Missouri Press Association
Serving Missouri Newspapers Since 1867
Missouri News Network: Statehouse News for MPA Members
This report is written by Missouri School of Journalism students for publication by MPA member newspapers in print and online.
-----------------------------------------------------
Missouri News Network coverage this week includes coverage of efforts to eliminate paid sick leave provisions of Proposition A, House action on a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict abortion rights again and a hearing on efforts to pass a new law protecting Second Amendment rights.
If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY
Senators squabble over breakdown in Prop A talks
By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Democrats and Republicans each blamed the other side Thursday for wrecking a potential compromise over minimum wage and paid sick leave changes.
In November, Missouri voters approved Proposition A, which increased the minimum wage and required qualifying businesses to offer employees paid sick leave. House Bill 567, brought to the Senate floor Wednesday, would repeal paid sick leave and eliminate minimum wage increases after next year.
Prop A is set to take effect May 1. If the bill passes the Senate, it will take effect immediately after Gov. Mike Kehoe signs it and deny the paid sick leave benefit.
During a nine-hour filibuster against the bill Wednesday, Senate Democrats felt they were close to a compromise with the Republicans, Senate Democratic Leader Doug Beck, D-Affton, said at a news conference Thursday.
Beck said a Facebook post by Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin thwarted the effort.
“We did our best to negotiate in good faith, but people on both sides of the negotiations were blindsided by the pro tem,” Beck said. He said negotiations dealt with implementation and enforcement of the new law but offered scant details.
Beck referenced a Facebook post published on O’Laughlin’s page at 7:23 a.m. Wednesday that read “Heading to the Mother Ship. Prop A on the agenda. #NoToThisBusinessKiller. We are prepared to stay as long as it takes” with a picture of the state Capitol.
O’Laughlin was not available for comment Thursday but continued posting about the bill after it was set aside around 1 a.m.
Republicans opposed to Prop A argue the new laws will hurt businesses. Because the proposition voters approved merely changed state law, the legislature can pass new laws on the topic without needing voter approval.
In a later post, O’Laughlin accused Democrats of constantly being on the phone during negotiations.
“It’s quite difficult to get to agreement when you aren’t dealing with your colleagues but a nameless, faceless person on the phone,” her post reads.
Beck said he was on the phone with someone who represents workers but did not say who.
As president pro tem, O’Laughlin wields great authority over what legislation is considered on the Senate floor. She promised the matter isn’t over.
“We will set this aside for the moment but we are committed to getting it done before session ends,” she said in her final Facebook post on the topic. “This is a basic economic issue that we cannot let become permanently ensconced in our state.”
-----------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY
Democrats filibuster to defend minimum wage, paid sick leave
By Mary McCue Bell, Sterling Sewell and Molly Gibbs, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Verbal battle was joined on the Senate floor Wednesday over minimum wage and paid sick leave provisions approved by voters last fall.
Republican leaders brought to the floor a House bill that eliminates paid sick leave and limits the impact of the minimum wage increase, prompting a filibuster by Democrats.
Missouri voters passed Proposition A with almost 58% of the vote in the November election. But House Bill 567, proposed by Rep. Sherri Gallick, R-Belton, would repeal paid sick leave and cost-of-living increases put into state statute by the proposition.
On Jan. 1, Missouri employees saw minimum wages rise from $12.30 an hour to $13.75 an hour as a result of Prop A. The minimum wage will increase again to $15 per hour Jan. 1, 2026.
Prop A anticipated continued annual minimum-wage increases based on cost-of-living calculations. Gallick’s bill leaves the pay raises intact but removes future cost-of-living increases.
Prop A mandated one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked for businesses with 15 or more employees. The sick leave provision is set to go into effect May 1.
HB 567 eliminates the paid sick leave provision and includes a so-called emergency clause that would take effect as soon as Gov. Mike Kehoe signs the bill, should it pass.
On the floor, Democrats criticized the repeal bill for circumventing what they say is a mandate from Missouri voters on the proposition.
