Capitol Report 4/4/2025

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 stories on some emotional hearings on topics ranging from gender-shared spaces to pregnancy during divorce proceedings to proposed elimination of sunset provisions for several laws. The latest on proposed changes to initiative petitions and a look at Missouri’s film tax credits round out our coverage.

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

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

WEDNESDAY

Passions erupt in Senate hearing over gender-shared spaces

By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — A proposed constitutional amendment separating gender-shared spaces in publicly funded areas caused passionate discussion during a committee meeting Wednesday.

Senate Joint Resolution 57, proposed by Sen. Travis Fitzwater, R-Holts Summit, states, “each person shall have the right to enjoy the following separate spaces in institutions or organizations receiving public funds without having to share those spaces with persons of the opposite sex.”

These places include, but are not limited to, bathrooms, locker rooms, sports facilities, various crisis centers, prisons and spaces where “biology, safety and privacy are implicated.”

Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee member Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, called into question family restrooms, asking if mothers can bring in their infant sons and vice versa.

“I was hoping we were past bathroom bills, but apparently here we are again,” Nurrenbern said.

Nurrenbern, who said she is a practicing Catholic, also questioned Guillermo Villa-Truebe from the Missouri Catholic Conference, who testified in favor of SJR 47 on behalf of the organization. She said her faith has taught her to “love and embrace outcasts.”

“You just said that you’re here to protect and testify in support of all persons, but really that just means straight people,” Nurrenburn said to Villa-Truebe.

Several witnesses spoke in opposition to the amendment; many were transgender adults. Medical student Charles Adams said the amendment conflicts with the teachings of modern medicine. He said being forced to use a restroom for a gender one does not identify with will cause more harm, specifically to transgender youth.

“We shouldn’t automatically assign nefarious intent to people because of who they are or how they were born,” Adams said.

Adams then asked the committee to refrain from creating laws that go against what major medical organizations have declared “medical fact.”

Sen. Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley, was quick to call Adams testimony “disrespectful” and questioned his expertise.

“I’m not going to listen to doctors that say one thing that disagrees with a God of creation,” Nicola said. “You want to kind of berate me a little bit by saying we should listen to what doctors have to say, what your schooling has to say, over what the scripture has to say. It’s not happening with me.”

Nurrenbern followed that exchange by stating she has concerns about pushing legislation that does not respect the separation of church and state.

Committee Chair Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, tried to refocus the conversation on the safety of the citizens, and said it was the “underlying intent” Fitzwater had.

While SJR 57 does not explicitly mention transgender people, it states that, “’gender’ and ‘sex’ are an immutable characteristic determined by biology at the time of conception as male and female.”

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

Bill giving secretary of state more power over ballot summaries passes committee

By Charlie Dahlgren, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House Elections Committee gave final approval to a bill Wednesday that would strengthen the secretary of state’s ability to summarize ballot initiatives over the objections of Democrats regarding the bill’s constitutionality and timeline.

Senate Bill 22 outlines a new process for changing contested summaries for ballot measures — the language that voters see on election day when voting. If the bill passes, the secretary of state would get three opportunities to offer revisions to a challenged summary before a judge has the power to write one.

Under the current law, a judge can immediately rewrite a challenged summary statement when it is brought to court.

The bill also includes a new timeline for the revising process, which extends the deadline for finalized ballot titles from 56 to 70 days before the election.

Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, said at the hearing that the chronology doesn’t make sense. Between the earlier deadline and multiple judgments on drafting, opponents of the bill say it would be nearly impossible to change the name of a ballot measure.

“The math doesn’t work on the timeline,” Smith said. “We all know that.”

Following Tuesday’s hearing on the same bill, Rep. Peggy McGaugh, R-Carrollton, was one of the legislators who had concerns that the time frame was too restrictive for election authorities. So, she said she did some digging late last night.

“I spent quite a bit of time reaching out to (the election authorities), and I found out that they were heavily involved with the senator,” McGaugh said.

McGaugh said the authorities asked for six weeks. In the bill, they are afforded 10.

The timeline of the bill was not the only issue discussed at Wednesday’s hearing. Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, D-St. Louis, said the law is unconstitutional because of how it deals with the separation of powers, due process and the prohibition against retroactive legislation.

Bosley pointed to a part of the bill that allows the state attorney general to appeal certain preliminary injunctions: court orders that block an action from going forward ahead of a final decision. SB 22 would also allow the attorney general to appeal preliminary injunctions issued prior to August 28.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said that element of the bill was added in an amendment to address the fact that Missouri’s attorney general does not currently have the ability to appeal these interim court orders, unlike the federal government, which can.

That provision does not exclusively apply to ballot language.

