Tag Archives: Missouri Supreme Court

Mark Alford (r): difficulty keeping up, as usual

10 Tuesday Sep 2024

Posted by in Congress, Mark Alford, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Mark Alford (r) [2024 file photo].

Pre 1973 2024 medical equipment.

This afternoon:

Congressman Mark Alford
[September 10, 2024]
Amendment 3 is a radical proposal that goes far beyond abortion. The Progressive Democrat tricksters pushing this measure completely misled the public about the real truth of Amendment 3 and the staggering scope of laws it would invalidate.
We cannot allow organizations to mislead voters like this, and today’s decision allowing Amendment 3 to remain on the ballot is a profound disappointment. It’s a loss for our Constitution, a loss for the people of Missouri, and a loss for Life.
As the Congressman for Missouri’s Fourth District, I’m committed to fighting for every constituent – born and unborn. We believe in life affirming care for the mother and the baby that God is growing inside of her.

Some of the responses:

I totally disagree. The Supreme Court overturned roe v wade making it a states issue. The people of the state will have an opportunity to vote to embed it in our states constitution. We will see what the people of Missouri have to say in November.

That’s what Mark Alford (r) is afraid of.

I thought you were for states’ right to vote on issues like this. Missouri’s republican legislature routinely overturns the will of the voters. We Are Not Going Back!
Vote blue for democracy, and you’ll only have to vote democratic this one time and in four years, you can go back to voting party lines, people! Listen to all the republicans who are voting for Harris/Walz because trump’s republican party isn’t the republican party anymore, but the party of Putin.

“Make America Great Again” – in Russian.

Inaccurate information on Amendment 3 has come from Missouri’s Secretary of State, Jay Ashcroft. Twice, Missouri judges have ruled that Secretary Ashcroft’s characterization of the proposed amendment was inaccurate, leading a Missouri (Republican) judge to rewrite the description of the amendment that will appear on the November ballot. Today, the Missouri Supreme Court directed Secretary Ashcroft to “take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot,”

Not misled. They read it and supported it. Now we all get to vote on it. As it should be. As a FEDERAL official you have NO say in this matter. Get to work on that budget CR.

That sounds great sir. Could you and your party stop using disinformation in your campaigns too? Most of the false information I read comes from the GOP.

How’s that working real hard for us not to be divided thing working out for ya??? Marky

I am confused. I thought this was NOT going to be on the ballot. Now it is?

Low information voter.

Yes, it Will be on the ballot. The People won today. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the People, despite all the foolery and lies spread by Bailey and Ashcroft.

Light on details, as usual Congressman Mark Alford

You’re full of it. The petition clearly outlined exactly how it would appear on the ballot. And it passed that test multiple times. What’s radical is the massive efforts taken to try to usurp the MO Constitution by Republicans.
Respect the law. And respect the people. Those voters will choose and your opinion doesn’t matter you sell out.

Bs, Alford. Quit spreading disinformation.

Your repeated lies about it won’t ever make it true. The Amendment is available for anyone to read. The People won today. The People will vote on November 5th. And the People overwhelming believe Healthcare decisions and Reproductive Rights are PRIVATE with no room or reason for government to be involved.

“We cannot allow organizations to mislead voters like this.”
That’s your calling card, Mark.
It’s simple: Read the actual amendment before voting.

More lies, Mark?
You know God hates liars, right?
Why are you so scared to let CITIZENS have their say?
Are they too dumb to read and understand what they’re voting on? Is that the level of confidence you have in them?

Previously:

Missouri Supreme Court: Amendment 3 is on the November 5, 2024 ballot (September 10, 2024)

Banana Republic – It’s a cult

01 Monday Jul 2024

Posted by in Eric Schmitt, social media, US Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“…Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop…”

Eric Schmitt
[July 1, 2024]
They thought they could bury Trump and hide Biden.
They were wrong on both accounts.

Fascist pig.

Some of the responses:

Trump buried himself. 30 lies in one debate!

If Trump can get out in front of a Jan 6th crowd & lie about voter machine fraud in Michigan to get them all worked up. Then tweet about his own Vice President which immediately was read to the mob by a loud speaker, having the mob begin to chant “Hang Pence” as they entered the Capital building, I think you’re right. Trumps capable of anything at this point.

That is a very pretty piece of propaganda, but has no more meaning behind it than ‘Plop, plop, fizz, fizz’.

Herr Schmitt has no idea what he is ranting about.

