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 this week includes coverage of topics that have been common in recent years at the Capitol: changing the initiative process, immigration crackdowns, gender and teaching of critical race theory. We also covered more details at a budget hearing on the governor’s proposals for public education funding.
If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY
House bills would limit court oversight of ballot language
By Molly Gibbs, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — State lawmakers heard about bills that would take power from judges' ability to rewrite the summary statements or ballot language included in legislative joint resolutions this week.
The proposals represent an option legislators have for imposing more restrictions on the process for amending the Missouri Constitution.
Under the bills proposed by Rep. John Simmons, R-Washington, and Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis, if a court finds that summary or bill language is "legally flawed," they must send it back to the Missouri General Assembly to be rewritten in compliance with the law. If the assembly is not in session, the secretary of state would be responsible for rewriting the language.
Simmons' HB 684 also increases the number of words allowed in a summary statement from 50 to 150. Summary statements describe a joint resolution on a ballot, and most people at the hearing were in agreement that this was a positive change. Murphy's HB 414 does not include that language.
Opponents of the bills told the House Elections Committee in a hearing Tuesday that they were concerned this would remove important checks and balances between the legislature and the courts and potentially let a member of the state executive branch have final say over ballot language.
Denise Lieberman spoke on behalf of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition in opposition to the bills.
"To send it (bill language) back to the very body that drafted the language that was found to be illegal in the first place, really throws the separation of powers on its head," Lieberman said.
She argued it would also allow for endless delays in the process as the legislative body may not sufficiently change the language, forcing the courts to repeatedly send it back to the assembly.
Marilyn McLeod, president of the Missouri League of Women Voters, also voiced concerns at the hearing.
"This would negate the power of the courts to ensure that ballot language put before the voters is not biased or misleading," McLeod said.
Initiative petitions changes advance
Two bills that would make it more difficult for Missourians to amend state statutes and the Missouri Constitution using initiative petitions were approved by the committee on Tuesday.
The bills, HB 511 and HB 575 were combined and edited after a hearing last week.
The committee substitute for the bills would standardize the format of petitions, requiring dark ink for signatures and text no smaller than 12-point “Times New Roman” font.
It also changes the requirements for circulators, the people who present a petition and ask for signatures. Under the bill circulators must be residents of the state or reside in the state for 30 consecutive days prior to collecting signatures and cannot be paid per signature they collect.
Bill sponsor Rep. Brad Banderman, R-St. Clair, said three parts of the bill were removed, to reflect concerns raised by representatives and witnesses.
One section that was removed would have made completed initiative petition signature pages closed documents.
The section prevented completed petition pages with signatures from being released unless a U.S. citizen and Missouri resident petitioned the court to review the documents under supervision. Violating the provision was to be considered a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a maximum fine of $10,000.
The bill was passed by the committee on a party-line vote of 8-4, with Republicans favoring.
Term limits
The committee also heard House Joint Resolution 67 that would adjust the term limits restrictions on legislators, but maintain the 16-year cap.
Legislators are allowed to serve up to eight years in the House and up to eight years in the Senate. The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Peggy McGaugh, R-Carrollton, said the resolution does not increase the time a member can serve in the assembly but allows them to stay in either the House or the Senate for the entirety of their 16 years.
"Term limits decrease institutional expertise, decrease concentration of power in party leadership and increase power of lobbying organizations," McGaugh said. "I also believe that term limits do not increase diversity of a legislative body."
Both Republican and Democratic representatives shared support for the resolution. They agreed with McGaugh that while term limits are often popular with constituents they are a drain on institutional knowledge. Witnesses were similarly supportive of the resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY
No clear date for abortion access at Columbia's Planned Parenthood
By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network
Critical inspections. Disputes over cleanliness. A Molotov cocktail hurled through its front door.
Planned Parenthood Great Plains’ Columbia clinic has a troubled history.
Once the only clinic to offer abortions in mid-Missouri, a confluence of factors forced the clinic to stop offering the procedure in 2018.
After Missouri voters added a reproductive-rights amendment to the Missouri Constitution in November, some hoped to see a quick return to the procedure being offered locally.
Concern over abortion restrictions in state law prompted abortion providers to sue to have those laws declared invalid. A December ruling by Jackson County Judge Jerri Zhang stripped away some of those restrictions, but critical ones remain, delaying access to abortion in the state.
