Missouri Republican Dystopia
17 Monday Apr 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
17 Monday Apr 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
15 Saturday Apr 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
Tags
budget, defunding, General Assembly, Jonathan Capehart, Katie Earnhart, missouri, MSNBC, Peter Merideth, public libraries
It’s what follows that makes everyone in the future pay.
Missouri House Republicans want to defund libraries. Here’s why
Politics Updated on Apr 14, 2023 11:39 AM EDT — Published on Apr 13, 2023 5:11 PM EDTST. LOUIS– Missouri’s Republican-led House voted to cut all funding for libraries in its version of the state’s annual budget, an unprecedented move that has angered librarians and patrons across the state who rely on the facilities for everything from books to educational programming and internet access.
The proposal is not yet final; it now sits before the state Senate’s appropriations committee along with the rest of the annual $45.6 billion budget, and Republican chair Sen. Lincoln Hough said it would be his intention to restore library funding.
But for those who manage or use the state’s 160 library districts, especially in rural areas where services are not as robust, the threat feels real, librarians and patrons told the PBS NewsHour.
[….]
Tamara King, a parent and resident of St. Charles County, told the NewsHour it feels like the state’s residents should still be concerned even if the budget is not yet final.
“You start by taking away small things, right? And then you do that, you gain your support and then you go for the jugular, right? So that’s what they did. They took away everything. Now, where are these kids supposed to go and learn and have those activities that involve books?” King said. “Books create imagination.”
[….]
The right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly, go figure.
Jonathan Capehart: Representative Meredith, you’re on the Missouri house budget committee. What was your reaction to this budget proposal that [cross talk] seeks to essentially defund libraries?
Rep. Peter Meridith: I mean, honestly, you can just, [cross talk], that’s right, even just hearing you talk about the facts right now, walk through the circumstances, it’s hard to believe. And that’s how we felt when it was first presented to us, when the budget chair presented his proposal that Library funding be zeroed out. And then when we asked him why he actually went so far to explicitly say it was because of them suing over this book ban and how dare they sue against a bill that the Missouri legislature passed, that they believe is unconstitutional and has created a really big problem.
Jonathan Capehart: And Katie, help us understand why librarians in Missouri wanted to fight this state law creating criminal penalties for workers like yourself, um, criminal penalties for what the law says is distribution of sexually explicit material?
Katie Earnhart, director of the Cape Girardeau Public Library: Yeah, I mean, obviously we are for Americans’, uh, First Amendment freedoms. We want to make sure that people have access to information. That’s, that’s a core tenet of our profession and we rely on that. And right now that’s in jeopardy which puts our jobs in jeopardy and that’s, that’s something that is concerning for, for all people in this profession. And it’s not happening just here in Missouri, it’s across the country.
Jonathan Capehart: And to that point, Representative Meredith, um, this effort to cut the library’s budget isn’t just happening in Missouri. In Llano, Texas this week Republican Commissioners walked back their threat to close three libraries over their opposition to a book ban that residents argued violated First Amendments rights. You know, why do you think, uh, Republican elected officials turn to defunding libraries when there’s pushback over legislation restricting access to certain books?
Rep. Peter Meridith: Honestly, in places like this they have what feels like absolute power to them and they’re appealing to the furthest right in their base. And so, right now they have decided somehow that libraries and teachers and schools are, uh, the bullies they want to call the enemy and talk about brainwashing our kids. And, you know, like this library thing they can’t point to a single example in Missouri of, of something inappropriate and obscene being given to a kid. but they’re gonna manufacture this problem to work up their base. Uh, and then the defunding the libraries just feels like the next step to them and how they exert power and punish them for, uh, exercising their First Amendment rights. It’s, it’s, straight out of a dystopian novel in my opinion.
Jonathan Capehart: Right, you know ,Katie the majority of Missouri’s public libraries are in small and rural communities. Describe how a budget cut like this would impact libraries like your own in Cape Girardeau.
