Missouri Press Association
Serving Missouri Newspapers Since 1867
Missouri News Network: Statehouse News for MPA Members
This report is written by Missouri School of Journalism students for publication by MPA member newspapers in print and online.
-----------------------------------------------------
Missouri News Network coverage this week focused on a hearing on the gerrymandered congressional seats and efforts here and in Washington to address lawsuits over ADA compliance of websites. The House moved several important bills while the Senate continues to move slowly.
If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY
Legislators fight ADA website lawsuits
By Jordan Davis and Hailey Sanford, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — More than 100 locally owned businesses across Missouri have been the target of lawsuits concerning compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act on websites.
Missouri legislators here and in Washington are seeking to provide some protections for small business owners.
State representatives have come together to create the Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation, or House Bill 1694, to give businesses 90 days to respond and alter their websites before a lawsuit can ensue. The House bill requires reasonable notice prior to a lawsuit being filed. Passed by the House on Feb. 5, the bill awaits hearings in the Senate.
According to multiple House members, lawyers are pursuing lawsuits against small businesses for minor ADA violations on their websites to get a fast settlement for clients. There is no intention of fixing the websites to comply with ADA regulations with these lawsuits, the legislators say.
In Washington, U.S. Rep. Sam Graves, R-Tarkio, has introduced the Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act to the U.S. House.
“Small businesses should not be targeted and exploited for a quick cash grab. They should not have to choose between paying a lawyer or paying their employees,” Graves said in a news release. “These lawsuits are not about helping or ensuring access for customers. They are about making money off hard working business owners.”
Graves’ action comes after a nationwide surge in website-related suits. In a letter to his constituents, Graves said that similar cases nationwide had increased from 200 in 2016 to more than 4,000 in 2025. According to Graves, more than half of the 4,000 cases were filed by just 33 people.
Representatives of many businesses that have been sued in Missouri spoke in favor of HB 1694 on Jan. 14 during a Missouri House General Laws Committee hearing.
Sandy Waggett, representing website maker MSW Interactive Design, said she has had six clients sued in the state of Missouri and one business that had to shut down as a result.
Scott Fetterman, who owns Fetterman’s Deli in Kansas City, said he was issued a warning 20 days after he opened his second location. The demand letter did not specify what on the website was out of compliance. Fetterman said he had to shut down his website for a month while the new one was being created.
“I want to be accessible to everybody,” Fetterman said.
A similar Senate bill, Senate Bill 1471, was introduced by Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, R-Jefferson City. The Senate bill would allow a business 30 days to take steps to correct a problem when notified.
In considering if a lawsuit is abusive, a court would consider the number of full-time employees of the business, the resources available for the defendant and whether the jurisdiction or county where the lawsuit was filed creates an obstacle, under the bill.
Tourism and entertainment-based businesses in the Lake of the Ozarks are paying roughly between $10,000 and $20,000 to settle, according to Rep. Jeff Vernetti, R-Camdenton.
Speaking as a small-business owner himself during House floor debate, Vernetti said that some of these businesses have spent three to four months of their loan payment on these lawsuits.
“This is ambulance chasing. This is a bait and switch. This is legal vulturing,” Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson, said.
The cases have been on the radar of multiple Missouri Chambers of Commerce and were brought to the attention of several state representatives. HB 1694 combines five different bills and is sponsored by Rep. Mazzie Christensen, R-Bethany.
Christensen said that these businesses should be “fixing problems instead of paying ransom” and focused on making their websites ADA compliant.
Groups like National Federation of Independent Business, Missouri Chamber of Commerce, Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition, Missouri Restaurant Association, Missouri Association of Sheltered Workshop Managers and Associated Industries of Missouri came out in support of HB 1694.
Christensen said the goal of this bill is to revive “fairness, accountability and restoring trust in the system.”
One witness, Sarah Berry, testified that she opposes it and worries that it will create more problems instead of fixing them. Berry said in written testimony that she believes that this bill is too broad, rushed and could jeopardize citizen trust.
A similar bill was passed in Kansas in 2023. Rep. Sherri Gallick, R-Belton, said that such sue and settle cases like these have stopped there.
Graves is not the only one in Washington who has seen this as an issue. On Feb. 2, the DOJ filed a statement of interest for a case in California, taking concern with the nature of a class action lawsuit.
“The United States does not oppose relief that would actually make a website available to individuals who are blind or have low vision,” the statement reads. “Rather, we oppose using a civil claim principally to enrich class counsel on the backs of persons with disabilities instead of vindicating the rights of persons with disabilities.”
A statement of interest acts as a disclosure of the DOJ’s stance on a case and expresses the federal government’s stake in the outcome.
Fletcher Mantooth contributed to this story from Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
Missouri House sends bills on gender, policing, divorce to Senate
By Brandon Lorenz, KJ Drazen and Jack Schouten, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House of Representatives debated and passed multiple bills on Thursday, sending them to the Senate.
Restrictions on sex change hormones
House Bill 2033, sponsored by Rep. Melissa Schmidt, R-Eldridge, passed on a vote of 102-40. This bill removes the sunset provision on restrictions of prescribing sex change hormones to individuals under the age of 18.
The provision currently in place has an expiration date of Aug. 28, 2027. The bill would make the ban permanent.
The bill also states that prescriptions written for the purpose of helping a minor through a gender transition prior to Aug. 28, 2023, will no longer be valid after March 1, 2027.
This means individuals who have prescriptions, even if they were originally grandfathered in, will lose their validity on the 2027 date.
“Eighty-five to 90 percent of children come through symptoms of gender dysphoria after being allowed to simply go through puberty naturally,” Schmidt said.
House Democrats argued that this should be a family matter and that the decision should be left up to parents .
“For the most part, in this body we are not doctors, we are not therapists, and despite what some in this room may think, we are not the parents of every child in the state,” said Rep. Jeff Hales, D-St. Louis.
Divorce protections for pregnant women
House Bill 1908, sponsored by Rep. Cecelie Williams, R-Dittmer, passed unanimously. The bill would prevent courts from denying the right to a divorce based on a woman’s pregnancy status.
“It’s about offering survivors like me the chance to find safety,” Williams said.
Williams is a domestic abuse survivor who faced her own challenges when she attempted to get a divorce. Last year a similar bill sponsored by Williams also passed the House unanimously but stalled in the Senate.
Restrictions on police hiring
House Bill 1866, sponsored by Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, passed 101-36. The bill would allow the director of public safety to deny the application of a peace officer license or for entrance to a training course for those who are not a U.S. citizen or who have had their peace officer license revoked.
There was a lot of floor talk for this bill, and many representatives took their turns at the microphone to state their opinions.
“If you are not an American citizen, you should not be arresting American citizens on American soil,” said Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon.
There was also pushback. Rep. Will Jobe, D-Independence, spoke during a news conference after the session adjourned.
He said noncitizens who have served in the military should be eligible for peace officer jobs.
“I thought it was important and a distinction that should have been pretty easy and bipartisan to get across,” Jobe said. “It didn’t turn out that way.”
-----------------------------------------------------
House hears bill to create dementia care advocate
By Emerson Smith and Kate Leverenz, Columbia Missourian
JEFFERSON CITY — While advocates for dementia care services in Missouri emphasize the need for a state dementia care coordinator, legislators raised concerns over the state’s ability to fund the position in a committee hearing on Thursday.
House Bill 2149, sponsored by Rep. Travis Wilson, R-St. Charles, would establish a dementia services coordinator as a full-time position in the state’s Department of Health and Senior Services.
“The reason we want to focus on this particular office within the Department of Health is we want to focus on early detection, diagnosis, risk reduction and quality of care,” Wilson said.
The dementia care coordinator office could help caregivers and patients interface with a one-stop shop to connect them with resources to deal with the disease, he added.
The House Committee on Health and Mental Health heard testimony mostly in favor of the bill on Thursday.
Sandy Marshall, volunteer for the Alzheimer’s Association, testified about her experience with her husband’s early-onset Alzheimer’s, emphasizing the importance of establishing the position to help with early disease detection and aid rural areas with little resources.
“Our state services for dementia are scattered across various agencies, pieces of a puzzle that don’t quite fit together,” Marshall said. “We have the resources, but we lack the connective tissue. This bill creates that link.”
Marshall’s husband was diagnosed in Florida, where Marshall says resources for dementia patients are more plentiful and accessible.
“Florida has two brain buses,” Marshall said. “They’re kind of like a mammogram bus or a blood donor bus. They go around to the rural communities or inner cities and they give you the Mini-Cogs.”
A Mini-Cog is a screening tool for detecting cognitive impairment and early dementia.
Marshall also used Florida’s dementia care coordinator to help create a plan for her own mother with dementia after she suffered a stroke.
House members acknowledged the benefits of this bill, but raised concerns over space in the state budget to create another position.
Many legislators questioned whether the job of a dementia services coordinator could be done through existing positions or allocations.
Rep. Tony Harbison, R-Arcadia, said some do not realize the dire situation the state of Missouri is in as far as its budget.