Never before have we had a president say in a debate @i did not have sex with a porn star” ( even though he appears in pictures with her and she and his attorney testified under oath that he did) while his wife was pregnant- what a bunch of SCUM

well for starters the Court more or less handed Trump a Drumhead, since now Biden can in theory go after Trump directly and say ex throw him in Gitmo or have him liquidated under this umbrella of full presidential immunity. Biden need not fear Congress or the Courts since he has been made King with this ruling. He can cancel elections and do essentially what Trump and the Heritage Foundation plan on doing with their Project 2025. So in truth Trump might just have played the wrong card

This why we can’t have nice things.

You misspelled CONVICT and HONOR. Let’s see what spews from your felonious supporting mouth on JULY 11.

34 felony convictions, just to be exact.

Eric Schmitt and his ass kissing

Eric Schmitt (r) [2022 file photo].

Previously:

Banana Republic (July 1, 2024)

Banana Republic – Rule of law? What rule of law? (July 1, 2024)

And Jay Ashcroft (r) wants to be governor

20 Monday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The slow walk by Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (r) has ended.

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2019 file photo].

This evening:

Missouri Supreme Court declines to consider appeal from Sec. of State Jay Ashcroft
By Joe McLean (KCTV5)
Published: Nov. 20, 2023 at 6:59 PM CST|Updated: 53 minutes ago
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KCTV) – The Missouri Supreme Court declined to take up an appeal from Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.

He was challenging an appeals court decision that ruled his ballot language for an abortion initiative was too biased and argumentative.

This means that the appeals court decision will stand — keeping the court-approved ballot language.

The court also declined to take up the case challenging the fiscal note summary, meaning the ballot will reflect the Auditor’s summary, not Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s “$12.5 billion” figure.

It also means that abortion rights activists will soon be able to begin collecting more than 171,000 signatures by May 6 in order to secure ballot access.

Remember next November.

Elad Gross For Missouri
[November 20, 2023]
Jay Ashcroft and Andrew Bailey appealed to Missouri’s Supreme Court in their attempt to issue biased language for the initiative petition to overturn our extreme abortion ban.
The Supreme Court just rejected their appeal.
Their attempts to run out the clock and stop Missourians from accessing the ballot has ended.

Elad Gross (D) [2023 file photo].

Previously:

Jay Ashcroft (r) spins frantically (November 3, 2023)

Next (November 8, 20223)

Ashcroft the Ballot Bully (November 12, 2023)

Mandamus

22 Saturday Jul 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Missouri Supreme Court rejects AG’s push to inflate cost of abortion-rights amendment
BY: JASON HANCOCK – JULY 20, 2023 1:46 PM

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s efforts to inflate the cost of an abortion-rights initiative petition were unanimously rejected by the state Supreme Court Thursday, just two days after judges heard arguments in the case.

The quick verdict, which was written by Judge Paul Wilson, was scathing in its opinion of Bailey’s refusal to sign off on the work of Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, concluding that nothing in state law “gives the attorney general authority to question the auditor’s assessment of the fiscal impact of a proposed petition.”

The ruling upheld Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem’s ruling last month ordering Bailey to sign off on Fitzpatrick’s fiscal summary within 24 hours.

[….]

Do your job, Andrew Bailey (r).

From the Missouri Supreme Court [No. SC100132] on Friday:

[….]

Dr. Anna Fitz-James (“Fitz-James”) filed a petition in the circuit court of Cole County seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Attorney General Andrew Bailey (“Attorney General”) to approve fiscal note summaries for 11 proposed initiative petitions she had filed with Secretary of State John Ashcroft(“Secretary”). After briefing and argument, the circuit court made permanent its writ of mandamus ordering the Attorney General to do so and to forward notice of that approval to State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick (“Auditor”). The Attorney General appealed, and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution.

Nothing in section 116.1751 gives the Attorney General authority to question the Auditor’s assessment of the fiscal impact of a proposed petition. Instead, the Attorney General’s authority extends only to reviewing the “legal content and form” of the fiscal notes and summaries prepared by the Auditor, not their substance. Because the circuit court in this case did not err in finding there was no defect in the “legal form and content” of the fiscal note summaries prepared by the Auditor concerning Fitz-James’s proposed initiative petitions, the Attorney General’s refusal to perform the plain, unequivocal, and ministerial duty of approving those summaries (and informing the Auditor he has done so) cannot be justified. The Attorney General was to have performed that task within 10 days of receiving the fiscal notes and summaries from the Auditor, a period that expired more than three months ago. Accordingly, the circuit court’s decision to make permanent its writ of mandamus requiring the Attorney General to perform that duty is affirmed.