Katie Earnhart, director of the Cape Girardeau Public Library: Yeah, Jonathan, we’re set to lose roughly twenty-six thousand dollars with this cut, um, for our upcoming budget year. That’s money that we use for our collection development, to buy the books that you see behind me. And for us that makes up about twenty percent of our collection development [cross talk], collection development budget. You know, for, for us it, it’s only two percent of our overall budget, but for some libraries it’s a much larger, uh, percentage, a much larger impact that they’re going to have to, uh, withstand. Some libraries are going to have to evaluate whether or not they stay open as, as many hours whether or not they reduce services that they provide, very important services that they provide for their communities. And it’s something that we don’t want to have to, to worry about that. We already have shoestring budgets and when we have that money taken away, even a little bit ,it just makes our jobs that much harder to provide the needed resources and services that our communities rely on.
Missouri, where readin’ isn’t fundamental.
12 Wednesday Apr 2023
Lunacy.
In the Missouri General Assembly:
Rep. Peter Merideth (D): I’ve heard you talk about parents’ rights to raise their kids the way they want. In fact, I just double checked, you voted ‘no’ on making it illegal for kids to be married to adults at the age of twelve if their parents consented to it. You said, actually, that should be the law because it’s the parents’ right and the kid’s right to decide what’s best for them. To be raped by an adult. Okay. [crosstalk] With marriage.
Sen Mike Moon (r): [crosstalk] Do you know any kids that have been married, age twelve?
Rep. Peter Merideth (D): That was the law. [crosstalk] You voted not to change it.
Sen Mike Moon (r): Do you know any kids? [crosstalk] Do you know any kids that have been married at age twelve?
Rep. Peter Merideth (D): I don’t need to. [crosstalk] Uh.
Sen Mike Moon (r): I do. And guess what? They’re still married.
[….]
Mike Moon (r) called them “kids”. He knows.
We called Rep. Peter Merideth’s (D) office in the capitol in Jefferson City to confirm that this exchange with Sen. Mike Moon (r) at a House committee hearing did indeed take place.
It did.
From Rep. Peter Merideth (D) [April 11, 2023]:
Just had a rough inquiry with Sen Mike Moon on his hateful ban on trans medical care. I asked about his typical opposition to government interference with parenting decisions, even those that (unlike gender affirming care) are considered dangerous and harmful by pediatricians and psychologists around the country. I pointed to this vote of his from a couple years ago.
That’s right. He believes government has no right to prevent a 12 year old girl from marrying and legally having sex with a 40 year old if their parents are ok with it. But he thinks it’s the government’s role to ban kids getting medical treatments that have the support of their parents, the overwhelming medical community, and years of medical and psychological counseling and deliberation.
[….]
This is Missouri.
29 Wednesday Mar 2023
Posted in meta, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Resist
During today’s demonstration for trans rights in front of the capitol in Jefferson City open windows on the southeast front of the building had individuals watching the proceedings, with at least one of the open windows a source of loud music. Given the volume of the music the sound must have been deafening in the source office. It’s probable that these particular offices were those for republicans since the small Democratic minorities in either chamber do not get their pick of prime office real estate. We didn’t check, though.
The reactions were amusing. Once photographers started taking images of individuals standing at the windows, when those persons noticed the attention they were getting, they backed away from the windows or closed the windows. In one instance an individual standing at a closed window closed the blinds when they noticed cameras recording them.
A 400 mm lens will do that. Heh.
They were most probably republicans by their demeanor. We’ll correct the record if we’re mistaken.
Democrats were outside in solidarity with the demonstrators.
Previously:
HB 634: Don’t Say Gay (February 26, 2023)
Seriously? WTF? (March 9, 2023)
Protest for Trans Rights – Jefferson City, Missouri – March 29, 2023 (March 29, 2023)
21 Tuesday Mar 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
A bill:
HB 1196
Provides protections against ideological discrimination in postsecondary education
Sponsor: Richey, Doug (039)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2023
LR Number: 2452H.01I
Last Action: 03/20/2023 – HCS Voted Do Pass (H)
Bill String: HB 1196
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
The bill summary as introduced [pdf]:
HB 1196 — POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION DISCRIMINATION
SPONSOR: RicheyThis bill provides definitions for “discriminatory ideology” which includes any ideology that promotes the differential treatment of any individual or group of individuals based on characteristics of race, color, religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, national origin, or ancestry. The bill prohibits any public institution of post secondary education from requiring any applicant, employee, student or contractor to endorse such discriminatory ideology. The bill also prevents institutions from requiring a “diversity, equity, and inclusion statement” as defined in the bill from such individuals.
