Category Archives: Missouri Senate

“…political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize…”

24 Wednesday Apr 2019

Posted by in media criticism, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

-Tom Lehrer

And it’s all been downhill since.

Yesterday, in the Kansas City Star:

Lobbyist’s crusade to change Title IX in Missouri stems from his son’s expulsion

That would be about HB 573 and SB 259.

Late yesterday, on Twitter:

Jane Dueker @JaneDueker
[….]
Outing a college kid is disgusting. If he has to defend himself they will out the girl. Funny how “victim” advocates are pushing for and glorifying that. Proving even more why the legislation is necessary. It was a hit piece for so many reasons.
11:16 PM – 23 Apr 2019

Uh, who is “they”?

At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Kingdom Principles, Inc. – Active
612 E. Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[….]
Lobbyist From To
Alsager, Matthew Dennis 02/27/2018 Present
Altmann, Jeffrey 03/13/2019 Present
Bernskoetter, Brian 03/12/2019 Present
Berry, Dave 03/08/2019 Present
Brown, Travis Howard 03/08/2019 Present
Brunnert, Zachary ‘Zach’ 03/07/2019 Present
Clarkston, Heath 03/05/2019 Present
Dempsey, Tom 03/08/2019 Present
Dozier, Cheryl Lynne 03/07/2019 Present
Dueker, Jane E 03/13/2019 Present
Flotron, Francis ‘Franc’ E. 03/07/2019 Present
Harness, Kathryn 03/07/2019 Present
Harris, James 03/07/2019 Present
Hawk, Shanon M 03/13/2019 Present
Hemphill, Deanna Lynn 03/08/2019 Present
Hirschman, Janet 03/07/2019 Present
Hubbard, Rodney R 03/14/2019 Present
King, Tracy 03/08/2019 Present
Lakin, Joe 03/10/2019 Present
Licklider, Samuel G. 03/13/2019 Present
McCracken, David 03/07/2019 Present
McIntosh, Richard 02/27/2019 Present
Nelson, Doug 03/05/2019 Present
Robbins, Thomas 03/12/2019 Present
Schaefer, Kurt 03/05/2019 Present
Schlosser, Lynne 03/08/2019 Present
Stouffer, Bill 03/07/2019 Present
Swain, W ‘Wes’ Scott 03/12/2019 Present
Zamkus, Jason Matthew 03/07/2019 Present

[emphasis added]

Who’s paying for what? Their web site:

Kingdom Principles.

Dean Dohrman (r), the sponsor of HB 573:

Representative Dean Dohrman (r) [2016 file photo].

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose? (March 11, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: Let the army of lobbyists go forth… (March 12, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: What took you so long?

12 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, social media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Today’s expression of moral outrage on Twitter.

A pop up social media account:

Demand Due Process
@Somethi75740529
America’s colleges and universities have been turned into kangaroo courts, thanks to Obama’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter. I’m a mom fighting a broken system.
Joined March 2019

Ironically anonymous.

Uh, if this has been a problem since 2011, what took you so long to express your outrage, Mom? Why the “emergency clause”?

Is it privilege and/or a lot of available money?

Well, the account follows Mike Pence, Betsy DeVos, and James Lankford (Oklahoma?), so the answer is probably “yes.”

Another circumstance? Do tell.

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose? (March 11, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: Let the army of lobbyists go forth… (March 12, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: Let the army of lobbyists go forth…

12 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, social media

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

…in a mighty wind.

Title IX is a right wingnut issue these days. Who? Why?

The sponsor of HB 573, Dean Dohrman (r), at a university homecoming parade in 2017:

Representative Dean Dohrman (r).

Bet they reconsider the invitation for the next one?

Who’s paying for all of this? Why are they paying for this? They’re not particularly transparent:

It’s not a “coalition” until you show everyone else who is in it.

At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Kingdom Principles, Inc. – Active
612 E. Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[….]