At a Jan. 31 hearing, attorneys for Planned Parenthood asked the judge to reconsider her decision to keep in place a state requirement for a facility license unique to abortion clinics.
“The license requirement itself is discriminatory,” Emily Wales, head of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said in an interview. “A lot of people think that when you go to a doctor’s office that it’s licensed. And it’s true that the doctor may have a license, their equipment may be inspected, but having a facility license that’s controlled by the Department of Health and Senior Services is not typical for outpatient settings.”
Wales said abortion clinics should follow licensure requirements that mirror clinics offering similar levels of care. That includes licenses for individual providers, federally regulated laboratory licenses known as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and municipal codes that all businesses follow.
Missouri requires licenses for hospices, acupuncturists and dietitians, among other services, State Solicitor General Josh Divine argued in the state’s opposition to the injunction request. He defended the facility license, and said Planned Parenthood can request waivers from certain requirements, as it has done successfully in the past.
“Planned Parenthood is thus wrong to insist it is ‘being singled out for differential (i.e., discriminatory) treatment,’” Divine wrote. “To the contrary, differential treatment is exactly what Planned Parenthood seeks. While comparable facilities have to be licensed, Planned Parenthood wants this Court to give Planned Parenthood preferential treatment to operate without any licensure at all.”
For now, both Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers said they don’t have a timeframe for when they might seek a license. There are no other only outpatient providers seeking to offer abortion in Missouri.
Every year, clinics in Missouri must apply for an annual abortion facility license to legally perform abortions. Missouri law requires the health department to do unannounced inspections and investigations of abortion clinics at least once per year.
Planned Parenthood argues that both medication and surgical abortion can be performed in office-based settings, such as doctor’s offices or specialized clinics, removing the need for facility licenses.
The abortion facility license includes pelvic exams, which require a doctor to insert their hands or a medical device into a woman’s vagina “even when it’s not medically indicated for a type of care, like medication abortion,” Wales said.
“Even for procedural abortion, it is highly safe. It does not equate with what many people think of as a surgery,” she said.
“There are no incisions. Patients are not sedated for a long time. The care is not complex. It’s very safe,” Wales said. “And so patients should be treated like you would be if you go to your doctor and have other quick outpatient procedures.”
Most of the health centers at which Planned Parenthood hopes to provide abortions do not meet specific state requirements such as ceilings of at least 9 feet in height, 6-foot-wide patient corridors or door widths of at least 44 inches – required for a license, according to the lawsuit.
Voters overturn Missouri’s abortion ban
A 2022 near-total ban triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of abortion protections halted all nonemergency abortions in Missouri. The only clinic offering the procedure in Missouri, a Planned Parenthood location in St. Louis, ceased to do so.
Last November, voters narrowly approved Amendment 3, which enshrines the right to abortion until fetal viability, in the state constitution. The amendment passed with 51.6% of nearly 3 million votes cast.
Under Amendment 3, lawmakers can regulate abortion and reproductive health care as long as the regulations improve the pregnant person’s health, are in line with clinically accepted health care practices and do not infringe on a person’s right to choose.
In a Nov. 22 letter to Gov. Mike Kehoe, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said he plans to continue enforcing certain restrictions after fetal viability and under certain conditions. His office has not responded to a request for more specifics.
The day after Missourians approved Amendment 3, local affiliates of Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit requesting a preliminary injunction on a slew of abortion laws, including the licensing requirements.
On Dec. 20, Zhang determined Missouri’s abortion ban, gestational bans until viability and targeted regulations of abortion providers, or TRAP laws, to be unconstitutional. Blocked requirements include:
The judge kept other laws in place:
Start-and-stop services
Like many abortion clinics in Missouri, the Columbia location at 711 N. Providence Road offered abortions on a start-and-stop basis as state lawmakers passed new laws restricting the procedure and lawsuits led to judicial rulings staying enforcement of those laws.
Ultimately, the Columbia clinic’s license expired and it could not comply with a law requiring abortion clinics to have a doctor on staff who had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
MU Health Care ended its decades-long relationship with Planned Parenthood in 2015 following a state Republican-led investigation into the clinic by a Senate Interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life, according to the committee’s report.