Any individual that is determined to have been compelled to endorse a discriminatory ideology or submit a diversity, equity, and inclusion statement, or that is adversely affected by preferential considerations provided to any individual that endorses such ideology or submits such statement may pursue an action for injunctive or declaratory relief as outlined against such institution.
The bill provides for discipline procedures to be taken by the institution for any individual that violates the provisions outlined by first being placed on unpaid leave for an academic year, and being ineligible for employment by another institution in the state, any subsequent offense would result in termination and ineligibility for employment for five years.
The bill requires each institution to annually submit a written report of compliance to the Speaker of the House and the Senate’s President Pro Tem.
Some of the submitted testimony:
I support this bill and its protection of students, staff and contractors/employees at Missouri post-secondary education schools from unproven discriminatory ideology. I am concerned about such discrimination at all levels of the Missouri school systems. I find the use of my tax dollars to support these discriminatory policies and their lack of accountability to the taxpayer offensive and fear that such policies will undermine the foundations of Missouri and our nation.
I support this bill and its protection of students, staff and contractors/employees at Missouri post-secondary education schools from unproven discriminatory ideology. I am concerned about such discrimination at all levels of the Missouri school systems. I find the use of my tax dollars to support these discriminatory policies and their lack of accountability to the taxpayer offensive and fear that such policies will undermine the foundations of Missouri and our nation.
Two different submissions. Apparently, supporters of the bill are lazy.
Mr. Vice-Chair, I grew up not far from where you did in St. Charles. I daresay you might have met one of my older siblings at a football game in high school as you were in the same graduating class. I am sad to say I no longer live near my family in Missouri. Like so many people of the great Show-Me state, I left and took my business with me. For fifteen years, I have made a point of spending as little money as possible in my beloved home state because of bills like this. I refused to attend college in Missouri because of the ridicule and baseless accusations of “reverse racism” that politicians complain about while obviously ignoring real problems in our land. Instead, I spent my money attending colleges in Washington, DC and in Illinois. I contributed to their economies, both by paying tuition and by living and working in these other places. How much money do you think this fear-mongering has cost the beautiful souls of Missouri? How many more taxpayers will you shove out, depleting Missouri’s government funds for the sake of a racist, bigoted falsehood. How impoverished will you make your state? What’s worse, I left Missouri to become a mental health counselor – those are skills I know for a fact Missourians desperately need. But how many of us Missourians refuse to return with our training to save lives because we see how politicians such as yourself use fear mongering to stay in power, rather than actually help people. Consider for a moment the millions or even billions of dollars you are robbing yourself and your government and your people of by supporting discriminatory bills like HB 1196. I urge all committee members to question whether this bill’s costs are really worth some likes on Facebook and Twitter. Oppose HB 1196, if only to satisfy your own greed
Stop the attacks on our LGBTQ community. We are tired of having to fight for the rights of our friends and family every week. Just stop. Stop trying to ruin our educational systems even more than you already have.
I oppose this bill without reservation.
My name is [….], I am a Black pediatric cardiologist living and working in KCMO. I am testifying on the necessity of diversity-equity-inclusion education and training in Missouri hospitals, clinics, and healthcare academic programs. I staunchly oppose HB 489 and HB 1196. When I first started working at my current hospital here in Missouri, there was a Black mother who had a chronically ill child admitted to the hospital. She previously had been labeled as “difficult” and “resisting treatment” for her child. But after instilling unconscious bias training, and DEI efforts that have been adopted in the hospital, the relationship between the mother and the hospital staff, and her mistrust of the medical staff significantly improved. DEI training and initiatives are imperative to ensure that all patients receive equitable treatment and care and aren’t just broadly deemed as “difficult” without trying to understand their perspective. Thank you for reading my testimony. Your consideration of these matters and solutions is very much appreciated.