Sen. Steven Roberts, D-St. Louis, said lawmakers should wait to see the effect of Prop A before repealing its provisions.
“What was passed was reasonable, it’s fair, and it’s what our constituents want,” Roberts said.
Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, spoke in favor of the House bill. Brattin said that many of the voters who supported Prop A “have no skin in the game” and may not understand how it affects employers.
Brattin also criticized the state’s petition process, saying that Prop A should never have been put before voters.
“We are not a direct democracy, and we have got to stop telling our kids we are a democracy,” Brattin said. “Cause we are not a democracy, we are a republic.”
The bill has been a top priority for Republican leadership since the legislative session opened.
“We are prepared to stay as long as it takes,” Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, said in a post on Facebook on Wednesday in reference to the anticipated Democratic filibuster on HB 567.
Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, R-Jefferson City, began arguments in favor of the repeal bill saying that Missouri businesses could be harmed by the continuation of Prop A. He argued that decisions on wages should be between the employee and employer.
While some Missouri workers have protested efforts to block Prop A, a number of business associations take issue with the sick leave provision, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Sen. Doug Beck, D-Affton, began Wednesday’s filibuster by offering an amendment to the bill. He said lower-wage workers would spend their increased wages at local businesses.
“It all goes back to a lot of the basics,” Beck said. “That money goes right back into the economy.”
Senate Democrats filibustered for 50 hours last year against a joint resolution that would have changed the initiative petition process.
Filibusters are used as a means of holding off a vote to allow negotiations on a bill. Republicans, who hold a supermajority, can choose to simply wait and see how long Democrats are willing to talk.
The filibuster ended around 1 a.m. Thursday when Republicans set the bill aside temporarily.
-----------------------------------------------------
House bill would require medical care for 'abortion survivors'
By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Strong support was shown Wednesday for the “Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act” in a Senate committee hearing.
House Bills 195 and 1119 would mandate providing the same lifesaving care to “abortion survivors” as any other prematurely born child.
The policy would require medical care be given to a prematurely born infant, even if the birth was the result of an attempted abortion. Although the legislation targets lawful and unlawful abortion procedures, there is no stipulation in the bill regarding non-viable pregnancies.
The termination of a non-viable pregnancy, which could occur to save the life of the mother, is an abortion.
Currently, 35 states have some protection for babies “born-alive” following an abortion, and eight states mandate medical professional reporting when an infant is born as a result of the procedure. Mandated reporting is another clause in HB 195.
Before the bill passed in the House on March 27 on a 109-32 vote, it caused heated discussion in the House Health and Mental Health Committee.
Several representatives voiced their disdain for the policy, including registered nurse Rep. Greg Bush, D-Columbia. He specifically mentioned civil suits that could target medical professionals if it was passed.
Rep. Jo Doll, D-St. Louis, criticized the sponsor of HB 1119, Rep. Holly Jones, R-Eureka, at the hearing.
“What your bill is doing is going to cause great harm to people going through horrible situations,” Doll said.
Both Doll and Bush voted in opposition of the bill on the House floor.
Bill sponsors Rep. Brian Sietz, R-Branson, and Jones testified in favor of their policy in front of the Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee on Wednesday
“No one can deny that the baby born alive despite the circumstances is a human being, a miracle of creation, a person of dignity, unique in the universe,” Sietz said. “If the infant fought that hard to live, let’s give them a chance.”
Sens. Jill Carter, R-Grandby, Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley, and Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, were the only committee members present during the hearing.
Samuel Lee, a director at Campaign Life Missouri, mentioned in his testimony that U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., is the primary sponsor of similar legislation in the U.S. House, prompting him to note a strong “Missouri connection” to the policy.
One topic bill supporters repeatedly brought up was the case of Kermit Gosnell in 2011. Gosnell, a former Philadelphia abortion provider, was convicted of second-degree murder of three infants born during abortions. A witness testified that Gosnell snipped their necks with scissors.
“We’re asking for the ‘Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act’ to be passed through the House and the Senate and onto the governor’s desk to save babies that make it out of these horrific procedures,” Jones said.
