Capitol Report 3/21/2025

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.

-----------------------------------------------------

With the legislature on break, Missouri News Network coverage this week focused on topics that are getting attention and where bills stand on those topics at the session’s midpoint.  

If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.

-----------------------------------------------------

THURSDAY 

Omnibus gun bill under consideration in Senate

By Jackson Cooper, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Firearm legislation has emerged as a priority this legislative session, particularly among members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus.

The Republican supermajority in both houses of the Missouri General Assembly has solidified after previous years marked by infighting, meaning that legislation popular with party leadership and hard-liners is moving faster.

Heading into this week’s legislative break, only one firearm bill — Senate Bill 77 — had been debated extensively on the Senate floor.

Before the break, senators introduced a range of amendments to the bill, which are still pending a vote. The amendments would consolidate provisions from several firearm-related bills into one omnibus bill that combines a number of target issues for Missouri Republicans.

Concealed carry

SB 77, sponsored by Sen. Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles, seeks to allow concealed carry permit holders to possess weapons on public transportation.

Firearm possession of any kind on public transportation is currently a Class D felony in Missouri. If SB 77 becomes law, the offense would remain a felony for those not holding a valid concealed carry permit.

While serving in the Missouri House in 2022 and 2023, Schnelting sponsored identical legislation that was voted through the chamber but failed to pass the Senate.

In presenting SB 77 to the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee, Schnelting said his bill would help people protect themselves on transportation.

“It’ll be a crime deterrent,” he said. “Allowing Missourians to carry on public transit means that criminals will think twice.”

Several firearms advocates testified in support of the bill, citing the training required to obtain a concealed carry permit as proof that permit holders are responsible enough to do so safely.

Officials with Bi-State Development, the group that runs St. Louis Metro’s light rail and bus system, testified in opposition to the bill at the February hearing. Kevin Scott, general manager of public safety for Bi-State, said the proposals in the bill would work against millions being spent to improve rider safety on MetroLink.

“Mass passenger conveyance is something that is different from a lot of other environments,” he said. “We’re spending millions and millions of dollars to fortify our platforms. … All of these positive things are happening.”

Fred Dreiling, who testified on behalf of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, outlined concerns that the bill would harm public safety as Kansas City prepares to host games in the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

“We understand the difficulties that happen around gun free zones, but this particular gun free zone is going down Main Street at 40 miles an hour,” Dreiling said.

SB 77 would additionally expand concealed carry protections in places of worship and would lessen the requirements for active-duty military to obtain a concealed carry permit. The bill would also lower the minimum age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 19 to 18. SB 77 remains on the Senate calendar.

House Bill 328, sponsored by Rep. Tim Taylor, R-Bunceton, is a near-identical bill that is making its way through the House. It has already passed the House General Laws Committee and is waiting for approval from the Rules Committee before it will be available for floor debate.

Gun seizure

Several bills — one in the Senate and two in the House — have taken aim at preventing the enforcement of federal gun seizure laws in Missouri.

House Bills 434 and 459 are nearly identical, and are sponsored by Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon and Rep. Mazzie Christensen, R-Bethany, respectively. The bills would not allow for guns to be seized under red flag laws unless a court proceeding determined that an individual was engaging in criminal activity.

This measure would be preemptive, as Missouri does not have red flag laws in place. Red flag laws allow a judge to temporarily seize an individual’s weapons based on concerns that the individual presents a danger.

Both bills were heard by the General Laws Committee in January but have not progressed since due to bipartisan concern.

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Sponsored by Sen. Nick Schroer, R-O’Fallon, SB 142 would see federal red flag laws go unenforced in Missouri.

Like its counterparts in the House, SB 142 has failed to gain traction so far in the session. It has not yet been presented in committee.

SB 142, HB 434 and HB 459 contain similar language, and all three are dubbed the “Anti-Red Flag Gun Seizure Act.”

Local authority

Two bills relating to the authority of political subdivisions to enforce firearm laws have been passed through the Senate’s Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee.

The first, SB 23, is sponsored by Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville. Known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, Brattin’s bill allows the state to avoid enforcing federal gun laws.

