Website │ E-Mail Me │ Past May Reports

The Week of April 14, 2025

On the Floor

This week, the Senate began floor discussion on the following bills:

• Senate Bill 240 would modify provisions relating to state funds for regional planning commissions.
• House Bill 567 would repeal provisions of law that were passed as a part of Proposition A in the November 2024 election. It would repeal the minimum wage increase to $15 on Jan. 1, 2026, as well as the yearly increases to minimum wage based on the Consumer Price Index after that date. It would also repeal the paid sick leave requirement for certain private employers. 

In regard to HB 567, I am extremely proud of the stand my colleagues and I took on Wednesday night and into Thursday morning, fighting for the people’s vote and causing the bill to be put aside. There are so many other issues I believe would have been a better use of our time, but the people voted to have a certain minimum wage and guaranteed access to earned sick leave. Therefore it was well worth it to stand in solidarity against those who want to overturn the people’s vote on this issue. 

The Senate gave first round approval to Senate Joint Resolution 40 which would, if approved by voters, require a term of four years for elected county sheriffs. This constitutional amendment would not apply to St. Louis City, St. Louis County or St. Charles County.

Finally, the Senate third read and passed the following bills:

• Senate Bill 80 would modify provisions of current law authorizing a high school athlete to earn or attempt to earn compensation for the use of his or her name, image, likeness rights or athletic reputation under certain conditions by transferring these provisions to a different section of law.
• Senate Joint Resolution 46 would authorize a property tax exemption for disabled veterans.
• Senate Bill 120 seeks to modify provisions relating to the expenditure of money in funds by certain state departments.
• House Bill 810 would designate the "Lloyd Memorial Highway" in Newton County.
• Senate Bill 271 would prevent any county from using a fire protection or fire prevention ordinance to impose regulations or require permits regarding the erection, maintenance, repair, alteration or extension of farm buildings or farm structures.
• Senate Bill 360 would establish the "Education Freedom Act" and modify provisions relating to the statewide assessment system, school accountability report cards, and the powers and duties of the State Board of Education.

Bills and Committees

Judiciary Committee:

• Senate Bill 706 would provide liability protections for charitable organizations making good faith disclosures of sexual abuse.
• Senate Bill 741 would modify provisions relating to the appointment of counsel for post-conviction relief of sentences of death and intends to expedite federal review of Missouri death penalty cases. 
• Senate Bill 778 would create the offense of possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free homeless service zone. Such a zone would be defined as an area within 300 feet of the premises of a facility-based service, which is a housing provider that receives federal, state or local funds for providing shelter to homeless persons or that provides treatment, care or other services to homeless persons.
• House Bill 49 would modify the offenses of trafficking of drugs in the first and second degree.
• House Bill 176 would establish several provisions relating to electronic estate planning.
• House Bill 543 would modify provisions relating to civil detention procedures.

Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee:

The committee heard two bills this week. Senate Bill 666 would require the executive director of the Missouri Ethics Commission to notify the candidate or treasurer of a campaign committee by any means, rather than just registered mail, if the committee has failed to file any campaign finance report required by Missouri law.

Senate Joint Resolution 64 would, if approved by the voters, require attorney general, state treasurer and secretary of state candidates to have the same qualifications as the governor, which are being at least 30 years old and being a citizen of the United States for at least 15 years and a resident of this state at least 10 years before the election.

Appropriations Committee:

This week, the committee began the process of going line by line through each of the 13 appropriations bills that make up the fiscal year 2026 state operating budget:

• House Bill 2 appropriates state funding for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
• House Bill 3 appropriates state funding for the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development.
• House Bill 4 appropriates state funding for the Department of Revenue and the Department of Transportation.
• House Bill 5 appropriates state funding for the Office of Administration.
• House Bill 6 appropriates state funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Conservation.
• House Bill 7 appropriates state funding for the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Commerce and Insurance, and the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.
• House Bill 8 appropriates state funding for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of National Guard.
• House Bill 9 appropriates state funding for the Department of Corrections.
• House Bill 10 appropriates state funding for the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Health and Senior Services.
• House Bill 11 appropriates state funding for the Department of Social Services.
• House Bill 12 appropriates state funding for Elected Officials, the Office of Public Defender, the Judiciary and the General Assembly.
• House Bill 13 appropriates state funding for statewide leasing.
• House Bill 17 provides reappropriations.

Other News

House GOP votes in favor of repealing reproductive rights 

The Missouri House of Representatives on April 17 voted 103-51 in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the new constitutional protections for reproductive rights that voters approved and instead ban abortion in most circumstances. The speaker of the house, a physician, was the lone member of the majority caucus to join the unanimous minority caucus in opposing the measure, which now advances to the Senate.

Under Amendment 3, which Missouri voters ratified in November, abortion rights are protected up to the point of fetal viability – usually around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Legal restrictions are allowed after that point, except when a medical professional deems an abortion necessary to “protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.” 

House Joint Resolution 73 seeks to broadly ban abortion, with narrow exceptions for ill-defined “medical emergencies” and cases of rape or incest. However, abortions involving the latter two categories are only allowed during the first 12 weeks of gestation.

