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 stories coverage this week includes coverage of a continuing spat between the legislature and MoDOT, efforts to remove paid sick leave provisions adopted by voters in the fall, discussion on limiting SNAP benefits and a hearing on a House bill that would ban any state funding of DEI initiatives.
If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY
MoDOT's oversight commission on thin ice with legislators
By Mary McCue Bell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Bills and resolutions introduced in the Missouri General Assembly aim to upend a century of the Missouri Department of Transportation’s independent oversight.
MoDOT and Missouri lawmakers bumping heads is not new, but several pieces of legislation are putting the department back in the limelight. Shared concerns among legislators are threefold: transparency, accountability and communication.
The proposals come as a yearslong dispute between the legislature and MoDOT over salary increases granted by the agency was resolved in MoDOT’s favor this week.
The Missouri Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission can use the State Road Fund for any purpose permitted in the constitution, including pay, even if it exceeds spending amounts approved by legislators.
Senate Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, has proposed a constitutional amendment that would move MoDOT under the purview of the governor rather than the commission. O’Laughlin said a problem is communication between policymakers and MoDOT — specifically the department listening to lawmakers.
“There have been ongoing concerns for years about MoDOT’s lack of responsiveness to both the legislature and the public, particularly in how funding decisions are made,” O’Laughlin said in an email to the Missourian. “This legislation is about ensuring stronger oversight and making sure those responsible for critical infrastructure projects are directly accountable to the people of Missouri.”
Rep. Bennie Cook, R-Houston, filed two bills: House Joint Resolution 32, which is nearly identical to O’Laughlin’s and HJR 83, which would subject the State Road Fund to appropriation by the General Assembly. Legislation authored by Rep. Don Mayhew, R-Crocker, HJR 21, would also give the legislature authority over spending the road fund, which is revenue collected primarily by gasoline taxes.
“That’s why our folks are electing us up here to come and work for them and ensure that these budgets that are sent out to these departments are fiscally sound,” Cook said. “I think we can do a better job with that than what MoDOT has done.”
Seeking accountability from MoDOT
MoDOT is funded by taxpayers, meaning it works for the taxpayers just like legislators, Cook said.
MoDOT operates with “very little direct oversight” from elected officials yet manages billions of taxpayer dollars, O’Laughlin said.
“The fact that they do what they darn well please with your tax dollars alarms me just a bit,” Rep. Louis Riggs, R-Hannibal, said.
In a hearing last year, the highways commission opposed a similar bill, HJR 109, citing concerns that partisanship would affect highway construction decisions. The commission was established in 1921 as independent and nonpartisan, with members appointed by the governor and without a majority from any political party.
“HJR 109 would eliminate the constitutional protections that Missouri citizens and road users established, revert highway improvement planning and funding to political exercises, and return Missouri to the 1920s,” the commission wrote in submitted testimony. It declined to comment on the pending legislation.
Ray McCarty, president and CEO of Associated Industries of Missouri, opposed the 2024 bill when representing the Missouri Transportation and Development Council.
“Governors and elected officials should not determine the priority and timing of highway projects,” McCarty wrote in submitted testimony. “The highways exist for the benefit of all Missourians, not just those occupying the governor’s office and a majority of legislative seats at any particular time.”
O’Laughlin said her legislation isn’t about partisanship but accountability.
“Right now, the transportation commission operates with significant independence but without the direct accountability that comes with being a gubernatorial appointee,” she said. “By shifting oversight to the executive branch, we’re ensuring that Missourians have a direct line of accountability when it comes to major transportation decisions.”
The bill sponsored by Riggs is almost identical to one from this session, HJR 45, which proposes dissolving the highways commission and granting authority to MoDOT under the supervision of a director appointed by the governor.
Riggs said his tussle with MoDOT stems from his roots in northeast Missouri, which is the only region of the state with no interstate access. What MoDOT does with its money is of concern to Riggs as his district doesn’t see nearly enough of its benefits.
In Texas County, which Cook represents, Shafer Road maintenance used to be MoDOT’s responsibility until it asked the township and county to take on that duty in the 1960s, he said. Now, the county can’t afford repairs anymore and wants to pass it back.
“MoDOT owns those roads, and they refuse to take care of those roads,” Cook said, as MoDOT has always retained ownership of Shafer Road.
Riggs compared Missouri’s transportation department to Illinois. Missouri’s neighboring state has a department that answers to the governor and the General Assembly, as do most of the states in the Midwest, Riggs said, which makes Missouri an outlier.
A November MoDOT news conference announcing the appointment of Ed Hassinger as the new director focused on efforts to ensure that the department stays accountable to the highways commission and its budget.
Hassinger has been serving as interim director since August, and during his 40-year career he has been MoDOT’s deputy director and chief engineer. O’Laughlin objected at the time that the agency should have looked outside for a new director.