This is the second time that SAPA has been through the legislature. The first iteration, signed into law in 2021, was eventually declared unconstitutional in a federal circuit court following a Department of Justice lawsuit. The new version of SAPA is substantially similar to the 2021 SAPA, though it excludes the language that was specified as problematic by the courts.

“This isn’t coming and reinventing the wheel,” Brattin said in a January committee hearing. “This is just clarifying and making it in line with what the Eighth (District) courts have done.”

In particular, Brattin said the bill removes explicit references to federal law enforcement agents, and removes language invoking the Tenth Amendment as a defense against Second Amendment infringements.

Critics of the bill include representatives of Missouri sheriffs and police chiefs, who said in hearing testimony that the bill would inhibit their ability to keep unregistered weapons off the streets.

“This type of legislation will hamper and create major obstacles for our officers and our deputies throughout the state to go and catch these bad guys,” Lewis County Sheriff David Parrish said.

Another bill concerning governmental authority, SB 74, seeks to remove an existing statute that allows political subdivisions to enforce laws restricting open carry. It is sponsored by Sen. Brad Hudson, R-Cape Fair. While the bill was voted through the public safety committee last month, it has yet to be placed on the Senate’s calendar.

Hudson has, however, introduced an amendment to Schnelting’s SB 77 that includes provisions identical to those in SB 74.

School safety

Under current Missouri law, teachers and administrators are eligible to train as school protection officers. Upon entering this optional program and receiving training, faculty members are eligible to conceal carry firearms and self-defense spray.

SB 792, proposed by Brattin, would expand this program to include school district employees more broadly. Employees included in this expanded classification would be subject to the same training currently required of teachers and administrators.

While SB 792 has not yet been referred to a committee, its provisions are included in a wide-ranging amendment to Hudson’s amendment to SB 77 that Brattin introduced during floor debate March 12. Senators have yet to vote on the amendment, which also includes proposed changes to self-defense laws and weapon modifications.

Self defense

Another component of Brattin’s amendment focuses on expanding self-defense parameters. In effect, the amendment would make it more difficult to prosecute in cases where self-defense is claimed.

Under the provisions outlined in Brattin’s amendment, police officers are inhibited from making arrests unless probable cause of illegal use of force can be proven. The burden of proof is shifted to the prosecution in an expansion of gun users’ rights.

This particular provision drew the ire of Senate Democrats, who filibustered debate on SB 77’s proposed amendments as a result. Sen. Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, dubbed the amendment as “shoot first, figure it out later,” to laughs from colleagues on the floor.

Silencers

SB 273, sponsored by Schroer, proposes legalizing the purchase, sale and use of firearm suppressors. Suppressors — also known as silencers — stifle the sound of a weapon as it is fired, similar to the effect of a muffler on a car engine. Suppressors are prohibited under current law, along with machine guns, switchblade knives and short-barrel shotguns.

While SB 273 has yet to be presented in committee, similar provisions are included in Brattin’s proposed amendment to SB 77.

-----------------------------------------------------

WEDNESDAY 

Missouri legislators propose bills to address immigration

By Mary McCue Bell and Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — With national attention focused on immigration issues, Missouri legislators have joined in efforts to address the issue at the state level but have seen little progress midway through their annual session.

More than a dozen bills have been introduced, but the main activity on immigration has been two executive orders Gov. Mike Kehoe signed when he took office in January.

The push for stricter immigration policy comes after President Donald Trump signed 10 executive orders during his first week in office. Since then, several states, including Missouri, have introduced legislation to follow suit.

On the day Kehoe was inaugurated, he signed two executive orders dealing with how state agencies will handle immigration issues.

Executive Order 25-05 states that law enforcement systems will begin collecting immigration status from criminal offenders. In his second order, 25-04, certain members of the Missouri Highway Patrol will be trained in federal immigration laws. Once trained, these officers will enforce federal immigration laws, focusing on preventing illegal immigration, apprehending criminal offenders and intercepting drug trafficking.

Here’s what to know about proposed immigration policies making their way through the Missouri legislature.

Deportation, fines and bounties

Several pieces of legislation aim to limit or punish immigrants lacking permanent legal status.

Sponsored by Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, Senate Bill 58 allows the governor to assist other states through an interstate compact in securing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Carter said her bill was designed as a catalyst for a broader conversation about how states are dealing with this “crisis,” which is classified into three main categories: humanitarian, health and public safety.