DEI allows our state to progress with the rest of the world. We celebrate that we are the “great American melting pot” yet try to erase parts of our history, culture and background. I firmly stand in opposition to these bills that will encourage racism
This proposed bill undermines democratic discourse, deprives students of a true understanding of history and deeper learning, and likely abridges rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. By seeking to prescribe what parts of our nation’s history -checkered with discrimination and oppression – can be taught to today’s multiracial students, they intend to deny students the right to receive information and ideas that cultivate deeper thinking and learning. Urge you to vote no.
It is disingenuous and harmful to call diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives “discriminatory.” In fact the existence of such rhetoric demonstrates the need for increasing access to DEI education. To do the opposite, as HB 1196 does by banning DEI statements and practices, is authoritarian and shameful. Why are some of our state representatives so afraid of Missouri residents learning accurate history and practicing ways to improve equity for all? It seems honest and reasonable legislatures would want to increase learning and equity for the benefit of all Missourians. I fully oppose HB 1196.
It is a mistake to penalize institutions of higher education for emphasizing the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Education is a community value and needs to be supported by the community and made accessible to people of all backgrounds.
As a proud fourth generation Missourian, I am disappointed to the marrow of my bones that in the year 2023 these are the hills our leaders are choosing to die on. I was raised in rural south Missouri in an openly racist and oppressive household. I am only the person I am today because teachers in my secondary education settings helped to broaden my understanding of the world and helped me to see the ways willful ignorance of our history perpetuates systems of oppression. I am able to be a free thinking, considerate, and evolving human being because teachers devoted to making the world a better place were given the freedom to tell me the truth after living in a setting that fed me a lifetime of lies. White supremacy is a lie and to usurp it’s stranglehold on our nation we must empower the truth tellers.
I am a Missouri citizen and longtime voter and taxpayer. I am appalled at the ridiculous nature and content of this bill. It’s part of the ongoing witch hunt by Missouri Republicans to attack anyone and everyone who isn’t a straight, white, cis, conservative Christian — all to appeal to an extremist base. The very title of this bill is also ridiculous, because the bill sponsors have every intention of hurting people with this legislation: people of color, queer people, trans people, and everyone else who does not fit the description above. Missouri is an embarrassment, with a long list of real life problems that affect us citizens every single day: #44 for maternal mortality rates, #42 in health care, #40 in health care access, #41 in public health, #30 in education (and failing fast), #45 in crime, etc etc. etc. Diversity, equity and inclusion work improves health care outcomes, according to the National Institutes of Health. DEI improves employee engagement, improves hiring and retention, and drives growth. Why do you think every major corporation dedicates substantial resources to DEI? It’s also the right thing to do, in the spirit of respecting and including people from a diverse range of backgrounds, identities, and abilities.I oppose this harmful bill and urge this committee to stop its progress
These bills reduce learning, hurt patients, and contribute to negative health outcomes and health disparities. If a bill like this passes, it will set a precedent that your peers in higher ed programs in Missouri will have a significantly lesser education everyone else. It will make our state less competitive if curriculum requirements across the board ban teaching the diversity of humanity and how to treat or care for diverse bodies. I have two children remaining at home, both are looking at out-of-state colleges, and never looking back at Missouri.
I support diversity, equity and inclusion like Jesus would do. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
This bill is a direct attack on diversity, inclusion and equity in Missouri. Though the sponsor said in the hearing that it is to promote diverse dialogue and ideologies on campus, it is absolutely not this at all. It is a knee-jerk reactionary bill to stop “wokeism” in Missouri. This tired, phony straw man certainly has folks worried. It’s almost as if we want to stop new ideas from coming into Missouri to preserve the status quo of the last 200 years. The status quo is a system created by, and therefore for, white privileged males. They are so afraid of the idea of losing grasp on their perceived power that they are afraid to even use the words diversity and equity. Make no mistake. This is NOT about diversity of ideologies. It is about one specific ideology, a tired, old and dangerous one that is about limiting people. It is a vehicle to promote just that tiresome ignorance. Ignorance is the tool of authoritarians and fascists. We should not be that!The young med student who testified had it right: the time to find out you’re hiring someone whose bigotry is so entrenched that they will be unable to keep it from covering their interactions with students through micro- or macro-aggressions is before they are hired. Having a campus dedicated to diversity in thought and practice, to including safe spaces for everyone, and providing equitable opportunities and practices is vital for us to move forward as a state rather than retreating to a past. The national concerns that are promoting these bills have been doing so slowly but surely for 50 years, and it is no coincidence that it started after the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, VRA of 1965 and the proposal of the ERA in the 1970s, when marginalized groups like racial minorities and women began to be able to affect real and lasting change on the status quo. The Gay Rights movement of the last 30 years has supercharged the idea that some need to hold on to their systemic power by returning to the rigged systems of the past. So here’s what I have to say to that: Stop it. You cannot stop an idea whose time has come. So I’ll take the idea of “woke” and run with it. I’d rather be awake, aware and adaptable than seek frightened refuge in archaic ideology.