Lobbyist Timothy Faber compared abortion to acts of a “barbaric society.” Faber said that when there was an unwanted child in ancient Rome, the family would “dump and let it die from exposure.”
“A child upon whom abortion has been attempted obviously is an unwanted child,” Faber said. “When we allow that child to die for lack of appropriate medical care without even attempting to save his life, we are no better than the barbaric ancient Romans.”
The sole witness in opposition was Maggie Olivia, a representative from Abortion Access Missouri. Olivia called the policy “one-size fits all” and made an effort to refute most of the claims made by bill supporters.
“Obstetricians, gynecologists, just like physicians in all fields of medicine, are dedicated to protecting, preserving and promoting the health of their patients,” Olivia said. “These bills aren’t about abortion, don’t impact people who are seeking abortion care, but they will impact people who are facing devastating pregnancy loss.”
Olivia then cited several medical organizations who testified in opposition to Wagner’s bill.
“I think it is egregious to deny parents the ability to choose compassionate palliative care for their dying infant,” Olivia said.
The bill needs a favorable vote from the committee to move to the full Senate for consideration before the legislature adjourns May 16.
-----------------------------------------------------
Legislative Black Caucus highlights successes and concerns
By Charlie Dahlgren, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — With just one month to go in the 2025 legislative session, the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus held a news conference Wednesday to discuss progress and concerns.
From the state budget to abortion, the session covered a wide swath of the House majority’s priorities so far this session.
Rep. Dell Taylor, D-St. Louis, celebrated Senate Bill 4 — a utilities bill signed into law April 9 despite opposition from consumer advocates and some Democrats. Taylor said the law is a win for grid reliability, consumer protection and job creation.
“Senate Bill 4 is one of the largest utility bills that has ever passed through the state of Missouri,” said Taylor, who serves on the House Utility Committee. “With that, it also has some of the largest consumer protections that we are going to see.”
Rep. Melissa Douglas, D-Kansas City, spoke about the caucus’ success in directing state funds toward Kansas City ahead of the city hosting World Cup matches in 2026.
“We’re very excited about the World Cup coming,” Douglas said. “But also at the same time we’re very concerned about the safety and security of average people while being at the World Cup.”
Douglas said they were able to secure funds to bolster the Kansas City Area Transit Authority’s safety and security. She said the money will fund an AI program to add another layer of safety and help visitors navigate the city.
Additional contributions include those to youth sports enrichment, workforce development, entertainment and housing programs, she said.
Rep. Marty Murray, D-St. Louis, discussed budget wins for St. Louis, including those that are helping to fund health care, housing, addiction assistance and food security.
“These wins reflect our community’s values, compassion, opportunity and justice that wouldn’t be possible without a team effort,” Murray said. “I would like to personally thank the Democratic members of the House Budget Committee for standing together and helping to fight for these investments.”
Despite those successes, members also voiced several concerns with legislation passed and proposed during the session.
Rep. Mark Sharp, D-Kansas City, spoke about the caucus’ strong opposition to House Bill 328. Passed by the House on April 10, the bill would allow for permitted concealed carry on public transportation.
“I get it, the Republican supermajority is looking to look out for the everyday person,” Sharp said. “But that’s not how you do it.”
Sharp noted there are far more fitting bills to help constituencies — such as those related to funding education and lowering taxes on food — that haven’t been heard in the chamber.
Rep. Marla Smith, D-St. Louis, voiced her contempt for House Joint Resolution 73, which would reinstate a ban on nearly all abortions.
“If HJR 73 moves forward to the ballot, I will meet it there,” Smith said. “I will call on every Missourian to reject this dangerous overreach.”
Caucus Chair Rep. Michael Johnson, D-Kansas City, took a moment to honor the work of the Legislative Black Caucus — especially the freshmen, who he said are becoming “rock stars.”
“Expect more from us,” Johnson said. “Watch us use our leverage, and watch us be more engaged in the things that matter to our constituents.”