Rep. John Simmons, R-Washington, argued the bill has nothing to do with retroactive legislation, and Simmons said it would not open up earlier cases.

“I’m not a lawyer, but that’s my understanding,” Simmons said.

Despite Democrats’ concerns, SB 22 passed out of committee in an 8-4 vote and now awaits discussion on the House floor.

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

Both sides join forces to rally for Missouri prison independent oversight

By Kat Ramkumar, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Previously incarcerated Missourians, their loved ones and prison staff gathered at the Capitol to advocate for independent prison oversight on Wednesday.

As of now, the Missouri Department of Corrections can investigate itself. If there are reports of medical neglect, abuse or unsafe conditions, it is allowed to grade itself, which can result in a lack of transparency and accountability.

Ratifying independent oversight will create an external body with legal authority to monitor and investigate what happens inside Missouri prisons, advocates said.

Missouri Prison Reform, a nonprofit dedicated to aiding incarcerated individuals, gathered members to meet representatives and advocate for bills that will change the transparency of Missouri prisons.

Reps. Bill Allen, R-Kansas City, Bill Lucas, R-DeSoto, and Kimberly-Ann Collins, D-St. Louis, have three proposed bills: House Bill 603, HB 729 and HB 774. These similar bills would all establish an ombudsman to investigate reports of wrongdoing in prison.

“You have two Republicans, one Democrat and a conservative political action committee all on the same side of one issue,” Allen said. “This is bipartisan, this is about giving a care about the human beings that we have incarcerated.”

Collins said she regularly visits Missouri prisons to gauge what is happening for herself.

“The Missouri prison system has been faced with numerous issues including abuse, poor living conditions and inadequate healthcare,” she said. “This bill will improve trust between incarcerated individuals and the Department of Corrections by creating a clear and impartial way to address grievances.”

Karen Backues was incarcerated for six years and said she was sexually abused by prison workers for five of them. When she reported her assault under a prison guard to a mental health counselor, he sexually abused her as well.

“I really wasn’t comfortable doing it because I knew the repercussion,” Backues said. “I knew I was going to lose all the things that I had attained in prison, but I took that chance because I couldn’t live any longer with what was being done to me.”

After reporting her second abuse, Backues received a letter from the DOC claiming she could no longer seek help because of familiarity. Her complaint was hidden until the same officer was accused of assault by another offender.

“I did the right thing, and it still backfired on me,” Backues said. “They want to protect themselves and nobody was going to report it.”

Sheena Eastburn, who was previously incarcerated, co-founded the nonprofit Show Me Justice For All with Backues.

“We deserve medical treatment and we deserve clean sheets,” Eastburn said. “We deserve to not be living in black mold with concrete falling on your head. We deserve to not be sexually assaulted.”

Passing an ombudsman bill would create an independent office that addresses inspections and complaints. It would also require officials to inspect all correctional facilities at least once every three years and higher risk facilities annually.

There were 139 deaths across all 19 Missouri prisons in 2024, according to a report released by the Missouri Independent.

Eastburn said she is grateful that the proposed bills has garnered bipartisan support.

“I was frustrated, but I have faith that our state can do better,” Eastburn said. “I have more hope this year.”

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

Bill establishing a 'Safe Place For Newborns Fund' heard in committee

By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — A House bill that would fund the creation of "baby boxes" where parents can safely and legally relinquish children was heard Wednesday.

House Bill 121 would create the "Safe Place for Newborns Fund" and could create up to 25 functioning newborn safety incubators, said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis.

Murphy was praised for creating policy that is "bipartisan" and "pro-life" by members of the Senate Families, Seniors and Health committee on Wednesday. 

Newborn safety incubators are set up in fire stations, hospitals and law enforcement agencies nationwide, providing a protected space for a relinquishing parent to leave their child.

The drop off locations are termed "Safe Haven Baby Boxes" after the nonprofit that creates and installs them. Inside are alarm systems that call 911 when the box is used. They also feature heating and cooling systems.  

Each box costs about $20,000 to buy and build.

Currently, there are six functioning baby boxes in Missouri. Two have opened in the past month and an additional two are in the process of being installed. According to The Associated Press, the first child was surrendered via a baby box in Missouri in February 2024, three years after the state legalized the practice.

HB 121 stipulates the fund will be created in the state treasury, and Missouri will match any donations made up to $10,000 for each newborn safety incubator installed. 

The bill would also extend the time allowed for voluntary relinquishment of a child from 45 to 90 days.

"I just wanted to give the women a little more time to make their decision," Murphy said. 

The bill passed in the Missouri House and a House committee unanimously.

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

State representative gives emotional testimony on bill to allow divorce while pregnant

By Hannah Taylor, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Rep. Cecelie Williams, R-Dittmer, spoke candidly in support of House Bills 243 and 280, which would allow the dissolution of marriage or legal separation even if a person is pregnant, during a hearing Wednesday.