“I am sympathetic, but also realistically, if we could work through and meet the same need through emergency management or some type like that, something that currently exists, I would be willing to go as far a i need to make that happen,” Harbison said.
There are currently 120,000 Missourians, 65 and older, living with a form of dementia.
“I understand the budget thing, but my question to you is, what’s it worth for you to have another five or ten years with your loved one?” asked Bobby Marshall, Sandy Marshall’s husband.
This is the second time the bill has been heard by the committee. It passed last year unanimously but was taken out during the budget conference.
-----------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY
House shows support for bill aimed at antisemitism
By Eric Hughes and Xavier Asher, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY – A bill that aims to prohibit antisemitism within public schools and institutions of higher education was initially approved Wednesday by the House.
Rep. George Hruza, R-St.Louis, the descendant of a Holocaust survivor, sponsored House Bill 2061 because he feared for the safety of Jewish students in the years since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
"That Missouri Jewish students are blamed for what is happening in Israel and Gaza is absurd,” Hruza said. “They have absolutely no input or control over what is happening there.”
He claims that the attack and subsequent war have sparked an uptick in antisemitic acts across the country.
“Within hours,” Hruza claimed, “Antisemitic protests against jews and acts of violence against jews erupted and escalated. Especially on college campuses.”
The bill establishes a standard definition for antisemitism to be used by educators to decide what qualifies. Any incident in violation of that definition must be reported under Title VI, a component of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This would allow researchers to track the trends of antisemitism inside Missouri’s school systems.
The bill was initially approved on the House floor despite strong opposition from Democrats who fear it will prevent open discussion in schools, and concerns that it disregards other forms of hate speech.
“As a teacher, I am deeply concerned with this bill.” Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, said. “What we are discussing is a way to silence the voice of teachers, using being labeled as an antisemite as a vehicle.”
She went on to say that the bill would prevent educators from bringing up current events, like Israel or Palestine, out of fear of being labeled antisemitic.
Fuchs said that she was a professor during the Oct. 7 attacks and had both Israeli and Palestinian students.
“My job as an educator was to find a path to talk about it,” she said. “To bring both of the communities together to a table to have a conversation. This bill … would create a pause for professors and teachers.”
Rep. Bridget Walsh Moore, D-St. Louis, claimed that the passing of the bill would result in antisemitic incidents being treated with more severity than other kinds of discrimination.
“You see how it’s creating a hierarchy? How some things are worse than others?” asked Moore. “Because this is going to be reported to the state, but if you’re called the N-word and someone pulls your braids, well, that’s gonna be an in-school suspension.”
The House adopted a proposed amendment by Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon, that would prevent any instances of religious or political speech protected under the First Amendment from being reported, compiled or published.
After questioning from Rep. Mark Boyko, D-Kirkwood, Hardwick confirmed that the potentially controversial acts of burning an Israeli flag or wearing an arm band in support of Palestine would not be considered antisemitic under this definition.
A similar bill passed the House last year, but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. HB 2061 will be voted on once more by the House, before being passed on to the Senate if approved.
-----------------------------------------------------
Committee passes bill extending physical activity for K-12 students
By Jordan Davis and Hailey Sanford, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A House committee passed a bill Wednesday that would increase physical activity requirements for K-12 students in public schools.
House Bill 2748, sponsored by Rep. Bishop Davidson, R-Republic, narrowly passed in the General Laws Committee on Wednesday on a 6-4 vote. There was support and opposition from both Republicans and Democrats.
This bill would extend the required time for physical activity in Missouri public schools an additional 20 to 30 minutes, to 50 minutes a day for grades K-5 and 60 minutes for grades 6-12. Davidson said this is the first time this bill has been introduced in the state of Missouri.
These requirements could be fulfilled through extended physical education classes and recess for elementary-aged children and solely through physical education classes for middle school and high school students.
Under the bill, no exemptions would be made for students in school-sponsored or out-of-school sports, but there would be exceptions for students with disabilities.
Davidson said that cognitive function and memory retrieval can increase following physical activity. He said physical activity is as critical as reading, writing and arithmetic for all students.
He does not intend to add time to the school day or year, instead opting for “rearranging” the school day. He said the time will be created by taking a maximum of 10 minutes from each class.
“The data has shown learning outcomes go up, even when you draw that physical activity out of other course requirements,” Davidson said in an interview after the committee vote. “Then, you also see behavior outcomes improve; you also see mental health improve.”
General Laws Committee Chair Rep. Ben Keathley, R-Chesterfield, said he set this bill for its initial hearing because he believes that remaining stagnant for long periods of time can harm learning.
“Not all time spent educating someone is equal,” Keathley said in an interview last week. “Physical work ... or exercise can create more quality learning time. Even if it means less overall time, if that quality is better, then our students are learning and having the benefit of physical education.”
Keathley has seen the effects of stagnation on his elementary-aged children.
“It’s really difficult to tell a child, you know, who’s in kindergarten or first grade to sit down for six hours and expect them to retain all that information,” Keathley said.
During a Jan. 21 hearing on the bill, some representatives voiced their concerns about making this a statewide bill over staffing to handle the influx of students in the gym and overexertion from athletic extracurriculars. Students may also be faced with scheduling conflicts, especially with AP classes and dual enrollment for high schoolers.
“If we are requiring this every day, then my kid and every other kid out there who gets to choose an elective, loses that choice because we decided we know what’s better for them,” said Rep. Mark Matthiesen, R-O’Fallon.
High school students in Missouri from both sides shared their opinions in testimony given to the committee. Those in favor said that increased physical activity would assist in reforming curricula. The students that opposed the bill deemed the additional physical activity unnecessary and a disruption to their studies.
The National Education Association has not taken a stance on this bill yet, but Otto Fajen, an NEA representative, said that children, especially elementary-aged boys, benefit from increased physical activity.
Fajen said specialists in teaching children with dyslexia have seen improvements in students’ learning that have a flexible learning schedule interspersed with physical exercise.
If a student has become stuck on a learning concept, the physical break assists in recentering, he said. This works primarily for homeschool students because they have more fluidity in their learning schedule, and homeschooled students do not have to take standardized tests in Missouri.
“There’s kind of a flow against that caused by the structure of accountability and standardized testing in areas that do not include physical literacy,” Fajen said.
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Missouri Association of School Administrators declined to comment on the bill.
Thomas Loughrey, a retired teacher, was among several people who spoke in favor of the bill. He said that in districts with additional physical requirements, test scores have increased.
Matthiesen compared this performance to test scores in China, where they require two hours of physical education daily and an 11-hour school day.
“If we’re going to go down this route as a committee, as a legislature, we need to be prepared to model Missouri schools off of communist China’s system to accommodate the extra requirements,” Matthiesen said.
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate weighs ending statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse
By Noah Symes, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Victims of childhood sexual abuse fought for legislation to eliminate the statute of limitations in a Senate hearing Wednesday.
Senate Bill 1140 would remove any time limit on when civil claims could be brought for crimes involving child sexual abuse, and Senate Joint Resolution 93 would allow SB 1140 to be enacted retrospectively.
There is currently no statute of limitations for criminal charges, and the bills heard Wednesday would affect only civil claims. SJR 93 is a constitutional amendment, and voters would have to approve the resolution in an upcoming election.
The bill sponsor, Sen. Brad Hudson, R-Cape Fair, said under current law, the statute of limitations is too short, and victims often delay disclosing their abuse until later in life.
Gracia Macks, a victim of childhood sexual abuse, testified in support of the bills. She said many victims are unable to pursue civil accountability, adding, “Missouri’s clock runs out before the survivors are even able to speak.”
“Under current Missouri law, the courthouse door doesn’t close because the abuse didn’t happen,” Macks said. “It closes because the survivor didn’t heal on a legislative timeline.”
Hudson said he believes the current laws side with abusers, noting that the statute of limitations is a weapon used by predators to get away with abuse.
“By assigning an arbitrary statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, we are siding with abusers and perpetrators over survivors, and making Missouri a sanctuary state for pedophiles,” Hudson said.
Hampton Williams testified against the bills as a representative of the Missouri Insurance Coalition. While stating he is in full support of the victims, Williams said he’s concerned civil claims will become a substitute for criminal prosecutions.
“Removing the temporal limits in civil law changes its character, shifting it from a compensatory framework toward one that resembles criminal adjudication, without the structural features designed to ensure accurate and reliable outcomes over long periods of time,” Williams said.
Kathryn Robb, national director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, an advocacy organization fighting child abuse, testified in support of the bills. She said victims need the option for a civil claim due to the shortcomings of the criminal justice system.
“Less than 10% of sexual crimes against children go forward to prosecution,” Robb said. “The victim has very little voice; they’re just a witness, they’re not a party. It’s a system that does not work in terms of dealing with this social problem.”
Williams also brought concerns over possible spillover of liability from abusers to organizations simply associated with the abuser, such as employers, schools and other organizations the abuser may be affiliated with.