Hassinger voiced enthusiasm toward Gov. Mike Kehoe, who served 4½ years on the highways commission before beginning his stint as governor. The new director said it’s easier that the governor “understands what the commission does and the relationships that we have.”
Over a century of authority
Since the dawn of the 20th century, MoDOT has been under the jurisdiction of the State Highway Commission, first known as the “Centennial Road Law.”
While it’s been 104 years since the birth of MoDOT, the system set up back then is “woefully insufficient for the demands of 2025,” Riggs said.
Bad blood has led some Missouri lawmakers such as Riggs to keep a trained eye on MoDOT.
In 2021, the highway commission sued Ken Zellers, acting commissioner of the Office of Administration, when a he refused to pay raises authorized by the commission using money from the State Road Fund. This was to test constitutional language unique to the road fund as the Missouri Constitution states that the money deposited in the fund can be “appropriated without legislative action.”
This move led senators, including O’Laughlin, to demand that Patrick McKenna, former MoDOT director, either resign or be fired. They complained that the director requested more funds from the legislature for the state’s road system, and after receiving authority to fund priority roads and bridges, McKenna diverted the money toward employee pay.
In 2023, a circuit judge determined that the commission could use the Road Fund for pay raises even if lawmakers haven’t appropriated enough money. The Western District Missouri Court of Appeals agreed in 2024. That ruling remains in force after the Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal this week.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bills would allow hyperbaric chambers and psychedelics as treatments for veterans
By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network
Trey Warren’s symptoms began in the cockpit of a supersonic fighter jet.
He flew in jets off aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy, accelerating from zero to 200 mph in less than 10 seconds. Warren sat behind the pilot, managing weapons and operating targeting sensors on missions over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Every takeoff rattled his brain. Every time he fired a cannon, he felt his eyes vibrate. Every landing left him shaking out the cobwebs.
Today, 16 years out of the service, Warren struggles to work more than 15 hours per week as an adjunct at a St. Louis community college, where he teaches introductory political science courses. He picks up his teenage twins from school and gets dinner on the table, but even that drains him.
Treatments offered through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs haven’t worked for Warren. He left the military as a lieutenant commander in 2009, after 13 years of service. A graduate of the Navy’s elite Top Gun flight academy, he flew 192 combat missions over four combat deployments.
Since leaving the military, there have been periods when Warren had to take six to eight prescription medications daily. Most were antidepressants and drugs to treat side effects he describes as “wicked.”
He now pays roughly $2,000 per month for therapy and supplements not covered by insurance.
Seeking alternative treatments beyond those offered by the VA, he and other veterans experiencing mental health crises pay out of pocket or travel abroad. Many are advocating for state governments to foot the bill and change laws to expand treatment options in the absence of federal action.
Approximately 18 veterans take their lives each day in the United States, according to the VA statistics from 2022.
Bills working their way through state legislatures seek to expand access to two treatment alternatives: hyperbaric oxygen therapy and psilocybin, a psychedelic compound found in mushrooms. Dozens of other bills would create or fund other programs related to veteran mental health or study the issue.
At least 14 measures in nine states this year seek to expand access to or fund hyperbaric oxygen therapy for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. Patients sit in a sealed chamber and breathe 100% medical-grade oxygen – the Earth’s atmosphere is made up of about 21% oxygen.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not cleared the treatment for those disorders, so many insurance companies do not cover it.
Three measures are in the Missouri legislature.
“The number of our veterans that die by suicide, those numbers are alarming,” said Rep. Chris Brown, R-Kansas City, who introduced one of the bills. “Talking to vets who have had this treatment, I’m convinced that this will save lives.”
The House rules committee unanimously approved Brown’s bill, House Bill 262, last week Tuesday.
Another 19 measures introduced across 10 states relate to psilocybin, including efforts to expand access to it. Of those, at least eight specifically refer to veteran mental health.
For Warren, what started as small lapses in memory have grown to severe depression, confusion, ringing in his ears and brain fatigue.
Then there’s the forgetfulness.
“I can’t remember stuff,” Warren said. “I’ve gotten confused in intersections when I’m driving, and I’ve driven the wrong way down a road with my kids in the car. Scared the shit out of me.”
Millions invested in oxygen therapy
Like Warren, Blake Richardson grew frustrated with the VA’s mental health treatment options. “The pills and therapy weren’t addressing the root cause,” said Richardson, whose Kansas-based nonprofit Help Our Heroes advocates for hyperbaric oxygen therapy for veterans.
After four years as a diesel mechanic in the Marines, where he was exposed to burn pits and blasts, and one year in the reserves, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2009. He took between eight and 10 pills every day for years, changing medications or doses with no success. He couldn’t sleep or concentrate. Angry outbursts and mood swings affected his family life. Like many veterans, anxiety and depression became fixtures in his life.
Last year, he began hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
Over three months, Richardson sat in the chamber 37 days for 90 minutes each time. After his second session, he started sleeping without medication. By the end of the treatment, he no longer needed his prescription medications. “After about 12 to 15 dives, it was like a lightbulb going off,” he said. “It’s changed me.”
