Capitol Report 4/11/2025

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.

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

Missouri News Network coverage this week includes coverage of Senate passage of a capital gains tax credit, new approaches to addressing the lack of child care facilities and another attempt in the House to roll back reproductive rights.

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

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

THURSDAY 

House bill highlights concerns about state's "child care crisis"

Jake Marszewski, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri's child care issue is being addressed again after a bill changing provisions on licensed in-home child care facilities was passed through the House on Wednesday.

State law allows up to two children aged 5 years or older that are related to the operator of a child care facility to be exempt from the maximum number of children for which the facility is licensed. House Bill 835, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Farnan, R-Nodaway, removes the age minimum with hope to increase space in day care facilities.

"At unlicensed day care facilities, we don't know if these kids are getting the care that they deserve, so hopefully this bill will increase the slots in licensed daycare facilities," Farnan said in an interview.

Lawmakers originally pushed for changes to the state's in-home child care provisions after the legislature approved "Nathan's Law" in 2019.

According to previous Missourian reporting, the law was written to limit the capacity of unlicensed child care homes. It is named after Nathan Blecha, a 3-month old who died at an unlicensed in-home day care in 2007.

While the exclusion limit was set for unlicensed day cares, the same wasn't set for licensed ones. All children had to be counted regardless of age. Child care providers around the state were then forced to stop serving families so they could care for their own.

Senate Bill 683 was eventually passed in 2022, permitting licensed care providers to exempt up to two of their children as long as they are 5 years old.

Legislators recalled Nathan's Law when debating HB 835 on the floor.

"The reason we have ratios in place in day care centers is to ensure that every child there has the proper care that they need," Rep. Keri Ingle, D-Lee's Summit, said. "This is unfortunately one of those bills that is trying to address a problem and will create an even bigger one. At stake are the lives of the children in this state."

Safety of child care facilities is just one facet of the state's child care crisis. According to previous Missourian reporting, 54% of Missourians live in child care deserts.

Emily van Schenkhof is the executive director of the Missouri Children's Trust Fund, the state's foundation for child abuse prevention. She testified against the bill during a March hearing in the Committee on Children and Families, and still prioritizes the safety of children in licensed facilities.

"We maintain that we need to solve the state's child care crisis without decreasing the safety of children in Missouri, so we are disappointed that this bill is moving forward," van Schenkhof said.

Van Schenkhof said the new bill moves the state away from best practices of child care capacity limits.

Farnan said he shares the same concerns about safety, but believes that licensed child care providers receive adequate help from the state. 

"They have fire services, they have food services and they have people that come check on them regularly to make sure that they are getting the care that they deserve," Farnan said. 

Still, van Schenkhof said that solving the crisis without decreasing the safety of children is difficult.

"It's hard to change the root factors that are causing the child care crisis," van Schenkhof said. "Even though passing a bill isn't easy, it's easier than the financial investments we'd need to make to solve our child care problem.

The bill passed by a vote of 103-39 and must pass the Senate before it becomes law.

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

WEDNESDAY

House panel approves constitutional amendment limiting abortion rights

By Siobhan Harms, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House Children and Families Committee voted Wednesday evening to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would severely limit the right to an abortion.

House Joint Resolution 73 would give Missouri voters the option to reverse Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment passed in November that enshrined abortion rights in the Missouri Constitution.

Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, who originally sponsored the bill, relinquished sponsorship to Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson, who Lewis said has been more involved with the legislation’s process in committee.

“Abortion is, in no way, health care,” Seitz said. “Abortion is the murder of an innocent life in the womb.”

The amendment would prohibit abortions, except in cases of medical emergency, rape or incest. However, the exception for rape and incest is limited to the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, in order to use this exception, the person would have to provide documentation to their provider showing they filed a police report at least 48 hours prior to the abortion.

The amendment also restricts how public funds can be used — preventing funding for not only abortions, but use of surgeries, hormones or drugs designed to assist a child with a gender transition. Under the amendment, medical professionals who assist with an abortion or gender transition would be subject to suspension or revocation of their medical license.

If passed by the legislature, the proposed amendment would have to be approved by voters.

According to the Missouri Constitution, initiative petitions, like this resolution, must follow the single-subject rule.

Rep. Ken Jamison, D-Gladstone, addressed this with Seitz, saying he believes addressing abortion and gender affirming care in one resolution is unconstitutional, as the issues are different. However, Seitz pushed back on the idea that the issues presented don’t both fall under the singular subject of reproductive health care.

“Gender transition surgery does not allow for an individual to reproduce, it actually nullifies their ability to reproduce by changing the vital organs necessary to reproduce,” Seitz said.

Throughout the hearing, emotions ran high.

Before the hearing was opened to public testimony, Rep. Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City, shared that she was a victim of rape and asked Seitz, “Can you imagine your body being violated that way, and then for nine consecutive months being reminded of that every single day?”