[….]

The Auditor disagreed and, on April 21, resubmitted the original fiscal notes and fiscal note summaries to the Attorney General. The Auditor informed the Attorney General that the fiscal notes and summaries complied with the requirements set forth in chapter 116 and that the Attorney General exceeded his review authority under section 116.175.4. On May 1, the Attorney General notified the Auditor that he disagreed and refused to approve the fiscal notes and summaries and that he had fulfilled his statutory duties.

Because of this logjam, the Secretary could not – and, to this day, cannot – complete his duty by certifying the official ballot titles for the proposed petitions. The ballot title is comprised of two parts: a “summary statement” and the fiscal note summary. § 116.180. Pursuant to section 116.334.1, the Secretary prepared a “summary statement” for each of the proposed petitions and sent them to the Attorney General for his review as to “legal content and form.” The Attorney General approved them and notified the Secretary of that approval. Under section 116.180, however, the Secretary cannot certify the official ballot title for any of the proposed petitions until he receives both the approved summary statement and the approved fiscal note summary (as well as the fiscal note) pertaining to that proposed petition. Because the Attorney General refuses to perform his duty, neither the Auditor nor the Secretary can perform his.

[….]

Conclusion

This Court has often repeated the importance of the right to initiative enshrined in the Missouri Constitution:

Nothing in our constitution so closely models participatory democracy in its pure form. Through the initiative process, those who have no access to or influence with elected representatives may take their cause directly to the people. The people, from who all constitutional authority is derived, have reserved the “power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the Constitution.”

[….]

…If technical formalities cannot stand in the way, a failure to perform a clear and unequivocal duty must not be allowed to do so either. If the Attorney General had complied with his duty to approve the Auditor’s fiscal note summaries in the time prescribed by section 116.175.4, the Secretary would have certified the official ballot titles for Fitz-James’s initiative petitions nearly 100 days ago.

For the reasons set for above, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

[….]

And that is what you call a slam dunk.

Previously:

Things > People (May 17, 2023)

Who? What? Who? (May 23, 2023)

Per curiam

23 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by in Healthcare, Missouri General Assembly

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

“Listen to the people” “Medicaid expansion is good for Missouri’s health” [July 1, 2021, Jefferson City, Missouri]

Yesterday:

Crystal Quade @crystal_quade
My statement on the Supreme Court upholding the Medicaid expansion amendment:

Today’s unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision is a complete vindication for those who have worked to expand health care access and a thorough rejection of those willing to defy Missouri voters
[….]
1/2
12:22 PM · Jul 22, 2021

Crystal Quade @crystal_quade
…and ignore the rule of law to stop it from happening. We expect the trial judge will follow the Supreme Court’s clear direction and promptly order the state to begin providing Medicaid services to the expanded population as mandated by the Missouri Constitution.

2/2 #MoLeg
12:22 PM · Jul 22, 2021

House Democratic Minority Leader Crystal Quade [2018 file photo].

In the Missouri Constitution:

IV Section 36(c). MO HealthNet expansion — eligibility — state plan amendments — maximization of federal participation — limitation on burdens or restrictions. — 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, beginning July 1, 2021, individuals nineteen years of age or older and under sixty-five years of age who qualify for MO HealthNet services under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and as set forth in 42 C.F.R. 435.119, and who have income at or below one hundred thirty-three percent of the federal poverty level plus five percent of the applicable family size as determined under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(e)(14) and as set forth in 42 C.F.R. 435.603, shall be eligible for medical assistance under MO HealthNet and shall receive coverage for the health benefits service package.

  2. For purposes of this section “health benefits service package” shall mean benefits covered by the MO HealthNet program as determined by the department of social services to meet the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage requirement under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(k)(1) and any implementing regulations.

  3. No later than March 1, 2021, the Department of Social Services and the MO HealthNet Division shall submit all state plan amendments necessary to implement this section to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

  4. The Department of Social Services and the MO HealthNet Division shall take all actions necessary to maximize federal financial participation in funding medical assistance pursuant to this section.

  5. No greater or additional burdens or restrictions on eligibility or enrollment standards, methodologies, or practices shall be imposed on persons eligible for MO HealthNet services pursuant to this section than on any other population eligible for medical assistance.

  6. All references to federal or state statutes, regulations or rules in this section shall be to the version of those statutes, regulations or rules that existed on January 1, 2019.