On Oct. 10, 2017, after more than a year of not being able to offer abortions, the state granted the Columbia clinic a license, according to previous Missourian reporting.
The license came six months after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state’s hospital admitting privilege requirements. The clinic was free to offer abortions.
But in 2018, a federal appeals court ended that temporary injunction and the clinic ceased offering abortions.
In the predawn hours of Feb. 10, 2019, four months after the clinic stopped offering abortions, a Columbia man smashed the clinic’s glass door and threw a Molotov cocktail into the building.
Wesley Brian Kaster later admitted he targeted the clinic because it provides reproductive health services, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri. He was sentenced to five years in federal prison without parole.
Despite the attack, the Columbia clinic has remained open and continues to offer other health care services.
Abortion opponents claim ‘unsanitary’ practices
Local abortion opponents who regularly gather on the sidewalk outside of the Columbia clinic have rallied behind Bailey’s stated commitment to continue regulating abortion.
“Planned Parenthood has demonstrated an utter disregard for the very lives it claims to value,” Stephanie Bell, an attorney and spokesperson for Missouri Stands With Women, said at a Dec. 3 gathering. “As just one example, its Columbia facility was shut down due to unsanitary practices, including the use of black mold-contaminated equipment that endangered women’s health.”
She pointed to two 2018 inspections at the clinic.
On Sept. 26, 2018, during an unannounced inspection of the Columbia clinic, a state inspector recorded rusty areas on a cabinet, “reddish colored fluid” in single-use tubing, “blackish-grey substance” in a reusable hose and “dried black substance” at the bottom of a “reusable glass suction bottle.”
The clinic manager told the inspector the reusable hose was on backorder. “The blackish gray substance in the secondary reusable series connecting hose was mold,” a Planned Parenthood staffer said, according to the inspection report.
A news release from Planned Parenthood at the time said the state “grossly distorted findings” in the inspection, according to previous Missourian reporting.
“It wasn’t mold. Patients weren’t ever at risk,” Wales said.
The inspection followed another unannounced inspection a month earlier, on Aug. 14. The report from that inspection noted issues with the clinic’s records keeping, dust on various surfaces in the clinic and a failure of the clinic to have at least one licensed employee with current CPR training; a nurse practitioner’s CPR training had expired four months prior unbeknownst to her.
The inspections sought to ensure the clinic complied with state laws and regulations of abortion clinics.
Planned Parenthood contends inspections are done in bad faith, a tool to intimidate. Rather than ensuring safe conditions, inspectors look for reasons to deny a license, the organization said.
“When you have people from a state government that has been hostile towards abortion care, it is upsetting to patients,” Wales added.
-----------------------------------------------------
State House Committee hears pitch to restrict wind, solar power
By Fletcher Mantooth, Missouri News Network
Despite Wednesday’s snowy weather, the Missouri House of Representatives’ Special Committee on Rural Issues heard testimony on a bill that would prevent utility companies from using eminent domain to take land for solar or wind power.
Eminent domain involves an entity, such as the government or utility companies, taking private land for public use while providing “just compensation” to the landowner. Property owners can challenge eminent domain offers in court if they feel the offer is not just.
While use for wind or solar energy generation would be prohibited, House Bill 457 would still allow use of eminent domain for transmission lines.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Brad Pollitt, R-Sedalia, who proposed the bill to “close a loophole” he said would allow use of eminent domain. A similar bill passed the House last year but was never addressed by the Senate.
Lawmakers on the committee raised concerns about the exceptions made to allow eminent domain for transmission lines, citing concerns about “spider-webbing,” which are networks of power lines that could disrupt agricultural land use.
“These people do not want the lines across their property, I guarantee you,” said Rep. Kent Haden, R-Mexico, “nobody else would either.”
Everyone who testified was in support of the bill, with the exception of Zach Monroe, a legislative representative for Ameren Missouri, an energy company. He testified to provide information about Ameren’s process of maintaining and expanding the power grid.
Monroe assured the committee that the collection lines on private property will often be underground if the terrain permits, but then go above ground at transfer stations.
The Missouri Soybean Association and the Missouri Corn Growers Association testified in support of the bill for the protection of their private property.
Rep. Adrian Plank, D-Columbia, voiced his support for the goals outlined in the bill.