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was developed to treat decompression sickness in deep-sea divers. The FDA has since approved it to treat other ailments, including diabetic foot ulcers and severe burns.
The VA studied the therapy for PTSD and brain injury in 2018 and found the evidence wanting. Findings to support the treatment are “largely based on case series and anecdotal testimonials,” the VA’s inquiry found. Still, the agency reports it offers the therapy to a “limited number” of veterans.
The VA did not provide specific information to the Statehouse Reporting Network.
Insurance companies won’t cover the treatment without FDA approval, said Eric Koleda, who lobbies for the treatment with the organization TreatNow. He also leads a nonprofit in Kentucky that administers $1.5 million in state funds to provide hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans.
Over the last decade, states have put millions behind treating veterans with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Koleda puts the figure at $33 million in state funds dedicated to hyperbaric oxygen therapy treatments for veterans across seven states since 2014.
In December, the University of South Florida announced it will launch a five-year, $28 million study on hyperbaric oxygen therapy for veterans with traumatic brain injury using state funding.
Lawmakers in Tennessee, North Dakota and New Jersey are considering resolutions requesting the federal government to expand access.
“This resolution was introduced in response to the stark reality of the veteran suicide crisis and the increasing need for improved treatment of traumatic brain injuries and PTSD,” Tennessee Rep. Aftyn Behn said in an email. “Our veterans deserve every opportunity to access the best therapies available, including innovative treatments.”
A request from a veteran in Brown’s constituency prompted the Kansas City representative to introduce his bill funding hyperbaric oxygen therapy for veterans. He introduced a similar measure last year. He wants fellow lawmakers to put at least $2 million behind it, but hopes for as much as $10 million.
“In my opinion, every VA hospital, really across the country, but certainly in Missouri, should have an HBOT,” Brown said. “It should be at no charge to veterans. That’s my perfect world, but you walk before you run.”
A research trip
Last week, Missouri’s House Veterans and Armed Forces Committee discussed a proposal to fund, subject to appropriation, studies on psilocybin to treat veterans who face mental health issues. Similar bills did not survive in the last two legislative sessions.
“This is just one more way of allowing our military veterans to have access to ongoing care that we, as a nation, deserve to give them,” Rep. Richard West, R-Wentzville, who introduced the bill, told the committee.
Lawmakers in Arizona and California are also considering studies. Another three bills in the New York legislature this year would create pilot programs offering veterans and first responders psilocybin-assisted therapy.
Psilocybin is illegal under federal law. Two states and a growing list of cities have decriminalized the psychedelic.
Last year, the VA announced its own efforts to study the potential of psilocybin and another psychedelic compound, MDMA, to treat PTSD and depression in veterans. The VA hasn’t funded studies on these compounds since the 1960s.
In 2022, the Maryland legislature put $1 million behind research.
Similar measures have failed in the Virginia legislature, a state with one of the highest veteran populations per capita. Nearly 10% of adults in Virginia have served in the military, according to Census data.
On Feb. 17, a Virginia House committee stopped a bill to create a Veteran Suicide Prevention Advisory Council within the state’s health department, even after the Senate unanimously passed it. The council would have helped implement FDA-approved “breakthrough” therapies for Virginians.
“It is unfortunate that the legislation faces such a hurdle in our House of Delegates, especially when it has strong support in the Senate and last year was endorsed by the Military Veterans Caucus,” said Virginia Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, who introduced the bill, in an email.
Hashmi introduced a similar bill last session, along with Del. Michael Jones, whose bill called for a report on how to best implement breakthrough therapies. Jones hoped to soften the burden for people like his father, who served in the Navy.
“Our veterans deserve every resource available for the traumas they’ve endured protecting our country,” Jones said in an email.
Ayahuasca treatment in 2022 offered Warren immediate relief. The hallucinogenic tea, traditionally used by indigenous tribes in the Amazon, enabled him to finish his dissertation in political science. But the effects slowly wore off after six months. “I’m really bad again,” he said.
For the last four months, suicidal thoughts and severe depression have brought him back to the edge.
In mid-February, as a snowstorm approached his St. Louis home, Warren boarded a flight to San Diego and drove to Tijuana for ibogaine therapy. A 2024 study published in Nature Medicine found the psychedelic alleviates symptoms in special operations military veterans with traumatic brain injury.
Some funding for Warren’s trip came from veterans organizations, but he had to ask for loans from friends and family to make up the difference.
“Our government needs to be held accountable for this,” he said. “They need to fix this. I volunteered to go protect the country and help the country and the government, and now I need some help from my government, and I’m not getting it.”
Andrew Kerley of VCU Capital News Service, Bree Fabbie of Belmont University, and Aidan Pittman from the University of Missouri contributed to this story.