Associated Lobbyists
Active
Lobbyist From To
Alsager, Matthew Dennis 02/27/2018 Present
Bernskoetter, Brian 03/12/2019 Present
Berry, Dave 03/08/2019 Present
Brown, Travis Howard 03/08/2019 Present
Brunnert, Zachary ‘Zach’ 03/07/2019 Present
Clarkston, Heath 03/05/2019 Present
Dempsey, Tom 03/08/2019 Present
Dozier, Cheryl Lynne 03/07/2019 Present
Flotron, Francis ‘Franc’ E. 03/07/2019 Present
Harness, Kathryn 03/07/2019 Present
Harris, James 03/07/2019 Present
Hemphill, Deanna Lynn 03/08/2019 Present
Hirschman, Janet 03/07/2019 Present
King, Tracy 03/08/2019 Present
Lakin, Joe 03/10/2019 Present
McCracken, David 03/07/2019 Present
McIntosh, Richard 02/27/2019 Present
Nelson, Doug 03/05/2019 Present
Robbins, Thomas 03/12/2019 Present
Schaefer, Kurt 03/05/2019 Present
Schlosser, Lynne 03/08/2019 Present
Stouffer, Bill 03/07/2019 Present
Zamkus, Jason Matthew 03/07/2019 Present

That’s going to cost a lot of money.

Associated Lobbyists
Inactive
Lobbyist From To
Iman, Kyna 03/07/2019 03/08/2019

That was a short association.

Meanwhile:

550 KTRS St. Louis @550KTRS
Why is dark money in Missouri attempting to raise support for legislation that would weaken #TitleIX regulations? @tonymess explains, discusses with @McGrawMilhaven:

Why is a dark money group attempting to pass legislation that will weaken Title IX regulations on college campuses in Missouri? Metro columnist Tony Messenger discusses this disturbing situation.

10:12 AM – 12 Mar 2019

Yeah, about that “emergency clause”.

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose? (March 11, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose?

11 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Who benefits?

SB 259
Implements a process for due process proceedings for Title IX complaints at institutions of higher education
Sponsor: Romine
LR Number: 1129S.01I
Committee: Education
Last Action: 3/11/2019 – Formal Calendar S Bills for Perfection–SB 259-Romine
[….]
Calendar Position: 32
Effective Date: August 28, 2019

The bill summary:

SB 259 – This act implements a procedure for due process proceedings for complaints made under Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs.

TITLE IX HEARINGS (Section 173.1898 and 173.1900)
Under this act, any individual in the state of Missouri has the right to defend their character and the right to due process protections guaranteed under the Constitution of Missouri, the United States and the Bill of Rights in any proceeding related to Title IX.

Any student at an institution of higher education may, under this act, request a due process hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission with respect to any formal Title IX complaint filed with the institution. The Commission shall assign a commissioner to hear the case within 10 days of receiving notice of the request.

After review of all evidence presented, the commissioner shall issued findings, conclusions, and a decision in the matter and forward the decision to the student and the president of the institution of higher education. A final decision shall be issued by the Commission within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing.

Any party to a case may request an expedited hearing by the Commission. If a party requests an expedited hearing, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hold a hearing and render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the request for an expedited hearing.

APPEALS HEARINGS (Section 173.1905)
Any student at an institution of higher education may request a hearing before the Commission with respect to an appeal of any Title IX case if the student received disciplinary action by the institution in the case. Within 10 days of receiving notice of the request, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hear the case and shall enter an order staying the disciplinary action until the Commission issues its final decision or order.

After review of all evidence presented, the commissioner shall issue findings, conclusions, and a decision in the matter and forward the written decision to the student and to the president of the institution of higher education. The Commission shall issue a final decision or order within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing.

A student may request an expedited hearing by the Commission to challenge a disciplinary action that involves suspension or expulsion. If a student requests an expedited hearing to challenge such disciplinary action, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hold a hearing and render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the request for an expedited hearing.

MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS (Section 173.1907 and 173.1920)
Under this act, the Commission shall compile relevant statistics on the cases it hears under this act. The Commission shall also promulgate rules to implement this provision, including the requirements for the types of statistics to be compiled.

