Senate. Lawmakers in the past 18 months have cut the top rate on income taxes and excluded Social Security and other retirement income from the state income tax. Those cuts, when fully in effect, will reduce annual revenue by more than $1 billion. The state is sitting on one of its biggest surpluses in history, with about $6.4 billion on hand on Feb. 29. Revenues for the year, however, are lagging 1.45% behind collections for the previous fiscal year. To soften the impact of repealing the tax, the bill also bars corporations holding state tax credits from claiming them against corporate tax liability in years after the rate is cut to zero. Smith said he received information from the Department of Revenue that there are $600 million to $700 million in outstanding tax credits that could be claimed by corporations. “It just means no new tax credits will be given out and they will not renew the existing tax credits,” Smith said. The fiscal note for the bill, however, reports that tax credit redemptions applied to corporate income taxes totaled $89.7 million in the most recent fiscal year and that redemptions would shift to other taxes if the corporate tax is repealed. “Many of the state tax credits are allowed to be sold, transferred and assigned and it is assumed corporations would continue that practice,” the fiscal note states. The corporate tax rate isn’t a priority for businesses, said Rep. Kemp Strickler, a Democrat from Lee’s Summit. Corporations want well-educated workers and access to materials and services, Strickler said. “Is this a good return on investment?” Strickler asked. “Is that really helping or is this just a giveaway?” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUBSCRIBE
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter. Missouri House to hold public hearing on governor’s $52.7 billion budget proposalby Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent The first – and perhaps only – chance for the public to tell Missouri House members what they think of Gov. Mike Parson’s $52.7 billion budget proposal will be Thursday. The timing is upsetting Democrats on the House Budget Committee, who said public input should have occurred weeks ago. Scheduling one hearing on all 17 spending bills for the day before lawmakers take a week-long spring break doesn’t allow for adequate deliberation, they argue. “Because we are so far along in the process, for anything to change in the budget because of public testimony would be highly unusual,” said Rep. Deb Lavender, a Manchester Democrat who began pushing for hearings at the end of January. At the hearing, Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith will reveal how he wants to change Parson’s spending plan. Votes on the budget will be held the week of March 25 with floor debate tentatively scheduled for the following week. Smith defended the timing of the hearing. He’s heard from advocacy groups, other lawmakers and individuals in one-on-one meetings and will allow for more testimony after spring break if the Thursday hearing isn’t enough time for everyone who wants to speak, he said. “If we had an objection or concern raised in my office about the opportunity to testify publicly, and the short notice about that, I would be open to making more time for that,” Smith said. Parson’s budget includes raises for teachers, a 3% increase for higher education budget and childcare and funding to study improvements on Interstate 44. He’s also asking for a 3.2% pay raise for state workers, $1.5 billion in federal funds for broadband expansion and $314.7 million for new construction on college campuses. The state is in a strong financial position. While the record surplus that has built up over the past three years is down from its peak of $8 billion, the treasury is holding $4.6 billion in surplus general revenue, with another $2 billion in funds that can be spent like general revenue. Surplus general revenue, under House rules, is off limits for budget committee members who want to push new or increased spending items. And Smith, who in past years has cut large sums from Parson’s spending plan, said he will do so again in his proposals coming tomorrow. “I’m going to be looking to limit as much spending as I can and the management of general revenue certainly will be a part of the committee substitute process,” Smith said. Smith has frustrated Democratic spending proposals in past years because they must cut in one place of the budget to increase spending on another line. “I have no reason to think he hasn’t continued to excel at his skills to lock all of the money behind doors I don’t have access to,” Lavender said. The timing of Thursday’s budget hearing isn’t unusual compared to past years, but it does represent a failure of an ambitious plan to move the budget along earlier in the year. House appropriations subcommittees began looking at department requests in December, with a stated goal of holding votes in the full House this week. With factional fights tying up the Senate, timing could become critical. Lawmakers must pass spending bills through both chambers no later than May 10. Last year, the budget was finished only on the final day allowed by the constitution. Members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, a group of six conservative Republican senators, have vowed to debate the budget line-by-line on the Senate floor. “That’s why they wanted to (finish earlier in the House) because everybody knows that there is a real risk that this has a problem in the Senate this year,” said state Rep. Peter Merideth, a St. Louis Democrat. “And we may find ourselves in a special session for the budget.” Smith, however, said he’s confident that the potential embarrassment of missing the constitutional deadline will help move the budget in the Senate. “Everyone on all sides of the warring factions within the Missouri Senate agree broadly that we should finish the budget on time, that that’s our one responsibility,” Smith said “That’s my impression.So, I’m hopeful that they’ll be able to get things together well enough to pass the budget on time.” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Lincoln Hough said he will be rushed but will get a budget to the Senate floor in time to hold the debate if it proves lengthy. “With the House taking the amount of time that they’ve taken,” Hough said, “it puts us in a little bit of a jam on the Senate. So we’ve got to work a little more feverishly than I would really like to once we get their bills.” Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter. Missouri House and Senate OK two plans making it harder for voters to amend the state constitution2/29/2024