Seitz replied to her, “Could your child have cured cancer?”

Rep. Marlene Terry, D-St. Louis, asked Seitz if he would be in favor of a bill to make it mandatory for men to have vasectomies. Seitz said he felt that should be a decision between a husband and wife.

Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson, questioned Seitz on this, asking him to recognize the “hypocrisy” of allowing vasectomies to be a private decision, but not reproductive care.

“If you don’t understand why it’s hypocritical for you, or for men, to have such autonomy of their bodies and women not have that, then I don’t think that this (conversation) is redeemable in any way,” Proudie said. “I think we are at an impasse.”

Nearly a hundred people came to testify or listen to the hearing. However, Rep. Holly Jones, R-Eureka, who chairs the committee, limited public testimony to include only five individuals in support and five individuals against the resolution. After this, people could only state whether they were for or against the resolution.

Denise Gelina was one of the five allowed to speak against the bill at the hearing.

“If you had people supporting you in your districts, where are they at? Why do you only have five people (here)? They are not here because you don’t have the support,” she said.

Samuel Lee, the director of Campaign Life Missouri, spoke in support of the bill, saying that Planned Parenthood had been “trafficking” minors seeking abortions across state lines. He said parents should be a part of their child’s decision to seek an abortion and that should be stipulated in any abortion legislation.

“If the voters had known that Amendment 3 would prevent parents from even knowing, let alone giving consent to their daughters,” Lee said. “I think the voters deserve a chance to vote on this again.”

When Jones ended the testimony portion of the hearing, one woman who planned to testify against the resolution began to cry. Proudie called the move to not let all the people who came speak “extraordinarily atypical.”

“We owe them better than what we did tonight,” Proudie said.

“Despotic actions to shut down dissent will not work,” Aune said in a news release after the hearing. “If anything, they will mobilize more Missourians to stand up for their rights and demand their voices be heard.”

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

Bill regulating 'no-chance' lottery machines heads to Senate

By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — A bill regulating “no-chance” or “gray” video lottery machines passed the Missouri House on Wednesday by the narrowest of margins.

During debate, many representatives expressed their intent to change their previous vote from Monday, when the bill won initial approval on a 74-70 vote.

When it came time to decide, the vote was kept open longer than usual, and representatives were seen changing their vote several times until the final margin of 83-73 was reached. On final passage, bills must pass by a constitutional majority of the House seats: 82 votes of the 163 seats regardless of vacancies or absentees. 

The debate Wednesday underscored how representatives were split down the middle.

House Bill 970 sponsor Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon, advocated for regulation of the machines.

“It gives our businesses and local businesses and areas an option for the regulated, legal way to continue to make money,” Hardwick said.

These “no-chance” video game machines have been crowding Missouri convenience stores and gas stations, some places even designating a specific area for people to play.

The Missouri Gaming Commission has clearly stated that these machines are illegal, but they remain in operation. Winners are predetermined and not based on luck. The nickname “gray” machine describes where the unregulated legality falls — in a gray area.

Several amendments were added onto HB 970 on Monday, and some representatives said it prompted them to flip their votes.

One would display a gambling addiction warning. Others would make counties opt-in to regulations in the bill, set the playing age to 21 and establish the Missouri Gaming Bureau to oversee violations.

The bill states that machine operators must pay 34% of the revenue to the State Lottery Fund. Then, each county will receive 10% of the revenue in their municipality for public safety services. The remaining percentage will be split between operators and retailers who carry the machines.

HB 970 also stipulates a specific $1,000 annual fee must be paid by operators and retailers. A portion of that payment will go to the State Lottery Fund, the remainder toward maintaining regulations and the municipalities’ Missouri Veterans Commission.

Amendments approved Monday gave way to extended debate on the floor Wednesday before passage. Representatives inside both parties were in disagreement about the morality of incentivizing addictive behaviors like gambling.

Rep. Michael Burton, D-Lakeshire, who voted against the bill Monday, voted in opposition again Wednesday. He said the machines “prey on poor people.”

Rep. Holly Jones, R-Eureka, praised Hardwick for working with communities across the state to propose a bill “we can all agree on.” Jones voted in favor of the bill.

“We cannot protect Missourians from their vices,” Jones said. “Whether it be alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc.”

Several bills similar to HB 970 have passed in the House but failed to garner enough support in the Senate where the bill goes next.

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

Protesters rally outside Capitol against utilities law

By Charlie Dahlgren, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Around 20 people gathered outside the Missouri Capitol on Wednesday to protest the signing of a sweeping utilities bill that, opponents argue, could cost residents an additional $1,115 on their yearly electricity bills.

Wednesday morning, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed Senate Bill 4 into law. Touted for attracting new industry, providing consumer protection and securing energy independence, the governor said SB 4 introduces vital reforms in response to the state’s growing electricity needs.