Robb responded, “Institutions don’t go to jail.”
Robb’s views echoed the sentiments of the other 12 witnesses testifying in support, many themselves survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
“Why should perpetrators and wrongdoing institutions be protected by the passage of time? When victims and their families suffer in perpetuity,” Robb said.
SJR 93 passed out of committee, and floor action is expected soon. SB 1140 will be voted on in committee at a later date.
-----------------------------------------------------
Families push back against developmental disability program cuts
By Sterling Sewell, Columbia Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Members of the House Budget Committee vowed Wednesday to find a way to fund two programs that help support at-home care and daytime activities for Missourians with developmental disabilities.
The committee’s proceedings were swamped Wednesday as dozens of Missouri families testified against two cuts in Gov. Mike Kehoe’s proposed budget for the Department of Mental Health.
The proposed cuts would reduce self-directed supports funding by $17.5 million and cut $61.7 million in funding tied to day habilitation programs. Self-directed supports, or SDS, provide funding for families to manage and hire their own support staff, often in the home, and day habilitation centers provide out-of-the-home, structured activities for those with disabilities.
“I’ve been very vocal in making sure that I’m gonna do everything I can to find waste elsewhere in the budget before we ever touch anything like this,” Rep. Darin Chappell, R-Rogersville, said while standing in for the committee’s chair and vice chair, who were absent.
Over the past three days, the committee has been focused on the two cuts proposed in Kehoe’s budget, and dozens of Missouri residents have reached out to members of the committee over email and in person to express their concerns over the cuts.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Mike Steinmeyer, R-Sugar Creek, brought with him a three-ring binder overloaded with hundreds of pages of emails he said he received protesting the cuts.
“I want you to know that in 10 days, this is what my email has looked like,” Steinmeyer said, tapping on the binder. “So, I got the message. In four years of being in political office, in elected office, this is the most responses I think I’ve ever had.”
One of the people who spoke before the committee Wednesday was Larry Opinsky, an advocate for the St. Louis area special needs community with SDS Family Support Group. He noted that many people who came to the hearing had taken off work and that families came from across the state.
Opinsky said his 27-year-old daughter, Lilly, has lived a life filled with activities like hippotherapy, going to the gym, owning a dog, volunteering at a local preschool and even attending rock-music therapy sessions. To do all of these things, Lilly, who is nonambulatory and nonverbal, has relied for years on an SDS-funded caregiver to help her perform basic tasks each day, he said.
“A meaningful life,” Opinsky said. “They help her live a meaningful life.”
The SDS funding for families to pay caregivers, Opinsky said, could be lowered by 31% if the budget is not changed. Hired caregivers, who already are paid hourly through the program and do not receive health insurance or paid time off, could see major pay cuts as a result of the loss of program funding.
Opinsky noted that currently, wages for SDS-funded caregivers are higher than wages for similar positions elsewhere in order to make up for the lack of benefits. With wages on the cutting table, Opinsky worries not only for those receiving care but also for the caregivers.
“As much as I truly love my job and my client, the proposed wage reductions would make it nearly impossible,” said Lisa Dunaway, an SDS-funded caregiver.
Opinski said that the program is not only the best option to aid individuals with disabilities but also the most cost-effective solution for taxpayers. He noted that there are no major management and training costs as part of the program because parents and guardians work as the “boss” for caregivers and train them to meet their child’s specific needs.
He added that the cost to hospitals or state-run facilities in the absence of SDS-funded caregivers would likely be higher.
Others who testified noted that if families cannot find in-home caregivers, individuals with disabilities could be open to higher rates of abuse, lowered levels of care in residential facilities and some said that without the funding, people could die from lack of care.
Julie Blackmon told the story of her daughter Grace, who is nonverbal and physically disabled. Before Grace was cared for by SDS-funded caregivers, Blackmon said she lived in a residential facility with poor staffing, where she said her daughter cried most of the day, suffered from muscle spasms and dehydration.
“I hire the caregivers. I train them. I manage the schedule. I oversee her care,” Blackmon said before noting the many ways SDS-funded caregivers provide medical care.
The state currently faces a tough budget future, and House Budget Committee members are under pressure to find ways to cope with a decreasing state revenue surplus.
Erika Leonard, the CEO of Starling, which runs day habilitation services in the state, said that her organization covered about 95% of the day habilitation services across the state.
“We are not in denial that the state of Missouri has a budget situation that is not the most positive climate moving forward, but we feel cutting services to people with developmental disabilities will have a greater impact on the person and the state budget down the road,” Leonard said.
She noted that if services are cut, a more costly replacement service will have to be found.
Danielle Schwartz, the executive director of Day Solutions, another day habilitation program in the state, was joined by Faith Ewing, a program participant. Schwartz and Ewing explained the impact that the program has had on Ewing’s life, from helping her get a job to helping her attend college at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
“I think the committee is very receptive,” Leonard said. “Knowing that we are in a dire budget situation, but we’re not in such a critical position where we have to hurt people.”
Leonard said that she has spoken with committee leadership, including Rep. Dirk Deaton, R-Seneca, the committee’s chair, and believes they will try to ensure funding for the two programs.
-----------------------------------------------------
House bill promises to support student press freedom
By Jackson Cooper, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A bill that would give student journalists greater protection against censorship was heard by a House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee on Wednesday.
House Bill 2918 establishes the “Cronkite New Voices Act,” which transfers broad editorial authority in student media from school administrators to student journalists. It is sponsored by Rep. Scott Miller, R-St. Charles.
Currently, Missouri follows the minimum constitutional guidelines on student speech. Those minimum guidelines are interpreted through the Supreme Court precedent, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), which permits school administrators to censor student journalism and halt the publication of material they take issue with.
Under the bill, students in Missouri would have final authority over the news and opinion content appearing in their school publication. It does not bar school administrators from censoring journalistic content entirely, though such interventions would be constrained to limited carveouts such as libel, slander, invasion of privacy or threats of violence, among others.
These carveouts grant student journalists rights similar to those that govern press freedom in professional journalism.
The bill reflects a nationwide trend to protect student voices following the Hazelwood decision. The bill is an initiative of the Student Press Law Center, an organization that provides free legal services to student journalists. Eighteen states have already enacted similar legislation to Miller’s bill, according to the SPLC.
These laws have been considered constitutionally permissible because the Supreme Court decision only sets a floor for student speech and does not restrict states from individually strengthening First Amendment rights.
Cathy Kuhlmeier testified in support of the bill. She is a Warrenton resident who served as a plaintiff in the landmark case that bears her name and governs student press freedom. Kuhlmeier has since become a vocal supporter of student press freedom, advocating for similar “New Voices” legislation across the country.
Kuhlmeier said she and her fellow student journalists were punished for reporting on supposed sensitive subjects like teen pregnancy, divorce and runaways. What was never in question, she said, was the quality of student journalism.
“We didn’t promote the issues or give (students) how-tos,” Kuhlmeier said. “We gave them helpful resources to turn to in the event they found themselves in these same situations, and asked them to think about their choices before they acted on impulse.”
Student journalists from Clayton High School in suburban St. Louis also testified in support of the bill. Though the Clayton School District does not censor its student paper, The Globe, students said that the absence of a legal backing to that policy has kept them from pursuing stories that might conflict with the administration.
“When students self-censor out of fear, the community loses access to accurate and balanced reporting,” said Charles Balestra, a Clayton senior who serves as the business and operations editor-in-chief of The Globe. “If we cannot cover both the positives and negatives of a story, then we cannot claim to run an honorable and accurate paper.”
In addition to safeguarding student press freedom, the bill further defines the role of student media advisors. The bill clarifies that advisors are responsible for teaching and encouraging journalism standards in student publications but are not to have a final editorial say.
Advisors are also legally shielded from retaliation for refusing to censor students under the bill.
Clayton’s publications advisor Debra Klevens said that inclusion was pertinent, since advisors risk being fired for siding with students as the law currently stands.
“We shouldn’t have to choose between our jobs and the First Amendment,” Klevens said.
Concerns similar to Klevens’ have played out in educational institutions around the country in the decades since the Hazelwood decision. Notably, Indiana University fired its student media advisor in 2025 for refusing to comply with administrative censorship.
Upon completion of its public hearing, the bill awaits a vote from the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers consider granting immunity to MoDOT contractors
By Ryan Brandt, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The House is considering a bill that would shield some private contractors for the Missouri Department of Transportation from lawsuits the same way the government itself is protected.
House Bill 2926, proposed by Rep. Cameron Parker, R-Campbell, was heard by the House Transportation Committee on Tuesday.
Members of the committee and the public expressed some confusion about what the bill covered and what it implied.
“From my understanding, it encompasses all kinds of industries that would have this immunity, and I’m curious as to why those were taken out, and we’re only dealing with MoDOT,” said Rep. Michael Burton, D-Lakeshire.