Any institution that conducts any type of Title IX training shall maintain and publish on its website any materials used in the training. Such institution shall also maintain and publish on its website information and procedures related to such complaints.

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (Section 173.1910)
For all formal Title IX complaints, an institution of higher education shall provide students fair, equitable, and individualized interim measures that avoid depriving any student of his or her education pending the investigation and resolution of the formal complaint. If emergency measures that will deprive any student of his or her education are deemed necessary, the institution is required to provide the affected student with the opportunity for an expedited hearing.

Any institution of higher education that handles formal Title IX complaints shall adopt grievance procedures that provide for a prompt and equitable resolution, and include the opportunity for both the complainant and the respondent to obtain a copy of the complaint within 10 days, that includes sufficient details set forth in the act; a complete copy of the investigation at its conclusion; and the names of any witnesses disclosed by either party.

Grievance procedures shall specify that both parties shall receive any information to be used at the hearing. Such procedures shall also describe the range of possible sanctions and remedies that the institution of higher education may implement following any determination of responsibility. Possible sanctions may include, but not be limited to, loss of certain campus privileges, removal from campus housing, probation, suspension, or expulsion.

The institution of higher education shall inform both parties of the option to use an informal resolution process, and shall use an informal resolution process if both the parties agree to such a process. Resolution processes may include mediation, education, counseling, or restorative justice.

The institution of higher education shall not limit, prohibit, delete, or screen any evidence to be used at any point during the resolution of a formal Title IX complaint. Any person who makes any decision regarding any formal Title IX complaint, and who is an administrator at the institution of higher education or is employed by the office that handles such complaints shall disclose to all parties any prejudicial beliefs or previous experiences that would provide an actual or perceived bias for a decision.

An institution of higher education that handles Title IX complaints shall adopt hearing procedures for the complaint that meets the criteria set forth in the act.

DUE PROCESS (Section 173.1915 and 173.1925)
Any student of an institution of higher education who fails to receive due process shall have a civil cause of action against any employee of the institution who intentionally denied the student such due process. The student shall be entitled to recover from the employee who denied such due process such relief as may be appropriate.

Failure to provide due process to a student in an Title IX complaint shall be considered a breach of contract between the student and the institution, and be considered by the Attorney General as an unlawful act.

If a person makes a false claim or files a false formal Title IX complaint, the person who was the subject of the false claim or complaint has a civil cause of action against the person who made the false claim or complaint and is entitled to recover from any person who made the false claim or complaint such relief as may be appropriate.

The Attorney General shall have the authority to investigate alleged or suspected violations of the grievance procedures set forth in the act.

Any institution that violates a student’s due process rights under this act shall be fined $250,000. All fines collected in accordance with this act shall be credited to and deposited in the Merchandising Practices Revolving Fund.

The Attorney General shall collect information and statistics from institutions of higher education on their procedures and policies for formal Title IX complaints. Information the institution is required to include is set forth in the act.

PUBLIC RECORDS (Section 573.1930)
Any record related to a formal Title IX complaint or investigation at an institution, or at the Commission, which contains personally identifiable information about a party to the formal complaint is not required to be open to the public. The information may be open in the discretion of the public entity.

ACTIONABLE OFFENSE (Section 537.110)
Under this act, a person shall have a cause of action against a person who publishes, falsely and maliciously, that any person has been guilty of sexual assault or rape.

“….Any party to a case may request an expedited hearing by the Commission. If a party requests an expedited hearing, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hold a hearing and render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the request for an expedited hearing….”

Brett Kavanaugh (r) had an “expedited” hearing. And it was also a conveniently short “investigation”.

“…Any person who makes any decision regarding any formal Title IX complaint, and who is an administrator at the institution of higher education or is employed by the office that handles such complaints shall disclose to all parties any prejudicial beliefs or previous experiences that would provide an actual or perceived bias for a decision….”

And then what? We all know survivors.