“This is about powering Missouri for Missourians and not relying on other states and countries to produce our power,” Kehoe said in a news release following the signing.

However, many Missouri residents aren’t sold. Concerns about three provisions within the law brought together legislators and speakers from the Sierra Club, Consumers Council of Missouri and NAACP for the rally.

Construction work in progress

A successful proposition from 1976 prevents energy companies from charging people for construction of a new power plant until the plant is fully operational and serving the public. SB 4 adds an exception to that statute for any project approved by the Public Service Commission.

Paying in advance for power plants is called Construction Work in Progress, or CWIP. John Coffman, a lawyer for the Utility Consumer Counsel who attended the rally, said CWIP will be a large part of the $1,115 that he projects SB 4 will cost Missouri residents.

“That’s one of the things that’s very expensive,” Coffman said.

Coffman points to South Carolina, where they passed similar CWIP legislation in 2008, as an example of why allowing this exception is a bad idea. There, billions of dollars were collected for a new nuclear power plant that was never finished.

“Almost none of that money got back to ratepayers,” Coffman said. “So it can be a huge boondoggle.”

In a press release following the signing of the bill, Kehoe celebrated CWIP as an incentive for new power generation facilities, reducing financing costs and saving Missourians money in the long run.

Future test year

As the law stands now, real and audited expenses for the utility company are used to determine the rates charged to consumers. SB 4 allows utility companies to use a projected Future Test Year, or FTY, to determine rates.

Although the Public Service Commission ultimately decides what rates electric companies are allowed to charge, opponents of this law say allowing utilities to use FTY projections awards them too much power in raising rates on struggling consumers.

“This is a pattern of behavior from shameless polluters,” said Gretchen Waddell Barwick, director of the Missouri chapter of the Sierra Club. “Monopoly utilities like Ameren, Spire, and Evergy continually put the profits of shareholders over the wellbeing of Missourians.”

Plant in service accounting

Another controversial provision is a mechanism called Plant in Service Accounting, or PISA. According to the governor’s office, PISA allows utilities to recover certain depreciation expenses from new natural gas power plants over a 20-year period.

Supporters say this incentivizes the construction of new power generation facilities and helps to avoid rate shocks for consumers, but opponents at Wednesday’s rally suggest PISA could cause more harm than good for consumers.

Similar to their critiques of FTYs, opponents say PISA allows utility companies to raise rates based on just one expense, rather than taking a comprehensive look at the total cost of producing the utility.

Although the Sierra Club representatives attended the rally with some environmental concerns, the main focus of the gathering was saving Missourians money.

Sen. Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, told the gathering she gets calls every day from constituents who are struggling financially.

“Senate Bill 4 is a total disregard for just and reasonable prices,” McCreery said. “(It) contains all kinds of language that only will benefit the shareholders and the executives of these companies. It does nothing to help everyday Americans.”

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

Senate opens debate on new hemp regulations

By Mary McCue Bell and Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network 

JEFFERSON CITY — The state’s hemp and cannabis industries were the subject of hours of debate Wednesday in the Senate.

A bill, proposed by Sen. Nick Schroer, R-O’Fallon, regulating hemp products under the same rules as cannabis came under attack by opponents for potentially wrecking hemp businesses.

Senate Bill 54 would regulate intoxicating hemp-derived products, including edibles, beverages and vapes. Such goods would fall under the same regulatory standards as marijuana products regulated by the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services.

There’s a stark difference in how hemp and marijuana products are defined and regulated. Delta-8 THC products derived from hemp are legal under federal laws, unlike marijuana. Hemp-derived products are currently not required to be sold in dispensaries and have been legal since 2018, well before marijuana was legalized in Missouri in 2022.

The bill drew opposition from Democrats, particularly Sen. Karla May, D-St. Louis, who said she believes the bill creates an “unfair business advantage” for the marijuana industry. May held the floor into the evening, offering and withdrawing various amendments while speaking about her opposition with other senators.

While marijuana products are confined to dispensaries, hemp products are not, giving them a larger distribution potential. Schroer’s bill would require all hemp-derived products, aside from beverages, to be sold out of dispensaries.

The bill has been backed by the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association, a cause of concern for May, who said she believes it is an “attempt to edge out the competition.”

“I don’t think we should be doing that in the legislature,” May said. “What I do believe, though, is that they should be regulated.”

May’s assertion is aligned with the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, which said the bill would “destroy businesses and impede consumer access to hemp products,” according to a news release.

The organization’s goal is twofold: to amend the bill so that hemp producers or sellers can stay in business or prevent its final passage.

Hemp-derived beverages, sold at many convenience stores and bars across Missouri, were included in Wednesday’s discussion of the bill.

A compromise developed earlier in the session carved out hemp beverages but is still opposed by Brooklyn Hill, president of the hemp association.