“On this particular case, I wanted to limit the scope,” Parker said in response. "Many, many subcontractors or private contractors deal with the MoDOT entities."
The bill aims to keep Missouri’s existing sovereign immunity framework, meaning the government can't be sued for negligence, except for certain situations already written into law. For example, car accidents involving government employees. These existing exceptions don’t change in the proposed bill.
This piece of legislation restates two main situations where the state waives immunity:
Injuries caused by the negligent operation of motor vehicles by public employees.
Injuries caused by dangerous conditions on public property.
Some public citizens have voiced support for the bill. Dale Williams, an employee with the Missouri Asphalt Pavement Association, testified.
“If a contractor does something negligent, then you know we will let the law work that out, but we’re asking for protection when they follow and do everything they’re supposed to do," Williams said.
The major change to state law within this bill is that private contractors, subcontractors and their employees will have the same immunity as a public entity only when the following are true:
The individuals are working under a government contract with MoDOT.
They are performing work according to MoDOT-approved plans and specifications.
Some members of the public showed up in protest of the bill.
“If someone comes into my office and tells me they’ve been involved in a wreck and are seriously injured because of these construction projects, what I have to tell them is that there’s a limit to which we can go after the state, both in terms of liability and the amount of damages they can actually recover, no matter how seriously harmed or if a loved one is killed,” said Mike Campbell, an attorney in Columbia advocating on behalf of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill aims to end sales tax on food
By Sawyer Bess, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Local officials pushed back Wednesday against a Senate bill that would end both state and local sales tax on food and grocery items.
Senate Bill 1239’s sponsor, Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, said she is looking to increase affordability for Missourians as prices rise.
“Missourians are paying more and more for necessities,” Coleman said. “Most of us agree fundamentally that essential services should not be funded on the backs of the poor.”
Coleman said a family of four would save $54 per month with the removal of grocery sales tax.
In support of Coleman’s bill, Amanda Berry, food security policy manager at Empower Missouri, said that families in the lowest income quantile spend 25% of their income on food, whereas families in the highest quantile spend only 5%.
Numerous mayors, county commissioners and other local representatives testified against this bill, emphasizing local reliance on sales taxes.
“Sales taxes, including taxes on the sale of food, is the lifeblood of many Missouri local governments,” said David Dimmitt, mayor of Brentwood. “Local governments do not have income taxes and must survive instead on property taxes and sales taxes.”
Dimmitt also said that because the bulk of property taxes go to schools and other jurisdictions, local governments rely on sales taxes to fund police and fire departments, road repairs, trash and recycling, among many other services.
Leaders from small towns also voiced their reliance on sales tax to fund services. Tara Strain, city administrator of Centralia, said she would also like to decrease food costs for Missourians but warns about unintended consequences of removing local tax on grocery items.
“The elimination of these revenues statewide is estimated to result in over $1 billion in lost local funding,” Strain said. “For cities like mine, that loss would not be abstract, it would directly affect our ability to maintain infrastructure, to respond to emergencies and provide safe and livable communities.”
Strain and other local leaders only spoke against local tax removal, not necessarily the state tax. Missouri’s sales tax on retail sales of food is currently 1%.
“I fundamentally agree with not taxing food, however, I would like to see how the state deals with a hole in their budget first,” said Ike Skelton, Camden County presiding commissioner. “If you want to change the Constitution and allow each county to decide this sort of thing on their own, that might be a great idea.”
A similar bill, Senate Bill 1017, sponsored by Sen. Patty Lewis, D-Kansas City, would only remove the state sales tax for groceries. Lewis said 33 other states do not have a sales tax on food.
Various Missouri leaders also supported looking for ways to decrease initial costs of groceries rather than removing the sales tax.
Coleman has spent about seven years working to pass this legislation, which has never been approved by the Senate. In 2026, the Missouri General Assembly is also considering Gov. Mike Kehoe’s plan to remove Missouri’s income tax.
“In the broader fiscal context … with Gov. Kehoe prioritizing the elimination of state income tax, we need to consider ways to restructure state revenue that doesn’t make buying basic necessities nearly impossible,” Berry said.
If passed, Coleman’s bill would remove local sales tax on food over the course of four years, coming to an end in 2031.
-----------------------------------------------------
House takes first step on property tax changes
By Emma Farrel and Samantha Jackson, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — House lawmakers took the first step Wednesday toward making changes to the state’s property tax system.
The Missouri House of Representatives voted to move forward House Bill 2780, a wide-ranging bill built around a restructuring method known as “siloing” that supporters say would change how tax limits are calculated.
Rep. Tim Taylor, R-Bunceton, sponsor of the 87-page measure, who chairs the Special Interim Committee on Property Tax Reform, said the proposed bill reflects months of hearings held across Missouri to gather concerns from residents and local officials about rising property tax burdens and assessment practices.
Taylor said one of the most important aspects of the bill is siloing the individual tax subclasses, so increases in assessed value in one subclass are not diluted by stagnant values in another. This would allow personal property to initiate Hancock Provisions that limit how much taxes can increase.
“Our tax system is a mess in many ways, and it didn’t become a mess overnight,” Taylor said. “It became a mess over a long period of time. It’s important for us to not try and fix it overnight because that’s impossible.”
HB 2780 proposes multiple changes to property tax and ballot practices including limiting voting on tax measures to November instead of April, listing ballot measures alphabetically or numerically, and forbidding local jurisdictions from describing any proposed tax on property as not increasing taxes.
The House voted 93-46 to adopt Amendment 3, one of the most debated changes to the bill. The amendment moves certain property tax related ballot questions from low-turnout April elections to November ballots, when voter participation is typically higher.
Lawmakers also adopted an amendment that exempts townships from certain voting requirements under the proposal.
Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, D-Columbia, who is a member of the special committee on property tax reform, spoke in favor of Amendment 3 but ultimately did not vote in support of the full bill.
“I don’t think the people in our chamber understand the impact on our local communities, and I am very frustrated that we didn’t have a chance to have that discussion among representatives of every area of this state and something that has such a strong impact on our local communities,” Steinhoff said.
While some members questioned why the bill was coming up so early in the session, Taylor repeatedly noted that he expects changes as it goes through the Senate and that it will return for more votes in the House later this session.
Approval of the bill’s amendments Wednesday leaves one more vote in the House before the legislation moves to the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY
Suit over gerrymandered districts gets court hearing
By Jack Schouten and Eric Hughes, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Media and lawyers packed into a small courtroom on the fourth floor of the Cole County Courthouse on Tuesday as Judge Brian Stumpe heard arguments regarding the use of the gerrymandered congressional map passed by the legislature last fall.
The question at the heart of the lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of some state residents, is: What is the status of the map enacted by House Bill 1 after the citizen group called People Not Politicians submitted a referendum petition with over 300,000 signatures?
Plaintiffs argue that the map was suspended when People Not Politicians submitted the referendum petition with a required number of signatures and it remains suspended until the petition is deemed ineligible by the secretary of state or the map is voted on by the state’s voters.
“We have very helpful Missouri Supreme Court cases, we have the text of the constitution, we have what prior secretaries of state and attorneys general have done, and all of that is consistent with the plaintiffs’ position,” said Jonathan Hawley, who represents one of the plaintiffs.
Defendants are attempting to argue the case on multiple fronts. First, they argue that the map can be used until and unless voters reject it.
“It’s one thing to say a minority can freeze the law. But what plaintiffs are saying is we should just assume that when a minority drops a pile of signatures, we should allow that minority to freeze the law without double checking,” defense attorney Louis Capozzi said.
The other argument the defense put forth is a judicial estoppel defense.
The defense argued that the state was successful in defending the use of the map in a separate case. They argued the plaintiffs’ attempt to bring this case forward is a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage by making the same arguments against the map in front of another judge. In their arguments, they tried to connect a separate case filed by People Not Politicians to the one heard Tuesday, speculating that the plaintiffs are funded by the same donor, which the plaintiffs deny.
“We know that People Not Politicians’ executive director and People Not Politicians’ attorney publicly promised that a lawsuit would be brought, arguing that HB1 was frozen by the mere submission of an unverified referendum petition,” defense co-council Michael Patton said.
Stumpe did not say when he would rule. Plaintiffs have asked for an expedited process because candidates can start filing their papers on Feb. 24 to run for election next fall.
The People Not Politicians group contends they collected more than enough signatures to hold a vote on newly gerrymandered maps in the fall. But that separate case is being held in abeyance until the signatures have been verified or rejected by the secretary of state. That is expected to take months, as signatures have to be verified as qualified voters by county clerks across the state.
People Not Politicians case
A separate Cole County circuit court judge is holding a case review Feb. 17 in a lawsuit filed by People Not Politicians over the handling of their referendum petition by Secretary of State Denny Hoskins.
At the time of filing, just weeks after the legislature approved the map, the petition held more than 300,000 votes. On its face, that is more than the “106,384 signatures across six congressional districts” needed to delay the maps from being used in 2026 before a vote can be held on them, according to the initial lawsuit.
