Indeed.

“I am a deplorable” – Trump Teabagger rally in Jefferson City – March 25, 2017

There was a small gathering of Donald Trump supporters on the grounds of the Capitol in Jefferson City this afternoon. There were intermittant showers throughout the day, but the group managed a parade around the Capitol. This being Jefferson City on a Saturday afternoon, there wasn’t a crowd along their parade route.

“Common sense conservative” – Trump Teabagger rally in Jefferson City – March 25, 2017

“Parade” – Trump Teabagger rally in Jefferson City – March 25, 2017

“America First” – Trump Teabagger rally in Jefferson City – March 25, 2017.

“God Bless the U.S.A” – Trump Teabagger rally in Jefferson City – March 25, 2017

There’s a sameness to the rally attendees, not a billionaire in the bunch, but they somehow managed to bring themselves to vote for the interests of billionaires. There’s the same defiance and resentment, directed at whoever, in the memes emblazoned on their t-shirts which we saw in the teabagger days throughout 2009.

Their great leader had a really bad week and will probably continue to do so. That won’t budge their faith in him however misplaced anyone else thinks it is.

Welcome to America in 2017.

Today at around noon six individuals set up flags and signs on an overpass over U.S. Highway 50 in Warrensburg, Missouri, expressing a variety of sentiments in opposition to President Obama and his administration. One sign made reference to Benghazi, several signs referred to constitutional issues, and one sign addressed guns. At least one of the demonstrators was openly carrying a firearm.

Flags and signs at an anti-Obama demonstration on an overpass over U.S Highway 50 in Warrensburg, Missouri – October 10, 2015.

Interestingly, of the two individuals holding flags (and there were several flags to choose from) both chose to hold the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, not the U.S. flag, nor the Gadsden flag.

Driver of a passing car: [shouted, while gesturing at the demonstrators] Idiots!

Anti-Obama demonstration on an overpass over U.S. Highway 50 in Warrensburg, Missouri – October 10, 2015.

[….]

Show Me Progress: So, what kind of response are you getting today?

Demonstrator: It’s positive. We normally, uh, we’re with Overpasses for America. Uh, we’re a national organization and, uh, we normally get a very positive response from people. Uh, now and then you might get some people that have some animosity towards us, but normally it’s, uh, positive, so. [horn honking]

Show Me Progress: So, um, uh, are you from this area?

Demonstrator: Uh, [….] from, uh, this area. I’m from Kansas City.

Show Me Progress: Uh, huh.

Demonstrator: Uh, I think the rest of them are from Warrensburg.

Show Me Progress: Uh, okay. Uh, so [horn honking], um, why out here today, just…?

Demonstrator: Well, we, we go all over the state. Like I said, we’re national, and right now I’m, uh, uh, [….] and I are having this, uh, right here in Warrensburg. We come down here periodically. We just want to make sure that we have plenty of exposure for people to see us, or organization, and know that we’re out here and we’re protesting against this present administration, the, uh, criminal activities that they’re doing, not following our Constitution.

[….]

Demonstrator: ….Police officers in the area are usually real receptive to us. They watch for us, make sure that nobody harasses us or bothers us.

Show Me Progress: They tend to, they tend to do that no matter what anybody’s point of view [cross talk] is.

Demonstrator: Well, you’re [crosstalk] right.

Show Me Progress: And they’re really, real good about that because [crosstalk]…

Demonstrator: Well, not always.

Show Me Progress: Oh, really?

Demonstrator: I’ve been in places where we’ve had problems…

[….]

Demonstrator:…And, uh, if we don’t exercise our rights we’re gonna lose them. And that’s what we’re out here doing.

The local constabulary driving past an anti-Obama demonstration on an overpass over U.S. Highway 50 in Warrensburg, Missouri – October 10, 2015

Uh, if you’re relying on the local police to protect you from harassers and botherers, why open carry? The First Amendment is a two way street, right? Just asking.

Mixed messages? Anti-Obama demonstration on an overpass over U.S. Highway 50 in Warrensburg, Missouri – October 10, 2015.