These beverages do not have age restrictions as there is no state or federal law denying the sale to minors. Schroer’s bill would restrict sales to those 21 years or older.

“This isn’t about banning a product outright,” Schroer said, “but making sure it’s safe and out of the hands of children.”

Schroer’s bill would also require retailers of hemp-derived beverages to gain licenses from the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, similar to liquor licenses.

“If you’re going to sell this stuff, it is going to be notated on your liquor license,” Schroer said. “So, (the division) knows exactly who’s selling this stuff. Right now it’s the wild west.”

Beverages would also be required to have a label displaying the amount of cannabidiol, which does not cause a high, or THC, which does cause a high, in each beverage by milligrams, a best-by date and a statement of risk.

The bill would also make driving while under the influence of hemp-derived beverages illegal and puts in place a 2% tax on beverages.

Schroer said his point of view looks to embrace free market principles.

Eventually, the bill was set aside for possible debate at a later date.

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

House bill would assert state primacy on federal lands

By Olivia Maillet, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The House Government Efficiency Committee hearing on Tuesday was filled with residents from around the Ozark National Scenic Riverway area, waiting to share their testimonies of what they say are unjust interactions with U.S. park rangers operating outside the jurisdiction of that national park.

The testimonies were in favor of House Bill 1442, sponsored by Rep. Don Mayhew, R-Crocker. The bill would establish the State Natural Resource and Community Protection Act. Mayhew said that national park rangers in the Ozark National Scenic Riverway, on multiple occasions, closed public roads without permission and enforced federal game laws on state land.

Shannon County Sheriff Steven Hogan said that traffic violation stops conducted by national park rangers have been happening several miles away from their federal jurisdiction.

“It’s a sad day when even the sheriff of Shannon County feels that he may be targeted simply for driving through his own county,” Hogan said. “But it is even more tragic for the people of Shannon County who have to endure this harassment multiple times a day as they go through their peaceful, everyday lives.”

The bill would require federal agencies operating in Missouri to adopt and adhere to state management plans for water, wildlife and game, timber and mineral resources. It also requires that federal agencies operating in Missouri submit an assessment to the Missouri attorney general before implementing any regulations or actions affecting federally managed land.

Mayhew said he patterned his bill after the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which clarified that National Park Service regulations primarily apply to federally owned land, not non-federal land or waters.

In addition, the bill would prohibit federal law enforcement officers from impounding vehicles, seizing domestic animals or confiscating personal property.

“Confiscating private property is a long and lengthy process here in the state of Missouri for our police officers,” Mayhew said. “It should not be easy, nor should we want it to be, for the federal government to, on a whim, enter someone’s private property and take their private property and that has happened.”

Rep. Doug Clemons, D-St. Ann, wanted to know if Mayhew had considered the cost of fighting the federal government in court. He said the federal government “wouldn’t take the mandates well.”

Likewise, Rep. Michael Burton, D-Lakeshire, was concerned with imposing restrictions on how federal agencies regulated federal land.

“It looks like you are trying to take away all power from the federal government, and it is quite extensive," Burton said. "There are overlaps; the Missouri Department of Conservation fisheries are on state park land overseen by DNR (Department of Natural Resources), and they all have to work together.”

Through the bill, Missouri would be able to impose an annual property tax on all federally managed land within its boundaries.

The bill also allows residents or local governments negatively affected by national park ranger-caused events to file a suit in a Missouri court for damages or injunctive relief. The court would then be asked to order the federal government to stop interfering with the Ozark National Scenic Riverway’s residents.

“The idea that the national government, because of the inefficiency of the local governments over the years, and quite frankly the laziness of the local governments, is trying to fill the void with procedures and policies and rules is not something that just simply has to be,” said Rep. Darin Chappell, R-Rogersville.

“It was never intended to be this way; we just allowed it out of apathy," he said. "We need to reassert that Missouri is indeed a sovereign entity.”

Chappell’s speech prompted a round of applause from those who came to testify.

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

TUESDAY

Industries back business-oriented child care tax credits

By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network 

JEFFERSON CITY — Rep. Brenda Shields, R-St. Joseph, has introduced child care tax credit bills for three years, but her interest in pre-K education started more than two decades ago.

Around 2002, at a United Way of Greater St. Joseph conference, Shields attended a session called “Why does the Federal Reserve care about child care?” She learned about the Perry Preschool Project, a decades-long study into the long-term positive effects of quality preschool education.

She continued to learn more about the intersection of child care and business. As the primary breadwinner, who sought child care for her two sons, Shields has firsthand experience with the issue.

When she became the CEO of United Way of Greater St. Joseph, Shields strengthened the organization’s “Success by 6” program, which provides resources to preschools and parents.

“We raised a significant endowment to help our child care in our community,” she said. “But the pandemic really hurt us.”