-----------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY
House bill would eliminate Prop A's sick leave provision
By Jackson Cooper, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A House committee voted Wednesday to advance a bill that would repeal voter-approved provisions for paid sick leave.
In an at-times contentious hearing, Legislative Review Committee members deliberated on House Bill 567. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Sherri Gallick, R-Belton.
HB 567 strikes out provisions regarding paid sick leave, which Missouri voters approved with 58% of the vote on Proposition A in November.
The paid sick leave component of Prop A does not go into effect until May 1.
Prop A also outlined plans to raise Missouri’s hourly minimum wage incrementally from $12.30 to $13.75 and eventually $15 by Jan. 1, 2026.
HB 567 initially sought to delay the full implementation of this increase until Jan. 1, 2028, but a substitute version of the bill adopted by the committee Wednesday removed this language from the bill.
Several groups testified in favor of the bill, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Missouri Grocers Association.
Kara Corches, president and CEO of the chamber, cited a poll administered statewide that found one-third of Missouri businesses say that the provisions in Prop A would cause them to hire fewer employees. Corches said the chamber views Prop A as a “job killer.”
Dan Shaw, executive director of the grocers association, testified in support of the bill on the grounds that the statute in Prop A would prevent grocery stores from reporting workplace illnesses to the health department.
“We will not be able to question why you took sick leave,” Shaw said. “This is very clear in the language that we are not allowed to ask. We are also required whenever we cook or prepare food ... to report to the health department the awareness of any disease, any illness within your workforce.”
“If I can’t ask, and if I don’t report a violation to the health department, this is a very serious issue on that alone,” Shaw said.
Democratic committee members were staunchly opposed to the bill, holding that it would be irresponsible to overturn the will of voters before the proposition had been fully implemented.
“Missouri voters passed Proposition A by 58%, overwhelmingly,” Rep. Jo Doll, D-St. Louis, said. “It’s been three months, four months since this was passed, and we’re already trying to overrule the will of the people. I think that’s really, really pathetic.”
Doll’s sentiment was echoed by Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis.
“I am so, almost ashamed and embarrassed, to be part of a group of folks who are disrespecting the people we came here to represent,” Fuchs said. “We’re supposed to be their trusted representatives, they’re supposed to trust us.”
“How are they to trust us when they’ve sent us here to do the job that they voted on, and now we’re going to undo it?” she asked.
HB 567 passed the committee along party lines, with the Republican majority advancing the bill. It is now eligible to be debated on the House floor.
-----------------------------------------------------
House debates wildlife oversight, landowners' rights
By Jake Marszewski, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — After much debate Wednesday over state oversight and property rights regarding hunting, initial approval was given by the Missouri House for a bill addressing hunting permits.
House Bill 563 is a landowner rights bill, said sponsor Rep. Mitch Boggs, R-LaRussell. For almost an hour, he stood on the House floor answering questions about his bill.
“It’s not a safety issue. It’s not anti-conservation. It is a landowner pushback,” Boggs said. “We need to have a little bit of right to say what we do on our property that we pay taxes on, and we should be able to invite people to come and enjoy the sport with us.”
State law requires landowners to register their property to hunt on it. Boggs’s bill would remove the registration process and allow landowners to hunt on their property as long as it is at least five acres, rather than the current 20-acre minimum. The bill would also allow landowners to hunt wildlife on their own property without a license.
The bill allows landowners to receive non-resident hunting permits free-of-charge for family members once a year.
The bill’s critics, including Rep. Bruce Sassmann, R-Bland, mainly questioned the legislature’s need to oversee hunting and wildlife conservation.
“For over 100 years, this legislature had the responsibility of managing our wildlife in the state of Missouri” Sassmann said. “The recovery of our wildlife has been successful because we no longer manage it as a legislative body, we manage it through a bipartisan commission.”
Other opponents of the bill brought up safety and overhunting as a concern. Rep. Ray Reed, D-St. Louis, said the bill is a solution in search of a problem.
“This bill is a way to make it easier for landowners, including nonresidents, to hand out hunting permits without the basic oversight that keeps everybody safe,” Reed said.
The bill’s supporters praised its “freedom and liberty,” and questioned the degree of overhunting that some of the bill’s opponents fear would come with the changes.
“I don’t think any amount of land restriction ought to be applied to this bill. If you own a city lot and there’s a rabbit in your backyard and you’re hungry, go get you one,” Rep. Rodger Reedy, R-Windsor, said. “We should not be telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property.”
Reedy, who represents several rural Missouri counties, questioned the authority of urban legislators who spoke out against the bill. Some cheers echoed in the House chamber after he claimed that St. Louis representatives “have nothing to say” about what goes on in rural areas.
“We would really appreciate if you let us handle our deer the way we see fit,” Reedy said.
The bill received initial approval through a voice vote. Before it is sent to the Senate, it will have to pass one more vote in the House.