The petition, filed by plaintiff Richard von Glahn, is being considered on the basis that Missourians reserve the “power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly,” as outlined in article III of the Missouri Constitution.
After a hearing on Dec. 12, Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ordered the case be held in abeyance until the requisite number of signatures had been certified or enough signatures had been rejected to keep it off the ballot. As of Jan. 5, 33,068 pages had been deemed valid and submitted to local election authorities with no memorandum since then.
Adding to the confusion, Hoskins is holding back some 100,000 of the signatures gathered on the petition because they were collected before he approved the form of the petition.
The gerrymandered map, designed to flip one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to the GOP, was forced through the Missouri House and Senate during a special session in September.
President Donald Trump has been encouraging Republican-led states to redraw their congressional maps, and requested that the Missouri Senate approve it in a social media post in September.
“This new Map will give the wonderful people of Missouri the opportunity to elect an additional MAGA Republican in the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The Missouri Senate must pass this Map now, AS IS, to deliver a gigantic Victory for Republicans in the ‘Show Me State.’”
-----------------------------------------------------
House hears bills to protect religious gatherings from state regulation
By Caroline Sweet, Missouri News Network
Two bills that would allow houses of worship to continue in-person services during public health emergencies were heard by the House Emerging Issues Committee.
Rep. Cathy Jo Loy, R-Carthage, sponsored House Bill 1778, which seeks to establish the “Missouri Religious Freedom Protection Act.” It would prevent public officials from ever issuing orders that limit religious gatherings unless the gatherings are used to commit or plan acts of violence.
This would include orders reminiscent of the COVID-19 pandemic era that prevented religious groups from gathering in person.
House Bill 2760, sponsored by Rep. Sean Pouche, R-Kansas City, would establish the “Protecting Religious Assembly in States of Emergency (PRAISE) Act.” Similarly, it prohibits orders that prevent religious gatherings under some emergency declarations.
This restriction would not apply to emergency evacuation orders, but it would apply in the event of public health emergency declarations, like in a pandemic. It also outlines provisions for religious groups to seek damages if they’re prevented from gathering.
Loy said during a hearing Monday that, in practice, these bills would allow Missouri houses of worship to decide whether to close in the face of a public health emergency.
“I think that some churches might do it foolishly, but for the most part, I think people will be really wise in making their decisions,” Loy said.
Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, a member of the Emerging Issues Committee, disagreed with Loy’s self-governing approach to public health legislation.
“When it comes to public health emergencies, we are responsible as a legislature for the health and well-being of our constituents,” Fuchs said. “This body continues to make decisions that, I believe, go against science.”
Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister from St. Louis, spoke in opposition to both bills. He argued that they overcorrect the restrictions pandemic-era policies imposed.
“If this legislation is passed, it will make our communities less safe by tying the arms of public health officials,” Kaylor said. “Are we going to carve out a special pandemic privilege for religion? Are we going to say only in this area the government can’t do anything to protect life and health?”
-----------------------------------------------------
House moves to block peace officer licenses to non-citizens
By Noah Symes, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — House Republicans gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow peace officer license applications to be denied if the applicant is a noncitizen.
Peace officers include police officers, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and some members of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
The sponsor of HB 1866, Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, said the bill also would allow the denial of officers who had their license revoked in other states.
“We are all aware of bad actors who hop from department to department; they also do it from state to state. Those are the kind of people we do not want enforcing the law in the state of Missouri,” Roberts said.
While support for this component of the bill stretched across the aisle, many House Democrats took issue with the ability to deny applications based purely on citizenship status.
Democrats attempted to amend the bill to allow permanent residents who have been honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces to serve as peace officers.
Sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Will Jobe, D-Independence, said he believes permanent residents who have honorably served in the military should be allowed to serve in law enforcement.
“I myself served with men and women that were not citizens of our country, but that had, just like me, stood up and raised their right hand and put their lives at risk in defense of our country and our constitution,” Jobe said.
Roberts spoke against the amendment, citing the special permissions granted by citizenship.
“I also served with people who were permanent residents, and they served honorably in our military. I both appreciate and admire them,” Roberts said. “Somebody who is a citizen of this country should not be deprived of their basic right of freedom by somebody who is not a citizen themselves.”
Rep. Marlon Anderson, D-St. Louis, spoke in favor of the amendment and against the bill. He said the bill would drive away qualified individuals during a shortage of police officers, and said he thinks permanent residents should be allowed to serve.
“Permanent residents, if they can fight for this country, if they can go over and lay their lives on the land, they should be able to arrest people and stop crime,” Anderson said.
Jobe ended the amendment discussion by recounting his own service.
“I can tell you that whenever I was sitting in a foxhole, when I was looking behind me, to see who was covering my back, their citizenship card is not something I was checking,” Jobe said.
Jobe’s amendment failed on a 52-95 vote. The bill was given a preliminary pass shortly after.
-----------------------------------------------------
Teachers could be fired over gender transition conversations
By Brandon Lorenz, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A bill that aims to stop transgender conversation in classrooms had a contentious hearing Tuesday in the Senate Education Committee.
Senate Bill 1085, sponsored by Sen. Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley, would introduce a new set of rules that public school districts and staff members will be required to follow if a student shares they are going through a social gender transition such as using preferred pronouns.
If passed, the bill also would bar school educators and staff from speaking about, or giving presentations of, a gender transition.
Under the bill, if a student were to have a discussion with a teacher on the topic of gender transition, that teacher is not allowed to have that conversation and is required to tell the principal of the school within 24 hours. The principal is then required to notify the parents of that student within 72 hours.
The legislation also covers school counselors. If a student were to confide in a counselor about this topic, relating to home life or not, then the same procedure would follow.
Opponents said each school district should be in charge of making their own policy for their students.
“School policy is developed at the district level because each community is supposed to know what’s best for their families,” said Amy Hammerman, state policy advocate for The National Council of Jewish Women.
The bill also requires that if a staff member knowingly violates the law, the school district is required to terminate that employee. The state is then required to revoke that teacher’s teaching license.
“Our teachers want to focus on the children learning. They don’t want to focus policing what the students are wearing and what their names are,” Hammerman said
The hearing featured strident arguments from both opponents and proponents of the bill.
Nicola said the reason he proposed the bill is because he thinks schools shouldn’t be allowed to encourage students through a social transition.
“This bill does not silence any child. It is simply asking the adults in the room to not place the child onto an on-ramp where we know that the pathway forward is simply to harm their bodies,” said Jamie Reed, co-executive director of the LGB Courage Coalition, formerly the LGBT Courage Coalition.
During the two-hour discussion of the bill, Senate committee members grew displeased at how the committee was handling the conversations about gender transition.
“I would love just to spend one hearing talking about the issues that are really impacting the kids, and teachers today. … What we can do to improve reading, writing and arithmetic for kids across the state,” said Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, a former teacher.
A heated exchange broke out between committee chair Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, and Sen. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, during witness testimonies.
“This is the most egregious thing I’ve ever seen,” Webber said.
“You’re the one being disrespectful. ... I’m disappointed in your actions senator,” Brattin replied.
“This committee has become an absolute joke,” Nurrenbern complained during one back-and-forth with Brattin.
-----------------------------------------------------
Groups urge lawmakers to back elimination of income tax
Peter S. Pynadath, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — About 20 members of Americans for Prosperity Missouri and MO Tax Relief Now gathered inside the Missouri State Capitol rotunda on Tuesday to listen to remarks from Missouri politicians and campaign for the removal of the state’s individual income tax.
Gov. Mike Kehoe has made the elimination of individual income tax a top priority for the legislative session, calling for its removal in the next five years.
The groups believe this proposal will make Missouri more affordable and incentivize economic growth. But as the elimination of individual income tax becomes a top focus in the legislative session, some are opposed, fearing a lack of revenue and an increase in costs for Missouri residents.
House Joint Resolution 174, carried by Missouri House Speaker Jon Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit, would allow voters to decide if income taxes should be gradually reduced to zero by January 2031. If approved, the amendment would allow the state to expand sales and use taxes to replace the revenue the individual income tax generated.
Dennis Ganahl, founder of MO Tax Relief Now, said the average Missourian paid $1,500 in state income taxes, which he hopes can be spent on necessities under Patterson’s proposal.
“We’re going to hand these people $1,500, and they’ll be able to spend on water heaters, shoes for the kids, put gas in their car and buy more food,” Ganahl said. “If we charge people by their consumption versus charging them by their income, they’re going to have more control over what they spend and how they spend.”
Ganahl also said this proposed tax elimination will help address privacy concerns he believes individual income tax brings.
“Right now, the state is digging into your records and my records,” Ganahl said. “They know what we’re making, how many dependents we have, they know all of that. It’s time to stop letting them invade our privacy.”
Ganahl said a sales tax structure will address issues of affordability, which he believes are felt by the middle class.
“The wealthy can afford to live, and the poor get support already — they’re getting housing, medical care, food stamps,” Ganahl said. “It’s the middle class who can’t afford to live anymore.”