Child care center closures and layoffs during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 30% decrease in availability, Shields said, and the industry has still not recovered.

The state’s child care shortage was the focus of a 2023 investigation by the Missouri Independent. Nearly half of all Missouri children 5 and under live in a child care desert.

Child care issues cost Missouri $1.35 billion annually, according to a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. That includes $280 million in lost tax revenue.

Rather than offer direct tax credits to parents paying for child care, Shields’ proposal aims to help businesses.

“Many people are watching,” Shields said. “It’s a model that other states are interested in.”

About a dozen supporters, mostly representing industry groups in Missouri, testified at a Senate Committee on Emerging Issues and Professional Registration hearing Tuesday.

“I’ve never had a bill this popular,” Committee Chair Sen. Justin Brown, R-Rolla, said. Supporters moved swiftly in and out of the witness chair.

“It’s like working cattle. Just herd ‘em through,” he added.

Similar bills failed for the last two years. Raising its odds this year is a companion measure, Senate Bill 455, introduced by Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield. Hough chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Under the first of three tax credits proposed, a person or business can donate at least $100 to a child care provider, then claim a tax credit of up to 75% of that contribution.

An employer could make a contribution on behalf of its employees who need child care, but a parent can’t make a tax-refundable donation to a child care center in exchange for their care.

“It’s a hefty tax credit, but what it really says is: the state is willing to get involved, but businesses have to put their money where their mouth is,” Shields said.

Under the second scheme, employers qualify for a credit on 30% of any contribution they make toward their employees’ child care costs. Shields gave the example of employer contributions to a cafeteria plan for child care expenses. Cafeteria plans are employer-sponsored benefits plans.

The final tax credit proposal allows qualifying child care providers to claim a tax credit worth up to 30% of expenses related to construction projects. The credit also grants tax relief equal to the provider’s employer withholding tax.

“The aim is to raise salaries for those that work in the child care industry,” Shields said.

Together, the credits would cost the state $759,288 in 2026, and then about $69.7 million annually the following two years, according to the bill’s fiscal note.

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

Senate committee mulls special designation for Kansas City Chiefs

By Hannah L. Graves, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The Senate Progress and Development Committee discussed a series of bills Tuesday that invoked a rare feeling of ease and camaraderie during a legislative hearing.

Committee members poked fun at each other over music tastes and sports team affiliations, highlighting longstanding in-state rivalries.

Official pro football team

Senate Bill 825, which was combined with the identical SB 820, would make the Kansas City Chiefs the official professional football team of Missouri.

Sen. Kurtis Gregory, R-Marshall, whose district includes part of Clay County in Kansas City, introduced the bill to the committee, saying he’s surprised the Chiefs designation hasn’t been done already.

The bill sparked some playful back and forth between Gregory, Sen. Barbara Washington, D-Kansas City, and the committee chair, Sen. Brian Williams, D-University City, near St. Louis.

Washington chimed in saying it was a great bill that had faced some backlash from other legislators because “they have some, I don’t know, UFL, ACA, XL, I don’t know. Something down there in St. Louis that’s not gonna last as long.”

Williams interjected then and said, “XFL Battlehawks,” but Washington continued, “Uh huh, well, we don’t know what that is,” to which Williams responded, “Well, we’re pretty excited about it.”

Washington continued by saying, “Well, we have the Kansas City Chiefs that we’ve had since the ‘60s, so we’re not worried about them going anywhere, ever. Ever. That’s why they should be known as our official professional team. Plus, we need to keep them.”

“I concur,” Gregory added. State and local officials have been working on incentives to keep the Chiefs, who want a new stadium, in Missouri.

A brief baseball spat also took place when Williams responded to talks about future baseball designations saying, “Maybe, we can do something in honor of the Royals for one successful season and the rest for the Cardinals.”

Gregory responded, “We’ve got two World Series now, c’mon.”

“Alright, two successful seasons, (it) slipped my mind, I’m sorry ... and several for the Cardinals,” Williams said.

“Unless you’re trying to disparage the 1985 series,” Gregory said.

“No I won’t disparage that,” Williams responded.

Washington interjected then and said, “1985 ... Who did we beat in 1985?” Gregory asked. “Does the chairman know?”

“I do not know,” Williams said. He was met with a chorus of replies, “I think we beat the Cardinals.”

The Cardinals have won the World Series 11 times, the most of any National League teams, second overall.

State promotional song

Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, introduced SB 754, which would make “Missouri” the state’s official promotional song. The song is performed by the U.S. Navy Band and was written by retired Musician 1st Class Kenny Ray Horton, who’s from Joplin.

Sen. Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley, asked Carter if she would sing the song for the committee, but she laughed off the request and instead played the song from her phone into the microphone.