In the several hundred vigils, demonstrations and protest marches I attended starting in 2003 I don’t ever recall a participant openly carrying a firearm. I do recall cooperative law enforcement officials working to ensure peaceful demonstrations in which participants could safely exercise their First Amendment rights. I also vividly recall harassers and botherers, most who didn’t cross the line.

So, where were today’s folks twelve years ago? Right…

From the Southern Poverty Law Center (March 14, 2012):

….In the world of far-right extremists, Agenda 21 is demonized as a sort of Trojan horse, part of a larger scheme to shatter Americans’ liberties and institute a totalitarian, one-world government known typically as the “New World Order…”

…to the John Birch Society (JBS), one of the main groups promoting the conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, it represents the end of America as we know it. This is the same group, of course, that claimed President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a secret communist….

The ultimate in head wear, with accessory, for the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly.

A bill on a favorite subject of the paranoid wingnut right, introduced today by Representative Mike Moon (r):  

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1647

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES MOON (Sponsor), CURTMAN, POGUE, ANDERSON, REMOLE, FITZPATRICK, RHOADS, WILSON, MUNTZEL, HURST, MESSENGER, ROWLAND, BRATTIN, PARKINSON, MORRIS, KOENIG, MCGAUGH, HOUGHTON AND BAHR (Co-sponsors).

5691H.01I      D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to prohibitions on certain policies that infringe on private property rights.

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

           Section A. Chapter 1, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.370, to read as follows:

           1.370. 1. As used in this section, “political subdivision” means any state, county, incorporated city, unincorporated city, public local entity, public-private partnership, and any other public entity of the state, a county, or city.

           2. Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Missouri Constitution.

           3. Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the state of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering into any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.

[emphasis added]

Agenda 21. Heh.

Previously: SB 265: tinfoil hats – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 11, 2013)

An op-ed by Jim Staab, Professor of Political Science at the University of Central Missouri  [submitted by the author]:

The Anti-Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution.  Believing that the proposed Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, particularly the Senate and the presidency, they voted against ratification.  Patrick Henry, the fiery Anti-Federalist from Virginia, did not attend the Constitutional Convention because, in his words, “I smelt a Rat.”  The tea party is the modern-day version of the Anti-Federalists.  They are vehemently anti-government and are quick to label all federal programs as “socialist.”  They would strongly support Henry’s famous quip: “Give me liberty or give me death.”  The government shutdown is the latest example of the tea party’s anti-government zealotry.  Not happy with Obamacare, the tea party is attempting to highjack the law by shutting down the government, and the leadership in the House of Representatives has lacked the political courage to stand up to this fringe element of the party.  

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010.  Congress and the president passed the law with the following facts in mind:  15 percent of the American people were uninsured; health care costs account for 17 percent of the national economy; most insurance companies excluded coverage for pre-existing injuries or illnesses; and there was substantial cost-shifting in the current system.  Those who did not have insurance (either because they could not afford it or they did not think they needed it) passed on the cost of required medical services to current policy holders in the form of higher premiums.  On average the cost of uncompensated care raised family health insurance policies by $1,000 per year.  In an attempt to make health care more affordable for all Americans, ACA prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and imposes an individual mandate.  With a few exceptions, all Americans are required to purchase health care.  By bringing more people into the system, the federal government contends that the cost of insurance will go down.  Those on the left, who wanted a single-payer system, criticized the president for not going far enough.  Obamacare ironically originated with the conservative Heritage Foundation, which proposed the individual mandate as a way of accomplishing near universal health care while still maintaining private insurance.  The individual mandate was first tried in Massachusetts, during Governor Romney’s tenure as governor, and it has largely been successful.  After careful scrutiny in the federal courts, including 5 and 1/2 hours of oral argument at the Supreme Court, the nation’s highest tribunal upheld Obamacare in 2012.  While the law could certainly have been sustained pursuant to Congress’s commerce power, a majority of the Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the law pursuant to Congress’s taxing power.  