Missouri House and Senate OK two plans making it harder for voters to amend the state constitutionby Meg Cunningham, The Beacon The Republican-controlled Missouri House and Senate advanced two different proposals Thursday that would make it harder for voters to change the state constitution using a constitutional amendment. The Senate passed a bill on a party-line vote that would dramaticallycrank up the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment proposed by voters using an initiative petition process. The resolution would require a statewide majority — that’s already the rule — but also require majority support from five of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. That bill now awaits action from the House. Meanwhile, the House passed a bill backed by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft that would add restrictions onto the signature gathering process for initiative petitions. That bill is now in the Senate for consideration. Both moves come as the effort to place a constitutional amendment allowing abortions in Missouri ramps up. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group spearheading the effort, says it’s raised more than $3 million since launching the campaign. At least 13 states could vote on constitutional amendments regarding abortion in 2024. Ohio saw a similar effort unfold last year: Lawmakers there placed a question on an August 2023 ballot that asked voters to raise the voting threshold required for a constitutional amendment. Voters rejected that proposal and went on to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose said that the effort to raise the threshold was “100% about … abortion,” though he later walked his statement back and said the effort was about any effort looking to amend the Ohio Constitution. Senate backs tougher standard for passing constitutional amendmentsMissouri has two ways to amend its state constitution. Legislators can propose a change subject to a statewide vote. Or voters can collect signatures to put a change up for a statewide vote. On Thursday, senators passed a resolution that would require more voter support for constitutional amendments. The approval came after an overnight filibuster from Senate Democrats. They were blocking a vote on a version of the bill that coupled popular ideas with the effort to raise the amount of voter support needed to pass an amendment, known as “ballot candy.” The resolution, sponsored by Republican Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman of Jefferson County, who recently announced a bid for Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District, originally included language that would bar non-Missouri residents or U.S. citizens from voting on constitutional amendments, something that is already illegal under Missouri law. It would have also prohibited foreign governments from financially supporting initiative petition efforts and placed a ban on constitutional amendments allowing lobbyist gifts to lawmakers. “There absolutely is ballot candy in the substitute,” Coleman said on the floor. After the filibuster and debate, Lee’s Summit Republican Sen. Mike Cierpiot offered an amendment that removed the extra language from the resolution. “This amendment is taking out all the things that we’re calling ballot candy today and just going back to this straight underlying amendment,” he said. The amendment passed 18-12, with support from moderate Republicans. In a press conference Thursday, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat, predicted House Republicans will work to get the ballot-candy language added back into the resolution. “It’s also finally nice that they’re saying it out loud of what they’re trying to do,” she said. “To deceive voters and put language in there that they specifically call candy because they know its intent.” Missouri House passes its own measure to restrict processes on signature gathering for constitutional amendmentsThe House on Thursday finalized a measure that would place a number of restrictions on signature-gathering efforts for constitutional amendments. The proposal, sponsored by Pleasant Hill Republican Rep. Mike Haffner, would require the pages that voters sign to support a constitutional amendment to be issued by the secretary of state’s office. The bill would also require signatures to be recorded in black or dark ink. Signature gatherers would also be required to be residents of Missouri or physically present in Missouri for at least 30 consecutive days before collecting signatures. It would also ban paying people based on how many signatures they collect. Haffner’s bill would also give the secretary of state and attorney general power to assess whether initiative petition efforts comply with the Missouri Constitution. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican running for governor, backs the measure. “These changes to statute will establish safeguards and enhance clarity and transparency in the process making it more efficient for Missourians,” Ashcroft said in a press release Thursday, adding that he will work closely with the General Assembly to finalize the bill. The Senate proposal is SJR 74. The House bill is HB 1749. This article first appeared on The Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. This is an editorial: An editorial, like news reporting, is based on objective facts, but shares an opinion. The conclusions and opinions here have been derived by the guest contributor and are not associated with the news staff.