After a tumultuous committee hearing — with one witness calling a state senator a fascist and others carrying signs in protest — the bill won approval and is on the Senate calendar for consideration.

Also debated in the Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety, SB 72 would create a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement program at the state level, said sponsor Sen. David Gregory, R-Chesterfield.

The bill also makes entering the country illegally a felony in Missouri, which makes immigrants lacking permanent legal status ineligible to vote in elections, receive a driver’s permit or license, receive public benefits or become a legal state resident. Many of those provisions are already part of federal or state law.

Commonly known as the “bounty hunter” immigration bill, this would create a new program to train bounty hunters who would be allowed to arrest those in Missouri who entered the country illegally, Gregory said.

Speaker of the House Jon Patterson said in January he had not heard any enthusiasm from House Republicans for a bill that would put a bounty on immigrants lacking permanent legal status. Patterson said even if the bill makes its way through the Senate, it is unlikely to gain much support in the House.

Also sponsored by Gregory, SB 480 would require a court to determine whether a defendant charged with an immigration trespassing offense is seeking asylum. If they are not seeking asylum, the court can order that they be jailed until trial. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety.

Two bills, SB 137 and SB 282, would create the offense of improper entry by immigrants lacking permanent legal status with additional provisions, such as deportations. The latter, sponsored by Sen. Ben Brown, R-Washington, would impose a $10,000 fine with incremental punishments, while the former, sponsored by Sen. Curtis Trent, R-Springfield, would impose a fine of $100,000.

Sponsored by Rep. Richard West, R-Wentzville, House Bill 540 would create the “offense of trespass by an illegal alien” for immigrants lacking permanent legal status who violate state law or county municipal ordinance. The bill has since been referred to the House Committee on Emerging Issues.

Another bill, HB 120, establishes the “Immigrant Employment Registration and Taxation Protection Act.” Sponsored by Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis, the bill would require that the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations maintain a “database or registry of qualified immigrant workers.” Those who fail to provide the correct documentation to verify work authorization status would be charged with a felony.

The bill has not been assigned to a committee.

On a similar note, SB 528 would impose penalties for employers who fail to enroll and actively participate in a federal work authorization program. The penalties could be things like fines for employing an immigrant lacking permanent legal status. Sponsored by Minority Floor Leader Sen. Doug Beck, D-St. Louis County, the bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on General Laws.

Sanctuary cities, employment

Sponsored by Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, SB 114 would fine communities that declare themselves sanctuaries for immigrants lacking permanent legal status $25,500 per day. The bill expands the offense of transporting an immigrant lacking permanent legal status to include concealment or encouraging one to come to Missouri. It would also allow law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws that establish criminal penalties. No hearing has been scheduled.

Current Missouri statute prohibits municipalities from adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal requirements to verify or report illegal immigration statuses or grant one the right to lawful presence. HB 1163, sponsored Rep. Bill Lucas, R-DeSoto, clarifies that any municipality that adopts such policy would be prohibited from receiving state money. The bill has not been sent to a committee.

Rep. Wick Thomas, D-Kansas City, introduced HB 1051 to repeal the prohibition against sanctuary cities. Current law states if a municipality fails to suspend business permits of those employing immigrants lacking permanent legal status, it is subject to penalties. This bill would repeal the penalties. The bill has not been assigned to a committee.

Some bills would act as provisionary safeguards for immigrants, given aggressive efforts to question and detain members of certain ethnic groups.

SB 738 provides that if a person submits certain federal documents relating to employment authorization, they are eligible for a temporary professional or occupational license. Sponsored by Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, the bill is waiting to be read a second time on the Senate floor before being assigned to a committee.

-----------------------------------------------------

TUESDAY 

Abortion legislation still pending in Missouri General Assembly

By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Republican lawmakers in Missouri launched the legislative session vowing to do something about the state’s newly established right to abortion access. With a newly unified supermajority, bills are moving quickly this year.

At least 67 bills and resolutions related to abortion were introduced before the deadline for bill introductions earlier this month. Two approaches to reinstating a statewide abortion ban have progressed further than any other.

Both measures are proposed constitutional amendments that would, again, raise the question of banning abortions to voters in Missouri next year.