“The emotional, mental and physical toll that abuse takes on a person is overwhelming, and the fear of what might happen if you try to leave is paralyzing,” Williams said. “I know what it feels like to be hit, manipulated and controlled by the person who is supposed to protect you.”

Williams told the Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee that in her early 20s, she tried to divorce her abusive ex-husband while pregnant after he hit her with a baseball bat, but was unable to do so because of current Missouri law. Though the law only explicitly prevents divorces from being finalized while one person is pregnant, her county also barred her from beginning the process.

It wasn’t until seven months later, when her baby was just 10 days old, that Williams filed for divorce.

And 11 days before her divorce was finalized, Williams’ ex-husband died, and she assumed responsibility for his financial assets.

“This bill that seeks to allow the dissolution of marriage during pregnancy offers women like me a chance to not only escape the control of their abuser, but also the legal obligations that kept them bound in that dangerous relationship,” Williams said.

After Williams spoke about her experience on the House floor, she received a standing ovation from the members.

Several domestic abuse and sexual assault advocates also testified in favor of the bills on Wednesday.

Angela Hirsch, Jefferson City Rape and Abuse Crisis Service’s executive director, said over 14 babies have been born in their shelter in almost five years. Hirsch said that’s because their parent doesn’t feel safe at home, and pointed out that these survivors claimed their abuse worsened after becoming pregnant.

Right now, Missouri has the third highest domestic violence rate in the nation, she said. In 2023, Psychology Today reported the same finding.

“I fully support this bill, and I commend Rep. Williams for her courage and for bringing this issue forward and giving a voice to the thousand survivors that I have the honor to serve,” Hirsch said.

The law would also protect parties from being financially or legally responsible if an unborn child is not genetically theirs.

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

TUESDAY

Sunset bill sparks debate in House committee

By Olivia Maillet, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — A House Government Efficiency Committee hearing on Tuesday became a debate on whether sunset provisions for a variety of laws should be removed.

Senate Bill 10, sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, started as a means to remove the sunset on a bill that encompasses two construction development methods. By the time it reached the House, it had evolved to a bill that would remove the sunset provisions for 28 separate laws, including a number of tax credits as well as limits placed on transgender Missourians and ensuring future federal Medicaid reimbursements to the state.

Sunset provisions set a date when a law will expire, absent legislative action. Adding sunset provisions is often proposed by bill supporters to get opponents to agree to passage, understanding that the topic can be revisited in a set number of years.

“I think I understand why sunset clauses are attractive to legislators on both sides of the rotunda,” Rep. Darin Chappell, R-Rogersville, said. “Once you fight for a bill to become a law, and it usually takes multiple years, what if it’s not a good law? What if it turns out that we are wrong? If that is the case, the sunset clauses are a self-imposed breaker.”

Other legislators thought the surplus of sunset removals on the bill was unnecessary, including the sponsor of the bill himself.

“If we were wrong, then we should just come back the next year and fix it,” Hough told the committee.

“A prime example before my time is a legislature that accidentally outlawed styrofoam coolers on rivers,” he said. “Because we got the details of that legislation wrong, they had to come back the next year and say, ‘Tell you what, if you go floating on the Missouri River you can take a styrofoam cooler, it’s okay.’”

“I hate everything about this,” said Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis. “$61 million fiscal note (in lost revenue), and it didn’t even go through fiscal review. What on here do you think must be preserved?”

“This is corporate and business welfare at its best, with no accountability and no responsibility and no transparency,” Arnie C. AC Dienhoff said in his witness testimony. “Everything will just fade into the sunset.”

After the bill’s passage in the Senate, attention focused on the Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act — under which physicians and health care providers are prohibited from providing or referring gender care procedures to minors — and the ability for schools to bar students from competing in sports according to their gender identity as opposed to their sex assigned at birth.

“There’s something out of place with the removal of those two sunsets,” Rep. Doug Clemens, D-St. Ann, said. “I recall, because I was around when we did this particular maneuver, the Senate passed this because it was the only way to get it through. Secondly, we’re not really sure what we are talking about and we want to do the right thing moving forward. We need to make sure we are helping people instead of harming people.”

“My pause in supporting this entire bill is based on this entire section, mostly because the word ‘experimentation,’” said Rep. Ray Reed, D-St. Louis. “I think we could do things that actually prevent experimentation on minors, like legislation against unregulated faith-based conversion therapy camps. I wonder if this bill is more so a political maneuver just to attack the LGBTQ folks.”