Tightening Down Immigration Laws In a recent session of the House Special Committee on Homeland Security, discussions centered around several immigration bills and how to strengthen border security while ensuring that individuals entering the state are doing so through lawful ports of entry. HB 2470 addresses illegal entry, categorizing it as a class B misdemeanor with potential escalation to a class E felony for repeat offenses. The bill introduces additional offenses for illegal aliens and outlines penalties. Certain individuals enforcing these offenses are protected from arrest or detention in specific locations. HB 2523 defines the offense of trespass by an illegal alien, classifying it as a class E felony for individuals aged 18 or older committing certain offenses on public or private land. The bill exempts federally authorized individuals, and a violation does not establish probable cause for any other offense. HB 2367 specifies that illegal aliens committing offenses are guilty of trespass, with severity depending on the initial offense. Trespass is a class E felony for infractions and a class C felony for misdemeanors or felonies. The punishment for trespass is in addition to the initial offense's penalty and does not apply to federally authorized individuals. The discussions reflect heightened concerns over immigration and border security at both the federal and state level. Within days of the hearing, Governor Mike Parson announced the deployment of resources and personnel to the southern border in support of Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star mission. Defending Religious Freedom The Special Committee on Government Accountability recently conducted a hearing on two bills seeking to defend Missourians’ First Amendment rights concerning their faith and religion. HB 1959, also known as the "Missouri Religious Freedom Protection Act" focuses on protecting religious freedom. The bill would prevent public officials from shutting down meetings or services held by religious groups. However, it clarifies that this prohibition does not apply to religious groups planning or committing acts of violence. The bill also exempts emergency evacuation orders in cases of imminent danger, such as floods, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, terrorist threats, civil unrest, or hazardous material incidents. Once the imminent danger has passed, religious services are permitted to resume. Notably, the bill emphasizes that this prohibition does not exempt places of worship from complying with applicable building and fire codes. Presenting his bill before the committee, the bill sponsor stressed the importance of places of worship, especially during times of crisis. “Our places of worship operate in a very unique way in this state, and we as government should not be in the business of trying to shut them down,” he said. HB 1518 focuses on safeguarding belief-based student associations within public institutions of higher learning. Its primary objective is to prevent public institutions from taking actions or implementing policies that would deny belief-based student associations the benefits available to other student groups. The bill explicitly prohibits discrimination against these associations based on their leaders adhering to sincerely held beliefs, practice requirements, or conduct standards. Furthermore, it grants belief-based student associations the authority to seek relief through judicial or administrative proceedings against institutions that violate the bill's requirements. The hearing provided an opportunity for committee members to deliberate on the merits and implications of both bills. The testimonies and discussions covered a range of perspectives, including concerns about potential conflicts between religious freedom and institutional policies in educational settings, as well as the balance between ensuring freedom of worship and protecting public safety during emergencies. Further deliberations and considerations are expected as the bills progress through the legislative process. Both bills passed through committee and now await an opportunity to be heard on the House floor. Debate on DEI Funding The House Committee on General Laws recently discussed five bills centered on the use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) language. The primary objective of these bills, as highlighted by their sponsors, is to cease the allocation of taxpayer funds towards DEI initiatives within state bureaucracy. The intention is to defund DEI efforts and prevent the state from encouraging private sector adoption of DEI practices to secure state contract bids. One notable bill, HB 2567, introduced the "Do No Harm Act," which imposes limitations on DEI initiatives in medical higher education institutions. It bars funding for DEI offices, requires the redirection of these funds to merit scholarships, and mandates reporting on compliance. Additionally, the legislation outlines academic standards, necessitates transparency in courses, and establishes criteria for admissions tests. It also places restrictions on DEI requirements for licensing boards, disallows state contracts for entities mandating DEI, and permits legal action for violations, waiving sovereign immunity for a year post-violation. Another bill, HB 2569, prohibits state departments from utilizing funds for DEI programs that endorse preferential treatment or necessitate private sector DEI adoption for state contracts. Two other bills, HB 2619 and HB 2448, share similar provisions by preventing state departments from funding intradepartmental DEI initiatives and limiting mandates on private sector DEI programs for state contracts. Similar to HB 2569, HB 2365 bars state departments from financing intradepartmental DEI initiatives and enforcing private sector DEI programs for state contracts while emphasizing adherence to employment laws. The attempt to restrict the use of DEI language, as reflected in these bills, reflects a larger societal and political discourse. While DEI initiatives aim to address systemic inequalities