Our previous documentation of this week’s atrocities:

House Bills in Jefferson City – February 9 and 10

Clearly the republican members of the Missouri House are doing their darnedest to have an impact on the epic political dialogues taking place nationally. Well, some just seem to have an ability to fall off their tricycles while trying  to pedal at a high rate of speed.

There’s more:

HCR 24 Urges the federal government to rescind its actions in providing financial bailouts and seek alternative solutions to our nation’s financial and economic problems

Sponsor: Wilson, Kevin (130) Proposed Effective Date: 00/00/0000

CoSponsor: Icet, Allen (84) ……….etal. LR Number: 1481L.03I

Last Action: 02/09/2009 – Offered (H)

HCR24

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Rough translation: “Drown it, drown it in the bathtub!”

The actual text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 24

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1481L.03I

           Whereas, our forefathers placed their fortunes, their families, and their very lives in peril to oppose a tyrannical king and his practice of taxation without representation; and

           Whereas, after a bitter and bloody war, this United States of America was formed; and

           Whereas, over the next two centuries, Americans have fought and died to preserve the freedoms born from those humble beginnings; and

           Whereas, we now face an economic crisis the likes of which have not been seen for nearly a century; and

           Whereas, the American people grow increasingly weary of a federal government which is now spending the people’s tax dollars on unregulated and unsupervised financial bailouts of private concerns; and

           Whereas, this ill-conceived and most likely unconstitutional spending of taxpayer money has raised concern among every segment of this society:

           Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, acting on behalf of the millions of Missourians affected by these actions of our federal government, do hereby plead that our national leaders immediately rescind their actions and seek alternative solutions to solve our nation’s financial and economic problems; and

           Be it further resolved that this resolution be referred to as the “Economic Declaration of Independence”; and

           Be it further resolved that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for Barack Obama, President of the United States, and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.

Uh, who was president when this “economic crisis the likes of which have not been seen for nearly a century” and the “federal government which is now spending the people’s tax dollars on unregulated and unsupervised financial bailouts of private concerns” actually took place? Just asking.

And there’s this:

HB 668 Abolishes the duty to retreat in cases where an owner or lessor of property encounters a threat while present on his or her lands

Sponsor: Jones, Kenny (117) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Wells, Don (147) ……….etal. LR Number: 1747L.01I

Last Action: 02/11/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB668

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

By God, there’ll be no encouraging cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys in Missouri.

What hath the Missouri House wrought this week? My favorite right wingnut state representative is keeping busy:

HB 632 Creates the “Missouri Right to Protection Act”

Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Day, David (148) ……….etal. LR Number: 1648L.01I

Last Action: 02/09/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB632

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

If this bill passes my long held dream to build a working trebuchet for the defense of my castle will remain intact:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 632

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUEST (Sponsor), DAY, DAVIS, JONES (89), FISHER (125), FUNDERBURK, WRIGHT, KEENEY, DIECKHAUS, McGHEE, NIEVES, WILSON (119), BIVINS, DETHROW, WOOD, ALLEN AND COOPER (Co-sponsors).

1648L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 563, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Missouri right to protection act.

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

           Section A. Chapter 563, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 563.023, to read as follows:

           563.023. 1. The provisions of this section shall be called and may be cited as the “Missouri Right to Protection Act”. It is an extension of the “Castle Doctrine”.

           2. Any lawful citizen of Missouri has the right under the United States Constitution to protect themselves, including but not limited to, the following:

           (1) By the use of guns and ammunition;

           (2) By the use of mace or other repellants; and

           (3) By any other means necessary to stop an assailant.

           3. Any lawful citizen of Missouri has the right to defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of committing a crime, without interference from federal or state agencies.

           4. Law abiding citizens of Missouri shall not have their gun or ammunition rights waived by any governmental agency nor shall their guns or ammunition be tracked, with but not limited to, markings or radio frequency identification (RFID) dust, paint, or by any other direct identifiers.