Despite eliminating the language from Amendment 3 in the Missouri Constitution, including protections for access to contraception and other forms of reproductive care, the ballot language Republican lawmakers wrote for HJR 73 makes no mention of that fact, instead claiming it would “guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages,” all of which is already guaranteed by Amendment 3. 

The ballot language also says it would “protect children from gender transition,” referring to a provision of HJR 73 that would constitutionally prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. That provision is unrelated to the measure’s primary purpose of eliminating abortion rights but I believe it was added as so-called “ballot candy,” intended to appeal to voters.

I expect the minority members will once again have to filibuster HJR 73 when it comes up for Senate debate. But if it does clear the upper chamber, it would automatically go on the November 2026 statewide ballot for voter consideration, unless the governor exercised his constitutional authority to set an earlier election date.

Limits on judicial review of ballot questions sent to governor

On April 14, the House voted 109-46 to grant final passage to legislation that would severely weaken the authority of Missouri courts to rewrite ballot language written by the General Assembly or the Secretary of State’s Office determined to be deceptive or misleading. The bill, which passed on straight party lines, now goes to the governor, who is expected to sign it into law.

Existing law empowers judges to rewrite such ballot language. The secretary of state writes the original ballot language for all measures placed on the ballot via initiative petition and is the default author for ballot language on measures submitted to voters by the legislature. If they choose, however, lawmakers can write that ballot language themselves. It is common for courts to strike down both legislatively crafted ballot questions and those prepared by the secretary of state.

Under Senate Bill 22, if a judge rejected ballot language written either by the legislature or the secretary of state, the judge would submit the matter to the secretary of state, who would have three tries to write a fair ballot question. Only if the secretary of state continued to provide unfair language after the third do-over attempt would a court then be authorized to rewrite the language. 

Senate Bill 22 also contains what I believe is a completely unrelated provision that would allow the attorney general to immediately appeal preliminary injunctions that block enforcement of state laws or constitutional provisions. Under existing law, the trial court must make a final ruling in a given case before it can be appealed in order to avoid unnecessary delays in the judicial process.

The believed immediate goal of this provision is to allow the immediate appeal of a preliminary injunction a Jackson County judge issued earlier this year blocking enforcement of several anti-abortion state laws that were rendered unconstitutional by the passing of Amendment 3 last year. That portion of SB 22 contains an emergency clause causing it to take effect as soon as the governor signs it into law, instead of the usual Aug. 28 effective date for legislation.

High court says municipal provisions still unconstitutional

The Missouri Supreme Court on April 15 unanimously ruled statutes to impose targeted limits on fine collection and municipal operations in St. Louis County that it first declared unconstitutional in 2017 and reaffirmed as unconstitutional in 2022 remain unconstitutional in 2025.

The long legal saga began with the 2015 passage of Senate Bill 5, which restricted certain municipal court and policing practices that focused on revenue generation instead of public safety. Although most of its reforms applied statewide, some key provisions affected only municipalities in St. Louis County. One such provision would have allowed those cities to collect no more than 12.5% of their budgets from fines and fees, while cities in all other Missouri counties were subject to a more generous 20% cap.

Several St. Louis County cities challenged the provisions for violating a state constitutional prohibition against “special laws” that apply only to certain jurisdictions. One Cole County agreed and blocked enforcement of those provisions in 2016, and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling the following year.

In an unrelated 2019 case, however, the high court completely overhauled its standard for reviewing special laws and invalidated much of its precedent on the subject. That prompted the then-attorney general, who sponsored SB 5 while serving in the state Senate, to ask the judge to lift his 2016 injunction barring enforcement of the St. Louis County-specific provisions, a request granted in December 2020.

The case went back to the Supreme Court in 2022, with the court declaring that final decisions made under the old standard cannot be reopened or relitigated.

The court then sent the case back to the Cole County judge to consider whether lifting the injunction blocking portions of the 2015 law would be fair to the cities. The judge subsequently ruled the injunction should remain in place, promoting yet another appeal. In its latest decision, the high court said the judge didn’t abuse his discretion in ruling against the state in light of prior Supreme Court rulings in the case. 

House advances restoration of state’s presidential primary

The Missouri House of Representatives advanced legislation on April 14 to restore the state’s presidential preference primary, starting with the 2028 election cycle. The bill passed 85-64, with two members voting “present.”

While House Bill 126, as currently written, would also extend the current two-week, no-excuse absentee voting period to six weeks before an election, its sponsor said he agreed to work with the Senate to change it back to two weeks as a condition for it to come up for a final House vote. The bill also contains a provision to prohibit public pension systems from making contributions in support of or opposition to any ballot measure.

The General Assembly did away with its state-run presidential primary under omnibus elections’ legislation enacted in 2022. During the 2024 election cycle, the Missouri republican party reverted to a caucus system, while the Missouri democratic party conducted a mail-in primary. Citing problems with both methods, leaders of the parties urged lawmakers to restore the state-run primary.

However, several members of the House majority caucus wanted to stick with the caucus system. As a result, the bill received just three more House votes than the minimum 82 required for passage.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Thank you for your interest in the legislative process. I look forward to hearing from you on the issues that are important to you this legislative session. If there is anything my office can do for you, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 573-751-3599.