“Are we gonna have to listen to that often if this becomes law? Because it was a hard no for me until I heard the electric guitar and the steel guitar,” Nicola joked, drawing laughs from Carter and committee members.

“I think it would be a privilege,” she said.

Carter pointed out there are a lot of “special interests” and sentiments with keeping the Missouri Waltz as the official state song, including its many renditions on University of Missouri’s campus during dances and football games.

“We thought this would be a great song for our promotional song in the state,” she said.

Two other bills were introduced by Sen. Nick Schroer, R-O’Fallon, commemorating specific days for specific individuals.

Eddie Gaedel Day

Senate Bill 799 would designate Aug. 19 as Eddie Gaedel day.

Eddie Gaedel was signed by the St. Louis Browns and made his first and only appearance on the field a few days later Aug. 19, 1951.

Born in Chicago in 1925 to average-height parents with average-height siblings, Gaedel was the only person in his immediate family with dwarfism. Standing at 3’7” and weighing 65 lbs, Gaedel holds the record for the smallest person to ever play in Major League Baseball.

Gaedel ended his career with a batting average of 1.000 and a total earning of $100, a little over $1,200 today. His jersey, marked with the number 1/8, currently hangs in the St. Louis Cardinals Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. A signed photo of him sold in 2013 for nearly $7,000.

Testifying in support of the bill was president of the Jefferson City chapter of the Eddie Gaedel Society, Steve Meystrik, who said people “all around the world” gather Aug. 19 to celebrate Gaedel.

“Eddie Gaedel is an important part of Major League Baseball and Missouri sports history, and his story must continue to be told,” he said.

Meystrik said passing the bill will ensure Gaedel’s legacy lives on, bring visitors to St. Louis and remind Missourians once a year of “the big difference one person can make when they take a little risk, step outside their comfort zone and do something to bring joy to others, no matter how small that something is.”

Michael Collins Day

Schroer, who displays, among other things, an Irish flag in his office, also introduced SB 798 which would designate Oct. 16 as Micheal Collins Day.

Michael Collins, who was born Oct. 16, 1890, was an Irish revolutionary, soldier and politician, who was a “leading figure in the struggle for Irish independence,” the bill states.

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

MONDAY

Senate approves capital gains tax credit

By Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network 

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Senate passed a major tax cut Monday primarily benefiting Missouri’s top earners.

House Bill 594, proposed by Rep. Chad Perkins, R-Bowling Green, would allow Missourians to deduct 100% of all capital gains income reported on federal taxes from their state income taxes.

The bill passed in the Senate Monday on a 27-6 vote, after moving through the Senate Committee on Fiscal Oversight earlier in the day. There was no discussion on the Senate floor before the bill’s passage.

Capital gains are the profits made on the sale of assets — land, stocks, cryptocurrencies or tangible property — which have increased in value over the holding period.

This policy would primarily benefit Missourians making more than $1 million a year. The 8,230 Missourians who reported income over $1 million to the IRS in 2022 made 54% of the $13.3 billion total in capital gains income reported. When earners making $500,000 or more are counted, this percentage jumps to 65%.

Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, R-Jefferson City, chair of the Committee on Fiscal Oversight, said that there will likely be some benefit to Missouri’s top earners, but noted that this will likely benefit Missouri farmers as well.

Farmers seeking to sell their land to new owners could subtract 100% of the capital gain income made in the sale from their state income taxes, previously only a percentage of the capital gains on farm sales could be subtracted.

The bill is not only set to help Missouri’s top earners, but could also see the state lose roughly $111 million in individual income tax revenue annually, according to the bill’s fiscal note.

The Missouri Committee on Fiscal Oversight voted to move the bill to a final vote in the Senate earlier in the day, and the bill was passed in the Senate with no discussion. One more vote in the House is required before the bill can reach the governor’s desk for final approval.

The bill previously passed the House in February. It was initially approved by the Senate last Wednesday following negotiations with Democrats. The Democrats were able to include the elimination of state sales tax on diapers and period products and increases to a property tax credit benefiting seniors in the revised bill.

“Those are things that we have actually been trying to work with the Democrats for a long time,” Bernskoetter said. “I’m happy that we got those provisions put in.”

Including these negotiated provisions, general revenue is estimated to lose a minimum of $14.5 million from the elimination of the luxury tax on diapers and period products in the next year. The provision increasing the income limits for “circuit breaker” property tax credits would short general revenue another $72 million in the next year.

Another provision negotiated by Democrats would stop corporations from claiming their capital gains revenue until statewide revenue markers are met. The earliest a corporate cut could be expected would be in 2030.

Prop A rollbacks

Another bill passed by the Senate Committee on Fiscal Oversight on Monday would repeal provisions of Proposition A, a ballot initiative passed by 57% of the vote in the November election.

The proposition is set to raise the minimum wage to $15 by Jan. 1, 2026, and requires that wages continue to increase annually based on inflation.