-----------------------------------------------------
House backs bill freeing child abuse victims to speak
By Kat Ramkumar, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson, wants to remove any obstacles that may get in the way of child sexual abuse survivors speaking up.
His bill, House Bill 709, disregards any nondisclosure agreement used to settle civil lawsuits over sexual abuse.
“I’m advocating for these victims to be able to have their voices heard after their innocence has been taken through the criminal actions of others,” Seitz said on the Missouri House floor.
Supporters of the legislation note that nondisclosure agreements in civil lawsuits can protect perpetrators and cover abuse. Liable institutions can use the agreements to prevent victims from speaking up about their abuse.
Both Democrat and Republican representatives signaled initial support for the bill Wednesday, and Seitz said on the House floor that there is support in the Senate. Another vote of approval is needed to move the legislation to the Senate for consideration.
Rep. Tonya Rush, D-Florissant, spoke on the floor about her own sexual abuse.
“This is the first time that this has come out of my mouth,” Rush said. “I have never repeated this to anyone, not my mom, not my dad, nobody. I don’t think any child should be silenced at all.”
Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, agrees that nondisclosure agreements silence victims.
“Everyone signs off in this agreement and a child cannot talk about what happened,” Smith said. “They need to be able to talk about what happened and it also protects their future.”
The bill is coined “Trey’s Law” after Trey Carlock, a victim of sexual abuse at Kanakuk Kamp in Branson who took his own life in 2019. Similar legislation is pending in Texas.
Tennessee is the only state that has restricted the use of nondisclosure agreements in civil lawsuits.
“Without NDAs, truth can come to life,” Seitz said. “And truth is in the interest of public safety.”
-----------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY
House wants voters to decide on abortion again
By Natanya Friedheim and Hannah L. Graves, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House signaled approval Tuesday for a proposed constitutional amendment that seeks to reinstate a ban on nearly all abortions.
The resolution must still pass another vote in the House and pass through the Senate before being added to the ballot to face a vote from the public. The House vote Tuesday was 94-50 in favor of asking voters to repeal Amendment 3, which guarantees reproductive rights and was adopted by a majority public vote in November.
House Republicans’ newest version of House Joint Resolution 73 allows abortions in the case of medical emergencies and fetal anomaly. It allows abortion in cases of rape and incest up to 12 weeks of gestation if the assault is reported to police.
“The preeminent facet is that it protects women,” said the bill’s handler, Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson. “What Amendment 3 took away from them, this legislation seeks to restore.”
Supporters of the resolution say that Amendment 3 included vague language and that it has had unintended consequences.
Those who oppose the resolution made arguments both in favor of abortion access and criticizing the legislature for not trusting voters and attempting to repeal the will of the people.
Opponents of the ballot resolution, such as Rep. Mark Boyko, D-Kirkwood, pointed out that the language discusses health care for women but does not specifically ask voters if they want to ban abortion. He argued that is misleading to voters. In the wake of passage of Amendment 3, abortion opponents argued that the ballot language was misleading to voters.
Amendment 3 legally protects abortion access up to the point of fetal viability, defined as a good faith judgment of a treating health care professional based on a particular case.
The day after the amendment passed, Planned Parenthood affiliates and the ACLU of Missouri filed a lawsuit requesting a preliminary injunction on the near-total ban that went into effect in 2022 and other laws regulating the procedure.
A Jackson County judge granted their request, blocking enforcement of laws conflicting with Amendment 3 and restoring elective access. The first elective abortion was performed in Kansas City on Feb. 15.
The proposal would open the door for court proceedings to reinstate the 2022 ban and for the General Assembly to impose additional regulations on abortion providers.
The ballot language consists of six bullet points asking voters if the Missouri Constitution should be amended to:
“It doesn’t tell a voter they can’t get an abortion,” Boyko said. “The language they are going to see on the ballot has nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish.”
The resolution also outlines safety and procedural regulations for clinics and providers, such as requiring clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals or requiring physicians to determine the fetus’ gestational age. The resolution notes that the legislature’s power is “not limited to” these regulations. Abortion clinics currently follow licensure requirements that mirror clinics offering similar levels of care.