           5. Any lawful citizen of Missouri has the constitutional right to privacy in such citizen’s home, including but not limited to such person’s home, farm, vehicle, trailer, or any other place of domicile, and to be anonymous as long as such citizen is not in the act of committing a crime. America was founded on the principles of freedom from persecution by the government. It was meant to be that the federal and state governments were not intended to have the power that they have surmised in the last eighty years. Missouri citizens have the right to the protections listed in this section as was set out in the United States Constitution. No governmental entity has the authority to supersede these constitutional guarantees.

[emphasis added]

Cool, I wouldn’t have to put my name on my home defense trebuchet.

I wonder what Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has to say about “the right to privacy”, you know, he being an “originalist” and a peripatetic darling of the wingnut right:

March 4, 2008

[Do you believe that there is a right to privacy under the United States Constitution?]

Oh, there certainly is and it us, uh, contained in the Fourth Amendment. And it says “that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Period. There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means. What is a generalized right of privacy [garbled]? One of our, one of our, one of our opinions says it means “the right to be left alone”. [laughter] Right. This is anarchy…

…[wire tapping] So, there is no, what should I say, exclusion from democratic debate of – conversations. It’s something for the people to decide whether you should have wiretapping or not….[as practice now]…This generalized right of privacy which comes from, what is it, penumbras and emanations from the Fourth and a lot of other ridiculous stuff. Uh, you know the consequences of that? Surely one of the major policy issues around these days is whether, uh, the Federal government can listen in on these international phone calls to find what the bad guys are doing. It used to be up to the Congress to decide whether the danger was high enough and the risk of invading people’s privacy high enough to permit that. No longer. It’s a question for me now. It’s a question for me. That’s what happens when you, when you read more and more stuff into the Constitution – you reduce democracy.

[emphasis added]

I’m not agreeing with Scalia here, it’s just that I’d expect all the right wingnuts to be on the same page.

Why, I do believe that State Representative Jim Guest (R-5) was at the UAW “Save Our Jobs Rally” in Kansas City on Sunday. Does this mean he supports the federal economic stimulus package?

There’s more. Uh oh. There is another:

HB 645 Removes the prohibition on persons with concealed carry endorsements carrying concealed firearms into an institution of higher education

Sponsor: Munzlinger, Brian (1) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Ruzicka, Don (132) ……….etal. LR Number: 1265L.02I

Last Action: 02/10/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB645

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 645

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES MUNZLINGER (Sponsor),  RUZICKA AND JONES (117) (Co-sponsors).

1265L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 571.107, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to authorization to carry concealed firearms, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembl
y of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Section 571.107, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 571.107, to read as follows:

           571.107. 1. A concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:

           …(10) Any [higher education institution or] elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of [the governing body of the higher education institution or] a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any [higher education institution or] elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;…

           2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. The sheriff shall suspend or revoke the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue shall issue a notice of such suspension or revocation of the concealed carry endorsement and take action to remove the concealed carry endorsement from the individual’s driving record. The director of revenue shall notify the licensee that he or she must apply for a new license pursuant to chapter 302, RSMo, which does not contain such endorsement. A concealed carry endorsement suspension pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall be reinstated at the time of the renewal of his or her driver’s license. The notice issued by the department of revenue shall be mailed to the last known address shown on the individual’s driving record. The notice is deemed received three days after mailing.

[emphasis added]

And another. This one bears watching (the text is not available online yet):

HB 656 Protects teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding biological and chemical evolution

Sponsor: Cooper, Robert Wayne (155) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Sutherland, Mike (99) ……….etal. LR Number: 0779L.01I

Last Action: 02/10/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB656

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Ah, a Second Amendment issue, sort of:

HB 603 Excludes antique firearms from the definition of firearms for purposes of weapon offenses

Sponsor: Munzlinger, Brian (1) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Munzlinger, Brian (1) LR Number: 1272L.02I

Last Action: 02/05/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB603

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Do you suppose if Jesse James were to come back from the dead he wouldn’t be subject to prosecution? Just asking. I can see it now – if this passes some idiot will try to rob a bank with a flintlock…

Then there’s this:

HB 606 Increases the regulatory authority of the Office of Athletics for mixed martial arts contests and prohibits youth under eighteen years of age from competing in a cage or enclosure

Sponsor: Stevenson, Bryan P. (128) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Flanigan, Tom (127) ……….etal. LR Number: 1521L.01I

Last Action: 02/05/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB606

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

“…prohibits…competing in a cage or enclosure…”

Evidently that right is exclusively reserved for the majority caucus in the House.