In the bill text:

…the institution of higher education shall:
(1) Ensure that all parties use the terms “complainant” and “respondent” and refrain from using the term “survivor” or any other term that presumes guilt before an actual finding of guilt…

That tells you all you need to know about this bill.

….173.1927. If any entity of the federal government brings suit against an institution of higher education for complying with the requirements of sections 173.1898 to 173.1935, the attorney general shall have authority to bring suit on behalf of the institution against any entity in order to defend the requirements established under sections 173.1898 to 173.1935….

They know that this bill does not comply with the requirements of Title IX. Incidentally, a possible penalty for failure to comply with Title IX is institutional ineligibility for Title IV funding. Try that on every higher education institution (public and private) in Missouri and see what happens.

….537.110. It is actionable to publish falsely and maliciously, in any manner whatsoever, that any person has been guilty of fornication, adultery, sexual assault, or rape.

“…in any manner whatsoever…”

And if the survivor says anything?

The funding, extensive lobbying efforts, and hurry surrounding HB 573 and SB 259 indicate that there’s something more than just the usual right wingnut tentherism and devolution involved here in attacking Title IX. For what purpose?

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

Campaign Finance: “…and start all over again”

16 Saturday Feb 2019

Posted by in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Thursday at the Missouri Ethics Commission for CLEAN Missouri:

C161298 02/14/2019 CLEAN Missouri Action Now Initiative 1717 West Loop S Houston TX 77027 2/14/2019 $85,000.00

[emphasis added]

They’re going to need a lot more money.

It’s readily apparent that the right wingnut republican agenda is to overturn everything the voter approved CLEAN Missouri initiative (Amendment 1) does.

Previously:

Gov. Mike Parson (r): “Will of the voters”? What’s that? Never heard of it. (December 23, 2018)

Campaign Finance: they Gerrymandered fair and square (January 17, 2019)

HA 3, HB 445: it’s all in the (amended) details (February 5, 2019)

SCR 16: If at first you don’t secede…

13 Wednesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A concurrent resolution, introduced yesterday by Senator Paul Wieland (r):

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 16

Whereas, in January 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion is protected by the Constitution of the United States, and in doing so effectively removed legal protection from human beings prior to birth; and

Whereas, the ramifications of the court’s decision created a moral morass and was a step in the wrong direction for our nation; and

Whereas, each and every innocent human life is unique and precious and that human life begins at the moment of conception and continues, uninterrupted, until the moment of natural death; and

Whereas, each innocent human life must always be protected and preserved, and in all possible ways our country should promote a culture of life; and

Whereas, each state should enact laws that protect unborn human life; and

Whereas, the Missouri General Assembly on behalf of Missourians has spoken out in defense of the sanctity of life, and has done so in connection with contemporary threats to the life of the unborn; and

Whereas, other states in the union have not shared this mission to preserve life and have demonstrated contempt towards the most vulnerable in our society; and

Whereas, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation permitting abortion on demand; and

Whereas, the State of New York removed abortion from their criminal code; and

Whereas, the State of New York put women’s health at risk by allowing non-physicians to perform or induce abortions; and

Whereas, the State of New York has failed to live up to ethical standards that Missourians demand of us and the State of New York, by their actions, have added to the moral chaos that is plaguing this country:

Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the members of the Missouri Senate, One-hundredth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the House of Representatives concurring therein, declare that Missouri tax dollars should not be spent in any state, like New York, that demonstrates such disregard and contempt for the unborn; and

Be It Further Resolved that the members of the Missouri General Assembly ask the Governor to order all departments to cease from taking part in any non-emergency activity or event in the State of New York; and

Be It Further Resolved that the Missouri General Assembly demands higher moral standards of its fellow states and will continue to boycott events hosted by these states until they repeal legislation that fails to preserve and protect the life of the unborn; and

Be It Further Resolved that the Secretary of the Missouri Senate be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for the Governor and the State Treasurer.

Where to begin?

And yet, Donald Trump is currently President of the United States. Go figure.

Citizens of the State of New York have access to affordable health insurance. You know, their state participated in Medicaid expansion. That’s what I’d define as a “culture of life”.