If one opposes Obamacare (as many of the tea partiers do), there are a number of democratic options to take.  The most obvious method is to repeal the law.  On 37 occasions House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare, but they haven’t had the constitutionally-required support of the Senate.  Another democratic way to change the law is for the American people to elect public officials who promise to repeal it.   That hasn’t happened.  Despite the best efforts of Mitch McConnell, the minority Republican leader of the Senate, to see that President Obama would not be reelected, he was.  And despite the vulnerabilities Democrats faced in holding a majority in the Senate in 2012, they accomplished that too.  So, since the House Republicans have not been able to repeal Obamacare democratically, what has been their alternative?  They have chosen to tie the funding of Obamacare to the continued operations of the federal government.  Beginning October 1st, 800,000 federal employees have been furloughed, many federal agencies are not open for business, national parks and monuments are closed, some estimates predict the cost to the national economy will be $300 million daily, and a default on the national debt looms on October 17.  Congress’s approval rating stands at an all-time low (10 percent), and there’s little chance a government shutdown will improve matters.  I hope the American people will hold the tea party and the Republican leadership of the House responsible for the unfortunate, unnecessary, reckless, disgraceful, and ultimately harmful (domestically and internationally) shutdown of the U.S. federal government.

Today, at the top of the White House web site:

“Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site

may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries.”

That’s using your pulpit to smack down bullies. Heh.  

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 2013)

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly (May 9, 2013)

HB 436: nullification – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 10, 2013)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) – Missouri Boys State – June 17, 2013 – one word (June 17, 2013)

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the right wingnut gun nullification bill today. In his veto message [pdf] Teacher Jay Nixon had to spend time schooling the republican controlled General Assembly since they had obviously slept through all of their class sessions when the U.S. Constitution was covered:

July 5, 2013

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 21.750, 571.030, 571.101, 571.107, 571.117, and 590.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof fourteen new sections relating to firearms, with a penalty provision.

I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as well as an individual’s free exercise of speech protected by both the federal and state constitutions.

I. Violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 violates the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. A conflicts-of-law provision, the Supremacy Clause was designed to provide a mechanism to enforce federal acts and to resolve discord between state and federal laws that touch upon the same subject, giving precedence to the laws of the nation over those of the respective states.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the framers proposed a number of ideas to resolve conflict between state and federal law, including the Virginia Plan where Congress would have been given the direct power to “negative” or veto state laws. Ultimately, however, the Supremacy Clause was adopted – an idea derived from Alexander Hamilton’s federalist Paper No. 33 and James Madison’s Federalist paper No. 44, but proposed for inclusion in the Constitution by Anti-Federalist Luther Martin. It states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause becomes relevant when state law conflicts with federal statute, or when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or, as in the particular case of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436, when a state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941), see also Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000). By seeking to declare certain federal acts null and void, Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 seeks to turn the hierarchy of our national framework of laws on its head in clear violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 would deprive a federal agent of his or her authority to enforce certain federal acts within the state; indeed it would make such conduct a crime. The lineage of cases prohibiting this type of legislation dates back to 1819, when Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland, solidified the principle that the Supremacy Clause prevents states from regulating, interfering with, or controlling federal instrumentalities. 17 U.S. 316 (4 wheat.). Decades later, in Tennessee v. Davis, the Court reiterated this position: “No state government can exclude [a federal agency] from the exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution….” (100 U.S. 257 (1879)). And, in 1890, the Court ruled that a state does not have criminal jurisdiction over a federal agent who commits an act in the performance of his official functions. In re Neagle 135 U.S. 1.

Notwithstanding McCullough and its progeny, states have, from time to time, attempted to resurrect the pre-Civil war concept of nullification, an argument that individual states, either through legislation or state court ruling, can decide for themselves if a federal law is constitutional, all in an effort to distance a state from the reach of Congress. Counted among such efforts is now Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436, which seeks to not only prevent federal agents from performing their sworn duties within Missouri, but to exempt Missouri from a number of named and unnamed federal acts.

Of course, an individual state is not empowered to determine which federal laws it will comply with, nor is it empowered to declare a federal act to be unconstitutional. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the authority to declare a federal act unconstitutional is within the sole province of the federal courts. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821); see also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Notably, the federal acts targeted in the bill for nullification have not been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The doctrine of supremacy is logically sound as it is legally well-established. Consider how our nation’s efforts during the Second World war might have been frustrated if, following the passage of the Burke-Wadsworth Act, individual states could have exempted their citizens from selective service, or how one state’s economic prosperity might have been diminished if one or more contiguous states opted out of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, thereby making it more difficult to bring goods and services to market.