Representative Mike Talboy (D – 37) in his office in Jefferson City on the opening day of the legislative session.

Serving in the minority party (in the “post partisan” environment fostered by the Speaker of the Missouri House) hasn’t put a crimp on the legislative diligence of Representative Mike Talboy (D – 37).

HB 582 Prohibits discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation

Sponsor: Talboy, Mike (37) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Zimmerman, Jake (83) ……….etal. LR Number: 0033L.01I

Last Action: 02/04/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB582

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Note to self: prepare to watch republican right wingnuts achieve a state of apoplexy.

HB 584 Requires pharmacies to dispense all valid lawful prescriptions for contraceptives without delay.

Sponsor: Talboy, Mike (37) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Low, Beth (39) ……….etal. LR Number: 0030L.01I

Last Action: 02/04/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB584

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Note to self: prepare to watch republican right wingnut caucus express frustration over which bill should make them more likely to achieve the most complete state of apoplexy.

HB 585 Requires the Governor to annually issue a proclamation designating March 31 as “Cesar E. Chavez Day”

Sponsor: Talboy, Mike (37) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Oxford, Jeanette Mott (59) ……….etal. LR Number: 0040L.01I

Last Action: 02/04/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB585

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

He’s going for the trifecta!

HB 587 Allows individuals to vote a straight party line ticket for all members of the same political party with a single punch or mark

Sponsor: Talboy, Mike (37) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Schieffer, Ed (11) ……….etal. LR Number: 0031L.01I

Last Action: 02/04/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB587

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

The republicans will not only vote “hell no”, they’ll do so to the person. You see, they don’t do so well in down ticket races when voters can vote straight party on the ballot.

HCR 21 Establishes Missouri’s ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sponsor: Talboy, Mike (37) Proposed Effective Date: 00/00/0000

CoSponsor: Kander, Jason (44) ……….etal. LR Number: 0042L.01I

Last Action: 02/04/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HCR21

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

I bet you former representative Deleta Williams (D) is smiling!

Now, that’s my kind of legislative agenda.

When it comes to bills introduced in the Missouri House the real fun begins when the republican party’s lunatic fringe throws stuff out there that makes their right wingnut colleagues appear to be circumspect champions of reasonable public policy by comparison. It appears to be a game of “who can be the wingnuttiest”. A few cases in point:

HB 550 Creates a civil penalty and a cause of action for damages for coerced subcutaneous implantation of an identification device

Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Ruestman, Marilyn (131) ……….etal. LR Number: 1069L.01I

Last Action: 02/03/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB550

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Okay, I’m waiting for the companion bill which would allow you to sue your neighbor when their pyramid and crystals deflect the asteroid that takes out your house.

But wait, there’s more:

HB 557 Requires taxation of all real property owned or occupied by the United States government in Missouri unless the state receives unencumbered federal funds by mandates for the benefit of Missourians

Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Wallace, Maynard (143) ……….etal. LR Number: 1065L.01I

Last Action: 02/03/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB557

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

As always, the devil is in the details. Let’s take a look:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 557

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUEST (Sponsor), WALLACE AND McGHEE (Co-sponsors).

1065L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

Relating to property taxation.

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

           Section 1. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Unfunded Mandate Act”.

           2. All real property in this state that is owned or occupied by the United States government shall be assessed and taxed in the same manner as provided for assessing and levying real property taxes in chapter 137, RSMo. The general assembly may suspend the assessment and levy of taxes on such real property upon an agreement with the United States to receive federal funds unencumbered by mandates to be used for the benefit of the citizens of this state.

           3. The governor shall appoint a board to review all federal mandates to determine whether federal mandates are unfunded. If the board determines that any such federal mandate is unfunded, the state shall not participate in such mandate.

Okay, maybe not. Good luck on collecting if this passes though.

HB 559 Establishes the Protect Missouri Citizens Rights Act

Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Bivins, Walt (97) LR Number: 1071L.01I

Last Action: 02/03/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB559

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

I wonder if this is about fluoridation?