The resolution’s supporters, such as Seitz, argued that HJR 73 “protects women” and “seeks to restore what Amendment 3 took away from (women).”
“I think most voters were walking into the voting booth thinking rape and incest exceptions. The vagueness of Amendment 3 could allow for abortion on demand up to nine months,” Seitz said.
Amendment 3 leaves possible post-viability abortions that are medically necessary “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.” In practice, late-term abortions are extremely rare.
“You think you’re stopping abortion with these ridiculous bills. You’re not. You’re stopping safe, legal abortion,” Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson, said.
Democratic Floor Leader Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City, pointed to seven Republican House members who won reelection with a smaller percentage of the vote than Amendment 3 received in their own districts. She urged them to “stand up for your constituents.”
An abortion-rights demonstration broke out in the House gallery immediately after the vote by individuals wearing Abortion Action Missouri shirts holding signs. Capitol security escorted the demonstrators out as some representatives chanted in support. Two members had words with each other before others intervened and calm was restored.
House committee hears abortion bills
Earlier, the House Committee on Children and Families discussed two identical measures that would allow prosecutors to charge women who get an abortion with homicide. The proposals also enable prosecution against abortion providers.
Sometimes called “fetal personhood” laws, House Bill 1072 and House Bill 1417 would define “person” as “including an unborn child at every stage of development from the moment of fertilization until birth.”
Referred to in the bill as “preborn persons,” fetuses and embryos would have the same rights as a person.
Reps. Burt Whaley, R-Clever, and Justin Sparks, R-Wildwood, introduced the measures. No other state has passed such legislation, but lawmakers in at least 12 states are considering similar legislation, said Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion. Pierce helped write the bills and testified Tuesday.
The bill has an exception for ectopic pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or when the life of the mother is threatened. It also says that if a woman is forced under “duress” to get an abortion, she cannot be charged.
Rep. Marlene Terry, D-St. Louis, asked if Sparks would support a murder charge for women who have an abortion.
“If she broke the law and violated equal protection of an innocent human life, yes, I think it would be murder,” he responded. He said the same law enforcement agencies that enforce current statutes would enforce the bill should it become law.
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate bill would bar schools from requiring DEI statements for admission or employment
By Molly Gibbs, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A state senator is taking aim at colleges and universities who ask prospective students or job candidates to explain how they would contribute to an institution’s diversity, equity and inclusion goals.
Senate Bill 326 would prohibit schools from requiring the submission of a diversity, equity and inclusion statement for admission or employment. It would also prohibit the preferential consideration of applicants on the basis of an unsolicited submission of a DEI statement.
According to a guide from Notre Dame University, DEI statements are short essays that describe the candidate’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Bill sponsor Sen. Ben Brown, R-Washington, called these statements “DEI loyalty oaths” and said they are used as a political litmus test for candidates.
“(Candidates) are expected to commit to shaping their teaching and research priorities around DEI’s radical ideology,” Brown said in a hearing on Tuesday.
The University of Missouri does not currently require these types of statements for admission or employment. However, provisions of the bill that deal with “unsolicited statements” could have consequences for MU. The bill would bar universities from giving preferential treatment to applicants for jobs or admission who submit a DEI statement anyway.
“There would have to be proof that someone was given preferential treatment due to the statement that was submitted,” Brown said in an interview. “So absent that evidence, it wouldn’t really have any impact on current practices.”
Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, questioned whether any of these practices were currently taking place at universities in the state. Brown said he hadn’t looked since presenting the bill last year and that many universities, including Missouri State University, could have changed their policies since then. Still, Brown said the legislation is needed regardless of how many schools currently require the submission of DEI statements.
“It is something that has been required, and I imagine would be in the future as well as things change and something that I feel we need to prevent now,” Brown said.
Nurrenbern called the bill the “epitome of big government” before concluding her questioning.
James Harris testified in favor of the bill on behalf of Cicero Action and Do No Harm Action, advocacy groups who say on their websites that they oppose “destructive” and “divisive” ideologies. He said requiring DEI statements can force applicants to look for work elsewhere, ultimately harming the state’s colleges and universities.