“Part of why these sunset provisions were put in place and why they are so critical is because the General Assembly wanted time to digest research, practices and impact to figure out whether or not these bills were going to solve the problem that may or may not exist at all,” said Sage Coram, who testified on the behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri. “By removing the sunset, we remove the purpose of it, not allowing the General Assembly to do their due diligence there.”

At the beginning of this legislative session, Senate Democrats didn’t expect the substantial anti-transgender legislation to be included in the language.

The addition of some other sunsets, most importantly the extension of the Medicaid Managed Care Organization Reimbursement Allowance, provided a reason for them to allow the bill to move forward. Eliminating that sunset means organizations that provide Medicaid to enrollees will have the cost of the healthcare provided covered by the state without relying on future legislative approval.

“It’s been a very important bargaining chip in negotiations, especially in the Senate, where there have been prolonged filibusters and the FRA (federal reimbursement allowance) are used to get past the issue because it is such an important component of the healthcare system in Missouri,” Rep. Michael Davis, R-Belton, said. “It would be detrimental to the legislative process if we outright remove all of the sunsets.”

“I don’t think we need the monstrosity of the bill here that’s just giving away our tax money without any of the due diligence we need to do on it,” Murphy said. “It’s a shame if the FRA becomes a part of it, but I don’t think it’s going to harm it in any way. This, I don’t think, is the vehicle to do it.”

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

Bill would strengthen secretary of state's role in initiative petition process

By Natanya Friedheim, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — In the spring of 2023, efforts were underway to put the question of restoring abortion access to Missouri voters. Abortion-rights supporters geared up to collect the roughly 171,000 signatures required to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Per the state’s initiative petition process, then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote a summary of their proposed constitutional amendment. A staunch abortion opponent then running for governor, Ashcroft drafted the first part of his summary of the petition to say: “Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to: allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth.”

It was not what the drafters had in mind. They took him to court — and won.

“The Court finds that certain phrases included in the Secretary’s summary statement are problematic in that they are either argumentative or do not fairly describe the purposes or probable effect of the initiative,” Judge Jon Beetem wrote in his ruling.

A judge nixed Ashcroft’s summary and wrote a new one.

A Republican-sponsored bill that received a House Elections Committee hearing Tuesday would make it more difficult for judges to rewrite a secretary of state’s ballot summary.

“To me this is a gross overstepping of the judiciary branch,” bill sponsor Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said at the hearing. In Brattin’s opinion, shared by opponents to abortion rights, the courts wrote a summary slanted in favor of the initiative petition that would become Amendment 3, ultimately passed by voters last November.

Brattin’s Senate Bill 22 introduces a new process. Under the bill, a group can appeal the secretary of state’s summary. The court can make recommendations, but the secretary of state must revise the language within seven days.

If the court finds that summary unfair, the secretary gets five days to write another draft. This process can happen one last time, and upon third revision the secretary gets just three days. Only then, if the court still finds the summary unfair, can a judge rewrite it. The back-and-forth process must take place on a set timeline prior to the general election.

Brattin’s original bill eliminated the court’s ability to rewrite a ballot summary, he said at the committee hearing, but he worked with Senate Democrats to amend it.

“This was (a) compromise,” Brattin said.

For opponents of the bill, the timeline would make it nearly impossible to oppose the secretary of state’s ballot language. The process would need to play out more than 70 days before the election.

“If the time runs out, the challenge is extinguished, and it seems to me like whatever the last language is would stand, even if the court still thinks it’s not fair,” Rep. Eric Woods, D-Kansas City, said at the hearing.

Samuel Lee, a prominent activist opposed to abortion, argued courts can expedite cases related to an election. He spoke on behalf of Campaign Life Missouri and testified in support of the measure along with a representative from Missouri Right To Life.

Groups including the League of Women Voters of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter Action and the Missouri AFL-CIO testified in opposition to the measure. Many voters echoed Woods’ concerns about the feasibility of the proposed timeline.

“What if today our Secretary of State was a Democrat? Would we be here today discussing this bill?” Ron Berry of Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter action asked at the hearing.

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

Changes to gender markers on state IDs considered on Transgender Day of Visibility

By Hannah L. Graves, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — On International Transgender Day of Visibility, the Missouri House Emerging Issues Committee heard a bill imposing additional requirements for changing gender markers on Missouri IDs.

“If we were considering a bill stripping veterans of their rights on Veterans Day, I’d be pretty upset,” said Jonathan Schmid, an Army veteran and witness representing the Missouri American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to the bill.

Both the bill sponsor, Rep. Brandon Phelps, R-Warrensburg, and the committee chair, Rep. Brad Christ, R-St. Louis, said they were unaware of the community holiday falling on Monday until hours before the hearing and choosing to discuss this bill on the same day was not intentional.

“Y’all should’ve known better,” Schmid said.