This legislation will exclude an entire population and bind the ability of educators to address current issues and society as it is currently stands. This bill will not represent me and I therefore oppose it. This legislation will not represent progress but a return to discriminatory past that as a Missourian I hope we can move past.
As a lifelong educator in language and literature, I find the way in which authors of bills such as HB1196 have taken the notion of discrimination against marginalized people and turned it on its head to be both disingenuous and dangerous.We live in a multiracial democracy with a history of shutting whole populations out of certain levels of education. It’s not discriminatory to learn about past discrimination and collaborate in a thoughtful way about continually moving forward. Thus I strongly oppose HB1196.
I am educated as a speech-language pathologist (both of my degrees were earned in Missouri) and one of the requirements for graduation from an American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) accredited program – which is required to pursue licensure for speech pathology – is that we learn about DEI topics in the classroom to prepare us for the culturally diverse patients we will see in our clinical rotations and professional practice. It would be a disservice to both the students and the people they will serve in the future to prevent them from learning about topics that will help them to be better clinicians in our schools, clinics, nursing homes, and hospitals. I can’t imagine how I would have possibly provided appropriate and efficacious services to my clients if I had been prohibited from learning about cultural-linguistic groups and gender studies – because I would not have been able to do so except for my majority culture (white) clients. This bill will place Missouri students at a disadvantage compared to those in other states; degrees from Missouri institutions both public and private will not be viewed as sufficient preparation to enter the workforce.
Distinguished Committee Members: [….] the Associated Students of the University of Missouri (ASUM), [is] a non-partisan advocacy organization that represents the 75,000+ students across the University of Missouri System. ASUM stands in opposition to House Bill 1196 for a variety of reasons. First, we are concerned that some of the bill language is written in such a way that it leaves room for possible abuse in interpretation. The prohibition of “DEI-related topics” creates a scope so large that almost any unique characteristic of the human experience could be challenged under this term. One such potential interpretation of “DEI-related topics” that may be of interest to members of this committee is the sincerely held beliefs of both political and religious student groups. This bill would prohibit preferential treatment for these groups and undermine any attempt to recognize their marginalization. However, that directly conflicts with another bill proposed by the General Assembly, HB136, that does just that for belief-based student organizations. The term “Discriminatory ideology” is also misleading in its definition. DEI is not the preferential treatment of people based on these characteristics, but creating an understanding that historical and generational hardships exist as a result of these differences while working to create a more inclusive and equitable society for future generations. Students entering the workforce post-graduation will meet all kinds of different people. The restriction of DEI on college campuses will inhibit students’ ability to properly function and perform in diverse workplace settings by not preparing them for these situations. This would reflect poorly on not only postsecondary institutions, but the state of Missouri as a whole.Finally, in lines 76 and 77, the bill language states there are no legal or financial protections for institutions who institute DEI policies. This leaves institutions of higher education in a gray area where state and federal funding requirements could conflict. Losing funding from either level of government could greatly affect the quality of higher education in the State of Missouri and the size of our workforce.
These bills are government overreach.
Please do not do this.
I am writing as a Missouri citizen in opposition to HB 1196. Changing a narrative or trying to eliminate a relevant conversation does not support our kids. Exposure to different ideas, cultures and narratives is what makes for well rounded future adults. Adults who can think for themselves and makes up their own minds. Censorship does not allow for critical thinking.
“…Censorship does not allow for critical thinking.”
It never has.
10 Friday Mar 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
From an email communication to his constituents:
[….]