“You know, I’m a big clean energy supporter,” Plank said. “I don’t think we ought to be putting solar panels on farmland.”
-----------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY
Ban on 'divisive concepts' in schools gets another hearing
By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, is renewing his efforts to ban “divisive concepts” in Missouri schools for a fifth year.
His Senate bill’s dizzying definition of such concepts include ideas that one race is superior to another and that someone’s race should be a source of guilt or anguish. Above others, the “divisive” concepts concern race and sex.
“We shouldn’t be promoting racism in the classroom. We shouldn’t be promoting these sorts of concepts, and that’s what the bill prohibits. It does not say that you can’t teach racism, American history, good or bad,” Brattin said in an interview.
The Missouri General Assembly has considered at least nine similar bills since 2022. None passed. The Joint Committee on Education, which Brattin chairs, discussed the bill Tuesday.
The measure also includes provisions introduced in previous years under the title of “Parents Bill of Rights.” This year’s version would require detailed curriculum to be posted on a school’s website before a lesson is taught or be posted within 14 days after. The material must remain available for two years.
Most of those testifying at Tuesday’s hearing spoke in support of schools posting curriculum.
"Any school that would try to hide such information is suspect,” said Timothy Faber, director of Lake of the Ozarks Baptist Association. He added that he spoke as an individual and not on behalf of the association.
Others expressed concern about adding burden on teachers.
Prohibiting certain concepts from the classroom “ends up being invariably, profoundly over broad and very problematic for instruction,” Otto Fajen, of the Missouri National Education Association, said at the committee hearing.
In teaching students about the Third Reich, the concept of one race being superior to another would come up, Fajen said. The question arises about how a teacher would broach such subjects without introducing divisive concepts.
The bill singles out The 1619 Project, a long-form journalism project published by The New York Times, and critical race theory, a broad academic term regarding racism’s effect on society. Schools found in violation of the curriculum ban would have their state funding cut.
Furor over critical race theory developed after the 2020 protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. The movement sparked discussions of race in American classrooms.
“I know there’s been a lot of hate and vitriol that’s kind of come from both sides in regards to this subject matter,” Brattin told the committee. “But, in reality, we don’t need our kids being taught these sort of divisive topics.”
Two figures dominate the mural covering all four walls in the Missouri House Lounge at the Capitol. A black man stands before a white boy, presenting him with a newly caught fish. Painter Thomas Hart Benton depicted Jim, who escaped slavery, and his unlikely companion, Huckleberry Finn, himself escaping abuse, in front of a full moon illuminating the Mississippi River.
Published in 1885, Mark Twain’s seminal work “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” questions slavery. It and other books grappling with America’s history would still be welcome in classrooms, Brattin said in an interview.
“We’re not going to whitewash history,” he said. “But we’re also not going to revise to make it into something that it also was not. It’s ensuring that things are being taught that are historically true and accurate.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Group seeks feedback on ballot initiative to protect other ballot initiatives
By Olivia Maillet, Missouri News Network
Community members shared their suggestions for a ballot initiative aimed at protecting Missouri's initiative petition process itself Monday evening at the Columbia Public Library.
The push is being led by the Respect Voters Coalition, a group with ties to Show Me Integrity, a cross-partisan good government advocacy group.
Volunteer members have been traveling throughout Missouri, holding three town halls in each congressional district to crowdsource suggestions for the language of a citizen initiative that would protect other citizen initiatives in Missouri. The group hopes to place the issue on the 2026 congressional election ballot.
"Our goal is to go on offense and close some of those loopholes that (Missouri lawmakers) are using to attack us," said Toni Easter, a volunteer who led the meeting along with Benjamin Singer, co-founder of Show Me Integrity and one of the three steering members of the Respect Voters Coalition.
A policy summit will occur the first week of April, where voters and volunteers from all over the state will convene to review the policy responses from the survey and decide on the precise language of the citizen initiative. The group's goal is to block lawmakers from restricting citizens' ability to put issues on the ballot, as well as their ability to undo initiatives that have already passed.
"You can write a constitutional amendment saying 'the legislature cannot pass any laws making it more difficult to pass citizen initiatives,'" Singer said. "You can put in the (Missouri) Constitution that courts will have the ability to rewrite ballot language. So (lawmakers) passing a measly statute saying lawmakers can rewrite initiatives will be superseded by a constitutional amendment."