­­——–

(Adopted August 4, 2020)

Yesterday, from the Missouri Supreme Court:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc

STEPHANIE DOYLE, et al., Opinion issued July 22, 20212 No. SC99185
Appellants,
LUKE BARBER and CHRISTINE )
CHANEY,
Appellants,

v.

JENNIFER TIDBALL, et al.,
Respondents.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
The Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Judge

PER CURIAM

Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille, and Autumn Stultz, three Missourians who are eligible for MO HealthNet coverage under article IV, section 36(c) of the Missouri Constitution, (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit challenging the refusal by the Department of Social Services (“DSS”) to provide that coverage because the General Assembly failed to appropriate adequate funding. The circuit court rejected Plaintiffs’ claims because it found the ballot initiative that enacted article IV, section 36(c) violated article III, section 51 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits initiatives from appropriating money without creating revenue to fund the initiative. Because article IV, section 36(c) does not appropriate money and does not remove the General Assembly’s discretion in appropriating money to MO HealthNet, the circuit court erred in declaring article IV, section 36(c) constitutionally invalid. The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the cause remanded for the circuit court to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs, which includes determination of the appropriate injunctive relief.

[….]

Nothing in article IV, section 36(c) deprives the General Assembly of its discretion and requires it to appropriate a specified amount for MO HealthNet services and benefits. The General Assembly maintains the discretion to decide whether and to what extent it will appropriate money for MO HealthNet programs. 4 Even though it is highly possible the General Assembly appropriated less money than MO HealthNet programs are estimated to cost in FY 2022, the consequences of failing to fund MO HealthNet fully at the outset or even with a supplemental appropriation are not before this Court because they are not relevant to whether article IV, section 36(c) violates article III, section 51. Because article IV, section 36(c) does not expressly appropriate money for MO HealthNet nor deprive the General Assembly of discretion and require it to appropriate money for its purposes, it does not violate article III, section 51.

[….]

The General Assembly chose to appropriate funds for the MO HealthNet programs for FY 2022. This was one of presumably thousands of difficult decisions made each year during the appropriation process. But, having made this decision, DSS and MO HealthNet are bound by article IV, section 36(c) concerning which individuals are eligible to enroll when it spends the appropriated funds. Consequently, DSS has appropriation authority to provide services for all individuals eligible for MO HealthNet, including individuals eligible for coverage and services pursuant to article IV, section 36(c).

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed only insofar as it overruled the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene. In all other respects, the judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs, which includes determination of the appropriate injunctive relief.

All concur.

“All concur”.

“Medicaid expansion is the law of the land” [July 1, 2021, Jefferson City, Missouri]

The Heavens open, the light begins to shine on the darkness

29 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

It isn’t called “the Missouri Sunshine Law” for nothing.

Elad Gross (D) [2020 file photo].

Today the Missouri Supreme Court said [pdf]:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc

ELAD GROSS, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL PARSON, et al., Respondents.

No. SC98619
Opinion issued June 29, 2021

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
The Honorable Patricia Joyce, Judge

Elad Gross appeals the circuit court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of Governor Michael Parson and the custodian of records for the governor’s office, Michelle Hallford (collectively, “the Governor’s Office”). The underlying lawsuit filed by Mr. Gross involves two public records requests he made under the Sunshine Law, sections 610.010-.035.

Mr. Gross claims the circuit court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings because the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it: required Mr. Gross to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney-review time; arbitrarily refused to waive the fees associated with his first request; failed to explain its estimated delay in producing certain requested records; and impermissibly redacted [….] certain records. Mr. Gross claims some or all of these violations were knowing and purposeful. He also alleges the circuit court misapplied the law by assigning him – not the Governor’s office – the burden of demonstrating the redaction of portions of the records complied with the Sunshine Law.

For the reasons set forth below, the circuit court’s judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded.
[….]

Facts in the case:

….In 2018, Mr. Gross sent the Governor’s Office two requests for public records pursuant to Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In August 2018, Mr. Gross first sought “[a]ny and all records, communications, documents, emails, reports, and other material” sent from or received by the Governor’s Office from 27 specific individuals or entities after January 9, 2017, i.e., between January 9, 2017, and the processing of Mr. Gross’s request. [….] Mr. Gross says his request was made as part of his investigation into the use of “dark money” by nonprofit organizations in Missouri. Mr. Gross ended his request by noting where responsive documents should be sent and requesting a waiver of all fees related to his request….