and promote equal opportunities, critics express concerns about potential overreach, ideological bias, and encroachment on individual freedoms. Supporters of the legislation heard in committee argued that limiting funds for DEI initiatives in medical institutions is a response to concerns about enforced ideological conformity. They contend that such initiatives may impose specific viewpoints and restrict academic and professional freedom. Opponents emphasize the significance of DEI initiatives in addressing historical disparities, fostering inclusivity, and ensuring a diverse workforce. They see restrictions as obstacles to efforts in creating equitable and inclusive environments, particularly in educational and healthcare settings. Legislators Raise Concerns about Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission In a recent session, the House Transportation Accountability Committee delved into proposed legislative changes aiming to reform the governance of Missouri's transportation system. The bills raised concerns about appointments to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, suggesting potential amendments to its structure or complete elimination. The legislative efforts followed a contentious situation in 2021 when the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) sought to grant pay raises to its employees without prior legislative approval, resulting in a legal dispute. Among the proposed changes were measures altering the selection process for commission members. The Highways and Transportation Commission, overseeing the Department of Transportation, became a focal point of tension between the legislature and MoDOT due to the pay raise controversy. A lawsuit in 2021 arose from MoDOT's decision to increase wages without legislative consent, sparking political discord over transportation issues. The dispute primarily revolved around the allocation of funds, with MoDOT funded by appropriations under legislative control and revenues from transportation-related taxes beyond legislative reach. While not all committee members agreed on the proposed changes, there was a shared belief in the need for some reform. Committee members acknowledged concerns about MoDOT's responsiveness to constituents and discussed potential changes to the Transportation and Highways Commission. “Most of us feel like MoDOT’s not very responsive to our constituents’ concerns,” one member of the committee said. “No one is actually faulting MoDOT for the (employee) shortage because we all understand it. What we do see, however, is a seeming priority on things that aren’t necessary.” During the session, frustration was expressed regarding transportation issues in the district, with an emphasis on the need for accountability. There was advocacy for direct legislative oversight of the department, potentially eliminating the commission for increased accountability. “I do not have any issues personally with the members of the commission,” another member stated. “My issues are with the nature of the process, its lack of accountability and consistency.” Still, others argued against the complete dismantling of the commission, emphasizing the need to improve the existing system rather than destroy it. The Missouri Transportation Commission, established in 1921, operates on a bipartisan basis with members appointed by the governor, ensuring a balanced political representation within the commission. Closing Remarks In closing I would like to encourage my readers to continue to be involved in the affairs of government. Thomas Jefferson once stated that liberty is best preserved by the people themselves stating that they are the “only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty”. I whole heartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson on this issue. It is always my intent to keep my constituents informed and to retain open transparency. If you have any questions or concerns please contact my office at any time. You can reach my office by calling 573-751-1487 or via email at jeff.coleman@house.mo.gov Open enrollment legislation wins initial approval in Missouri Houseby Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent A bill that would allow students to enroll in neighboring school districts won initial approval in the Missouri House for the fourth year in a row Tuesday on an 83-69 vote. It is the first bill to be debated by the full House this legislative session. It must be approved one more time by the House before it is sent to the Senate for consideration. Bill sponsor Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Republican from Sedalia, described the proposal as “minor compared to what others want to do.” “The status quo says the bill goes too far. The reform side says it doesn’t go far enough,” he said in his introduction of the bill. A nearly identical bill narrowly passed the House in a 85-68 vote last year, just three more than a constitutional majority of the chamber. New to the legislation this year is the creation of an online portal that would track the number of students who have applied to enroll in accepting districts. If passed, the legislation would allow students to leave their local school to enroll in districts that opt into the open enrollment. Districts are not required to add staff or programs, such as special education, for the program. Transportation would be parents’ responsibility, unless the child qualifies for free or reduced lunch or has transportation under an individualized education plan. The bill calls for a fund to pay for bussing these students. Pollitt placed a 3% cap on the number of students who can leave a district annually under open enrollment. He proposed a 1% cap for districts with a high number of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch, describing it as a compromise for the Senate. He removed the 1% cap upon advice from a caucus policy committee. Some worry that, without that provision, open enrollment could lead to resegregation in some areas. Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, a Columbia Democrat, complimented Pollitt but said the lack of “diversity protections” and other negatives “outweigh the positives.” “One of the concerns is that it’s going to create a slow drain for several schools and districts,” she said. Rep. Marlene Terry, a St. Louis Democrat, said the legislation would “destroy (her) school.” “We do agree that parents should have choices, but what I keep hearing is a better environment or a better education,” she said. “Until you can tell me how you’re going to fix the environment and the education in the public school system to where my children stay, I’m going to continually be against this bill.” Rep. Barbara Phifer, a Democrat from St. Louis, described open enrollment as a “patch on a big problem.” The problem, she said, is unequal funding of public schools. “We pretend that there is no school choice, but we have made an economic decision here in the state of Missouri that those who are wealthy get better education than those who are not wealthy,” Phifer said. “We can argue about that, and we can actually change the way that we fund public education so that we have more equity.” Rep. Peter Merideth, a St. Louis Democrat, said school funding was a timely topic. Earlier in the day, he had discussed the formula that determines state funding of public schools in the budget committee. He said the state funding has lagged behind inflation. Wealthy communities’ local funding has allowed schools to be better equipped, and those without deep pockets may lose students under open enrollment. Rep. Stephanie Hein, a Springfield Democrat, attempted to amend the bill to raise the base teacher pay to $46k statewide by the 2027-28 school year. The bill title would also change to “elementary and secondary education.” Her attempt to change the title failed on a 44-109 party-line vote after Pollitt said it opened the bill “to anything else to do with public education.” Pollitt said he was in favor of increasing teacher salaries but wanted his bill to stand alone. Last year, Pollitt’s bill died waiting to come to the floor of the Senate. He told The Independent Senate leaders attached his legislation to a bill about teacher recruitment and retention in an attempt to avoid a filibuster. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUBSCRIBE
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter. Capitol Perspectives: The legacy of Missouri’s 2023 legislative sessionby Phill Brooks, Missouri Independent As Missouri lawmakers prepare for the 2024 legislative session, they should consider how many of their major 2023 accomplishments received limited public attention. The 2023 legislative session focused on divisive issues like restricting transgender medical procedures for minors and restricting students from participating on school sports teams designated for a sex different than the student’s birth certificate. Another major issue was a failed GOP effort to make statewide ballot issue initiatives more difficult. The measure was filed in response to the abortion-rights constitutional amendment. Yet, reviewing the legislature’s full record, there were many significant issues passed into law that directly impact Missourians beyond the ideological and partisan issues that often dominated the attention of legislators, the public and reporters. One major exception that did get public attention is the multi-billion dollar project to expand Interstate 70 to three lanes between Kansas City and St. Louis. It will take years to complete, but could have a huge impact on interstate transportation. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUBSCRIBE
Other successful proposals that got less attention involved tax breaks. Counties or county voters would empowered to award tax credits for property assessment increases on the homes owned by the elderly. The bill also expands income tax exemptions for pension benefits and Social Security. Legislative staff estimated the state tax cuts would reduce state tax collections by about $300 million per year when fully implemented. Lawmakers also passed a measure that provides tax credits for businesses that hire student interns. That new law also establishes rights for college athletes to receive private compensation for use of the student’s name or image. Tax credits would be provided for child adoption costs under another bill signed by the governor which also adds additional provisions for advanced health care directives. Non-tax laws include giving physical therapists the power to provide treatment without a doctor’s prescription. An education bill would expand the right of public schools to teach children religious topics including the Bible and Hebrew Scriptures. Equal-parenting time would be defined as in a child’s best interest in child-custody cases. Beyond that, the new law provides that parents who fail to meet their child support obligations will be given additional rights to seek keeping various licenses including driving and professional licenses. Medicaid coverage for mothers of new borns will be extended from 60 days to one year after birth. That new law includes a number of other significant health issues. One unrelated provision restricts examination of the pelvic regions by a health care providers of an anesthetized patients without prior approval or a court order under another new law. Another provision expands coverage of do-not-resuscitate orders for minors. There’s a new law to expand to adults the restriction on texting while driving a motor vehicle. The bill also contains provisions to toughen the requirement for a driver to have auto insurance. Another new law provides consumer protections in civil lawsuit awards on how much the lawyer contracted by a party in the case can get from a court award. SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
DONATE