They said they plan to file the initiative at the end of April, and after 60 days the Secretary of State's office will draft "ballot language" for the initiative, which is the wording that would appear on Missourians' ballots. In order to show up on the ballot, the Respect Voters Coalition must get a minimum of 300,000 signatures from residents in six out of Missouri's eight congressional districts.
Organizers hope to begin the process this summer. They estimate collecting enough signatures will require 2,500 volunteers doing two hours of signature collecting for 12 weeks.
Missouri has a rocky history with citizen initiatives, although they have been legal for the past 115 years.
The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act was approved by Missouri voters in 2010, only to have significant parts repealed by lawmakers in 2011; the legislators removed regulations in the law for clean water, veterinary exams and exercise space, as well as the term "puppy mill."
The Clean Missouri Amendment, which changed the way legislative districts are drawn every decade, passed in 2018. But that decision was overturned in 2020 by another amendment. Supporters of Clean Missouri pointed to "ballot candy" — popular but ineffectual provisions in ballot language aimed at hiding the real purpose of the legislation — as reason why the initiative undoing the amendment passed.
Ballot language has also sparked controversy amongst statewide officials. It was a sticking point between supporters of Amendment 3, which put reproductive rights before the voters this November, and then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft last year. A court eventually ordered Ashcroft's rewrite of the ballot language to be thrown out, calling it "problematic" and "argumentative."
This session, lawmakers have already filed bills aimed at shoring up two initiatives passed by citizens in November: Amendment 3, which legalized abortion in the state, and proposition A, which will raise the state's minimum wage to $15 by 2026.
"A lot of the news that came after the inauguration was a driving force to come here," said Samantha Woodard, who attended the meeting in Columbia. "I just want to see a way to protect these citizen initiatives from getting overturned immediately by legislators, and keep them in law or keep them in the constitution."
Like Woodard, David Adams saw the Respect Voters Coalition event on social media: "I felt like I needed to get involved — I mean I vote, but other than that, I've never been involved. I wasn't aware of what happened with Clean Missouri, I probably voted the wrong way."
-----------------------------------------------------
State lawmakers are lining up to join the immigration battle
By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network
State lawmakers across the United States are considering bills that would assist President Donald Trump’s promise to deport millions of people who are in the country illegally. Dozens of proposals require state and local officials to cooperate with federal agencies’ crackdown on illegal immigration.
Proposals range from prohibitions on cities adopting “sanctuary” policies to new laws allowing state officials to arrest people they suspect are in the country illegally.
Local officials could face fines or other penalties for refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement under a number of measures.
The Statehouse Reporting Project analyzed 223 bills across 35 states related to immigration enforcement. Most bills, 76%, sought to aid the Trump administration’s efforts. Nine Missouri bills appeared in the search, though the results did not account for all immigration enforcement bills introduced in the state.
Ramping up deportation is politically popular in the country. Two-thirds of Americans support deporting people who are in the U.S. illegally, according to an Axios/Ipsos poll conducted in January. When presented with specific deportation proposals, support declines significantly.
In 18 states, the search turned up only bills that would strengthen immigration enforcement and no bills supporting immigrant rights.
At least 17 bills would require state and local officials to provide information to or cooperate with ICE.
Another 22 bills would either bar cities from adopting sanctuary policies — measures that are favorable to immigrants — or divert state funding should the municipalities adopt such policies.
Missouri immigration crackdown
Under three Missouri bills, those entering Missouri who are in the country illegally under federal immigration law would face deportation.
Two of the measures – one introduced by Sen. Ben Brown, R-Washington, and another introduced by Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, – impose a $10,000 fine. A third bill introduced by Sen. Curtis Trent, R-Springfield, ups the fine to $100,000.
All three enable local law enforcement to arrest or detain people suspected of violating the proposed new laws.
Carter’s bill creates the Interstate Compact for Border Security, an interstate immigration treaty. Bills with similar language have passed in Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Iowa and Tennessee, Carter told the Missouri Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety at a Jan. 27 hearing.