Still, nullification advocates often reference the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts (though the respective states chose not to assert that right). Jefferson and Madison argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters. However, a few years later in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court unanimously held that: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Nontheless, from the 1820s throughout the 2000s, nullification attempts periodically surfaced, but consistently failed. Shortly after McCullough, the Ohio legislature passed a resolution rejecting Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling and then legislatively imposed a tax on the federal bank. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Osborne v. Bank of the United States, held that Ohio’s tax was “repugnant to a law of the United States…and therefore void.” 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824).

More than a century later in Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court, relying on the Supremacy Clause, rejected attempts by the State of Arkansas to ignore its direction to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education, stating that nullification was not “a constitutional doctrine…[but] illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” 358 U.S. 1 (1958). At the time of the Brown decision, the Missouri Constitution of 1945 contained a provision that required separate schools based on race (Art IX, Sec. 1). However, Missouri properly recognized the legal authority of the United States Supreme Court and, soon after Brown, Attorney General John M. Dalton declared that the State Constitution and any statutes requiring segregation were “superseded by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and are, therefore, unenforceable….” Daugherty, B.J, & Bolton, C.C. With all deliberate speed: Implementing Brown v. Board of Education, 179. University of Arkansas Press, 2008. Also, the state board of education adopted a resolution stating its intent to implement Brown, and Governor Phil M. Donnely joined by stating that Missouri would follow Brown’s requirements.

Even recently, efforts to nullify federal laws have continued without success. The Supreme Court of Montana, swayed by the unique character of its state, mimicked Ohio’s defiance of McCullough in upholding a state law that limited contributions by corporations, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The  U.S. Supreme Court, confronted with the question of whether Citizens United applied to state law, unequivovally affirmed the long-standing supremacy doctrine by stating: “There can be no serious doubt that it does.” American trade partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 132 S.Ct. 2490 (2012).

II. Violates the Free Exercise of Speech protected by the State and Federal Constitutions

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 would also infringe upon an individual’s freedom of speech protected by the federal and state Constitutions by making it a crime to publish the name or other information or someone who owns a firearm.

There is no shortage of unacceptable scenarios that could result from this provision. As one example, newspapers around the state annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer. Under this bill, doing so would be a crime. Also, and somewhat ironically, a reporter who prints a photo of a local rally being held in support of gun rights could face up to a year in jail or a thousand dollar fine, or both.

In addition, a reporter would be precluded from writing or tweeting the name of a burglary victim who had his or her firearm stolen, or even from doing a story on a candidate in an upcoming General Assembly election if that candidate owns a firearm. Presumably, a reporter could not even attach her name to any story if she herself is a gun owner. Moreover, there is nothing in the bill’s broad prohibitive language that would prevent criminal charges if a firearm owner is mentioned in court records or police reports, or even by a private citizen on a social networking site. Such a list of examples is conceivably endless. That said, and putting aside the perplexing paradox of seeking to protect one constitutional right by significantly diminishing another, curtailing speech in such a manner clearly violates the free exercise of speech protected by the state and federal constitutions.

Conclusion

In light of Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the guarantee of an individual’s freedom of speech contained in both the federal and state Constitutions, as well as the vast and enduring case law affirming the supremacy doctrine and invalidating the concept of nullification, it can safely be determined that Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 is, in multiple respects, constitutionally impermissible.

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

Shorter Jay Nixon (D): maroons.

Thus spake the t-shirt. Yesterday, in west Central Missouri:

There is only one true amendment and it is good.

We didn’t ask about the birth certificate.

Previously:

HB 46: they need to prevent the government from spying on us through our toasters, also, too

Send in the drones clowns. There are priorities and then there are priorities. A bill, third read and passed on Thursday:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE BILL NO. 46

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

0371H.02P       D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 305, RSMo, by adding thereto four new sections relating to aerial surveillance, with an emergency clause.