Critics of the bill included Paul Wagner with the Council on Public Higher Education, which represents Missouri State University, Truman State University and other public colleges in the state. MU is not a member of the council. During his testimony, he called into question the bill’s vague language.
“It just opens (universities) up to so much legal liability on the basis of things that are really just vague and could just be hearsay,” Wagner said. “It puts the state and our institutions at risk.”
Brown said in an interview he was open to the input given during Tuesday’s hearing and would look into tightening the language.
-----------------------------------------------------
Decision on presidential primary moves to the Senate
Shane LaGesse, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — House approval Monday of a bipartisan bill to reinstate state-run presidential primaries in Missouri moves the issue to the Senate to decide.
House Bill 126 passed with support from 42 Democrats and 43 Republicans, though a majority of House Republicans voted against it. The bill has been sent to the Senate for further debate.
While the bill also contains a clause extending the no-excuse absentee voting period from two to six weeks, the bill handler Rep. Rudy Veit, R-Wardsville, said on the floor that he had discussed plans with the Senate bill handlers for it to be removed in the other chamber.
Rep. Eric Woods, D-Kansas City, said he supported the bill but voiced disappointment that the Senate planned to remove language extending the no-excuse absentee voting period from two to six weeks.
"I am disappointed at the expansion of early voting being removed," Woods said on the floor during debate. "You know, even though I may have thought that six weeks was a long time, I am disappointed that we couldn't reach a compromise of three or four, because as we saw during the 2024 election early voting is popular and it works."
The state ran presidential primaries in March of presidential election years from 2000 until 2020. A 2022 law that addressed a number of voting issues also eliminated the primaries.
In 2024, the Republican Party held in-person caucuses in Missouri to select their delegates, while Democrats opted for a hybrid caucus with in-person voting and a mail-in ballot.
Supporters of the bill have referenced low participation in the caucuses, along with vocal blowback from residents who preferred the state-run primaries, as motivators for reinstating the primaries.
Under the bill, primaries would be held on the first Tuesday of March during presidential election years. The estimated cost to the state for conducting the primaries is $8 million.
The bill’s supporters also noted that unlike previous years, where the primary results have not been binding to party delegates, both political parties have agreed to adhere to the results for the first ballot at their respective party conventions.
-----------------------------------------------------
MONDAY
Legislature gives attorney general more power to challenge abortion rights
By Shane LaGesse, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Attorney General Andrew Bailey will have more authority to challenge abortion rights after a bill addressing initiative petitions received final passage in the Missouri General Assembly on Monday.
The bill will allow, for the first time in Missouri’s history, the state attorney general to appeal temporary restraining orders given by the courts that prevent the enforcement of state laws or constitutional provisions. The bill passed on a 109-46 vote.
Most notably, the new law — once it is signed by Gov. Mike Kehoe — will allow Bailey to appeal a state court order and forbid the enforcement of existing abortion restrictions.
Voters approved Amendment 3 last fall, which put reproductive rights in the Missouri Constitution. A state judge later issued a restraining order on laws placing limits on various aspects of abortion services could not be enforced. That temporary restraining order cleared the way for Planned Parenthood to begin offering abortion services earlier this year.
The Missouri House also approved an emergency clause that would place the law into effect immediately after being signed by Kehoe, rather than the last Monday in August, which is the traditional enactment time.
Senate Bill 22, sponsored by Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, would also change the procedure for rewriting ballot initiative summary statements, putting more power in the hands of the secretary of state. Brattin sat on the House dais behind House Speaker Jon Patterson, R-Lees Summit, during the debate.
The bill faced heated debate on the floor, where several Democratic representatives called it unconstitutional.
“The reality is, that underlying bill is truly just a vehicle for the language that allows the attorney general to retroactively appeal an injunction,” Rep. Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City, said after the bill was passed. “And that, to me, is blatantly unconstitutional; to try to pass something that retroactively affects an injunction.”