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 559

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUEST (Sponsor) AND BIVINS (Co-sponsor).

1071L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 577, RSMo, by adding thereto six new sections relating to the Missouri immigration act, with penalty provisions.

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

           Section A. Chapter 577, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto six new sections, to be known as sections 577.850, 577.852, 577.854, 577.856, 577.858, and 577.860, to read as follows:

           577.850. Sections 577.850 to 577.860 shall be known as the “Protecting Missouri Citizens’ Rights Act”.

           577.852. 1. A person commits the crime of being a noncitizen illegally present in the state of Missouri if such person is present within the state and is a noncitizen who is not legally present in the United States.

           2. Being a noncitizen illegally present in the state of Missouri is a class D felony.

           577.854. The attorney general is authorized and directed to enter into a cooperative agreement with any other state necessary to secure authorization for the state of Missouri to transport any person who is found within the borders of this state and who is not legally present in the United States through such state for the purpose of delivering such person to the Department of Homeland Security at a federal border. In such agreement the attorney general is authorized and directed to grant authorization for the other state to transport persons found within their state and not legally present in the United States through the state of Missouri for the purpose of being delivered by that state to the Department of Homeland Security at a federal border.

           577.856. Every multijurisdictional enforcement group or MEG as those terms are defined in section 195.503, RSMo, shall be authorized to train volunteers to safely transport persons who are found within Missouri and who are not legally present in the United States to a federal border for the purpose of delivering such persons to the Department of Homeland Security.

           577.858. 1. Beginning July 1, 2010, no person or business entity in this state shall hire a noncitizen employee without first requiring that employee to present a valid photo identification card from the department of labor and industrial relations.

           2. Beginning January 1, 2010, the department of labor and industrial relations shall accept applications for a photo identification card from any noncitizen employee in this state who applies for such photo identification card for the purpose of seeking employment.

           3. The department of labor and industrial relations shall verify through the Department of Homeland Security or other agency designated by the Department of Homeland Security whether the applicant is legally present in the United States. If the applicant is not legally
present in the United States the applicant shall be denied a photo identification card. If the applicant is legally present in the United States the department of labor and industrial relations shall issue such applicant a photo identification card which the applicant can then use to seek employment in this state.

           4. The photo identification card shall contain a current photograph of the applicant and sufficient other identifying information to allow employers to readily match the cardholder with the card itself.

           5. The department of labor and industrial relations shall develop a list of the types of documents that it will accept from applicants as proof of their legal status in this country and shall make such list readily available to the applicants and the general public.

           6. The department of labor and industrial relations shall establish and maintain a web page on the Internet which shall be open to all employers in the state and shall include a photo identification card search capability which shall make it possible for any employer in this state to search by name for the person presenting a department of labor and industrial relations photo identification card to them for the purposes of employment so that the employer may compare the photograph on the web page with the photograph on the photo identification card. The web page shall contain the names and photographs of every person who has been issued a photo identification card.

           7. Any person or business entity who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class D felony.

           8. The department of labor and industrial relations shall have the authority to adopt any rules and regulations necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, RSMo, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, and, if applicable, section 536.028, RSMo. This section and chapter 536, RSMo, are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly pursuant to chapter 536, RSMo, to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2009, shall be invalid and void.

           577.860. 1. Beginning January 1, 2010, and prior to July 1, 2010, any person who is employed in this state and who is an immigrant to the United States, whether legal or illegal, shall apply to the department of labor and industrial relations for a photo identification card.

           2. There is hereby created in the state of Missouri an immigrant “Guest Worker Program”. Beginning January 1, 2010, the department of labor and industrial relations shall accept applications for a photo identification card from any person who is employed in this state who is an immigrant to the United States, whether legal or not, who applies for such photo identification card for the purpose of maintaining employment. Immigrant employees who are not legally present will have to obtain employer sponsorship to remain employed otherwise such employees will be deported.