Protecting the Constitution – HJR 43 is designed to protect the state constitution from the influence of out-of-state interests by allowing voters to decide if the state should raise the threshold to modify the constitution in the future. The measure would change the threshold required to approve changes to the state constitution. Currently, changes to the constitution require only a simple majority for approval. If approved by the legislature and voters, HJR 43 would raise the threshold to 60 percent voter approval for passage.Proponents say the increased threshold will help minimize the influence of out-of-state groups that have no ties to Missouri but spend millions of dollars to change the state constitution. The sponsor of HJR 43 said the groups “try to reimagine Missouri in their vision.” He said, “I think it should be in the vision of the people of the state of Missouri.”
[….]
If you’re worried about wealthy interests (in-state and/or out-of-state) exerting undue influence in our elections when they spend millions of dollars trying to overwhelm voters with bullshit ads and mailings then do something about campaign finance reform, fool.
This resolution is just right wingnut dogma geared to gutting the ballot initiative process in Missouri. It’s embarrassing.
A small sample of the witness statements on HJR 43 submitted to the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee:
This proposed amendment is unnecessary, harmful, and misleading. It would lead to MORE out-of-state money affecting our ballot initiatives. It reduces the ability for the will of the people to be our supreme law. Also, the dog-whistle about only citizens voting is the exact kind of unnecessary addition to the state constitution your side claims to want to keep out of the constitution.
I am against changing the initiative process. It works, (witness Hancock amendment, right to farm, the conservation department). Proposed attempts to increase necessary percentages will effectively kill the ability of citizens to directly participate in democracy. This is a transparent effort to subvert the will of the majority of the people of Missouri. Leave it alone.
Notwithstanding that the Hancock Amendment was, and still is, a huge mistake and the Right to Farm was a ridiculous gesture.
This bill makes it more difficult to place and pass measures on a ballot. The people have a right to be heard in the simplest manner possible.
You’d think.
We should not be making it harder for Missourians to get things they want passed in our state. We have passed so many good things the last few years using this process. It’s awesome that these have had bipartisan voter support as well. Making it harder for voters to have their voices heard is unconstitutional and Un-American. If our legislators can’t get the job done then we should be able to get things on the ballot ourselves and lawmakers should not be making it harder for us to so
I believe these proposed limitations of the MO people’s ideas and voices all head the wrong direction. I think voters’ voices should be stronger and easier to become law, not harder with more obstacles, as these proposed rules are attempting.
The right wingnut controlled General Assembly considers that a feature, not a bug.
As a citizen of Missouri and an activist who has spent countless hours encouraging people to vote, I strongly oppose any legislation that makes it more difficult for Missouri citizens to get initiatives on the ballot and/or create higher thresholds for passing ballot initiatives. Missouri’s initiative petition process has been used to represent the will of the people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. This is the only recourse Missourians have when our public servants fail to address issues that are important to us. The current system which entails getting hundreds of thousand of votes to be considered for the ballot is already rigorous (as it should be). Have you ever stood on a street corner or knocked doors in an effort to get support for a cause or a candidate (or for yourself?) I imagine many of you have and thus you understand how hard you work for every issue, for every vote, for every signature. One can easily extrapolate that to the already complex and lengthy process it takes to obtain signatures for a statewide ballot initiative. In other words, it’s already difficult- we don’t need you to make it more so. If Republican legislators continue to support and eventually pass this legislation, they will reap what they sow. An electorate who will easily identify that their Republican legislators have upended the Missouri Constitution in an attempt to weaken the influence of the very people who put them in Jeff City
The initiative petition process is amongst the purest forms of democratic participation. For more than a century, Missouri citizens across the political spectrum have been able to have their voices heard through the initiative petition process. The Missouri constitution guarantees: “The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly.” The process already requires a high threshold of signatures from registered voters to get a proposal on the ballot. Missourians across the political spectrum have used and benefited from the citizen initiative process. Measures passed by a majority – as is currently the case – reflect the will of the people. Making it more difficult – as these bills do – undermines the will of the people. Representatives should e supporting the will of the people – that’s what we elected you for.