Another bill signed into law by the governor expands to the relatives who can delegate control of the final disposition of a deceased person There’s a new law that creates a crime for tampering with an automated teller machine (ATM) and also allows school safety officers to carry fire arms in public schools. While reporters covered many of those issues, I sense our coverage was obscured by the intense ideological and political battles on the major controversies in the General Assembly. Maybe we need to adjust our coverage efforts. However, statewide public officials also share some of the blame for distracted public attention. In my earlier years as a statehouse reporter, Gov. Kit Bond, Gov. Mel Carnahan and Attorney General John Danforth were laser focused in public presentations on consumer and education issues that directly impacted a majority of Missourians. Their support of these issues helped the public, lawmakers and reporters focus on the major issues before the legislature. On the other side, the legislature itself has obscured attention to the major issues before the General Assembly. The legislature’s growing practice to throw completely unrelated amendments onto bills in the hectic closing days of the legislative session made many of the enacted bills confusing legislative smorgasboards. Public confusion and reporting difficulties are inevitable if lawmakers themselves cannot limit focus on the key issue of a bill in the closing days of the session. Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and Twitter. by Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent
Gov. Mike Parson on Thursday signed the tax cut he said a week earlier was responsible for his decision to veto most of the 201 spending items he cut from the state budget. The bill, exempting Social Security benefits and public pension payments from income tax, would reduce state general revenue by an estimated $309 million annually. It would also allow counties to hold a vote on whether people 62 or older should be exempt from increases in their annual property tax bills. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support – only two House members voted against it – but not without some misgivings among Democrats, said Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis. Under current law, exemptions allowed for retirement income are phased out for single taxpayers earning more than $85,000 and married couples with incomes above $100,000. “I was not thrilled with it,” Merideth said. “But honestly, to me, it was the best of the options presented.” The Republican House leadership was pushing for a $1 billion cut in corporate and income taxes. The bill’s property tax language began as a cap on increases in assessments for all property owners. “Many of us agree that there is a real problem with seniors right now that are on fixed incomes dealing with inflation and property taxes are a big part of that,” Merideth said. Homeowners around the state, especially in metropolitan areas, are seeing massive increases in their assessments due to the recent rise in real estate prices. And while provisions in the constitution require rates to be rolled back when overall assessment increases exceed inflation, individual property owners could still see big increases if their property assessment went up more than the general average. Parson’s decision to cite the tax cut for retirement benefits as a reason to veto spending items is not playing well with lawmakers. Budget leaders from both chambers said this week they will consider overrides, and said fiscal policies pushed by the governor, more than the retirement exemption, are doing more to reduce state revenues. “Maybe the governor’s concerned about what possible, further tax reductions that the legislature may be looking at, but that’s not necessarily how, in my opinion, you build this budget,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, said in an interview this week. Missouri took in $13.2 billion in general revenue in the year that ended June 30. The state was also holding surplus funds of nearly $8 billion. Parson vetoed $555 million in spending, including $365 million in general revenue appropriations, from the $16 billion in general revenue items in the budget. Growth in state revenue slowed, however, to 2.7% during fiscal 2023 and is expected to be just 0.7% in the current fiscal year. It is a large income tax cut passed last year, not the retirement exemptions, responsible for slowing growth, Merideth said. “It’s one thing to blame this tax cut,” Merideth said, “but really, the real tax cut that’s gonna be costing us money is the other one.” State Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville and sponsor of the bill, could not be reached Friday morning for comment. Automobile sales tax Tucked into a bill that will ban texting while driving for all motorists is a provision requiring automobile dealers to begin collecting sales tax at the time of a purchase. At a February hearing, Missouri Association of Auto Dealers lobbyist Jay Reichard estimated that up to $60 million in auto sales taxes were delinquent. The dealers are paying an extra administrative fee for the new computer system, estimated to cost $120 million, and the system is designed for dealers to collect the tax. Every motorist on the road knows if a fellow driver has paid the sales tax on a vehicle by looking at their license plate. If it is a paper temporary tag, the tax is still due because it must be paid at the state license office at the time a person registers their ownership of the vehicle. “We think this is a great thing for our customers,” Reichard said in a May interview. “They want to go to one place and get the job done.” Auto dealers are the only retailers who do not collect sales tax at the time of sale, he noted. For an article in May, The Independent found a half-dozen temporary tags in a short period in Columbia, including one that had expired on Christmas Day. The texting provision, which currently applies only to drivers under 21, will take effect on Aug. 28. A driver could not be cited for a violation, however, unless the officer stops the car for another reason. That is similar to the law governing seat belt violations. |
Categories
All
Archives
May 2024
|
Grain Valley NewsGrain Valley News is a free community news source published weekly online. |
Contact Us |