           3. The department of labor and industrial relations shall verify through the Department of Homeland Security or other agency designated by the Department of Homeland Security whether the applicant is legally present in the United States and whether such applicant has any criminal convictions. If the applicant has any criminal convictions the applicant shall be denied a photo identification card and the department of labor and industrial relations shall notify the employer, in writing, by registered mail, of such denial. The employer shall, within three calendar days of receiving such notice, either terminate that employee for failure to obtain a valid photo identification card or apply for sponsorship through Missouri’s guest worker program and show a hardship status. If hardship status is obtained an employer may keep such employee for up to but not exceeding a maximum of five years. The department of labor and industrial relations will act as an intermediary between the employer and the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to secure the proper documentation for such employee to remain in the United States. Any noncitizen employee who has a criminal history other than a violation relating to his or her immigration status shall not be eligible for sponsorship through Missouri’s guest worker program and shall not be allowed to remain. If the applicant does not have any criminal convictions the department of labor and industrial relations shall issue such applicant a photo identification card whether or not the applicant is legally present in the United States to show the applicant’s status and the applicant shall present such photo identification card to the employer within five calendar days of receiving such card.

           4. If by July 1, 2010, an employer has any immigrant employees who have not presented a valid photo identification card to them it shall be the responsibility of that employer to check with the department of labor and industrial relations, within five calendar days, to inquire whether such employees have made application for a photo identification card. If any such employee has not made application for a photo identification card as required by the provisions of this section the employer shall within three calendar days terminate the employment of such employee.

           5. The department of labor and industrial relations may charge the employer a fee for processing any application for a photo identification card requested as a result of the provisions of this section from any employee of that employer, in an amount to be determined by the director of the department of labor and industrial relations, but not to exceed the cost of processing and issuing the photo identification card and notifying the employer of any denial. No person who applies for a photo identification card under the provisions of this section shall be charged a fee.

           6. The photo identification card shall contain a current photograph of the applicant and sufficient other identifying information to allow employers to readily match the cardholder with the card itself and shall contain a designation of “legally present” if such person is determined to be legally present in the United States or a designation of “not legally present” if such person is determined not to be legally present in the United States.

           7. The department of labor and industrial relations shall develop a list of the types of documents that it will accept from applicants as proof of their legal status in this country and shall make such list readily available to the applicants and the general public.

           8. Beginning January 1, 2010, every employer in this state who has any employee who is an immigrant to the United States, whether legal or not, shall post a notice in an area accessible to all employees which shall state the following: “Any person who is employed here who is an immigrant to the United States, whether legal or not, shall prior to July 1, 2010, apply for a photo identification card from the department of labor and industrial relations in order to verify their status. Every person who is employed here who is issued a photo identification card from the department of labor and industrial relations shall present such photo identification card to his or her supervis
or within five calendar days of receiving such card. There will be no cost to the employee for applying for and receiving such photo identification card. Failure to apply for, receive, or present such card to your supervisor within the required time period will result in termination of your employment.”.

           9. No employer who terminates an employee under the provisions of this section shall be liable criminally or civilly in any manner for such termination.

           10. The department of labor and industrial relations shall have the authority to adopt any rules and regulations necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, RSMo, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, and, if applicable, section 536.028, RSMo. This section and chapter 536, RSMo, are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly pursuant to chapter 536, RSMo, to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2009, shall be invalid and void.

           11. Any employee or employer who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class D felony.

Nope. it’s not about fluoride. But, I see the possibility for some practical application and combination with HB 550. Isn’t there an agency of the federal government that deals with this? Wait, wait, don’t tell me…

Let’s continue. You’ll pardon me if I say it. This one meets some kind of gold standard:

HB 561 Creates provisions relating to the use of gold by state and local government

Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Funderburk, Doug (12) LR Number: 1367L.01I

Last Action: 02/03/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB561

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

I wonder if someone got burned by one of those companies that advertises on cable television?

The common denominator on these bills? Jim Guest.

Let’s take a look back:

Overwrought opposition to a secure national ID card

…Missouri state Rep. Jim Guest, a Republican, has called Real ID “a frontal assault on the freedom of Americans.” It’s frankly hard to see what freedom is under assault other than the freedom to lie on your driver’s license. Perhaps Guest can elaborate…

States Challenge Nat’l Driver’s License

By LESLIE MILLER

The Associated Press

Sunday, February 4, 2007; 10:36 PM

…Missouri state Rep. James Guest, a Republican, formed a coalition of lawmakers from 34 states to file bills that oppose or protest Real ID.