House Bill 1362 would require those seeking a gender marker change on a Missouri photo ID to present an amended birth certificate, which can be obtained after receiving a court order that shows the applicant has both legally changed their name and received gender reassignment surgery.

Currently, in order to legally change one’s name in Missouri, the applicant must submit a petition to the court, which may include application fees, a possible hearing and entry of judgment.

The court order and subsequent name change must be published in the applicant’s closest local newspaper, or one based in St. Louis if there isn’t one nearby, at least once a week for three weeks within 20 days of the decision. Exceptions for publication exist for victims of domestic assault or child abuse.

Also under current law, in order to change one’s gender marker on a Missouri driver’s license, an applicant could submit a Gender Designation Change Request Form, Form 5532, according to the Advocates for Trans Equality website.

However, the portal for the form online has been removed, and according to MO State ID Access Coalition, “as of August 2024, Form 5532 is no longer being accepted by the Department of Revenue and, at this time, there is no alternative form for changing the gender marker” on a Missouri photo ID.

Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D-St. Louis, pointed out that Form 5532 existed for nine years, and no reason was given during questioning for why the form was pulled.

Fuchs asked Phelps what the “problem is” with Missourians seeking to change their gender markers. Phelps alluded to issues with background checks but could not present an example of existing case law highlighting that as an issue.

Rep. Wick Thomas, D-Kansas City, pointed out that another proposed bill, Senate Bill 100, would prohibit someone from changing their birth certificate if they received gender reassignment for any other reason than a “medically verifiable disorder of sex development.”

With the combination of these bills, Thomas said, it would be impossible for transgender Missourians to change their state IDs and would “enable active discrimination” against them.

The issue of intersex individuals who do not wish to undergo gender reassignment surgery was also highlighted. Phelps said there are “avenues through the court” for these individuals to change their gender markers, but Fuchs argued that there are not.

Several individuals and civil rights groups from across the state testified in opposition, with over a hundred pieces of written opposing testimony submitted.

Opposing witnesses spoke of their personal experiences and expectations of the legislature.

“I would love to see things that matter to all of Missouri happen instead of things that impact a small minority of people who are being targeted in ways that are unimaginable,” said Dava Leigh-Brush from the Missouri Equity Education Partnership.

June Choate, a transgender Missourian and the executive director of the St. Louis-based community advocacy group Metro Trans Umbrella, said the bill would create a “state mandated system of forcing transgender people to out themselves every time they use their ID.”

Keith Rose, a paralegal from the Center for Growing Justice, brought up several points on the practicality of document changes. He said that someone born in Illinois may have a birth certificate that has a gender marker ‘X’, or, in another case, the individual may have been born in a state where one cannot legally change their birth certificate, and this bill does not consider what would happen in those instances.

Another point he made is that it is not tradition for birth certificates to match state ID, such as people who get married and legally change their last name; it is not often that those changes are also reflected on their birth certificates.

“People are complicated, and this bill does not reflect the complexity of human life,” Rose said.

He also pointed out that the language of the bill specifies “obtaining” an ID, which must be done at multiple points throughout life, such as when the ID has expired.

The bill would effectively make it illegal for someone who has already had their gender marker changed to receive a new license without meeting these new requirements. In other words, they would have to revert to the previous gender marker.

Phelps said his bill would not require people who have already had their IDs changed to revert.

Rep. Tiffany Price, D-Kansas City, said she received a call from a transgender constituent saying they were directed to exchange their license, which had already been changed, for one that reflects their gender at birth.

Phelps and Price agreed they would discuss that situation privately, possibly involving the Department of Revenue to resolve the issue.

In order to advance to floor discussion, the bill will need a favorable vote by the committee.

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

House Committee hears Senate bill on student organizations

By Hannah L. Graves, Misouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Questions were raised Monday by House Emerging Issues Committee members about whether a bill is needed to provide additional protections to student organizations.

Senate Bill 160 would prohibit higher education institutions from “taking adverse action against a student association because of the association’s beliefs or the actions of its leaders.” The bill sponsor, Sen. Brad Hudson, R-Cape Fair, noted the bill, with one exception, is identical to House Bill 875, which passed the House and was referred to the Senate Education Committee in March.

Hudson said that after discussion with Senate colleagues from across the aisle, a section was added to his bill that says the protections would not apply to organizations having “substantial evidence that such association’s viewpoint or expression … would cause a material and substantial disruption to the educational environment or interfere with the rights of others on campus.”

That language brings the bill in accordance with a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Hudson said, which was referenced several times throughout the hearing. .

The text of SB 160 specifies that “adverse actions” refer to denying “benefits,” including allowing the use of campus facilities or communication channels for group activities, or taking disciplinary action against any prospective religious, political or ideological student organization.