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

           Section A. Chapter 305, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto four new sections, to be known as sections 305.635, 305.637, 305.639, and 305.641, to read as follows:

           305.635. 1. Sections 305.635 to 305.641 shall be known and may be cited as the “Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act”.

           2. As used in sections 305.635 to 305.641, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Drone”, any powered, aerial vehicle that:

           (a) Does not carry a human operator;

           (b) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;

           (c) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;

           (d) Can be expendable or recoverable; and

           (e) Can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload.

           (2) “Unmanned aircraft”, an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

           (3) “Manned Aircraft”, an aircraft that is operated by a human on board the aircraft.

           (4) “Model aircraft”, an unmanned aircraft that is:

           (a) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

           (b) Flown within visual line of sight of the person remotely operating the aircraft; and

           (c) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

           (5) “Law enforcement agency”, any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency in the state. The term law enforcement agency shall not include the Missouri department of corrections, or any state, county, or municipal fire department.

           305.637. 1. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant.

           2. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance or observation under the doctrine of open fields of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.

           3. No person, group of persons, entity, or organization, including, but not limited to, journalists, reporters, or news organizations, shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of any individual or property owned by an individual or business without the consent of that individual or property owner.

           305.639. 1. This act does not prohibit the use of a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft by:

           (1) A law enforcement agency when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this section, exigent circumstances exist if a law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary; or

           (2) A Missouri-based higher education institution conducting educational, research, or training programs within the scope of its mission, grant requirements, curriculum or collaboration with the United States Department of Defense.

           2. This act does not prohibit the use of a model aircraft.

           305.641. 1. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this act.

           2. No information obtained or collected in violation of this act may be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding in any court of law in the state or in an administrative hearing.

           3. Sovereign immunity for the state of Missouri is waived for any civil action resulting from a violation of sections 305.635 to 305.641.

           Section B. Because of the need to protect Missourians from invasions of privacy in the state, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect July 1, 2013, or upon its passage and approval, whichever later occurs.

[emphasis in original]

Really. All the black helicopters need when they start identifying people for the big round up into FEMA reeducation camps are those Gadsden flag license plates.

Who voted for this paranoid fantasy?:

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [pdf]

First Regular Session, 97th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FORTY-SIXTH DAY, THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2013

[….]

On motion of Representative Guernsey, HCS HB 46 was read the third time and passed by

the following vote:

AYES: 087

Allen Anderson Bahr Barnes Bernskoetter

Berry Brattin Burlison Cierpiot Conway 104

Cookson Cornejo Crawford Curtman Davis

Dohrman Dugger Ellington Elmer Entlicher

Fitzpatrick Fitzwater Flanigan Fraker Franklin

Frederick Funderburk Gatschenberger Gosen Guernsey

Haefner Hansen Hicks Hinson Hoskins

Hough Houghton Hurst Johnson Jones 50

Keeney Kelley 127 Koenig Kolkmeyer Korman

Lair Lant Leara Lichtenegger Love

Lynch McGaugh Messenger Morris Muntzel

Neth Parkinson Pfautsch Pike Pogue

Rehder Reiboldt Remole Rhoads Richardson

Riddle Ross Rowland Scharnhorst Schatz

Schieffer Shull Shumake Smith 85 Solon

Sommer Spencer Stream Swan Thomson

Torpey Walker Wieland Wilson Wood

Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 066

Anders Austin Black Burns Butler

Carpenter Colona Conway 10 Cox Cross

Curtis Dunn Ellinger Engler English

Englund Fowler Frame Gannon Gardner

Haahr Harris Higdon Hodges Hubbard

Hummel Justus Kelly 45 Kirkton Kratky

LaFaver Lauer Marshall May Mayfield

McCaherty McCann Beatty McDonald McManus McNeil

Meredith Miller Mims Mitten Montecillo

Morgan Neely Newman Nichols Norr

Otto Pace Phillips Pierson Rizzo

Roorda Rowden Runions Schieber Schupp

Swearingen Walton Gray Webb Webber White

Wright

Medicaid or jobs anyone?