Critics of Kehoe’s tax proposal argue that a sales tax is regressive, as low-income residents are likely to pay a larger percentage of their income when compared to wealthier individuals. However, Ganahl said this tax structure will force the wealthy to pay more than they currently pay in income taxes, which are currently set at 4.7% for top earners.
Debbie Fehl, a resident of St. Louis, also believes Missouri residents are overtaxed and any cuts to individual income tax will increase Missourians’ disposable income.
“This would give us more freedom to be able to go on vacation, buy more things for our home, maybe even get a bigger home,” Fehl said.
Sabrina Merritt, an attorney for Travelers Insurance from Kirkwood, said that once Missouri residents have more money to spend, it will fuel the economy and stimulate growth. Merritt noted that eliminating income tax will also incentivize businesses and people to come to Missouri.
“We’re going to be able to draw more people in,” Merritt said. “That’s going to encourage more companies to come here and let other people outside find out how great Missouri is.”
Not all Missourians agree that eliminating income tax is a wise decision. Progress MO, a group dedicated to platforming progressive ideas, hosted a virtual news conference on Jan. 27. Speakers such as Aisha O’Malley, a single mother living in Lee’s Summit, said this tax reform is more about giving the wealthy a tax cut than improving affordability in Missouri.
“We need our state to take care of us instead of just kowtowing to the billionaires that are patting their pockets,” O’Malley said. “Patterson has made it very clear he will not listen to Missourians unless they are a billionaire who is financing him.”
O’Malley said a sales tax structure will likely increase the price of goods that Missourians rely on. She added that she struggles to afford groceries, utilities and car repairs, a problem she believes may get worse under Patterson’s proposal.
“I’m glad my son’s wanting to grow his hair out, because he’s not getting a haircut anytime soon,” O’Malley said. “When, not if, the Republican tax plan fails, we can have calls to action and calls for accountability because this is going to impact so many Missourians.”
Jennifer Layton, a resident of Columbia, expressed similar concerns during the virtual meeting. Layton said she is concerned this resolution will raise the price of goods and services, adding to her existing problems with affordability.
“I’m a disabled Missourian and live on a very small fixed income,” Layton said. “The idea that costs could go up from here is absolutely terrifying to me.”
Layton said she already struggles to purchase food and relies on food stamps and other social services to get by.
“The cost of living in Columbia is not cheap, but if I were to move out of Columbia or Boone County, I would no longer be in a location with the level of services for the disabled, with a great and wonderful food pantry,” Layton added.
-----------------------------------------------------
Public education supporters rally against funding cuts
By Sophia Gromowsky, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Teachers, parents, students and other advocates from across the state gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday to lobby against funding cuts for Missouri public schools.
They held a small rally in the rotunda and met with lawmakers to voice their concerns about several pieces of proposed legislation that could further jeopardize what they say is an already underfunded school system.
Missouri ranks 36th in public education expenditures per student, but 49th in the percentage of state revenue dedicated to public education, according to the National Education Association’s 2025 review.
“It’s important to not just support public schools, but to fund them fully, so that students have everything that they need and deserve to get a really good education,” said Ellen Scwartze, a parent with a child in Kansas City Public Schools.
“Even if someone is supportive, we’re hoping that they maintain that support and that they understand that tax cuts in other areas of the budget are going to affect public schools,” she said.
One of participants’ primary concerns was Gov. Mike Kehoe’s proposal to eliminate state income tax. Individual income tax accounted for 64% of the state’s general revenue in 2025, according to the MOST Policy Initiative.
State funding from general revenue accounted for 30% of funding for Missouri’s public education system during the 23-34 school year, according to a National Education Association review.
A joint resolution that would place the option to eliminate individual income tax by 2031 on the Missouri ballot is currently working its way through the legislature.
Carter Taylor, a second grade teacher in Kansas City Public Schools and legislative chair for the American Federation of Teachers Local 691, said that she came to the Capitol to represent her students who were unable to be there.
“It’s a lot easier to put me on the bus than it was to put all my second graders on the bus,” Taylor said. “They shouldn’t have to be advocates for themselves yet. They should be able to focus on being students and being kids."
A lack of funding for basic classroom supplies causes some teachers to use their own personal funds to provide necessary materials for their students, Taylor said.
Missouri currently ranks 49th in the country for average teacher salary and average teacher starting salary, according to the National Education Association’s 2025 review.
“I’ve skipped meals, most teachers I know go into debt their first year teaching, and you don’t climb out of that very easily,” Taylor said. She noted a fellow teacher who is unhoused, suggesting that it's because teacher aren't paid more.
Riley Guy, an organizer for the Columbia Tenants Union, also expressed concern about recent efforts to establish charter schools in Columbia. She said she was encouraged by her meeting with Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, who is sponsoring a bill that would reverse the decision to allow charter schools in Boone County.
“Not all charter schools are bad, but we want to make sure our public schools are fully funded before we create charter schools, and the truth is, in Columbia, the funding is just not there,” Guy said.
“We want to make sure that our public schools, which accept kids of all religions, all levels of economic scale, are first priority,” he said.
-----------------------------------------------------
House committee hears childcare bill for the fourth year in a row
By Emily Skidmore, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A bill focused on making childcare more affordable through tax credits was heard on Tuesday by the House Committee of Economic Development.
HB 2409, introduced by Rep. Brenda Shields, R-St. Joseph, seeks to make childcare more accessible for employees in Missouri, thereby creating a reliable workforce for businesses as working parents have options for their children while they are at work.
The bill outlines three potential tax credits:
For a parent paying for childcare, a 75% tax credit for funds paid to a childcare provider to improve the quality of childcare facilities, employee training and salaries.
For a childcare provider, a 30% tax credit similar to the Missouri Works program for use of capital for the improvement and upkeep of facilities.
For an employer-provided childcare assistance tax program, a 30% tax credit providing childcare services and costs in-house.
All the tax credits apply to large and small businesses, but childcare providers must register with the state to be eligible to participate in any phase of the tax credit program.
Each tax credit will be capped at $20 million from all applicants and has to be used in a childcare desert, which is an area that has a poverty rate of at least 20% and 33% of its population is not located near a childcare facility.
According to ChildCare Aware of Missouri, rural areas across Missouri are mainly affected, with 72 out of 115 counties in a childcare desert.
All of the tax credits will be processed through the Office of Childhood Development and will have a six-year lifespan.
"This isn't government creating childcare, but it's local businesses, churches, family houses, group homes, who will create the care that their community needs," Shields said.
This is the fourth time the bill was heard by the committee. While the House has approved similar bills in recent years, they have consistently died in the Senate.
In Missouri, there is a 64% labor participation rate with unemployment rates of 3.9%.
House members say they are seeking to increase the labor participation rate by providing more options for childcare so working parents don't have to decrease their time in the workforce because of childcare concerns.
According to Shields, Missouri loses $1.35 billion in revenue each year because of the lack of childcare as working parents prioritize their children's needs over work.
"I truly believe the most important infrastructure (employers) can have for businesses and recruitment to our state is where we say, 'If you come to our state we can take care of your employees' children,'" Shield said.
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate supports tax credit changes for beginning farmers
By Margaret Stewart and Abigail Didonna, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The Senate has given initial approval to a bill that aligns Missouri's income tax filing date with federal dates and protects taxpayers from penalties if they are denied a state tax credit because funds aren't available.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mike Henderson, R-Desloge, said in floor debate Monday that SB 994 will eliminate “unnecessary punishment” and waive extra fees for taxpayers who were denied a tax credit.
A number of state tax credits are awarded on a first-come basis until a dollar ceiling is reached to protect the state budget.
The most attention to the bill came in discussion of helping young farmers.
Sen. Brad Hudson, R-Cape Fair, proposed an amendment which would deduct income taxes for the sale or lease of land to “beginning farmers.” The tax credit would incentivize young residents to purchase land for agriculture, he said.
Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, who is a cattle farmer, questioned the ethics of the amendment. Hough said it benefits corporations and trust funds, not just farmers.
Hudson returned to his main point: traditional family farms should not bear “the frustration of tax liability.”
Hudson said he shared Hough’s concern about corporations buying farmland and also expressed concern for traditional family farms.
“The traditional family farm is going extinct and that concerns me as well. And we got a piece of legislation here that will help ensure its survival in the future,” Hudson said.
Hough said he would not attempt to block the amendment, but believed it was morally wrong to incentivize selling to one buyer over another.
“So we’re treating those two buyers differently now. This is not a trap, but does that seem fair to you?” Hough asked.
Hudson responded that giving incentivization for struggling industries is a common government practice.
“I recognize that in a perfect world legislation like this wouldn’t need to exist, but, senator, we don’t live in a perfect world, " Hudson said, “We live in the real world, and in the real world these family farms are going away to extinction."
“One of the reasons that they are is because those that hold these family farms do not have the incentive or have the frustration of the tax liability that they would acquire should they pass that farm down to their heirs,” Hudson said.