-----------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY
Legislative Black Caucus discusses DEI, state funding
By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Members of the Legislative Black Caucus criticized the state budget and Gov. Mike Kehoe’s executive order to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs in a news conference Tuesday.
Rep. Michael Johnson, D-Kansas City, the caucus chair, focused his comments on Kehoe’s elimination of DEI efforts.
The caucus had released a statement opposing the executive order covering state agencies when it was announced. Members continued to echo that sentiment Tuesday.
“DEI is not a black thing,” Johnson said. “DEI is for everyone. It’s for veterans. It’s for those that are disabled. It’s for those that have impairments. It is for those that deserve a chance at showing equality on a job.”
In a news release announcing the midsession update, Johnson said, “While this legislature has been entrusted by the people of Missouri to administer a healthy economy, professional opportunities and affordable living, the Republican supermajority appears to be, again, largely ignoring the needs of Missourians, particularly those of color.”
Beyond the executive order, House Bill 742 seeks to ban all state funding of DEI initiatives, which would cover state universities and other spending not included in Kehoe’s executive order. The bill, introduced by Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, was heard by the Senate Government Efficiency Committee on Monday.
Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, spoke on House Bill 875, introduced by Rep. Darin Chappell, R-Rogersville. This piece of legislation would prohibit public institutions of higher education from discriminating against religious, political or ideological organizations.
Smith warned that this bill would allow organizations to engage in hate speech and leave students of color unprotected on college campuses. He said students are captive audiences and should not be subject to, “hate speech,” “ugliness” or “racist ideas.”
Regarding the state budget and tax cuts, members of the caucus voiced their opinion that continuous cutting of state taxes and federal services are putting Missourians at a disadvantage.
“We are renegotiating some of the very fundamental contracts that we have made with the public,” Rep. Del Taylor, D-St. Louis, said.
The Missouri state budget totals more than $50 billion, with about half supported by federal aid. According to Taylor, if federally funded programs receive cuts, that means a cut in federal workers’ salaries.
“These individuals need to be paid just like the rest of us,” Taylor said.
Despite his concerns, Taylor praised the Missouri economy for being strong and continuing to grow, but said with the growth comes the willingness to meet financial obligations.
The biggest example he cited was the state’s budget allotment for education. Taylor noted that under provisions of the Missouri Foundation Formula, an adequate state education budget requires an additional $300 million over what Kehoe has proposed. Instead of committing to this amount, Taylor added that representatives are willing to “change the formula” through a task force also proposed by Kehoe.
“Our state is strong,” Taylor said. “Our economy is strong. But as we continue all of these tax cuts and tax shavings and tax incentives, we are discounting and we are robbing the people of Missouri of basic services that they need.”
-----------------------------------------------------
House subcommittee wants more funding for literacy, teacher retention
By Scout Hudson, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A House Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday recommended funneling more money into improving teacher recruitment, retention and state literacy rates.
The House Appropriations education subcommittee also adopted recommendations to clear more than $600 million in funds not spent in previous years from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education overall budget.
The subcommittee recommendations go to the Missouri House Budget Committee for consideration.
The committee said it would allocate $2.5 million to the Grow Your Own Teacher program, which recruits promising high school students into the teaching profession. An additional $1.6 million was suggested for the Missouri Teacher Development System Program, which matched Gov. Mike Kehoe’s budget recommendation.
Several cuts were proposed for the Missouri Career Ladder, one of the most mature performance pay programs in the nation’s public education system. The committee wants the funds to be redistributed to other teacher development and retention programs.
Another $3 million was recommended to be shifted from the Evidence-Based Reading Program to directly fund Literacy Coaches, another childhood literacy improvement program.
Rep. Darin Chappell, R-Rogersville, initiated the recommendation to slash more than $600 million in Department of Elementary and Secondary Education funds.
The cut doesn’t pull money out of DESE’s programs. It removes funds that don’t carry over to the next budgetary period, so the budget more accurately reflects the department’s remaining funds. Chappell said he arrived at the funds to recommend cutting based on reports provided by DESE.
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bishop Davidson, R-Republic, removed an additional $60 million of unspent funds. Davidson noted that DESE confirmed it did not anticipate using any of those funds, which are often put into the agency’s budget by the legislature rather than at DESE’s request.
Four proposals, all proposed by Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, D-Columbia, were defeated. She had proposed more funding for independent living centers, teacher stipends and building maintenance at community colleges.
-----------------------------------------------------
House Government Efficiency Committee debates restricting SNAP benefits
By Kat Ramkumar, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Rep. Jamie Gragg, R-Ozark, spoke in favor of adding restrictions to SNAP benefits Tuesday.
House Bill 1222, which Gragg sponsors, would prohibit SNAP clients from purchasing certain foods, such as “candy and soft drinks.”
Food stamps have fueled the junk food epidemic,” Gragg said. “Taxpayers are funding a growing child obesity program with this grant program.”
This bill, however, was met with opposition by members on the committee and witnesses due to its broad language.