Hudson said the bill is an attempt to “codify what the First Amendment already allows,” to which Rep. Wick Thomas, D-Kansas City, replied, “If there is existing case law and it is protected already under the First Amendment why do we need another statute?”

In response, Hudson pointed out a case in which a religious student group won a lawsuit against the University of Iowa and was awarded a settlement of over $1 million.

A similar case was mentioned by a witness from Chi Alpha Campus Ministries who was testifying in favor of the bill where a student organization required its leadership to believe “marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Concerns for the bill were similar to ones discussed over HB 875 including enabling discrimination and allowing hateful or dangerous organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to operate under publicly funded student fees.

Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, D–St. Louis, pointed out concerns that it could be difficult to discern whether or not groups could be considered disruptive or “abhorrent” as discussed in the hearing, “like the Proud Boys, which operates under a basis of Christian nationalism, which could be argued as religious speech or could be argued as hate speech.”

There was quite a bit of back and forth arguing the idea of fighting discrimination with discrimination, and if “disagreements” could be considered discrimination.

Rep. Danny Busick, R–Newtown, questioned Katy Erker, a witness in opposition from the statewide LGBTQ+ advocacy group PROMO.

“So basically you have a disagreement with those groups and you want to discriminate against them because they disagree with what you believe right?” Busick asked?

Erker responded, “No, I don’t think that’s how this was just presented.”

They continued by giving an example of a religious group in Springfield that attempted to “repeal non-discrimination” and “(religious groups have) gone out of their way to repeal non-discrimination ordinances, I don’t think that’s about disagreement.”

“One of the amendments offered prohibited the KKK and Nazis from being formed on campus,” Erker said, “and when you’re having to go down that path on legislation, I would encourage you to think about why you’re having to name hate groups that would not be welcome by opening the door with this legislation.”

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

Missouri legislators continue efforts to ban child marriage

By Molly Gibbs, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Currently, 16- and 17-year-olds can marry persons under the age of 21, with the consent of at least one parent. Bills in both the Missouri House and Senate aim to increase the minimum marriage age to 18, regardless of parental consent.

Senate Bill 66, which would do just that, was heard Tuesday by the House Children and Families committee.

For bill sponsor Sen. Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, passing that bill is not only a legislative issue but a moral one.

“Raising the age of marriage to 18 is imperative to the health and welfare of Missouri children,” she said.

Survivors of child marriage and child welfare advocates gave emotional testimony in support of the legislation.

Dre Fields spoke on behalf of Unchained At Last, a nonprofit dedicated to ending forced and child marriage. He pointed out how few legal avenues minors have once they have entered a marriage.

“Unlike adults, minors in these situations cannot hire attorneys or file for divorce on their own,” he said. “In effect, our laws hold them captive, forcing them to endure abuse, rape and servitude with no way out.”

Sheena Eastburn, a survivor of child marriage, shared her story with the committee for a second time. At barely 15, Eastburn said she entered an abusive marriage.

“I quit school because I was told to. I had no money. I tried to commit suicide. I ran away. The police took me back ... I tried to go to a domestic shelter, could not because I was not 18, could not even get the restraining order until my mother signed for it,” Eastburn said. “But I was old enough to face the death penalty for his murder.”

Eastburn said she would not have spent 25 years in prison if a law like this had been in place when she was 15. She urged the committee to support the bill and protect young women and men.

Becca Powell, the director of advocacy and outreach at Unchained At Last, said this legislation is a step the state can take in the next few months to not only stop child marriages statewide but also make it harder for children to be trafficked in Missouri.

“Our current laws in Missouri mean a 16- or 17-year-old who lives here in Missouri can be legally trafficked for her citizenship,” Powell said. “Also, a 16- or 17-year-old in any country in the world can be legally trafficked here into Missouri under the guise of marriage.”

Support for the legislation is bipartisan, with Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, sponsoring an identical bill, SB 631. The House’s version, House Bill 1200, already passed through the committee by a vote of 15-0 in February. HB 1200 is on the House calendar awaiting initial approval.

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

MONDAY

House backs return to presidential primary

By Shane LaGesse, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — The House indicated approval Monday for legislation that would reinstate state-run presidential preference primaries and extend the no-excuse absentee voting period from two to six weeks.

Supporters of the bill, House Bill 126, cited a widespread positive response to the recently enacted no-excuse voting period as a motivating factor. They also noted negative feedback on the 2024 party-run caucuses, which replaced the state-run primaries after they were eliminated as part of a law passed in 2022.

The no-excuse absentee voting period has been in effect since August 2022 and allows voters to cast their ballot in elections in person or by mail starting two weeks before Election Day.