Voters passed Amendment 3 by a narrow margin – 51.6% to 48.4% – in November. The amendment enshrines the right to an abortion in the Missouri Constitution. On March 3, Planned Parenthood’s Columbia clinic began offering the procedure for the first time since 2018.

One of the proposals, Senate Joint Resolution 33, sponsored by Sen. Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles, would ban abortion with exceptions for rape and incest survivors who seek an abortion prior to 12 weeks of gestation. The other, SJR 8, introduced by Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, seeks to restore Missouri’s near-total abortion ban.

The measures passed out of the Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee on March 5 on party-line votes.

There is no timeline for when the measures will progress to the Senate floor, Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin said recently. The legislature returns from its annual mid-session break next week. O’Laughlin also said she does not have a preference for either approach.

“People have strong feelings,” she said. “Our entire caucus has strong feelings about supporting life. So we did have several measures filed, and they’re all working together to see what would be best.”

Gabby Picard, Gov. Mike Kehoe’s director of communications, said the governor has not looked into the differing approaches proposed by legislators.

“He’s told the House and Senate to look at the tools available to protect women and protect life,” she said.

What do voters want?

Proponents of abortion access argue the legislative efforts undermine the will of voters.

Maggie Olivia spent much of last year campaigning for Amendment 3 as the policy and external affairs director of Abortion Access Missouri, an advocacy group.

“We spent this last year talking with folks all across the political spectrum about abortion and about sexual and reproductive health care and were able to find so many pieces that we agreed on,” she said. “And then you get to the Capitol building, and that’s just not reflected at all from any of the elected Republican lawmakers.”

Schnelting said voters he’s spoken to feel they were misled in voting for Amendment 3, while other constituents voted for the measures because they supported rape and incest exceptions.

“They felt like they were presented with a false dichotomy,” he said. “They were told, ‘pass Amendment 3 or women were going to be dying in our hospitals because they couldn’t obtain the care that they needed for miscarriages, medical emergencies and ectopic pregnancies.’”

Missouri’s abortion ban took effect the same day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. While the ban included an exception for medical emergencies, doctors who advocated for Amendment 3 spoke out about hospitals turning patients away out of fear of litigation.

Rape and incest exceptions

Schnelting’s proposal and its companion in the House would require victims seeking an abortion to report the rape or incest to police, then give the attending physician documentation of the police report. The Senate bill originally required this documentation to be provided to the physician at least 48 hours before the procedure, but the measure was amended to remove the 48-hour requirement.

It also has exceptions for medical emergencies and “fetal anomaly,” but not for prenatal disabilities.

“I’m trying to be pragmatic and work within the framework within which we have to operate so that we can maximize human life,” Schnelting said.

On Feb. 4, the House Committee on Children and Families discussed a measure identical to Schnelting’s, House Joint Resolution 54, introduced by Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Springfield. The measure generated 2,270 pages of written testimony.

The committee has yet to vote on the measure. Committee Chair Rep. Holly Jones, R-Eureka, was not available to comment on her timeline for the measure.

Critics argue exceptions rarely make abortion more accessible to victims of rape and incest.

At the February House committee hearing, Rep. Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City, shared her own experience as a survivor of rape and her opposition to both the reporting requirement and the 12-week timeline.

“There are many reasons someone would not necessarily report sexual violence,” Aune said.

Just 31% of sexual assaults are reported to the police, according to the organization Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

Republican lawmakers counter that the reporting requirement would address the issue of underreporting. At the hearing, Stinnett said she discussed the measure with police. The police report does not have to be acted upon, she said. The victim could later decide whether or not she wants police to continue the investigation or press charges.

The hardline approach

Rape and incest exceptions are unacceptable for anti-abortion hardliners.

Moon, who introduced the competing amendment without such exceptions, asked to be taken off the Senate Health and Families Committee prior to the committee’s March 5 vote.

Had he voted against the measure along with the two Democrats on the committee, the three-to-three tie would have killed the measure. He left the committee and was replaced by another Republican, so his opposition to the proposal with exceptions for rape and incest did not halt that measure’s progress.

“As a civil society, we should do all we can to save every life,” Moon said. He added he would probably vote against the measure if it is taken up on the Senate floor.