Uh, if the U.S. Supreme Court says it’s so, it’s so [see Marbury v Madison (1803)].

We take it that the so-called “culture of life” as mentioned in this resolution does include exemptions for the death penalty and war.

The citizens of the State of New York must be quaking in their collective boots.

SB 366: that was then, this is now

12 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].

A bill, introduced by Senator Denny Hoskins (r):

SB 366
Establishes the Show Missouri Film and Digital Media Act
Sponsor: Hoskins
LR Number: 1846S.01I
Committee:
Last Action: 2/7/2019 – S First Read–SB 366-Hoskins
Journal Page: S214
[….]

Current Bill Summary

SB 366 – This act creates the “Show Missouri Film and Digital Media Act”.

This act reauthorizes a tax credit for certain expenses related to the production of qualified film production projects in this state, as defined in the act. Tax credits for such expenses under previous law expired on November 28, 2013.

For all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, this act authorizes a tax credit equal to 20% of qualifying in-state expenses, as defined in the act, and 10% of qualifying out-of-state expenses, as defined in the act, associated with the production of a qualified film production project. An additional 5% may be awarded for both qualifying in-state and out-of-state expenses if at least 50% of the qualified film production project is filmed in Missouri.

This act shall sunset on December 31 six years from the effective date of the act, unless reauthorized by the General Assembly.

This act is substantially similar to HB 1661 (2018).
[….]

Oh, that’s rich. Remember this, almost nine years ago?:

…My own questions were based on those I received from constituents concerning the film festival. As you can see, I did not request funding be withheld or rescinded. I simply asked how people who need assistance would be helped by the film festival. Since the film festival was held, I have received even more questions from constituents. The idea of a film festival or similar event to shine a spotlight on the Warrensburg community is not in itself a bad idea. How to pay for this event is what concerns me…

Ah, the benefits of a long memory and a blog archive.

Apparently, supporting the art form of cinema is back in vogue.

Previously:

Suppose you held a film festival and right wingnuts didn’t want anyone to attend (September 10, 2010)

The show must go on (September 10, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (r): The review is in – two thumbs down (September 14, 2010)

Veto Session Reviews for Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): great potential for a Razzie (September 15, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: because the arts never generate economic activity? (September 17, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: demagoguery, not oversight (September 18, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now (September 20, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: no one knew about it… (September 21, 2010)

A short film about a film festival… (September 22, 2010)

Ky Dickens, the film festival, the Chicago Reader, and teabaggers (September 23, 2010)

We get film festival hate mail (September 28, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: that was then, this is now – part 2 (September 28, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and the Film Festival: what the teabaggers say (October 4, 2010)

SB 59: Let there be voting

11 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

No excuse absentee voting. Such a novel idea.

Lauren Arthur (D) [2018 file photo].

A bill, prefiled by Senator Lauren Arthur (D):

SB 59 Establishes no-excuse absentee voting
Sponsor: Arthur
LR Number: 0290S.01I Fiscal Notes
Committee:
Last Action: 12/1/2018 – Prefiled
[….]
Effective Date: August 28, 2019

Current Bill Summary

SB 59 – Under current law, a person may vote absentee for candidates and ballot issues in any election in which he or she is eligible to vote if such voter expects to be prevented from going to the polls for specified reasons. This act permits a person to vote absentee for any reason or no reason at all.

This act is substantially similar to HB 1283 (2018), a provision in HB 1550 (2018), HB 1814 (2018), HB 173 (2017), a provision in HB 501 (2017), HB 644 (2017), HB 1764 (2016), HB 1767 (2016), HB 2451 (2016), HB 287 (2015), a provision in HB 1449 (2014), HB 1604 (2014), HB 188 (2013), a provision in HB 848 (2013), HB 375 (2011), HB 382 (2011), HB 1836 (2010), HB 1839 (2010), and HB 2195 (2010).

What are the odds that this will get through the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly and get the Governor’s signature? You know, making it easier for people to actually vote.