….On October 12, 2018, the Governor’s Office provided records in response to Mr. Gross’s second request. The responsive records were separated into two sets. “Set A” [….] contained 17 pages, two of which were partially redacted. “Set B” contained 40 pages, none of which were redacted. In addition to the responsive documents, the Governor’s Office informed Mr. Gross it decided to waive the fees for his second request. The Governor’s Office did not, however, provide a further response regarding Mr. Gross’s first request….

….After filing its answer, the Governor’s Office filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging Mr. Gross’s claims fail, as a matter of law. In particular, the Governor’s Office alleged Mr. Gross’s fee-waiver claim fails because the Governor’s Office has [….] discretion to waive fees; Mr. Gross’s excessive-fee claim fails because attorney review time is chargeable to a requester and $40 per hour is the hourly rate of the lowest-paid attorney who works for the Governor’s Office; Mr. Gross’s claim regarding the inadequate timeline provided by the Governor’s Office fails because the 120-day estimate is reasonable given the scope of Mr. Gross’s request; no improper redaction occurred because the Sunshine Law “authorizes the redaction of closed information, which includes attorney-client privileged communications”; and Mr. Gross’s allegations regarding “knowing” or “purposeful” violations of the Sunshine Law are based only on speculation. On July 8, 2019, the circuit court sustained the motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment in favor of the Governor’s Office….

The gist of the appeal:

….On appeal, Mr. Gross claims the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In 10 points relied on, Mr. Gross offers 10 different legal reasons to support his position. First, he claims the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it required him to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney review time. Second, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with the earliest date upon which the records in his first request would be available. Third, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with a detailed explanation of why it required at least 120 business days to produce documents in response to his first request. Fourth, Mr. Gross alleges he properly pleaded the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it redacted certain records in response to his second request without explanation and without closing any records. Fifth, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in holding he had the burden of demonstrating the Governor’s Office did not comply with the Sunshine Law when, under the Sunshine Law, it is the Governor’s Office’s burden to demonstrate compliance with the law when redacting public records. In his sixth and seventh points, Mr. Gross alleges he adequately pleaded the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first and second requests, respectively. In his eighth and ninth points, Mr. Gross alleges he adequately pleaded the [….] Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first and second requests, respectively. Tenth, and lastly, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office abused its discretion in violation of the Missouri and United States constitutions by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in denying his request for a fee waiver or reduction associated with his first request….

Point by point:

….In his first point, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it required him to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney review time. Mr. Gross avers the Sunshine Law does not authorize the Governor’s Office to charge him for attorney review time.

[….]

….Because the Sunshine Law does not authorize a public governmental body to charge a requester for attorney review time, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In this respect, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his second claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with the earliest date records in his first request would be available for inspection…

[….]

Because the pleadings show the Governor’s Office provided Mr. Gross with a time estimate of 120 business days from payment rather than the exact calendar date upon which Mr. Gross could inspect the requested records, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In this respect, the [….] circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his third claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated section 610.023.3 when it advised Mr. Gross it would take at least 120 business days to produce documents responsive to his first request without providing him with a detailed explanation as to why it required at least 120 business days…

[….]

… Because section 610.023.3 requires a public governmental body to provide a “detailed explanation” when records are not immediately made available and the pleadings do not show the Governor’s Office did so, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. With respect to Mr. Gross’s claim that the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law by failing to provide a detailed explanation for the delay associated with his first request, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his fourth claim, Mr. Gross alleges he properly pleaded the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it redacted certain records in his second request without explanation…

[….]

….Mr. Gross’s pleading sufficiently alleged the Governor’s Office violated the law when it redacted records responsive to his second request. In this respect, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his fifth claim, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court misapplied the law when it concluded he had the burden of demonstrating the Governor’s Office did not comply with the Sunshine Law when it made the relevant redactions….

[….]

A requester does not have the burden to show noncompliance when an open record is redacted. The circuit court’s conclusion that Mr. Gross must have pleaded “more” than unexplained redaction is erroneous….

….In his sixth claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first records request and he sufficiently pleaded the Governor’s Office committed knowing violations….

[….]

…Mr. Gross has sufficiently alleged the Governor’s Office acted knowingly; therefore, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In consequence, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to this issue….

….In his seventh claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his second sunshine request when it redacted two records it provided to him. Mr. Gross also claims he sufficiently pleaded that a knowing violation occurred. The Governor’s Office alleges its redactions were proper and Mr. Gross failed to plead otherwise sufficiently. The circuit court held Mr. Gross did not plead any facts “support[ing] even an inference that the Governor’s Office engaged in any conduct to knowingly . . . violate the Sunshine Law.” This conclusion was erroneous….