The proposition also put in place requirements for businesses with 15 or more employees to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. This provision would go into place May 1.

Within the paid sick leave provision, there are exemptions for government employees, some employees working at businesses making $500,000 or less a year, babysitters and others.

House Bill 567, proposed by Rep. Sherri Gallick, R-Belton, would repeal the paid sick leave mandated in the proposition before it could go into effect.

The bill would also remove any additional increases to the minimum wage based on inflation but would not stop the increase to $15 in 2026.

Missouri lags behind the national average for median annual household income, at $68,920, according to a 2023 report from the U.S. Census Bureau, while the national median was $78,538. The report also finds that approximately 12% of Missourians live below the national poverty line.

However, some businesses associations take issue with the sick leave provision in the proposition.

“So, our concern with Proposition A is that there were many details buried in the body of the amendment that were not present that voters could see when choosing to vote for or against the measure,” said Ray McCarty, president and CEO of Associated Industries of Missouri, a business association.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce, which represents Missouri businesses, has launched a lawsuit to take down Prop A. The Missouri Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the lawsuit in March.

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

House gives preliminary approval on video gaming machine regulations

By Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House gave preliminary approval Monday for a bill that would establish a regulatory system for video gambling machines and would ban all unlicensed gaming machines currently in use.

The bill passed 74-70. It needs one more roll-call vote in the House before moving onto the Senate where similar bills have failed to gain passage in recent years.

Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, has indicated previously that gambling in the state is not her top priority.

Video gaming machines, referred to in the bill as “no-chance” machines, have become popular in gas stations, bodegas and convenience stores throughout the state.

These machines are called “no chance” because they do not determine outcomes based on a random number generator. Instead, they rotate through predetermined outcomes. These game machines are also called “gray” games because they fall into an unregulated legal gray zone.

While the Missouri Gaming Commission has declared the machines illegal, little action has been taken by prosecutors to remove the machines.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon, would prohibit any new “no-chance” machines in the state, and create regulations on new licensed machines Hardwick calls Video Lottery Terminals. A litany of amendments to the bill approved during floor discussion greatly altered the bill.

An amendment from Rep. Brenda Shields, R-St. Joseph, would require all counties and municipalities to opt in to the regulations proposed in the bill.

Another amendment added to the bill from Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis, would ban all machines that are not currently licensed.

A third amendment added by Rep. Jeff Myers, R-Warrenton, would establish the Missouri Gaming Bureau. The bureau would create a law enforcement agency to regulate and investigate gaming violations, Myers said. He added that his amendment would be funded by fees in the initial bill outlined by Hardwick.

For those counties and municipalities that do opt in, VLTs and the regulations initially set out by Hardwick’s bill would be in place.

Under the bill, VLTs would be required to operate with a random outcome, display complete play histories and connect to a centralized computer system run by the state lottery commission, along with numerous other regulations. Only those 21 years old may play the regulated machines.

“We owe it to them to give them regulatory certainty and give them clarity on how to operate and be successful,” Hardwick said. “We also owe it to our people who are playing those games.”

Hardwick also added requirements that VLT machines be in a separate area within retailers’ locations.

An amendment from Rep. Marty Joe Murray, D-St. Louis, would add a warning about gambling addiction on all machines.

Licenses would be required for operators, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of the VLTs. The initial licenses would be nonrefundable for the first year. The license would then be renewed at a lower cost for a five-year period. The money acquired through these licenses would go into the State Lottery Fund.

Additionally, an annual $1,000 fee must be split between operators and retailers for each VLT in service. First, $200 of the $1,000 would go into the State Lottery Fund, then the remainder would go toward funding enforcement of the bill’s regulations, the Missouri Veterans Commission and the local municipalities the machines operate in.

Operators must also pay 34% of the revenue made from the machines into the State Lottery Fund, and each county will receive 10% of the revenue generated within the municipality for public safety services. The remaining 66% will be split evenly between the retailers and operators.

The State Lottery Fund is earmarked for use in public education. In the 2024 financial year, lottery proceeds toward the Missouri Department of Higher Education were $95 million and proceeds toward the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education were $432 million.

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

Antisemitism bill advances in House despite strong opposition

By Jackson Cooper, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House moved forward Monday with a bill that would provide protections against antisemitism in public schools.

House Bill 937, sponsored by Rep. George Hruza, R-St. Louis, establishes a definition for antisemitism, which public school districts and institutions of higher education would be required to integrate into their codes of conduct.

The definition referred to is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. According to the text of HB 937, the IHRA definition states, “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred toward Jews and that rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, their property, or both, and toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Hruza, the son of a Holocaust survivor, said he was motivated to pursue this legislation amid a recent rise of antisemitic incidents that has coincided with the Israel-Hamas war.