His constitutional amendment defines “person” in the state constitution as “every human being with a unique DNA code regardless of age, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth.”

“Every preborn child is a person,” said Bonnie Lee of 40 Days for Life, an anti-abortion group. “We do not punish the victim. We do not punish the innocent for the crimes of the father.”

The proposed constitutional amendment without rape and incest exceptions would add to the constitution the sentence: “Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.”

Moon said he introduced similar legislation when he was a state representative.

-----------------------------------------------------

MONDAY 

Bill would designate an official rock radio station for Missouri

By Charlie Dahlgren, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Does Missouri need to designate an official rock radio station?

A House committee considered that question recently, conducting a hearing on a bill that would designate a St. Louis radio station as the state’s official rock radio station. In a meeting filled with laughter, members said they don’t have a problem with passing the less-than-serious bill.

If passed, House Bill 602 would award the rock station honor to KSHE 94.7, known to its fans as “KSHE 95.” According to Hubbard Broadcasting, KSHE is the longest-running rock station in the world, with its current format dating back to 1967 — a time when many people didn’t even listen to FM radio.

Since its first broadcast, KSHE has gained a dedicated fanbase by cultivating community events, breaking radio industry norms and helping launch the careers of rock ‘n’ roll legends, such as Rush and REO Speedwagon.

One fan is Rep. Bill Lucas, R-DeSoto, the sponsor of HB 602, who grew up listening to KSHE.

“If you like rock music, KSHE was the go-to,” Lucas said. “There were other rock stations in St. Louis. Many have come and gone. KSHE still remains.”

Lucas said it’s hard to wrap your head around the cult-like following KSHE has if you’re not from the St. Louis area. The station’s logo features a cartoon pig named Sweetmeat, who wears headphones, glasses and has what Lucas describes as a suspicious, hand-rolled cigarette hanging in his mouth.

That logo, Lucas said, has the power to connect Missourians to an important part of their culture.

While in California serving as a machinist for the Marine Corps, Lucas had just left his barracks when a poorly thrown frisbee landed in his direction. Looking down, he saw something familiar.

“That’s Sweetmeat!” Lucas said.

Lucas had a KSHE hat that he brought with him while serving in the corps. He said wherever he went, people from the St. Louis area would call out, recognizing the logo on his hat.

The KSHE swag, which the station calls schtuff, continues to be a big part of its fanbase. On Feb. 28, Lucas went to one of the station’s Pop-up Schtuff Store events in St. Louis.

At one point during the committee meeting, Lucas was lightheartedly reprimanded for using a KSHE koozie on his water bottle as a prop, a no-no under House rules.

“They can’t damper my enthusiasm,” Lucas said. “I have so many things that have KSHE on them: stickers, koozies, hats, shirts … a bumper sticker on my truck.”

Lucas, who House Speaker John Patterson calls Wild Bill, filed the bill after his son presented the idea to him.

“It just seemed like a fun thing to do,” Lucas said. “You know, we do so much serious stuff out here.”

Although fun, Lucas said the bill is by no means a stretch in legislative power. He remembers a failed bill just last year that attempted to designate provel as the state’s official cheese.

Lucas said that such bills are a positive reflection on the legislature, which can often seem disconnected its constituents.

“To me it says we’re legislators but we’re citizens (too),” Lucas said. “I like to have fun, and I like rock and roll music, and this just seemed like a great opportunity for me to show some love to KSHE.”

The Special Committee on Tourism, where Lucas presented the bill on March 5, seemed to agree. The hearing on his bill lasted less than seven minutes and filled the room with good-humored jokes, boisterous laughter and words of support for the bill.

“It meant a lot to me,” Lucas said. “I was glad to see that because I’ve had a couple people tell me ‘Nah that bill will never get off the ground.’ Okay well, we’ll see I guess. I got it in committee, I didn’t think that would happen.”

Lucas has high hopes that there is enough support to get the bill out of committee. From there, he’ll have to make his pitch to the House floor. Lucas also feels confident about his chances there, citing his speechmaking prowess.

“I’m pretty good at public speaking,” Lucas said. “I took debates in high school and drama and all that. I starred in one of the high school plays.”