I oppose this change to the initiative petition process because it makes it more difficult for Missourians to engage in direct democracy. The recent legislature is notorious for not considering the will of the people and passing policy that harms Missourians in need of workplace protections, social services, and full and fair access to elections. These bills expand our long help practice of majority rule that is defined as 50% plus one. Placing higher thresholds for getting initiative petitions on the ballot and passing ballot measures into law limits the will of the people. It is already extremely difficult, time consuming, and costly to get initiatives on the ballot. Majority rule in Missouri should be maintained and defined as it always has, equal to or greater than half votes cast.
Campaign Finance reform anyone?
Outrageous. Republicans in this state are out of control. Reign it in please.
We already knew that.
Ballot initiatives engage Missourians directly into the democratic process, increase civic participation and investment, and most importantly, give citizens a voice in the policies that govern our lives. Limiting this process is anti-democratic, plain and simple. I oppose this bill.
[….] I have been a volunteer collecting signatures on initiative petitions for the last 40 years. I have worked on campaigns that won, and on campaigns that lost. But I would say that all my work has been successful in that it promoted citizen voter awareness of issues and provided an opportunity for voters to have a direct voice about policies that affect them. I highly value the fact that since 1907 the Missouri Constitution has guaranteed the power of the people to propose and “enact or reject laws” independent of the General Assembly. This House Joint Resolution seeks to weaken that power. Voters from across the political spectrum: conservatives, progressives, moderates and independents have used this important tool of direct democracy. Collecting the required number of signatures is already a difficult undertaking. I have collected signatures in blistering heat and biting cold. I (along with hundreds of others) have spent hours talking to voters outside grocery stores, churches, fish fries, schools, elections, at parades and sports events. I say this not to ask for sympathy, but to underscore how important the tools of direct democracy are to me and to all Missourians. Creating more rigorous standards regarding the numbers of signatures needed, and raising the bar for what constitutes a majority, weaken the voices of the people. These proposed changes shift power toward elected officials and the special interests who court their favor. This is taking Missouri in the wrong direction. I urge you to protect the Constitutional rights of Missourians and vote NO. Thank you for this opportunity to share my perspective.
Participatory Democracy will become a faint memory, if that.
07 Tuesday Mar 2023
Posted in Congress, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, social media
Tags
7th Congressional District, clown, Eric Burlison, guns, HB 85, Missouri General Assembly, SAPA, supremacy clause
Rep. Eric Burlison @RepEricBurlison
OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON SAPA DECISION:As the sponsor of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, I am disappointed but not surprised by the decision from an Obama-appointed, district court judge to unilaterally strike down a pro-Second Amendment law. (1/3)
The State of Missouri, not a federal judge, should determine how it spends its resources. That’s what SAPA does. I fully support Attorney General Bailey’s announcement to appeal this decision. (2/3)
I will continue to fight to protect Americans’ constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, just like I did in the Missouri State Legislature. (3/3)
Clown.
What’s up? From 2021:
SS SCS HCS HBs 85 & 310 — THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
The bill establishes the “Second Amendment Preservation Act”,
which:[….]
(1) Declares that laws, rules, orders, or other actions that collect data, restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within this state exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and discipling militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces. Infringing actions would include any registration or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition or any registration or tracking of the ownership of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
(2) Declares that all federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution must be invalid in this state, including those that impose a tax, levy, fee, or stamp on these items as specified in the bill; require the registration or tracking of these items or their owners; prohibit the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm; or order the confiscation of these items;
[….]
What else could anyone think would happen?:
March 7, 20233:34 PM CST
U.S. judge rules Missouri state gun law is unconstitutional
By Sarah N. Lynch and Nate RaymondWASHINGTON, March 7 (Reuters) – A Missouri state law that declared several federal gun laws “invalid” is unconstitutional, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Tuesday, handing the U.S. Justice Department a victory in its bid to get the law tossed out.
At issue was a measure Republican Governor Mike Parson signed into law in 2021 that declared that certain federal gun laws infringed on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes in Jefferson City, Missouri, said the state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal laws take priority over conflicting state laws.
[….]