…In his eighth and ninth claims, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Counts III and VII of his petition. Count III alleges the Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first request, and Count VII alleges the Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his second request….

[….]

…These allegations sufficiently allege the Governor’s Office had an intent to violate the law. The Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, on the face of the pleadings; therefore, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in regard to Counts III and VII of Mr. Gross’s petition….

….In his tenth and final claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated “Missouri statutory and case law, the Missouri Constitution, and the United States Constitution” and “abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in denying [his] request for [the Governor’s Office] to waive or reduce fees associated with his first [….] Sunshine Request.” While his point relied on mentions “Missouri statutory and case law,”
Mr. Gross’s argument alleges only constitutional violations….

[….]

…Because Mr. Gross failed to raise this issue in the circuit court and never sought to amend his pleadings, his constitutional claims have not been preserved for appellate review….

Go. Read the whole thing.

Openness and transparency are supposed to be an essential element when it comes to government in Missouri. Not always in practice. There are a lot of people who should know better.

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].

HB 1413 (2018): All that labor

01 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Today, from the Missouri Supreme Court:

“The exemption of public safety labor organizations violates principles of equal protection. The exemption of public safety labor organizations permeates throughout HB 1413 and reaches all provisions. The operation of this exemption forces this Court to declare HB 1413 void in its entirety rather than sever the offending provision. The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.”

Void. In. Its. Entirety.

In 2018 HB 1413 was introduced as this:

HB 1413 — LABOR ORGANIZATIONS [pdf]
SPONSOR: Taylor

This bill prohibits any sum from being withheld from the earnings of a public employee for the payment of any portion of dues, agency shop fees, or other fees paid by public employee members of a public labor organization or a public employee who is a nonmember except upon the annual written or electronic authorization of the employee.

A public labor organization is prohibited from using or obtaining any portion of dues, agency shop fees, or any other fees paid by member and nonmember public employees to make political campaign contributions or expenditures unless it obtains a written or electronic authorization from the member or nonmember within the previous 12 months.

Failure to provide any written or electronic authorization shall not be a condition of employment.

This bill further requires public labor organizations to maintain financial records, identical to those required by federal law (29 U.S.C. 431(b)), for no less than five years. Each report required under this section must be made available to employees in a searchable electronic format. If a public labor organization fails to make the reports available to an employee, that employee will have a cause of action against the organization.

This bill is the same as HB 251 (2017).

And it morphed and was approved as this:

SS#2 SCS HB 1413 — LABOR ORGANIZATIONS [pdf]

This bill makes various changes to the laws regarding public employees, public employee labor organizations, and labor agreements between those labor organizations and public bodies. However, public safety labor organizations, and employees of the Department of Corrections are exempted from the bill’s provisions (Section 105.503, RSMo).

The bill provides that no sum shall be withheld from a public employee’s earnings to pay dues or other fees to a public labor organization without annual authorization. Labor organizations are required to maintain financial records substantially similar to federal law, and must make the records available to employees in a searchable electronic format (Section 105.505).

The bill requires labor organizations to adopt a constitution and bylaws and file a copy with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, along with a report containing specified information about the organization. Labor organizations are also required to annually file a report detailing the organization’s financial condition and operations. The financial report shall be in an electronic, readily accessible format available to its members (Section 105.533).

This bill requires every officer and employee of a labor organization to annually file a report listing any legal or equitable interest, income, or transaction the person, his or her spouse, or minor child received or derived from a labor organization or public body with employees that the labor organization represents or is seeking to represent (Section105.535).

The reports and documents filed with the department under the provisions of this bill are public records. The department must allow for the inspection and examination of the reports and documents, as specified in the bill, and furnish copies upon payment of the service (Section 105.540).

Each person required to file a report shall maintain, for at least five years, sufficient records to verify the information contained in the report. Each labor organization shall file a report within 90 days of becoming subject to the provisions of this bill, and people required to file reports shall file such reports within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year (Sections 105.545 and 105.550).

Any person who knowingly violates certain provisions of the bill related to the required reports or files a false report is subject to a fine or imprisonment of not more than a year (Section 105.555).

The bill provides that supervisory public employees, as defined in the bill, shall not be included in the same bargaining unit as the public employees they supervise and that the same labor organization shall not represent both non-supervisory and supervisory public employees (Section 105.570).