The amendment was passed without opposition.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill allowing pregnant women to divorce given initial support in the House
By Kennedy Voss, Missouri News Network
A combined bill allowing pregnant women to be granted a divorce was given preliminary approval by the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
Currently in Missouri, it is common for a judge to delay the granting of a divorce if a woman is pregnant. The combined House Bills 1908 and 2337, given initial approval Tuesday, would make it so judges may not consider pregnancy as a reason not to approve a divorce. The bill is part of a bipartisan effort from Reps. Cecelie Williams, R-Dittmer, and Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson.
"A medical condition should not bar anybody from having access to all of the judicial processes that everyone else has," Proudie said. "And right now, in the state of Missouri, we do that."
The bill was given preliminary approval on a voice vote and is currently awaiting full approval by the House. A similar bill sponsored by Williams passed the House last year but died in the Senate.
The two bills have received overwhelming support both in committee and on the floor of the House of Representatives.
"Moses allowed for a writ of divorce under certain circumstances. In the New Testament, Jesus ratified that, speaking of 'harmless apart,'" said Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson. "I think divorce in this case, possibly legal separation, is appropriate in some instances. From that perspective, I speak in favor of the ladies' legislation."
The Senate Committee on Seniors, Family and Health will be hearing two similar Senate Bills tomorrow, sponsored by Sens. Maggie Nurrenburn, D-Kansas City, and Brian Williams, D-University City. Their bills are Senate Bills 926 and 946, respectively.
-----------------------------------------------------
MONDAY
House moves to permanently ban gender affirming care for minors
By Nolan Haberstroh and Sawyer Bess, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Bills indefinitely extending the ban on gender-affirming care for minors were given initial approval following heated debate Monday in the house.
House Bills 2033, 1608, 1672 and 1854 seek to remove the expiration date from an existing law passed in 2023, known as the “Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act”.
The “SAFE Act,” which prohibits doctors from providing gender-affirming care to any individual under the age of 18, included a stipulation ending its effects Aug. 28, 2027, commonly referred to as a sunset provision.
The new bill, sponsored by Rep. Melissa Schmidt, R-Eldrige, removes the provision, which would make the ban on care permanent.
“The sunset has given additional time for more scientific information in regards to the best approach in helping children navigate this very serious condition,” Schmidt said.
Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, argued for the importance of the sunset provision, feeling its revocation would be hasty.
“Sunsets are benchmarks for evaluation,” Fuchs said. “They’re put in place so we as a legislative body can pause to evaluate to make the right decision.”
Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson, was insistent that the sunset provision was wholly unnecessary.
“This is current law and needs to remain law,” Seitz said. “This bill simply removes the sunset on a bill that the previous governor signed.”
Republicans also spoke on what they saw as negative mental health effects caused by “experimentation on minors,” referring to gender-affirming care.
Rep. Wick Thomas, D-Kansas City, the first openly transgender and gender nonconforming elected official in the state, directly addressed transgender youth in Missouri, reassuring them amid threats to health care access and rebutting Republican claims of gender care’s ties to mental health problems.
“Just know I was one of you. I was one of you, and I never had any concerns, I never had an issue around who I was,” Thomas said. “What affected my mental health was the rhetoric coming out of rooms like this, which is the criminalization of LGBT people.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Bills seek to verify citizenship for people sending money out of the country
By Abigail Didonna and Peter S. Pynadath, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Two bills that target immigrants who send money out of the country are currently moving through the House and Senate.
House Bill 2412, sponsored by Rep. Ben Keathley, R-Chesterfield, and a similar Senate Bill 1124, sponsored by Sen. Nick Schroer, R-Defiance, seek to require financial institutions verify the immigration status of individuals sending electronic money transfers to recipients outside of the United States.
Financial institutions in the state would not be permitted to transfer money overseas if the sender is an immigrant lacking permanent legal status.
Currently, Keathley’s bill is moving through the House and has completed public hearing, and Schroer’s bill has been referred to the Insurance and Banking Committee.
Both bills stipulate violations would result in a penalty against the institution of 25% of the amount transferred and would be deposited into the Missouri Disaster Fund.
The Department of Commerce’s Division of Finance would also conduct random quarterly audits to ensure compliance beginning July 1, 2027.
Failure to comply with quarterly audits could result in the loss of all licenses administered by the Division of Finance, both bills note.
If the bills were passed, institutions that facilitate foreign remittance transfers would be required to keep documentation such as records of transmission, bank statements, documentation used to verify the sender’s legal status, name, date of birth and the address for at least three years.
Keathley’s bill faced concerns over data privacy and potential burdens on financial institutions and immigrants. Schroer’s bill has not yet had a public hearing.
Data privacy concerns
One of the largest concerns over the bill is on data privacy and a lack of a clear procedure that financial institutions can follow to verify residency. Witnesses at the hearing noted that financial institutions would be required to hold an increased amount of a customer’s personal information for a significant period of time.
Sage Coram, representing the ACLU of Missouri, cited a lack of clarity regarding the types of documents stored, how they are being stored and required data sharing between financial institutions and businesses.
“This bill would require lawful Missourians to provide additional, sensitive and personal information,” Coram said. “This would impact everyday Americans that are potentially stationed overseas, or people studying abroad or working abroad, or people that are simply contributing to relief, charity or faith efforts as world events unfold.”
Alex Eaton, representing Remitly, a Seattle-based money transmitter for international transfers, and the Electronic Transactions Association, a Washington-based nonprofit, said that storing the documents would put Missouri residents at risk.
“This requirement presents serious privacy concerns for Missourians seeking to transmit money,” Eaton said. “They would be required to carry with them and present private identifying documentation that could put their financial security or identities at risk should a bad actor intervene.”
Keathley said this should not be an issue as he believes much of this information is already collected by financial institutions.
“All of these financial institutions have all of your private data right now in order to verify that you are allowed to move money around,” Keathley said.
Burden on financial institutions
Eaton also shared concerns regarding the verification process of a sender’s residency status. He said that the potential fines for noncompliance are too high.
Eaton said the increased requirements placed on financial institutions are unrealistic, and when combined with potential penalties, will likely hurt small business owners.
Eaton added that financial institutions already have guardrails to prevent money laundering and illicit activity, but do not have a process to verify legal status. He said that financial institutions may push the costs of any fees or new guardrails onto customers and that the verification process would likely slow down all transactions.
Keathley believes these financial institutions already go through verifying processes for identity, and that the addition of an extra step for residency status would be a small requirement to add.
“The idea that it’s somehow burdensome to give someone your social security number, your birthday, all this identifying information, but not ask them to verify what your residency or citizenship status is silly,” Keathley said.
However, Eaton said that financial institutions already collect enough information from Missouri residents and that the added requirements are not necessary.
Currently, licensed money transmitters are regulated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and enforce strict anti-money laundering and Know Your Customer laws to verify senders.
“We believe these provisions cover foreign transactions,” Eaton said. “Money transmitters are one of the most regulated industries in the financial sector through state and federal oversight.
While testifying at the hearing, Treasurer Vivek Malek provided figures on foreign remittances related to criminal activity and his own experience with the immigration system. Malek said in 2023, an estimated $4.4 billion in remittances sent to Mexico were linked with the Cartel, but noted that remittance to Mexico was at $52 billion.
“This legislation addresses a critical gap in Missouri’s financial oversight, and House Bill 2412 establishes clear, enforceable standards for licensed money service businesses,” Malek said. “I respect the rules of this country and waited 17 years before it was my turn to become a U.S. citizen. Precisely because of my journey, I strongly believe that illegal immigration is an insult to immigrants who follow the law.”
Ethical concerns
Coram, representing the ACLU, pushed back on Malek’s testimony. Coram argued that this bill will increase the burden on everyday Missouri residents, disproportionately affect legal immigrants and encroach on people’s right to send money.
“This bill is a targeted attack on immigrants, but it would impact all residents of Missouri,” Coram said. “This bill targets immigrants and families that need to support their loved ones, and exploitively extracts hard-earned pay from a group of mostly low-income workers that already pay taxes.”
Representing the Immigrant Justice Collaborative in Springfield, Miles Pearson and Gabriela Stark said the harms this bill may inflict would affect all immigrants. Pearson said the bill is more about messaging than solving a problem, and explained that when a lot of immigrants send money overseas, it’s a lifeline for their families at home.
“What this bill is about is posturing: it’s saying we hate immigrants,” Pearson said. “When people are sending money to their families back home, this is a lifeline. Sometimes this money can be lifesaving. This is structural violence; if this bill passes, you can be certain it will be responsible for some deaths.”
Stark said as a Mexican American, she is concerned for her community.
“I myself am Mexican American, so I have seen the ways this bill could directly affect my community,” Stark said. “It is not a simple binary between people who have documentation and people who do not.”
Stark explained to committee members that this legislation is likely to impact those who do not have documentation but are currently applying for work visas.