Previously:
HB 162: Tenthers and guns, what could go wrong? (January 16, 2013)
HB 2174: Guns, check. Sort of nullification, check. (March 25, 2014)
HB 2196: blah, blah, guns, tenther drivel, blah, recycle, blah, stir… (January 13, 2016)
SS SCS HCS HBs 85 & 310 – wasting time (March 15, 2021)
Useless platitude (May 25, 2022)
The Supremacy Clause don’t mean shit (June 20, 2021)
26 Sunday Feb 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
Tags
Ann Kelley, Bigotry, Don't Say Gay, General Assembly, HB 634, LGBTQA+, missouri, school micromanagement
A bill, sponsored by Ann Kelley (r):
HB 634
Establishes protections of parental rights to direct the mental, emotional, and physical health and well-being of children
Sponsor: Kelley, Ann (127)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2023
LR Number: 0414H.02I
Last Action: 02/15/2023 – Referred: Elementary and Secondary Education(H)
Bill String: HB 634
Next House Hearing: Elementary and Secondary Education
Date: 3/1/2023 Time: 8:00AM Location: House Hearing Room 7 – Submit Testimony
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
There’s a committee hearing on Wednesday.
Seem innocuous? Not really. From the bill text [pdf]:
[….]
4. No classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties relating to sexual orientation or gender identity shall occur.
[….](2) If a concern is not resolved by the school under subdivision (1) of this subsection, a pupil’s parent may:
(a) Request the state board of education to appoint a neutral mediator from a list maintained by the department. Any mediator on such list shall be a member of the Missouri Bar in good standing and have at least five years of experience in administrative law. The mediator shall determine facts relating to the dispute over the school’s procedure or practice, consider information provided by the school, and render a recommended decision for resolution to the state board within fifteen days after receipt of the parent’s request for appointment of a mediator. The state board shall approve or reject the recommended decision at its next regularly scheduled meeting that is more than seven calendar days and no more than thirty days after the date the recommended decision is transmitted to the state board or at a meeting called by the state board president for the purpose of approving or rejecting such recommended decision. The costs of the mediator shall be borne by the school. The state board shall adopt rules and develop forms necessary to implement this paragraph;
or
(b) Bring an action against the school requesting a declaratory judgment that the school procedure or practice violates this section and seeking appropriate injunctive relief or actual damages, or both. A court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief.
[….]
[emphasis added]
Because bullies in school always follow the “appropriate” guidelines as promulgated by the right wingnut majority in the Missouri House of Representatives?
“…The costs of the mediator shall be borne by the school…” Yep, that’ll ensure school administrators will always do the right thing for a child. Not.
Ann Kelley (r) really likes to micromanage K-12 schools.
Previously:
HB 1625: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (December 4, 2021)
HB 1572: for crying out loud (December 5, 2021)
17 Friday Feb 2023
Can you hear me now?
Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:
C091068 02/17/2023 House Republican Campaign Committee, Inc AT&T 1010 Pine Street Saint Louis MO 63101 2/16/2023 $30,000.00
[emphasis added]
Is there a data cap? Just asking.
09 Thursday Feb 2023
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, social media
Tags
abortion, Crystal Quade, drag shows, General Assembly, guns, missouri, Peter Merideth, social media
Last night:
Rep. Peter Merideth @PeterforMO
Every MO R voted that children can carry guns in public. They voted to defund police if a cop helps stop a fed gun crime. They voted to ban a 12 year old rape victim with major health risks from having an abortion. Bills to ban mentioning racism or LGBT issues, ban drag….
[….]
8:23 PM · Feb 8, 2023
Rep. Peter Merideth @PeterforMO
Kids carrying guns on the street or in a park is a matter of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Kids seeing a drag queen read a children’s book or sing a song is a danger the government must ban. Do I have that right MO GOP? #moleg
7:58 PM · Feb 8, 2023
Rep. Peter Merideth @PeterforMO
That’s right. I choose not to own a gun so I can’t have opinions about gun laws. They CAN’T get pregnant but certainly don’t mind passing laws about pregnancy. And I bet most of them don’t know much about drugs but are happy to throw people in prison for those every day, too.
[….]
7:35 PM · Feb 8, 2023
Crystal Quade @crystal_quade
Republican #moleg men: “Democrats don’t understand guns so shouldn’t be legislating them!!”Also #moleg Republican men: “What does trans mean? What’s an ectopic pregnancy? Let’s legislate it anyway!”
4:50 PM · Feb 8, 2023
Previously:
Missouri, well (February 8, 2023)