SB 132: I’ve got secrets I want to keep

10 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Because lobbyists shrivel up when exposed to sunlight?

A bill, prefiled in the Missouri Senate by Ed Emery (r), which would broaden disclosure exemptions in the Missouri Sunshine Law for members of the General Assembly:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL NO. 132 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR EMERY. Pre-filed December 1, 2018, and ordered printed.
ADRIANE D. CROUSE, Secretary.
0625S.02I

AN ACT

To repeal section 610.021, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the closure of certain records.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 610.021, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 610.021, to read as follows:

610.021. Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public governmental body is authorized to close meetings, records and votes, to the extent they relate to the following:

[….]

(25) Any record maintained in the office of a member of the general assembly that is related to a constituent of the member; and
(26) Any record maintained in the office of a member of the general assembly, an employee of either house of the general assembly, or an employee of a caucus of either the majority or minority party of either house that contains information regarding proposed legislation or the legislative process, however, nothing in this subdivision shall allow the closure of a record that has been offered in a public meeting of a house of the general assembly, or any committee thereof.

[emphasis in original]

We wouldn’t want anyone to figure out who’s been pushing those ALEC cut and paste bills on the Missouri General Assembly now, would we?

SB 63: …and “Right to Get Paid Less” is back

04 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

It’s that time again. Bills are being prefiled for the coming session of the Missouri General Assembly.

Eric Burlison (r) [2016 file photo]

A bill, prefiled by Eric Burlison (r):

SB 63
Creates new provisions of law relating to labor organizations
Sponsor: Burlison
LR Number: 0284S.01I
Last Action: 12/1/2018 – Prefiled
Effective Date: August 28, 2019

Current Bill Summary

SB 63 – Under this act, employers are barred from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization or pay dues or other charges required of labor organization members as a condition of employment.

Any person who violates or directs another to violate this act is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. Moreover, any person injured as a result of violation or threatened violation of this act is entitled to injunctive relief and certain other damages.

Prosecuting attorneys, circuit attorneys, and the Attorney General are charged with investigating complaints under this act.

The provisions of this act do not apply to any agreement between an employer and a labor organization entered into before the effective date of this act but shall apply to any such agreement upon its renewal, extension, amendment, or modification in any respect after the effective date of this act.

This act is identical to the truly agreed to and finally passed SS#2/SB 19 (2017) and substantially similar to HCS/HB 91 (2017), HB 42 (2017), HB 131 (2017), HB 265 (2017), HB 314 (2017), SB 667 (2016), SCS/HCS/HB’s 116 & 569 (2015) which was vetoed by the Governor and SCS/SB 127 (2015), HB 1462 (2016), SB 76 (2013), SB 547 (2012), SB 614 (2012), SB 438 (2012), SB 109 (2011), SB 1 (2011), SB 888 (2010), and HB 877 (2005).

Working people didn’t finish the job in 2018.

There’s definitely a disconnect with Missouri voters.

Via the Missouri Secretary of State web site:

State of Missouri – General Election, November 06, 2018
Official Results
As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on November 30, 2018

State Senator – District 20
63 of 63 Precincts Reported

Eric W. Burlison Republican 62,209 73.871%
Jim Billedo Democratic 22,004 26.129%
Total Votes: 84,213

Christian County
Eric W. Burlison, REP 26,768
Jim Billedo, DEM 8,906

Greene County
Eric W. Burlison, REP 35,441
Jim Billedo, DEM 13,098

Proposition A, “right to get paid less”, was overwhelmingly defeated statewide in August. In Christian and Greene Counties:

State of Missouri – Primary Election, August 07, 2018
Official Results
As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on August 27, 2018

Christian County
Proposition A
27 of 27 Precincts Reported
YES 8,387 51.457%
NO 7,912 48.543%
Total Votes: 16,299

Greene County
Proposition A
113 of 113 Precincts Reported
YES 25,192 42.589%
NO 33,959 57.411%
Total Votes: 59,151

Passing by just under 500 votes in one county and losing big in another ain’t exactly an anti-labor mandate.

Unless you’re a republican.