“This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are,” Guest said in an interview Saturday. “That’s going too far.”

Guest filed a resolution last week opposing Real ID and said he expects it quickly to pass the Legislature. “This does nothing to stop terrorism,” he said. “Don’t burden the American people with this requirement to carry this ID…”

That explains a lot.

As always, some interesting bills are making their way through the process in Jefferson City. There was a flurry of bills relating to election law:

HB 462  – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake  – CoSponsor:  McNeil, Margo

   Allows any registered voter who is eligible to vote in a particular

   election to do so by absentee ballot

   HB 0462 — (LR# 1198L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)

HB 463 – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake – CoSponsor: Low, Beth

   Allows municipalities and other political subdivisions to conduct

   elections using instant runoff voting procedures

   HB 0463 — (LR# 0139L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)

HB 464 – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake – CoSponsor: Colona, Mike

   Prohibits any elected or appointed official or employee of the state

   or any political subdivision or its staff from lobbying for one year

   after leaving office or employment with a certain exception

   HB 0464 — (LR# 0551L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)

HB 466  – Sponsor: Zimmerman, Jake  – CoSponsor:  Harris, Belinda

   Allows any registered voter who is eligible to vote in a particular

   election to do so by absentee ballot

   HB 0466 — (LR# 1197L.01I)

   1/29/2009 Read Second Time (H)  

[emphasis added]

When compared to HB 462 – HB 466 appears to reserve unrestricted absentee voting for state races:

“… Each election authority shall deliver an absentee ballot to each registered voter of this state for each primary or general election in which the voter can vote for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, attorney general, state representative, and state senator. Such absentee ballot shall be delivered as required in section 115.287…”

Hmmm. Then there’s instant runoff voting:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 463

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ZIMMERMAN (Sponsor), LOW, ROORDA, WALTON GRAY, TALBOY AND MORRIS (Co-sponsors).

0139L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 115, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to instant runoff voting.

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

           Section A. Chapter 115, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 115.438, to read as follows:

           115.438. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (1) “Continuing ballot”, a ballot that has not been exhausted by the instant runoff vote;

           (2) “Continuing candidate”, a candidate who has not been eliminated by the instant runoff vote;

           (3) “Exhausted ballot”, a ballot upon which all of the choices have been eliminated or upon which no more choices are indicated;

           (4) “Instant runoff vote”, a procedure of voting as described in this section that requires a candidate to receive a majority rather than a plurality of the votes cast for a particular office before the candidate takes office, and that allows voters to elect a candidate by casting ranked-choice ballots in the event no candidate for a municipal or political subdivision office receives a majority of the votes cast for such municipal or political subdivision office;

           (5) “Ranked-choice ballot”, a ballot that allows voters to vote for candidates and to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office in the event an instant runoff vote is required after the votes are first counted under this chapter.

           2. Any municipality or political subdivision may conduct instant runoff voting as established in this section. No candidate for any such office shall be nominated or certified under this chapter unless such candidate has received a majority of the votes cast in the election for such office.

           3. Ranked-choice ballots may be used for all elections for municipal and political subdivision office. If the voting system used by a municipality or political subdivision cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each office, then the election authorities may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter’s ability to cast a write-in vote for a candidate.

           4. Votes for all candidates for office shall be counted and recorded as provided in this chapter, and shall be certified in the following manner:

           (1) If a candidate receives a majority of the first choices after the first count of votes under this chapter, that candidate shall be certified as the winner;

           (2) If no candidate receives a majority after the first count, the candidate who received the fewest first choices shall be eliminated and each vote cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter’s ballot. If, after this transfer of votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be certified as the winner;

           (3) If no candidate receives a majority of votes from the continuing ballots after a candidate has been eliminated and such candidate’s votes have been transferred to the next ranked candidate, the continuing candidate with the fewest votes from the continuing ballots shall be eliminated. All votes cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked continuing candidate on each voter’s ballot. This process of eliminating candidates and transferring of votes to the next ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots;

           (4) If the total number of votes of the two or more candidates credited with the lowest number of votes is less than the number of votes credited to the candidate with the next highest number of votes, those candidates with the lowest number of votes shall be eliminated simultaneously and their votes transferred to the next ranked continuing candidate on each ballot in a single counting operation;

           (5) A tie between two or more candidates shall be resolved in accordance with this chapter.