Bill text defines “candy” as any food product containing sugar, honey, natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruit, nuts and other flavorings. “Soft drinks” are defined as nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners that excludes milk and milk products.
Katie Gamble with the Missouri Beverage Association believes that the bill will not target what it says it will.
“If you’re an athlete and your family is on SNAP, you can’t buy Powerade, but you can buy a full sugar, milk bottled coffee under the exemption,” Gamble said. “You can buy all the ingredients for a cake, but you can’t purchase an actual cake for a birthday.”
Missouri Grocers Association lobbyist Dan Shaw said he believes that this bill will be hard to implement.
“You can take your Missouri SNAP dollars, which are federal dollars, and cross state lines,” Shaw said. “It is said that this is a hands-off process, and I disagree. Someone has to decide what is healthy and what is not.”
Gragg plans to implement his bill by plugging in restrictions through all Missouri point of sale systems. He also believes that this bill will not impact food deserts, just the choices of those spending dollars.
One in eight Missourians live in a food desert according to a report released by Most Policy Initiative. The report also highlights that food-insecure households do not have cars to access fresh fruits and vegetables.
-----------------------------------------------------
MONDAY
Bill presents challenges for low-income renters
By Scout Hudson, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A Senate committee took up a bill Monday that seeks to limit how local governments can penalize landlords who deny tenants that receive federal housing assistance.
Introduced by Rep. Chris Brown, R-Kansas City, House Bill 595 would also prohibit local governments from mandating a landlord’s ability to consider income-qualifying methods or limit the minimum security deposit a landlord may require from a prospective tenant.
The bill is being considered following a federal judge’s recent block of a Kansas City ordinance that forbids landlords from denying Section 8 vouchers or discriminating against low-income renters.
Under the ordinance, any landlord found to be denying tenants on the basis of their income would be subject to pay a $1,000 fine. The court’s ruling applied only to Section 8 vouchers.
Gavriel Schreiber, general counsel to the mayor of Kansas City and a drafter of the original ordinance, explained to the committee that HB 595 would leave recipients of non-Section 8 rent assistance vulnerable.
“I urge opposition of this bill so that you allow Kansas City to preserve protections for veterans, for seniors, for families,” Schreiber said.
Over 10 million Americans use federal rental assistance and 69% of them are seniors, children or people with disabilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Missouri mirrors national data, with 71% of the 176,800 individuals receiving assistance in the state falling into at least one of the three categories, the report shows.
Both the Missouri Human Rights Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act mandate that people have equal housing opportunities and that they are not discriminated upon based on race, sex, having children or physical or mental disabilities.
The Federal Fair Housing Act also requires landlords to have a set criteria for renting applicants. HB 595 would allow landlords to expand their selection criteria to consider prospective renter’s credit scores, eviction history and criminal records.
Kansas City Councilperson Johnathan Duncan said that HB 595 won’t allow for tenants to be evaluated holistically, which the city’s ordinance does.
“(The ordinance) simply states that you can’t solely discriminate against somebody, because they pay the rent with Social Security benefits or veterans disability benefits ... or that you’re receiving some type of alimony or child support,” he said. “You have to factor in the complete applicant.”
Several landlords that testified in support of the bill worry that local restrictions will jeopardize their property.
“We believe they should have as much information and screening measures as necessary for them to make sound business decisions, to protect not only their investment interests, but also make sure that they’re ensuring the safety and security of neighboring tenants in the community at large,” said Jason Zamkus, a lobbyist with the Missouri Association of Realtors.
However, a report by the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy Research conducted in 10 large American cities demonstrated that housing voucher recipients do not cause crime but often are left with no alternative but to settle in neighborhoods where crime is already high.
Empower Missouri, the state’s oldest anti-poverty organization, voiced concern that the bill would decrease access to affordable housing.
In Missouri, there are more than 200,000 households that classify as “extremely low income.” Meanwhile, there is less than half that number of available affordable rental units, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. In simpler figures, only 44 affordable units are available for every 100 extremely low-income renter households.
Misha Smith, representing Empower Missouri, said that homelessness rising in the state is due to the lack of affordable housing and that landlords are partially to blame.
Smith referenced a study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that found landlords were denying renters with housing vouchers at a rate of 67% or higher.
“We are seeing homelessness increase in these areas where people are struggling to access housing, because they are being denied based on having a voucher,” Smith said.
From 2022 to 2023, homelessness increased 12% and unsheltered homelessness rose 24% in the state, according to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Unsheltered homelessness includes individuals who may be sleeping in vehicles, abandoned buildings, the street or other places not intended for human habitation.
As of the most-recent count, Missouri has over 2,000 emergency shelter beds in supporting its homeless community, according to Empower Missouri.
“In areas with discrimination bans in place, people are actually housed quicker and they stay longer,” Smith said. “We hear it all the time, housing is the solution to ending homelessness.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Legislators again seek to raise bar to pass citizen petitions
By Scout Hudson, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A Senate committee heard testimony Monday about raising the bar on the process for passing initiative petitions — again.