----------------------------------------------------- 

SUNDAY 

‘Reckless’ or ‘responsible': Missouri’s GOP tax plan sparks fierce debate

By Siobhan Harms, Missouri News Network 

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri lawmakers are engaged in a high-stakes tax debate, with Republicans proposing income tax cuts reminiscent of Kansas’ failed experiment.

“Five years later, they realized they’d made a huge mistake,” state Rep. Kemp Strickler, D-Lee’s Summit, said.

In 2012, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill that eliminated taxes on business income for thousands of businesses and cut individual income tax rates. That year, in an opinion piece for The Wichita Eagle, Brownback wrote, “our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.”

Instead, the legislation, which became known as the “Kansas experiment,” was widely viewed as a disaster. While the goal was to stimulate economic output and job creation, the experiment failed — Kansas underperformed most neighboring states and the nation in economic output and job creation after the cuts.

Five years after the Kansas experiment began, the state faced an economic crisis. To address pitfalls in state revenue, the state deferred payments to pension funds and transferred money out of the State Highway Fund and Children’s Initiative Fund.

By June 2017, a coalition of Democrats and Republicans managed to push a bill restoring income tax through the state legislature, despite a veto from Brownback.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Missouri agree that the Kansas experiment serves as a warning. However, while Democrats promote the Kansas experiment as an example of when conservative tax policies go awry, Missouri’s Republican lawmakers say it serves as a blueprint for how they can do the same thing, but with adjustments to avoid the economic fallout.

Senate Joint Resolution 31 and House Joint Resolution 1 would ask voters to amend the Missouri Constitution to cap state spending and gradually reduce both individual and corporate income taxes.

According to data provided by Missouri’s Office of Administration, in fiscal year 2026, individual income taxes and corporate taxes are projected to make up 65.2% of state revenue. In order to cut taxes sustainably, lawmakers have to figure out how this revenue would be replaced.

State Rep. Bishop Davidson, R-Republic, who sponsored HJR 1, said lawmakers are exploring three different ways to cut while keeping the budget balanced: buying down the tax using natural economic growth, altering current sales tax models and cutting inefficiencies in the state budget. He said it’s likely these methods will need to be utilized in combination, but the details are not immediately clear.

“We don’t hear how we’re going to fund our schools, our public safety, our blind pension fund, all of these kinds of things that are impacted by that,” Strickler said in response. “So we’re very, very concerned.”

There are over 60 sales tax exemptions and exclusions in Missouri, according to data provided by the Missouri Department of Revenue. Davidson said eliminating these exemptions in entirety is an option to make reducing income tax sustainable. Democrats say this will only serve to hurt working-class Missourians.

“It certainly puts more of the burden on the low-income people, we know that,” Strickler said. “‘Can it work?’ I don’t know, but I know it will hurt a lot of people along the way.”

State Rep. Kent Haden, R-Mexico, who supports the tax cut efforts, agrees that cuts will be painful. He said he is encouraging his constituents to identify what state programs they’re willing to lose as a result of the cuts.

“I get lots of emails, ‘We want to cut income tax, or we want to cut property taxes,’” Haden said. “I send an email back and say, ‘Okay, tell me what you want to cut, what service you’re willing to cut.’”

“I’m not getting very many answers out of them, but just, ‘cut the waste out,’” he said. “Well, there’s waste to be cut, but these specific programs are probably going to be somebody’s favorite program, somebody’s pet project or somebody’s honey pot.”

These cuts would come as federal American Rescue Plan Act funding dwindles and as the federal government’s Department of Government Efficiency cuts grants that support state programs.

State Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, said adding tax cuts to this would be “reckless.”

“If they think it’s reckless, they probably haven’t read the bill,” Davidson said. “We’re not purporting to just cut these taxes writ large, we’re looking at a way to responsibly phase out or responsibly replace Missouri income tax revenue.”

As the bill moves through the legislative process, Democrats are asking for increasing clarity as to how these cuts will be accomplished responsibly.

In the House, Davidson has pulled HJR 1 into committee, in what he says is an attempt to build confidence and bring additional stakeholders to the table. The Senate’s version of the resolution is also in committee.

“We’re looking at doing this as quickly as possible, but that doesn’t come at the expense of doing it as responsibly as possible as well,” Davidson said.