While the bill handler, Rep. Ben Keathley, R-St. Louis, did not mention the abortion case by name, he made a nod to it in his closing statement before the vote on the emergency clause.
“There is only one instance, one preliminary injunction, in one case right now in this limited 90-day window that would be eligible ... and that is an injunction that right now is stopping us from keeping medical facilities safe for women and children,” Keathley said.
On ballot language, the bill would require challenges to summary statements to be submitted by the 22nd Tuesday prior to the general election.
If the court finds the language unfair, the secretary of state would be required to submit up to three revised statements. Each of those revisions were given a timetable to occur. If the court deems the third revision unfair, then it would draft the final language itself.
Opponents argued that the revision language was a delaying tactic making it more difficult in an already complicated process for getting ballot questions approved.
Rep. Eric Woods, D-Kansas City, spoke against the bill.
“It sets up a process that is overcomplicated,” Woods said. “It shreds checks and balances, and the ability of an impartial court to check us when we act out, or to check the secretary of state if they refuse to put fair language on the ballot.”
However, supporters of the bill argued that the courts still have the final say, and that this system aims instead to prevent the courts from manipulating the language.
“Courts are still the ones reviewing the language, but they can’t be the only ones involved with writing out language,” Woods said.
The bill would also increase the maximum length of a summary statement from 50 to 100 words.
Mary McCue Bell contributed to this story.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill advances that would end MU's exclusive authority on doctoral degrees
By Jackson Cooper, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri House committee advanced an amended Senate bill Monday that would end the University of Missouri’s exclusive permission to grant doctoral degrees.
The new provision is tacked onto Senate Bill 150, sponsored by Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, which establishes a fund to reimburse tuition and book fees for students in community colleges and technical schools. It passed the Senate last month.
A substitute version of the bill adopted Monday by the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee consolidates six smaller education bills, including provisions ranging from expanded financial aid opportunities to increased requirements for universities to accept transfer credit.
Among these consolidated bills is House Bill 616, sponsored by Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Springfield, which would remove statutes that grant MU and other UM System campuses exclusive license to offer certain doctoral degree
programs. The UM System is the only public university system permitted to grant research doctorate and professional degrees. Other state universities are allowed to partner with the UM System to offer similar degree programs but cannot do so independently.
The amended version of SB 150 would repeal this provision, specifically to allow Missouri State University to offer programs that compete with those on UM System campuses. The amendment is similar to Senate Bill 11, sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield.
Proponents of the bill say that the exclusivity granted to UM System campuses makes doctoral degrees less accessible to those who do not live near a campus.
“When I look at that, if that is a space that someone is interested in, we really shouldn’t be limiting that for people just because they can’t travel to a specific area of the state,” Stinnett said in a committee hearing last month.
Missouri State University President Richard Williams testified last month in support of SB 11, and he said his university simply seeks more flexibility. Missouri State currently offers 10 doctorate programs but is required by state law to do so in partnership with UM System campuses.
“This is relieving restrictions so we can be nimble,” he said.
Opponents to ending UM System’s exclusive power include the University of Missouri Flagship Council, which said in February in a Missourian guest commentary that tuition increases would likely follow as a result.
“The bottom line is that starting doctoral programs at public universities without research funding will need to be propped up with significant state support,” Chuck Brazeale, chair of the Flagship Council’s board of directors, wrote.
SB 150 passed through the House committee by a vote of 10 to 1, with only Rep. Bill Allen, R-Kansas City, dissenting. It is now eligible to be debated on the House floor.
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate committee hears new 'Second Amendment Preservation Act'
By Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network
JEFFERSON CITY — Efforts to enact a new law preventing the enforcement of federal gun laws in Missouri found opponents from throughout the state Monday at a Missouri Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety hearing.
In 2021, the legislature passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which prevented Missouri law officers from enforcing federal gun laws that were considered to be “infringements” on Second Amendment rights.
In 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the act unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws take precedent over state laws.
The court’s decision said that while Missouri could withhold aid to federal enforcement, the language in the original act would negate federal laws directly.
Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon, proposed bringing the act back with House Bill 1175.
“This is a proposal I have to kind of address what the Eighth Circuit had held and then reenact the substantive provision at the heart of the Second Amendment Preservation Act,” Hardwick said.
Hardwick believes the language of his bill would not be considered unconstitutional. HB 1175 would restrict state agencies from enforcing or aiding in the enforcement of federal gun laws that differ from Missouri’s laws.
Hardwick’s bill would also allow Missourians the ability to sue law enforcement agencies for up to $50,000 per occurrence should they work to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal gun laws.
“What (Missouri law enforcement) can’t do is be conscripts to the federal government,” Hardwick said, describing the bill.
The original law, as well as Hardwick’s reenactment, have drawn criticism from law enforcement agencies around the state. Police officers from Columbia, Nixa, Versailes, Rolla and Branson were in attendance at Monday’s hearing.
Some concerns presented by law enforcement include potentially frivolous lawsuits brought on by the bill and the potential loss of access to federal resources, like databases.
Aaron Dorr, a gun rights activist for the Missouri Firearms Coalition, attempted to dispel some of these concerns during his testimony. Dorr said the legislation would not affect agencies’ ability to access federal resources or to work with the federal government unless the primary subject of the work was in federal firearm enforcement.
Police Testimony
While many police who gave testimony agree with the sentiment of the bill, they voiced concern for the unintended consequences they believe could come from the bill.
Columbia Assistant Police Chief Lance Bolinger noted that even if the law does not technically impede agencies, attorneys for law enforcement agencies are likely to take a restrictive approach when dealing with a new Second Amendment law to avoid potential lawsuits.
“Regardless of what the intentions are when we pass these laws, it is how the attorneys for the police department interpret them, that’s what really matters,” Bolinger said, describing the effect of the original law. “Because what (the original law) did for us is it pretty much shut down all of our federal assistance.”
Bolinger said he is concerned that state agencies may stop using federal resources out of fear of litigation if a new Second Amendment act is approved.
When the original law was put into place, one of the things the Columbia Police Department lost was a machine that helps to identify shell casings, Bolinger said. This was because the machine was provided by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
“This weekend in Columbia we had over 100 different shell casings that were dropped on our city,” Bolinger said regarding a shooting at Cosmo Park Saturday. “Trying to put those pieces together and figure out what gun fired what shell casing is going to be impossible without that kind of technology.”
Bolinger also noted that federal prison time for gun violations is often longer than state prison time, which means it’s sometimes advantageous to prosecute suspected criminals for federal charges instead of state.
Sean Fagen, the chief of police in Rolla, said he is an “avid supporter of the Second Amendment,” but voiced concerns about frivolous lawsuits that might arise because of the bill.
Fagen said these lawsuits could potentially stem from cooperation with federal law enforcement relating to narcotics.
“Usually when you have narcotics you have firearms involved,” Fagen said.
Fagen said he fears that if a narcotics case with state and federal cooperation was taken up by federal courts and gun charges were added, Missouri offices could be open to lawsuits.
An unlikely opponent to the bill was Ron Calzone, director of Missouri First, an organization that aims to protect Missouri’s legislative sovereignty from federal overreach. Calzone said he was a champion of the original law, but takes issue with the new proposal because it’s too broad and may interfere with an ongoing push to reinstitute the original law.
Calzone said the bill could potentially go beyond what he sees as federal “infringements” to the Second Amendment, instead applying to all federal laws pertaining to guns.
“The 2021 version of SAPA only forbade state involvement in federal laws we considered to harm the right to keep and bear arms,” Calzone said. “But (this bill) applies to all federal laws quote ‘regarding firearms.’”
Calzone said if the federal government passed a law increasing gun rights, Missouri police would be restricted from helping to enforce those laws under the proposed law.
Joan Haven, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, said she believes this legislation would make it harder for law enforcement to stop gun violence.
According to the most recent CDC data compiled in 2022, Missouri ranks fifth among the states in firearm mortality per capita.