Initiatives petitions are measures proposed by citizens that appear on the ballot after an appropriate number of signatures are collected from voters. Republican senators led last year’s unsuccessful push to reform the initiative petition process by adding additional barriers for an amendment to be added to Missouri’s Constitution.
Monday’s hearing before the Senate’s Committee on Local Government, Elections and Pensions focused on four resolutions that would redefine how Missourians can alter the state’s highest body of law.
Currently, the Missouri Constitution requires:
Senate Joint Resolution 11, sponsored by Sen. Jason Bean, R-Holcomb, proposes an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would require petitioners to gather signatures from 15% of voters in all of the congressional districts. Petitioners wanting to propose laws would need signatures from 10% of voters from all congressional districts.
“Our state constitution is a sacred document ... efforts to (change it) so should have a strong support across all of Missouri,” Bean said.
If any of the proposed resolutions pass the legislature, changes would also have to be approved by Missouri voters next year.
Bean’s resolution would nearly double the required amount of signatures in Missouri’s 4th Congressional District, which includes Boone County, to bring proposed laws and amendments to the ballot.
The resolution would also raise the bar to pass initiative petitions. Amendments are enacted when they receive a majority of votes under current law.
The proposed resolution would still require amendments to garner a simple majority but adds a requirement that the number of votes cast in favor is at least 35% of the total number of ballots cast in the election.
An example of how this rule works comes from Ballotpedia; if 100,000 people voted in the election, but only 60,000 voted on the measure in question, the measure would require at least 35,000 “yes” votes for approval, even though 30,000 would be a simple majority.
Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, labeled the 35% requirement as “an impossible threshold.”
The figure is pulled from Nebraska’s initiative petition process. Bean was unable to say how the 35% minimum had affected initiative petitions in the state during questioning from Nurrenbern.
The threshold would also entangle individual matters with larger elections.
“You can have a situation where a measure wouldn’t pass, even if 100% of the voters voted in favor of it, if they didn’t represent 35% of the people that actually came out in that election,” said Denise Lieberman, director of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, a nonpartisan advocacy group.
Three initiative petitions went into effect from the 2024 general election: removal of the state abortion ban (Amendment 3), increase the minimum wage and require paid sick leave (Prop A), and legalization of sports betting (Amendment 2).
If Bean’s proposed resolution was in effect during the 2024 election, only one district in the state would have had the support of enough signatures to bring Amendment 3 to the ballot.
Republicans view the current initiative process as a vehicle for progressive forces to supplant Missouri’s Republican supermajority.
“I’ve become convinced (initiative petition) in its current form is being used to hijack our state constitution to corrupt Missouri,” said Dave Robertson, a citizen from Jefferson County who said he has been involved in grassroots politics. He said the process is “abused as a vehicle to further an agenda that is at odds with the vast majority of our legislature and most people of this state.”
Other initiative petition resolutions under consideration in the Senate — SJR 30, sponsored by Sen. Ben Brown, R-Washington, and SJR 47, sponsored by Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby — seek to limit the role of foreign interference in Missouri’s initiative petition process. SJR 30 specifically prohibits foreign entities from proposing or contributing to initiative petitions.
All four resolutions raise questions of representation.
Under the provisions in SJR 11 and its sister resolutions, votes from small districts would carry more weight than votes from more populous districts.
Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, a sponsor of a similar initiative petition bill, SJR 10, opened his remarks with a reference to George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” an allegorical tale of barnyard animals organizing to create a more equitable farm.
Jeff Smith, representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, turned Moon’s reference.
“The propaganda slogan was ‘four legs good, two legs bad.’ We shouldn’t be saying rural voters good, suburban voters bad, or ex-urban voters good, urban voters bad.”
-----------------------------------------------------
House bill eliminating DEI funding heard in the Senate
By Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The Senate Committee on Government Efficiency heard a bill Monday that would ban state funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
House Bill 742, proposed by Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, would also bar state departments from mandating a DEI program in contracts with private organizations.
“The bottom line is we as a state should not be allowing propaganda to creep into the workplace that pushes preferential and unfair treatment of our state workers,” Baker said.
Last month, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed an executive order that forbids funding for DEI programs within state departments under the purview of the governor. Baker’s bill prohibits the use of any state funding for DEI.
Following the signing of Kehoe’s executive order, a letter was sent to state employees explaining the executive order.
In the letter, the governor’s office clarified that the order would not affect several key organizations like the Minority-Owned and the Women-Owned Business programs, which provide opportunities for companies that are majority controlled by either women or minority individuals to bid on state contracts.
Another exemption listed in the governor’s letter was the Model Employer Initiative, which seeks to increase the participation of disabled Missourians in the workforce.
The letter also makes it clear that recognition of Black History Month, Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, and Martin Luther King Jr. Day are not prohibited in the order.