Supporters of the bill said they hoped that extending the no-excuse voting period would further alleviate stress on election workers and encourage voters to cast their ballot.

The state of Missouri ran presidential primaries in March of presidential election years from 2000 until 2020, when a 2022 law signed by former Gov. Mike Parson eliminated them.

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 referenced low participation in these caucuses, alongside vocal blowback from residents who preferred the state-run primaries, as motivators for reinstating the primaries.

“I believe it’s a lot simpler for our residents of our state going to cast a ballot like they do it in every other way for their preference for the presidential primary,” Rep. Brad Banderman, R-St. Clair, said in support of the bill.

“I believe strongly in this,” he said. “It is the number one issue that was in my district this year.”

The 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.

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

Senate committee chair proposes bills to optimize Missouri resources

By Sterling Sewell, Missouri News Network

JEFFERSON CITY — Several bills eliminating unused state resources were heard Monday by the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency.

The federal Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk, and the administration of President Donald Trump has made sweeping cuts to the federal government. The administration has said that the cuts are aimed at cutting billions of dollars in waste from the government and have caused controversy and prompted lawsuits.

But in Missouri, government efficiency efforts are much more mundane.

“Unlike the national DOGE effort, taking a dive and looking at what we can do here through public testimony, through public hearing, through drafting, through eliminating unnecessary programs seemed like a really good Missouri ‘show me’ way to do it,” said Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, chair of the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency.

Coleman has introduced a flock of bills that would sell off unused state property, eliminate boards that do not meet and move unused government funds to the general revenue.

Monday’s hearing also included a bill that would change nothing. Senate Bill 757, introduced by Coleman, repeals obsolete and expired laws that no longer have any effect. The Joint Committee on Legislative Research already creates a list of obsolete laws set to be repealed for each term.

SB 723 would require the Office of Administration to submit an annual report of all tax credits that have been unclaimed for the past five years. According to independent research, only one tax credit, which expired in 2014, would be affected by the bill. Neither of these two bills is expected to have a fiscal impact on the state.

Another bill proposed by Coleman would move revenue from 14 dormant funds to the general revenue. The bill would also require the state treasurer to provide an annual report on all funds that have made no disbursements for five or more years. This would save Missouri an estimated $6.5 million in unused funding, according to bill estimates.

“The programs that are addressed by those funds have become dormant,” Coleman said. “So, we have funds ranging from $4,300 all the ways up to $4.3 million in assets that are unable to be used for funding essential services ... or to be returning that money to the taxpayer.”

SB 729, also proposed by Coleman and heard by the committee, could cost the state $499,553 in general revenue. The bill would require state departments to report all administrative entities that have not held a public meeting in three years.

The bill also would eliminate eight committees and commissions, including the Coordinating Board for Early Childhood, the Minority Environmental Literacy Advisory Committee and the Missouri Cybersecurity Commission. These eight have not held public meetings or conducted public business in five years, according to Coleman’s testimony.

The bill would reassign the responsibility of the three boards to other government departments.

Coleman’s final bill would require the commissioner of administration to put together an annual report documenting any abandoned or unused properties owned by the state. The governor is then authorized to sell or convey any properties listed in the report.

Though the fiscal note for the bill lists no additional revenue from the bills introduction, Coleman said that the bill could save the state money.

“We have real estate that is not being used,” Coleman said. “It is a drain both on maintenance costs, insurance costs and frankly should be turned into a more productive asset through the sale of those buildings.”

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

SUNDAY

Mo' money for Mo. films: Tax credits aim to rebuild state's film industry

By Jake Marszewski, Missouri News Network 

JEFFERSON CITY — For 10 years, Missouri had no incentive for production companies to film in the state. Now, more TV and film sets are coming to Missouri thanks to help from a tax credit established in 2023.

The “Show MO Act” gives up to a 42% tax credit on eligible film productions. Productions initially have the option for a 20% minimum credit but can receive up to four additional 5% credits for meeting certain conditions.

Last year alone, film productions working under the tax credit spent more than $33.5 million. The tax credit follows programs like Georgia’s long-running film tax incentive in boosting state film industries.

“That damn peach,” Missouri Film Office Director Andrea Sporcic-Klund joked, referencing the orange and green logo that appears in the credits of Georgia productions. “Hopefully you’ll be seeing our Missouri logo there pretty soon.”

Sporcic-Klund coordinates film productions in the state and promotes Missouri’s film industry through the incentive. Last year, four productions with budgets over $1 million were filmed in Missouri, which Sporcic-Klund says would not have happened without the incentive.

Film in MO, a nonprofit that works to support the tax credits, lobbied at the Missouri Capitol in February. Sporcic-Klund joined Pete Salsich, an entertainment lawyer who is on the board of directors at Film in MO, at the Capitol to promote the incentive to lawmakers.