“Missouri also has a responsibility to protect its borders and ensure the welfare and security of its residents,” she told the committee. Carter expressed concern about smuggling drugs and people, as well as the spread of tuberculosis.
A heated exchange between Carter and Sen. Barbara Washington, D-Kansas City, followed. Both lawmakers raised their voices and interrupted each other. Washington expressed concerns about the potential for racial profiling.
“I just don’t want us being in a position that every single person who doesn’t look like you gets arrested because they’re supposedly a criminal,” Washington said.
“Senator, I don’t think that’s the intent of anyone here,” Carter responded.
“But that is what, that’s what this bill is,” Washington said.
Newly-elected Gov. Mike Kehoe signed two executive orders related to immigration in January. The first requires Missouri State Highway Patrol officers to receive training in federal immigration enforcement “equipping officers to enforce federal immigration laws during the course of their normal duties,” the order reads. The order also directs the state Department of Public Safety to work with federal agencies.
A 2008 law already allows Highway Patrol officers to receive the training and enforce federal immigration law, but Kehoe said a “mechanism” prevented Highway Patrol from moving forward in the collaboration.
The second executive order requires state law enforcement to record immigration status in arrest reports.
“Immigration is one of the biggest issues plaguing our country and our state,” Kehoe told reporters at a press event Jan. 23. He estimated more than 70,000 immigrants lacking permanent legal status live in the state.
“Being able to take the right steps when law enforcement encounters them is very important to law enforcement. They feel they don’t have the tools to do that right now,” he said.
States take on immigration enforcement
Immigration was once the purview of the states. As early as the mid-1800s, Massachusetts used taxpayer money to deport Irish immigrants who sought refuge from the potato famine, according to an 1855 article from the Boston Daily Advertiser.
In contemporary history, a 1996 federal law strengthened the federal government’s role in immigration. Part of that law, the 287(g) program, enabled the states to collaborate with federal agencies. “That authority largely sat there unused,” said Michelle Mittelstadt of the Migration Policy Institute.
That changed after 9/11, when state, local and even university police worked with the federal government to combat and police terrorist activity. Local and state law enforcement increasingly shared information, including fingerprints, of people booked on both minor and serious crimes with ICE.
“These people ended up hoovered into the deportation pipelines, regardless of the severity of the offenses on which they had been brought in,” Mittelstadt said. This collaboration has waxed and waned over the last three presidential administrations.
At least seven bills across five states, including Missouri, would criminalize entering a state as an undocumented immigrant. Those found guilty would face a fine up to $100,000, plus prison time or deportation. The bills mirror a Texas law currently on hold pending a lawsuit.
At least two states have hardline immigration bills with the acronym TRUMP.
A spat between Florida’s GOP-led legislature and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis jeopardized the legislature’s Tackling and Reforming Unlawful Migration Policy Act, or TRUMP Act. Lawmakers passed the measure Jan. 28. DeSantis criticized the legislative package as “weak, weak, weak” and threatened to veto it.
Florida and Missouri join a number of states with bills seeking to compel employers to report the immigration status of job applicants.
Tennessee is challenging a 1982 Supreme Court decision by introducing a bill that would allow school districts to deny enrollment to immigrant students who lack permanent legal status. The bill comes on the heels of a separate bill proposed in January called the “Tennessee Reduction of Unlawful Migrant Placement Act” or TRUMP Act, which would require immigrants lacking permanent legal status to pay for their children’s attendance at public schools.
Tennessee lawmakers are also proposing the Tennessee Illegal Immigration Act, which would require law enforcement to hold detainees for ICE. If the person is not taken into federal custody, law enforcement would transfer them to a sanctuary city.
Kansas senators recently voted 31-9 to approve a resolution encouraging the governor to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration, including using the Kansas National Guard. Another Kansas measure bans companies from hiring “unauthorized aliens.”
Like Kehoe in Missouri, the newly elected governor of Indiana, Mike Braun, signed an executive order in January directing state law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration policies.
Indiana’s supermajority Republican General Assembly is considering more than 10 immigration bills. One would require law enforcement to report anyone they arrest whom they believe to lack permanent legal status.
Some states are pushing back
Twenty-one percent of the bills analyzed by the Statehouse Reporting Project are in direct opposition to immigration enforcement efforts or seek to aid immigrants lacking permanent legal status.