Recognition may only be obtained by a labor organization through an election before the State Board of Mediation. Voluntary recognition by a public body is prohibited. An election by secret ballot will be held after the board is presented with cards containing signatures of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The bill specifies the ballot language to be used for the selection of a labor organization as the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit. More than 50% of all public employees within the bargaining unit must vote positively to certify the labor organization as the exclusive representative. However, public employees of the bargaining unit may seek to decertify the labor organization at any time with a subsequent election provided that the board is presented with signed cards representing at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit. If more than 50% of the bargaining unit votes to decertify the labor organization then it shall no longer be recognized as the exclusive representative.

Labor organizations must be recertified every three years. No more than one election shall take place in any bargaining unit within a 12-month period. The board shall collect a fee from each labor organization participating in an election (Section 105.575).

Within eight weeks of a certification election, the labor organization shall meet and begin bargaining with representatives of the public body. No labor organization shall refuse to meet with the representatives of the public body.

Bargaining for renewal agreements shall take place triennially, provided that those labor agreements must be subject to certain limitations. Such limitations include management reserving the right to hire, discipline, and discharge employees; reserving the right to make and amend reasonable work rules; prohibiting all strikes and picketing; extending the duty of fair representation to all employees of the bargaining unit; prohibiting labor
organization employees from accepting paid time by a public body for conducting labor organization business with certain exceptions; and providing for the modification of the agreement in the event of a budget shortfall (Sections 105.580 and 105.585).

A labor organization, or associated representative, or public body, or associated representative, that violates the provisions of this bill is subject to a civil action for appropriate relief, including injunctive relief. Attorneys’ fees shall be awarded for the enforcement of the provisions of this bill (Section 105.595).

The provisions of the bill shall apply to personal care attendants and their labor organizations, as well as all officers and employees of such organizations (Section 208.862)

Ah, piling on.

The Missouri Supreme Court today:

…The State’s argument in favor of severance of the exemption is illogical in that the result would make public labor law reform applicable to public safety labor organizations, which the legislature specifically excluded. The exemption is not concerned with a singular provision or aspect of the bill; rather, it provides an exemption from the overall statutory scheme itself, which consists of approximately 20 sections. Even without giving weight to the late addition of the exemption in the legislative process, this Court refuses to sever the exemption and make this public labor reform law applicable to public safety labor organizations when the legislature contemplated this application and intentionally crafted section 105.503.2(1) to avoid such an outcome…

The anti-labor right wingnuts in the General Assembly were just too clever.

…This Court cannot say the legislature would have enacted the valid provisions of HB 1413 without this void one. If the legislature desired to pass a scheme imposing reform provisions to all public labor organizations, it had the opportunity to do so. But it did not; it specifically provided the reform provisions would not apply to public safety labor organizations. This Court will not, by severance, leave in place legislation contrary to the legislature’s intent. By its plain language, section 105.503.2(1) is essentially and inseparably connected with all other provisions of HB 1413; therefore, HB 1413 must be declared void in its entirety…

Yep, the General Assembly was trying to be much too clever.

So, organized labor organizations are organized labor organizations. Do you wonder why that “exemption” existed in the first place?

Severability is a double edged sword.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk – part 2

12 Friday Jul 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“…You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…”

Today the Missouri Supreme Court refused to intervene in the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals ruling that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) [2019 file photo].

From the Missouri ACLU:

ACLU Win Affirmed, But Ashcroft Continues to Prevent Vote
July 12, 2019 – 4:00pm

Today, the Missouri Supreme Court let stand the Court of Appeals holding that Secretary of State Ashcroft acted outside his legal authority by rejecting the referendum petition on Missouri’s abortion ban. This recognition that Ashcroft acted illegally should prevent him from ever again abusing his office to derail the people’s right to challenge legislation by referendum.

Unfortunately, Ashcroft is continuing to obstruct the people’s vote by dragging his feet in his quest to deny the people a say on Missouri’s extreme 8-week abortion ban. If he acted promptly, supporters could begin to gather signatures by July 18 at the latest. But Ashcroft seems intent to slow the process so that supporters will not have enough time to collect enough signatures.

“It is no secret that Ashcroft’s agenda is banning abortion in Missouri,” says Anthony Rothert, interim Executive Director at the ACLU of Missouri. “While it is fantastic that the courts have made clear that he acted illegally, he may well succeed in preventing voters from getting their say on this important issue. Ashcroft’s tenure as Missouri’s chief election officer continues to be marked by efforts to prevent Missourians from voting.”

If Ashcroft had not illegally rejected the referendum petition, then he would have had to certify the petition for signature gathering by July 18. He will not meet that deadline, which in turn denies a meaningful opportunity to collect signatures, which must be submitted by August 28.