Baker said that his bill would have the same carveouts as the governor’s bill and that this would be further clarified in the language of his bill.
Baker argued during the hearing that no money should be allocated towards DEI programs. According to the bill’s fiscal note, no state department would see increased or decreased revenue as a result of this bill.
Baker said that there has been growing support for the removal of DEI, citing executive orders from both Kehoe and President Donald Trump. He also said the governor is in support of passing his bill.
Baker also noted increased research opposed to DEI programs, citing a study conducted by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, a think tank based in Canada. This claim was challenged by Sen. Patty Lewis, D-Kansas City.
“It’s not just the research,” Baker said. “There’s also anecdotal stories where I have met people in our state government agencies that have had major issues with what is being done with DEI.”
Sharon Jones, a representative from the NAACP, spoke against the bill. Jones claimed that the language of the bill was too broad and could affect seemingly innocuous training sessions.
“This is a sledgehammer trying to aim at a very, very specific issue,” Jones said.
Mary Byrne, a policy expert with The Heartland Institute and co-founder of the Missouri Coalition Against Common Core, spoke in favor of the bill. Byrne claimed that aspects of DEI programs have their roots in Marxism.
“The ideas of these matrixes are aligned to the tenants of critical race theory, a theory promoting race conflict as a proxy for Marxist economic class conflict to foster social revolution,” Byrne said.
-----------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement speaks against bill targeting Chinese drones
By Mary McCue Bell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A bill targeting foreign-manufactured drones drew opposition Monday from law enforcement officials and public utility representatives.
Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said the crux of Senate Bill 296 is to ban future purchases of Chinese drones by law enforcement. Concerns he cited in the Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety, of which he is a member, include a Chinese balloon spotted above the U.S. in 2023 and TikTok.
“This is basically the modern-day Trojan horse to be able to utilize this technology, this sort of software, in use with and by our own forces to utilize against our country,” Brattin said.
John Yeast, an executive member of the Law Enforcement Drone Association, argued that this bill is not about data security but lobbying efforts by domestic drone manufacturers aiming to ban non-U.S. drones for financial gain.
A stipulation of the bill would allow the Missouri Department of Public Safety to implement a small, unmanned aircraft system replacement grant program to provide funds to public entities impacted by the bill. Eric Schmitt, chief of police in Branson, testified in opposition, arguing against the grant provision.
“Quite honestly, when I read this bill, even the grant funding replacing basically, the value of the drones and with what this would buy, would not suffice and would force communities to choose either to violate the law in order to save lives or not participate,” Schmitt said.
The fire chief of High Ridge Fire District in Jefferson County, John Barton, explained that his department doesn’t fly over nuclear power plants or military bases. Instead, it flies over areas of the county that are “just as visible from Google Maps.”
Another point Barton made included specifying the difference between hardware and software. Apple publicly stated that 90% to 95% of its hardware is manufactured in China, Barton said, but the software that runs on top of that hardware is made by an American company.
“The same can be said for these drones. The hardware is manufactured in China. That’s true,” Barton said. “However, we do not use the software released by the Chinese drone manufacturer to fly our drones. We use a software called DroneSense, which is founded and operated by a company out of Texas.”
Many gave examples of drone uses for public safety and advancing law enforcement abilities.
James Harris, representing the State Armor Action, testified in favor of the bill, citing government agencies, such as the FBI, that warned of the dangers that Chinese drones pose.
“I think people want to say that American drones suck, and Chinese drones are significant,” Harris said. “In this country, whenever we put our manufacturing will to something — other than French and Italian wine — I would say we make the best.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate bills propose naming a highway after Trump
By Mary McCue Bell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Missourians may be driving down Trump highways if two Senate bills make it through the legislature.
Senate Bills 500 and 321 aim to name certain state highways after President Donald Trump. This demonstration isn't necessarily out of the ordinary; other states have proposed similar bills, such as Arizona.
In the Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety, committee member and Sen. Nick Schroer, R-O’Fallon, proposed designating the portion of State Highway D from State Highway 94 West to State Highway T in St. Charles County as President Donald J. Trump Highway.
"This was a perfect spot to put the President Donald J. Trump memorial highway," Schroer said, as it connects "straight through defiance, something that he has exemplified through his two different presidencies."
The second bill, sponsored by Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, would name every unnamed state highway after Trump. Coleman filed similar versions of this bill for years, she said, stemming back to Trump's first stint in office in 2020.
If either were enacted, modifications would be paid for by private donations, not taxpayers, according to the bills.
While Missouri does not have a state highway named after a president, Truman Road in Jackson County was dedicated to the Missouri native in 1949. Naming highways after presidents can be seen in their home states, such as the Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway and the President George Bush Turnpike in Dallas, Texas.
MoDOT guidelines allow highway designations for an "individual who has been deceased for two years or more,” so an exception would need to be made for such designations.
-----------------------------------------------------