“Jewish students should be able to go to school without fearing for their safety,” Hruza said. “They should be able to focus on their studies, to go about their life without fear as the rest of us are.”

The bill also includes a noncompulsory recommendation for districts to provide curriculum on Jewish-American history for students.

Several Republican representatives expressed support for the bill during debate, often invoking the Bible as motivation for supporting Jewish citizens.

Opponents to the bill cited a number of factors, including that the legislation is vague, inconsiderate to the desires of progressive Jewish citizens and unfair to other minority groups.

Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, expressed her opposition, calling back to conversations with Jewish constituents who opposed the government defining antisemitism.

“While I am all for nondiscrimination protections, (these conversations) helped me understand that this goes much further, and they don’t want the General Assembly defining how they understand, perceive and define antisemitism,” Fuchs said.

Rep. Bridget Walsh Moore, D-St. Louis, spoke strongly against the bill, and said that it is unfair to provide protections for a single group while broader DEI protections are being dismantled at the federal level.

“We’re going to wipe away protections for every other minority group, every other oppressed class, but at the same time say we want to protect students,” Walsh Moore said. “It’s picking a favorite team. I won’t do it, and I ask that this body join me.”

Walsh Moore’s sentiments were echoed in part across the aisle. Though Rep. Darin Chappell, R-Rogersville, offered wide-ranging comments on theological motivations for antisemitism, he also expressed qualms with creating provisions for single groups.

“I have a hard time any subsection of society is singled out based on some sort of unique perspective based on things that are already illegal to discriminate against,” Chappell said.

House members also adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson. Known as the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, it prevents discrimination based on hair style in schools.

HB 937 faces one more vote on the House floor before it is passed to the Senate.

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

SUNDAY 

Policy summit focuses on protecting initiative process

By Olivia Maillet, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Clear. Unbiased. Fair. Accurate.

These words drove the conversation at the Respect MO Voters Coalition Policy Summit on Sunday, where voters from around Missouri gathered to decide on an initiative seeking to ban politician interference in the initiative and referendum process.

“We’ve reached such a dire, low point in our democracy that our elected officials are not even respecting our most fundamental freedom,” said Benjamin Singer, CEO of Show Me Integrity and co-founder of the Respect Voters Coalition. “Missouri is one of only 11 states with no protections in place for when we pass something by initiative.”

The group’s proposed initiative would cover four main concerns: banning the legislature from changing past initiatives, banning the legislature from trying to again pass laws rejected by citizens, prohibiting politicians from attacking citizens’ ability to use the initiative process and banning the use of manipulating language on ballots to mislead voters and emerging issues. For example, politicians are trying to limit funding to initiative campaigns with Senate Bill 152.

This summit was the climax of Respect MO Voters Coalition’s campaign around the state to 25 town halls, where the group gathered information through a survey to incorporate input from Missourians.

In order for an initiative amending the state constitution to be put on the 2026 ballot, it requires a petition signed by 8% of voters in two-thirds of Missouri’s congressional districts.

“I got involved because I have noticed in the past that initiatives get overturned, and I get quite frustrated,” Columbia resident Mary Ellen Buddemeyer said. “I went to the town hall meeting and filled out the volunteer survey. Except for a few people, it is all volunteers. They are supportive of people who maybe haven’t been as active in the past or can only devote a small amount of time.”

The Respect MO Voters Coalition’s current policy plans require that the legislature not change or repeal anything passed by a citizen initiative, unless it receives at least 80% support in both chambers. This ensures bipartisan support in both chambers, as currently the Missouri House of Representatives has a 68% Republican majority and the Missouri Senate has a 70% Republican majority.

The coalition also wants to create a bipartisan citizen commission to draft ballot titles, rather than politicians doing so and to impose stricter criteria for language.

“I want you to know, obviously, I am a partisan,” said Yvonne Reeves Chong, vice chair of the Missouri Democratic Party. “But before that, I am a citizen.”

The Respect MO Voters Coalition filed three initiatives with the secretary of state to amend the state constitution to protect the citizen initiative process in February. Singer said these initiatives were backups in case the initiative filed after the summit was not approved.

Because they filed an initiative and got the ballot language early in their feedback-gathering process, the coalition was able to better poll voters.

According to polls led by the Respect MO Voters Coalition, most voters agreed with the majority of the ballot language the secretary of state wrote for the initiatives filed back in February.

However, Singer said voters were hesitant about creating a bipartisan citizen commission to draft ballot titles — possibly due to the four-page description of the committee in the initiative writing.

State government officials also estimate that the initiative, because of the creation of a citizen commission, would cost $31,000 every other fiscal year starting in 2027.

“We know people are going to drag this through the mud,” Singer said. “We know politicians, the secretary of state, the legislators, who want power, are going to attack this with everything they’ve got. We’re coming for their power to overturn the will of the people.”