We reject the idea that Missourians can be denied the right to a referendum because of the unlawful action of an elected official determined to take away constitutional rights. The people kept for themselves the right of referendum to safeguard Missourians from an overzealous, out-of-touch government. No matter how they would vote on the referendum, every Missourian is harmed by Ashcroft’s abuse of this office to serve his radical anti-abortion agenda.

Our fight is not over. We continue to push Ashcroft to his job by certifying ballot language by July 18. Should he fail to do so, we will not let Missourians forget that he has taken the fate of the abortion ban away from the voters of Missouri.

Ironic isn’t it? Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) gets away with doing his job poorly. In Missouri republican circles that’s considered a feature, not a bug.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

So this happened today (July 9, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk (July 10, 2019)

Missouri Supreme Court: St. Louis can indeed establish a higher minimum wage

28 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In 2015 the City of St. Louis, by ordinance, established a higher minimum wage than the state. A few people took exception to that. Today, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city can have a higher minimum wage than the one established by the state:

[SC95401, Cooperative Home Care, Inc., et al. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. Appeal from the St. Louis circuit court, Judge Steven R. Ohmer Argued and submitted October 6, 2016; opinion issued February 28, 2017]

…This Court also holds that Missouri’s minimum wage law, section 290.502, considered alone or in conjunction with section 71.010, does not occupy the field of minimum wage laws, nor does it prohibit the adoption of local minimum wage ordinances such as Ordinance 70078. Section 290.502 prohibits employers from paying employees a wage lower than the state minimum, and nothing in the statute prevents local governments from adopting locally higher minimum wages…

[….]

…As Ordinance 70078 does not permit the payment of less than the state minimum wage, it is not in conflict with that law. It simply supplements the state law by setting additional local limits on the minimum amount an employer can pay an employee. Its purpose is consistent with that of the state minimum wage law; by its terms, it was enacted “to promote the general welfare, health, and prosperity of the City of St. Louis by ensuring that workers can better support and care for their families and fully participate in the community.” Here, the state established a floor for employee wages, and St. Louis simply raised that floor for local employees based on local conditions. Finding no reason to diverge from well-established precedent, this Court holds Ordinance 70078 does not conflict with Missouri’s minimum wage law…

[….]

Working people catch a break for once.

SC92282: House redistricting suit is rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court

27 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

From the Missouri court system:

SC92282 – SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

Date Filed: 01/23/2012 Location: SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Case Type: AP Writ of Prohibition Disposition: Case Disposed- By Order

From the docket entries:

SC92282 – SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

01/26/2012   Case Disposed- By Order

  PER CURIAM ORDER ISSUED. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. CAUSE DISPOSED BY PER CURIAM ORDER. ORDER: MOTION TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 84.22(A) SUSTAINED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION, AND FINDING THIS CASE, UNLIKE STATE EX REL. TEICHMAN VS. CARNAHAN, NO. SC92237, DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2012, INVOLVES DISPUSTED ISSUES OF FACT, THE PETITION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT TO RESOLVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO PEARSON V. KOSTER, NO. SC92200, DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2012. UPON THIS MATTER BEING FILED IN THE CIRUCIT COURT, THAT COURT SHALL EXPEDITE THIS MATTER TO ENSURE A PROMPT DECISION IN THIS ELECTION CASE. SEE PEARSON V. KOSTER AND STATE EX REL. TEICHMAN VS. CARNAHAN.

Translation: This ain’t like the Senate redistricting which we threw out and we ordered them to start over. If you want to do so, file it in District Court. If this case is filed in that venue that court shall move quickly.

The parties in the case:

SC92282 – SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

JOHNSON , BOB , Relator

BRAY , JOAN , Relator

GERLING , GEOFF , Relator

OTTO , BILL , Relator  

NETH , MYRON , Relator  

SALTER , KIT , Relator

SALTER , CATHY , Relator    

WORTHINGTON , JAMES , Relator  

NICHOLS , MARY FONTANA , Relator  

STEINMETZ , KURT , Relator

OSMAN , DAN , Relator

HOLLIGER , ROBERT , Relator  

HOLLIGER , WILLA , Relator  

COX , JEFF , Relator  

CARNAHAN , ROBIN , Respondent     represented by     MORGAN , JEREMIAH JOSEPH , Assistant Attorney General

STATE OF MISSOURI , Intervenor     represented by     LAYTON , JAMES ROBERT , Assistant Attorney General

Any bets on the start of filing for office being on time?