At least 12 bills attempt to prohibit or limit state and local officials from cooperating with ICE.
Detention Watch Network, a group focused on ending immigrant detention, is pushing for proactive legislation limiting enforcement in three areas: keeping ICE out of sensitive areas like churches and schools, data privacy to limit government agencies from sharing information with ICE and limiting state cooperation with ICE.
“Right now, enforcement is what we should prioritize to avoid people going through the detention and deportation pipeline,” said Luis Suarez, senior field advocacy manager for the network.
New York had the most bills, 15, opposing the Trump administration’s efforts, followed by Hawaii and New Jersey. Democrats control both chambers and the governorship in all three states.
New Mexico Democrats, who hold the governor’s office and majorities in both houses of the legislature, are working to protect immigrants lacking permanent legal status. Only about 10% of the population in New Mexico is foreign born.
One bill would give students who lack permanent legal status access to in-state tuition rates and state scholarships that can pay full tuition.
“We have folks who are working maybe one or two minimum wage jobs, have a family, and this bill would allow them the opportunity to pursue a higher degree, to improve their skills,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Eleanor Chávez, D-Bernalillo.
Another bill would make it easier for immigrant victims of crime to get U visas, available to crime victims. Two other measures limit disclosure of a person’s immigration status to a third party.
Massachusetts has come far from its days deporting Irish immigrants. This year’s focus has been on the management of emergency assistance shelters filled to overflowing by migrants drawn to the state by an over 40-year-old right-to-shelter law.
Contributing to this story were Ella Thompson from Fresh Take Florida; Samantha Granados from VCU Capital News Service; Natalie Pursche from the University of Kansas; Mia Casas from the University of New Mexico; Katie Beth Cannon, Madeleine Bradford, Maya Burney, Bree Fabbie, and Lauren Haney from Belmont University; John Osmond from Capital News Service/Spartan Newsroom in Michigan, Anna Cecil from The Statehouse File at Franklin College, Indiana; reporting from the Boston University Statehouse Program, and Anna Sago and Adan Pittman from the University of Missouri. Bill analysis was conducted using BillTrack50.
-----------------------------------------------------
MONDAY
House committee approves bills restricting gender-affirming care
By Shane LaGesse, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House Emerging Issues Committee approved several bills Monday that would extend restrictions on gender-related issues for minors.
The bills would make permanent the state restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and transgender student participation in athletics, which are set to expire in 2027.
"While I think that the counseling and all the other things can begin at that age when they're still a juvenile, I just don't think that we should be allowing those chemicals to be placed their bodies until they're an adult to make that decision themselves," Rep. Barry Hovis, R-Cape Girardeau, said in support of the bills before the vote.
The bills passed 10-4, with Republican committee members in favor and Democrats opposing. Statements from Democrats opposing the bills noted the passionate opposition testimony given at the bills' public hearing last week.
The hearing, which lasted for over seven hours Feb. 3, drew dozens of Missourians from across the state who urged the lawmakers to vote against the bills.
"Trans people tell me who they are. They're my friends, my family, and most importantly, they're my constituents, and I will defend their right to exist until my last breath, because I love them," Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, said.
"So when I tell you that these kids need access to medication, I want you to please consider the stories of the trans people who testified," she said.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kehoe administration lays out plan for school spending
By Scout Hudson, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education presented its school funding proposal for the 2026 fiscal year to the Missouri House of Representatives Budget Committee on Monday.
The presentation underscored Gov. Mike Kehoe’s call to rewrite the foundation formula, the equation that determines basic public school funding. Last month, Kehoe proposed a $200 million increase in funding for the foundation formula, bringing the total to more than $4 billion.
Still, the proposed increase falls short of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s suggested increase of $500 million.
The additional money is needed in part to balance the state adequacy target, a multiplier in the foundation formula. The target determines the minimum amount of funding a student needs to meet basic state requirements.
“Under the existing statute, we are required to recalculate the state adequacy target last year for (fiscal year 2025 and 2026), which resulted in an increase after five years at the same target level,” said Kelli Jones, DESE’s deputy commissioner, on behalf of Pam Victor, the chief budget officer, who was unable to read her testimony.
The target is set at $7,145 for the 2026 fiscal year.
Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, D-Columbia, noted the state adequacy target has grown about 10% over the last 20 years, when the formula was last revised. The target was expected to rise over the years, but due to limited funding, it has been frozen at just over $6,000 for the past five years.
The target freeze, mixed with hits to other multipliers, has disrupted funding of the foundation formula call over the past several years.
House members raised concerns about ensuring DESE’s overall budget remains balanced.
“We are carrying this type of lapse and unintended expenditures and yet we want the full appropriate,” said Rep. Darin Chappel, R-Rogersville. “I find it completely and totally unacceptable from a governmental perspective to have our budgets be over inflated at these high rates when no one actually intends to spend the money.”
Chappel then joked that he was the Department of Government Efficiency “before it was cool.”
Kehoe is proposing a rewriting of the equation.
“The Foundation Formula in its current form has gotten out of control,” he said in his State of the State speech. “With funding requirements this body has implemented, as well as changing educational needs across the state, we no longer feel the formula, as currently written, appropriately allocates funding for public education.”
Kehoe wants the new formula to incentivize district performance.
Currently, the formula is structured around “performance district.” These districts successfully meet state requirements and determine the funding averages for all other districts. They comprise a fraction of the total districts in the state and are disproportionately small in size and serve primarily white students.
Enrollment and attendance play lead roles in calculating funding through the formula. Average daily attendance rates dropped during the pandemic, and many schools have since struggled to rebound. Enrollment is beginning to be weighted more heavily than average daily attendance in the formula, but the transition is phased over several years.
“Since its inception, funding for the foundation formula has increased by nearly $2 billion while enrollment has declined by nearly 30,000 students,” Kehoe said.
For now, daily attendance rates hold major swaying power in determining funds.
The formula also factors each district’s regional economy. The dollar value modifier component draws upon the region’s cost of living. That means districts with higher wage rates receive more funding.
The proposal also requested funding for initiatives to support childcare, literacy, teacher pay and career-technical training.
The hearing was not open for public testimony, but school districts and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide input at a later date.
-----------------------------------------------------
Effort renewed to ban foreign ownership of farm land
By Mary McCue Bell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A bill that would ban new foreign ownership of Missouri agricultural land was brought up again in a Missouri Senate hearing Monday.
Under the bill, no alien, foreign business or foreign government can acquire agricultural land in the state. Currently, no more than 1% of the state’s total agricultural land can be owned by a foreign entity.
This act expands the definition of foreign business and includes a provision allowing for research purposes. “Alien” includes noncitizens and nonresidents of the U.S.
If passed, any foreign entity already owning Missouri agricultural land before the bill becomes law cannot transfer that agricultural land to another foreign entity.
More than a decade ago, Missouri banned all foreign ownership of agricultural land. Smithfield Foods, a U.S.-based meatpacker, was acquired by the Chinese company WH Group in 2013, according to previous Missourian reporting.
The legislature then voted to revise the ban so that foreign entities could own up to 1% of Missouri farmland.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Local Government, Elections and Pensions. Black said this piece of legislation returns Missouri law back to the way Missouri legislators found it more than a decade ago.
Black said he represents two of the three counties in Missouri that will allow a foreign company to own farmland.
“Very few foreign investors have used the law and purchased agricultural land because, for the most part, 111 out of 114 counties prohibit foreign companies and not domestic from purchasing farmland,” Black said.
Mark Fiegenbaum, representing the Missouri Farm Bureau, testified in favor of the bill. The organization was previously against all foreign ownership, but changed in support of an exception for foreign research purposes, he said.
Adam Rapert, on behalf of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, said the organization has supported similar legislation because Missourians want decisions made about their food made by consumers and family farmers, not by foreign corporate executives in boardrooms overseas.
James Harris, representing State Armor Action, pointed to similar conversations in other states, such as Texas.
Last year, former Gov. Mike Parson issued an executive order limiting foreign ownership of farmland within 10 miles of military installations because of the legislature’s previous failures to address the topic, according to previous Missourian reporting. The initiative followed the discovery of a Chinese spy balloon above the U.S. and the Missouri State Employees Retirement Fund selling investments in Chinese-owned companies.
Similar bills banning foreign ownership died in the last days of the 2023 legislative session, and efforts continued last year without success.
-----------------------------------------------------