“If you don’t have the tax credit, most of these films are simply going somewhere else,” Salsich said. “The tax credit becomes sort of your ticket into the conversation, but it’s not enough, because you can use that lots of places.”

The current tax credit is the state’s second attempt at incentivizing filmmakers to work in Missouri. The previous tax credit was repealed in 2013, with the film “Gone Girl” being the last major production in the state to receive a tax credit until the Show MO Act became official.

In the time after the tax credits expired, the state missed out on several opportunities for major film projects. The Netflix series “Ozark” was one of these productions, as the show drew much attention to the Lake of the Ozarks area despite being filmed mostly in Georgia.

“My hope is that we can get back to getting those solid productions that Missouri can be proud of,” said Sporcic-Klund. “I think losing them, like not having as big of a role in ‘Ozark,’ really changed minds.”

Renewed support for motion picture tax credits came to light in 2023, when the Show MO Act was passed. The bill was initially sponsored in the Senate by Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who says he is looking forward to seeing successful results from the tax credit.

Hoskins explained that about 4,000 to 5,000 college students were graduating from Missouri universities every year with some sort of media or film degree but were going to other states for work.

“One of the points of that bill was to put the right leg forward and build up that industry so those Missourians can stay here and work in their industry,” Hoskins said.

To be eligible for the credit, each project must meet the minimum spend for the length of their script, employ certain amounts of Missouri registered apprentices and meet the criteria for a “qualified motion media project,” as outlined by the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

Film producer Cole Payne worked on his most recent project, the horror film “The Jester 2” under Missouri’s tax credit.

“As a Missourian, it’s nice to be able to stay at home and film,” Payne said.

The film, which wrapped in 2024 and is currently in post-production, was shot in various locations across Columbia, Rocheport and Boonville. On set, Payne said, everything went smoothly with the help of other Missourians.

“In the town of Rocheport, the mayor came out and supported us. The local restaurants opened up for us, made us dessert and let us use their space at night,” Payne said. “We just hired as many locals as we could.”

More than 30 other states have tax credits for filming. For people who work in Missouri’s film industry like Payne and Salsich, the credit gives them one way to show off their state.

“The out-of-town folks rave about how supportive and friendly everybody here is,” Salsich said. “When people leave here and have a good experience, they talk about it and they want to come back and do it again.”

Besides affordability and hospitality, Missouri’s geography is also appealing to producers. The state is central, which is important for transporting equipment, and, Payne said, “Missouri can be made to work for so many looks.”

The tax credit is mainly designed to bring positive marketing to the state. One of the additional credits that productions can receive is a 5% credit for filming in “rural or blighted” areas, in hopes of increasing tourism and boosting local economies.

An additional 5% credit can be awarded if a film’s script positively markets a city or region of the state, as determined by the Missouri Office of Economic Development. For some producers, this leads to a creative struggle.

Payne’s film did not receive a bonus for positive marketing of Missouri, despite spending two weeks filming in Rocheport. He disagrees with the state’s interpretation of positive marketing.

“Screenplays aren’t written to say, ‘Hey, we’re in this state, and these things are very great about this state,’” Payne said. “It doesn’t mean it can’t be a positive marketing opportunity for the state or the city that it’s filmed in.”

Other rules that were tacked onto the bill also proved to be another off-set roadblock for Payne. He says that the 100% audit required by the Office of Economic Development was a “surprise” since most audits for businesses are usually samples, which are cheaper.

Payne is currently in production for his second film in the state, which will begin filming at the end of March.

After 10 years without an incentive, Missouri has a lot of work to do to rebuild its film industry. Payne is just one producer working toward that goal.

“There’s a production industry in Missouri that’s broader than just tourism that says ‘Come live here,’ ” Salsich said. “Invest in a production house. Turn some old warehouses into sound stages. Invest in more infrastructure to enable more support to exist and attract more productions.”

Salsich says that the impact of the credit is very broad and that it is already being seen through money being spent and jobs being created through productions.

At the film office, Sporcic-Klund is optimistic about this year’s outlook for Missouri films.

“We’ve had two producers bring back second projects already, so the word is good,” she said. “We haven’t made a big push because we know that we lost a lot of infrastructure in those 10 years, so we’re building that back up.”

As the state works to rebuild the film industry, lawmakers have also taken steps to support the Show MO Act. A removal of the program’s expiration was proposed in a recent bill.

“Hopefully we don’t have to keep bringing things in, because we can start building the infrastructure and build brick-and-mortar businesses around this industry,” Payne said. “We will be able to if we can extend or remove the sunset on the bill.”

If the bill passes the House, motion picture tax credits will be ensured for the foreseeable future.

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