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, last summer it increased the cost of initial employment authorization document applications, which grant temporary authorization for noncitizens to work in the U.S., to $550. Stark said that until financial barriers to documentation and work status could be removed, this bill would likely hurt immigrants.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill would protect homeowners from tax reclassification
By Xavier Asher, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Many Missouri property owners who rent out their homes to visitors have seen their tax rates increase after their residential properties were reclassified as commercial properties.
It's a reclassification that many owners don't believe to be accurate given how they use their homes.
To address this, Sen. Ben Brown, R-Washington, brought Senate Bill 1066 before the Senate Local Government, Election and Pensions Committee on Monday. The bill modifies the definition of residential property for the purposes of accurate taxation.
"This bill ensures statewide consistency for property classifications," Brown said. "It received bipartisan support and passed unanimously from this committee last session."
A property owner from Kansas City testified in support. She said that the reclassification caused taxes to rise on one of her properties from $2,000 annually to $7,000. On another property, her taxes increased from $5,000 to $15,000.
She told the committee that if it wasn't for emergency local ordinances that took effect, she would have had to sell her property.
The owner of a vacation home company testified in support of the bill. The tax burden brought on by reclassifications has made it difficult for him to run his business in the state. He told the committee that seven years ago he filed for bankruptcy. Now, he only owns a few properties in Missouri and has pivoted to engaging with the hotel business in another state.
Despite the fact that the properties are meant to turn a profit, the owners argue that these reclassifications, and subsequent tax increases, are unfair because the only thing being leased commercially is the residence itself.
Another individual pointed out how the World Cup coming to Kansas City this summer makes this bill especially relevant. Without this legislation, residents who take advantage of the opportunity to lease or rent their homes to visitors may be subject to commercial tax rates.
A hotel representative argued that these scenarios where tax classification had been changed were not all the same.
He said that people's "primary residences," or frequently visited vacation homes, should be classified as residences, even if they're being rented out. He also pointed out similarities between hotels, which are classified as commercial properties, and operations where one person owns and constantly rents out several properties.
He disagreed with the bill, and proposed a modification that would set a standard for how many days out of the year a home must be inhabited by its owner for it to be classified as a residential property.
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate bill would ban keeping lists of privately-owned firearms
By Erin Hynes, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Twenty states have enacted laws prohibiting the use of unique merchant category codes to distinguish firearm purchases, and Missouri could be the 21st.
Majority Caucus Whip Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, put forward Senate Bill 1128 in a Senate committee Monday, proposing the “Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act.”
SB 1128 prohibits government entities from keeping a list, record or registry of privately-owned firearms. Records may be kept during a criminal investigation and prosecution on gun ownership.
The bill also prohibits credit card networks from using a merchant category code to distinguish firearm sales from any other sale.
“This bill draws a clear line,” Carter said at the hearing. “Lawful gun ownership must never be treated as inherently suspicious.”
Kentucky, Tennessee and Iowa passed similar laws in 2024 banning the use of unique merchant category codes for firearms.
Darren LaSorte from the National Shooting Sports Foundation spoke in favor of the bill and its ability to prevent citizens from being investigated for purchasing firearms and equipment at a gun store.
“This is stuff that if I talked about seven years ago, you’d throw me in a padded room and call me a conspiracy theorist,” LaSorte said. “It’s happening now, and what this bill does is simply prohibits it from happening in the state of Missouri.”
If passed in Missouri, the attorney general could investigate anyone suspected of violating these laws and provide a 30-day notice. If changes are not made, the attorney general can file a lawsuit against the violator. Violators can receive a civil penalty of up to $1,000.
A similar bill, SB 216, was introduced in 2025, but it did not make it to the Senate floor.
-----------------------------------------------------
Waymo responds to letter from Sen. Stephen Webber
By Kate Leverenz, Missouri News Network
Sen. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, is still left with questions after receiving a letter from Waymo responding to his concerns over the company’s previous testimony to a Senate committee.
While Webber’s letter focused on testimony from Waymo during a state Senate committee, new testimony from the company before Congress has left him with more questions.
Amid Waymo’s support for autonomous vehicle legislation in Missouri, a congressional hearing has revealed that remote workers in the Philippines help make decisions for Waymo’s autonomous vehicles when they get stuck.
On Feb. 4, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing on the safety and oversight of autonomous vehicles. Waymo’s Chief Safety Officer Mauricio Peña testified on behalf of the company.
During questioning, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., asked Peña what a Waymo vehicle does when it encounters a driving situation it cannot independently resolve.
Peña said the vehicles contact remote operators who offer guidance, noting that while some operators are U.S.-based, others are based in the Philippines.
Given this new information, Webber told the Missourian he is not satisfied with Waymo’s letter and said he is shocked by the revelation that vehicles in the U.S. may be influenced by people in the Philippines.
During an initial state Senate committee hearing on legislation to regulate and legalize autonomous vehicles in the state, Webber asked Waymo’s representative about their vehicles’ ability to interact with school buses, if there had been any incidents and about an ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board on the subject.
Webber accused Waymo of giving false testimony when the company did not disclose an accident that occurred four days before the hearing, in which a Waymo vehicle hit a child in front of a school in California. A release from Waymo on the accident does not mention involvement with a school bus.
In a letter released last week, Webber requested that the company correct the public record, disclose details about its remote call centers and law enforcement interactions, and pause its advocacy for Missouri autonomous vehicle legislation until federal investigations are complete and child safety concerns are resolved.
Waymo has responded to Webber’s letter, clarifying testimony the senator alleged was incorrect from the Jan. 27 hearing.
“During the hearing, we accurately responded to questions regarding our interactions with school buses, which have not resulted in any contact with pedestrians, and the associated NTSB field investigation in Austin,” Lara Dailey, Waymo’s Midwest policy manager, said in the letter. “The line of questioning was specific to those topics.”
Dailey added that formal investigations on the incident in California did not open until Jan. 29, two days after the hearing.
During Waymo’s testimony to the state committee last month, Dailey said that Waymo has never had an incident involving a school bus where an accident or near-contact event occurred. However, Dailey noted that incidents where Waymo vehicles did not stop fully near a school bus have now led to an investigation.
The National Transportation Safety Board has launched an investigation into the company related to vehicle failures to yield to stopped school buses, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has launched an investigation into the incident involving the child pedestrian in California.
In his letter, Webber also requested more information on the remote call centers used when law enforcement needs to communicate with Waymo vehicles.
In her letter sent Monday, Dailey noted Waymo maintains a team of U.S.-based event response team operators specifically trained to serve as a direct point of contact for law enforcement.
In the event of an incident, this specialized unit is responsible for immediate engagement with officers at the scene to provide operational decisions and technical assistance, she added.
-----------------------------------------------------
WEEKEND
Senate leaders see no path forward on VLT regulation
By Emily Skidmore, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Senate Republican leaders last week deemed the regulation of Missouri’s “gray market” slot machines a nonpriority with unlikely chance of passage.
House Bill 2989, sponsored by Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon, would create a state monitored lottery system replacing current games on convenience store slot machines as a way for legislators and law enforcement to rein in outside companies profiting from unregulated machines. It has been a long-standing effort for several years by these groups.
The bill would also implement a 3% tax on revenue generated by the machines to go to local municipalities to enforce rules for the machines. The gaming machines would also be required to pay out at least 80% of money wagered as prizes over its lifetime. A little under one-third of these profits would be taxes by the state and go towards education funding.
Because these machines fall under a legal gray area, they are often referred to as “gray machines.” The machines are also often called “no-chance” machines because the outcome is not selected randomly, like similar slot machines. The bill would regulate them into what Hardwick calls video lottery terminals, or VLTs.
Attorney General Catherine Hanaway told legislators Thursday that the state had joined a federal investigation of “illegal” slot machines and the profits that are flowing from Missourians to companies, like Torch Electronics, that own these games.
Absent action by the legislature, Hanaway said it was her determination that the machines are illegal.
Hanaway’s comments come as the House prepares to debate the regulation bill.
Despite Hanaway’s comments, Senate Republicans expressed no major support for the current VLT bill, stating that it is “virtually identical” to an amendment offered two years ago that also focused on regulation of the gaming machines.
“There would have to be a lot of senators that have changed their positions two years ago for that to have a realistic shot,” said Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville, the majority floor leader.
The bill was passed by the House Emerging Issues Committee on an 8-5 vote Wednesday with three Republicans joining two Democrats in opposition.
Both side of the aisle seem to present only shaky support for the legislation as last year’s bill passed in the House with just one vote more than the 82 needed, then died in the Senate.
Those opposed to gambling have joined with convenience store operators who benefit from the machines to help stall legislation in recent years.
Senate President Pro Tem Sen. Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, said her opposition comes from her desire to see more focus on decreasing societal impacts from gambling.
“In the short time that I’ve been here, it just seems that we have talked about so many gambling bills, and (using the) taxes to pay for veterans and education,” O’Laughlin said. “But no one talks about the societal costs of it.”