           5. No exhausted ballot shall be counted in further stages of the tabulation. If a rank
ed-choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted when such multiple rankings are reached. If a voter casts a ranked-choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter’s vote shall be transferred to that voter’s next ranked choice.

           6. Any election dispute regarding the implementation of a limit of the number of candidates on a ballot under subsection 3 of this section shall be first appealed to the secretary of state for a final order, and thereafter may be appealed to any court of competent jurisdiction. All other election disputes shall proceed as established in this chapter.

           7. All statutes and regulations governing voting procedures and ballots under this chapter shall govern instant runoff voting and ranked-choice ballots.

I’d hate to have to work a recount using IRV ballots…

Absent a true mandate in an election (at minimum that’s 50% of the vote plus one) I sort of like the present system. If a candidate wins a plurality and not a majority then they just might (that’s the important word) take into consideration of views of those who didn’t vote for them.

Let’s face it. We deal with “ballot fatigue” (the tendency for some voters to vote the top race on the ballot and leave the rest blank) in elections now. Does anyone think that most voters are going to stick with the IRV process all the way through a ballot? I don’t think so.

There has been interesting bill action (or not) in the Missouri House this week:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 394

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SKAGGS.

1407L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 8, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to state buildings.

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

           Section A. Chapter 8, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 8.157, to read as follows:

          8.157. 1. On and after January 1, 2010, no person shall possess or drink any alcoholic beverage in the state capitol or on the state capitol grounds.

           2. The provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply upon the order of the governor of a special event.

[emphasis added]

I wonder if it’ll ever come to a vote?

There are other bills worth noting:

HB 405 Requires equal pay for the same work regardless of gender and establishes a commission to study wage disparities

Sponsor: Low, Beth (39) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Lampe, Sara (138) ……….etal. LR Number: 0626L.01I

Last Action: 01/27/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB405

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

[emphasis added]

Equal pay for equal work – what a novel concept. It’ll never get on the calendar.

HB 421 Makes the use of an electronic recording device in a polling place an election offense

Sponsor: Viebrock, James (134) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 1196L.01I

Last Action: 01/27/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB421

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

[emphasis added]

Question: Would this make a touchscreen voting machine illegal? Just asking.

“…(12) Using an electronic recording device to record, photograph, copy, or transmit the content of a voted ballot to any person or destination not authorized by this chapter to receive such information….”

Nope. Drat.

If this is enacted into law I suppose voters who took a cell phone photo of their ballot to show proof of how they voted would get in trouble if they admitted it.

HB 426 Establishes the Large Carnivore Act which regulates the ownership, possession, and breeding of large carnivores

Sponsor: Sutherland, Mike (99) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Dixon, Bob (140) ……….etal. LR Number: 1012L.01I

Last Action: 01/28/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB426

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

[emphasis added]

When I first saw the description I immediately thought, “Jurassic Park – Missouri is toast…”

Are non-vegan people covered by this bill?

HB 427 Limits the governor to appointing only veterans who have served at least two consecutive years in a veterans organization to the veterans commission and revises the veteran’s survivor grant

Sponsor: Largent, Scott (120) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Day, David (148) ……….etal. LR Number: 1350L.01I

Last Action: 01/28/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB427

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

[emphasis added]

Ah, micromanaging the executive branch. Go figure.

HB 434 Changes the laws regarding the consent requirements for obtaining an abortion and creates the crime of coercing an abortion

Sponsor: Pratt, Bryan (55) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 1085L.01I

Last Action: 01/28/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB434

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

[emphasis added]

The republicans can’t help themselves. It’s in their nature.

HB 452 Authorizes Missouri to enter into the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Act

Sponsor: Roorda, Jeff (102) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Casey, Ron (103) ……….etal. LR Number: 0297L.01I

Last Action: 01/28/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB452

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

[emphasis added]

This won’t get bipartisan support until a member of the Bush family loses the popular vote in a presidential election. Oh wait…