Tag Archives: Missouri Supreme Court

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?

Missouri Supreme Court to Margaret Donnelly: not here, not now

28 Thursday Aug 2008

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Mo. AG candidate files new suit contesting ballots

Associated Press – August 26, 2008 6:24 PM ET

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) – Losing Democratic attorney general candidate Margaret Donnelly has been rebuffed on procedural grounds by the Missouri Supreme Court in her quest for a review of uncounted ballot.

But Donnelly has quickly re-filed her lawsuit in Clay County Circuit Court…

tiny URL

So, the lawsuit was filed in Clay County:

08CY-CV08262 – MARGARET DONNELLY ET AL V SANDY COLLOP ET AL

Judge Assigned: HARMAN, LARRY DALE Date Filed: 08/26/2008

Location: Clay Case Type: CC Other Miscellaneous Actions

Disposition: Not Disposed

Who got sued?:

It’s a long list.

08CY-CV08262 – MARGARET DONNELLY ET AL V SANDY COLLOP ET AL

DONNELLY , MARGARET , Plaintiff     represented by     RHYNE , RICHARD DALY , Attorney for Plaintiff

68 LAKE FOREST DRIVE

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63117

2345 GRAND BOULEVARD

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

DOE , JOHN , Plaintiff     represented by     RHYNE , RICHARD DALY , Attorney for Plaintiff

2345 GRAND BOULEVARD

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

COLLOP , SANDY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF ADAIR COUNTY

106 W WASHINGTON, 2ND FLOOR

KIRKSVILLE, MO 63501

HARVEY , SHELLEY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF AUDRAIN COUNTY

101 N JEFFERSON, ROOM 101

MEXICO, MO 65265

CONWAY , PAT , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF BUCHANAN CO

411 JULES, ROOM 121

SAINT JOSEPH, MO 64501

REINHART , DAVE , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF CLAY COUNTY

100 W MISSISSIPPI STREET

LIBERTY, MO 64068

EVANS , PATTY , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF CLAY COUNTY

100 W MISSISSIPPI STREET

LIBERTY, MO 64068

KEMPF , DARRYL , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF COOPER COUNTY

200 MAIN STREET, ROOM 23

BOONVILLE, MO 65233

DOOR , DEBBIE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF FRANKLIN CO

400 E LOCUST, STE 201

UNION, MO 63084

NICHOLS , ROBERT C JR , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF THE BOARD F ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON CO

215 N LIBERTY ST

INDEPENDENCE, MO 64051

DAVIS , CHARLENE , Defendant    

CO-DIR F THE BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON CO

215 N LIBERTY STREET

INDEPENDENCE, MO 64051

WAGNER , WES , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF JEFFERSON CO

729 MAPLE ST, ROOM 217

HILLSBORO, MO 63050

KIEFFER , SHAWN , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY

1828 WALNUT, SUITE 300

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

MCTHOMAS , SHELLEY , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY

1828 WALNUT, SUITE 300

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

CHRISTOPHER , KELLY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF LIVINGSTON CO

700 WEBSTER STREET, SUITE 10

CHILLICOTHE, MO 64601

GROEPPER , ANITA E , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF MONITEAU CO

200 E MAIN STREET, ROOM 106

CALIFORNIA, MO 65018

ERICKSON , MARY BETH , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF PLATTE CO

2600 NW PRAIRIE VIEW ROAD

PLATTE CITY, MO 64079

FLANIGAN , WENDY M , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF PLATTE CO

2600 NW PRAIRIE VIEW ROAD

PLATTE CITY, MO 64079

CHRISMER , RICH , Defendant    

ST CHARLES CO ELECTION AUTHORI

397 TURNER BLVD

SAINT PETERS, MO 63376

JONES , MARY WHEELER , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF ST LOUIS CITY

300 N TUCKER

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101

LINENDECKER , SCOTT , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF ST LOUIS CITY

300 N TUCKER

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101

DONAHUE , JOE , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSION OF ST LOUIS COUNTY

12 SUNNEN DRIVE, STE 126

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63143

GOEKE , JOSEPH , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSION OF ST LOUIS COUNTY

12 SUNNEN DRIVE, STE 126

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63143

REGISTER , MARVIN , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – COLE COUNTY

311 E HIGH STREET, ROOM 201

JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

LUCK , ELAINE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – LINCOLN COUNTY

201 MAIN STREET

TROY, MO 63379

WILLIAMS , BARBARA , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – MCDONALD COUNTY

602 MAIN STREET

PINEVILLE, MO 64856

BAUM , KAY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – NEWTON COUNTY

101 S WOOD STREET

NEOSHO, MO 64850

BRYANT , KENNETH R , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – SALINE COUNTY

101 E ARROW, ROOM 202

MARSHALL, MO 65340

TAYLOR , SUSETTE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – ATCHISON COUNTY

400 S WASHINGTON

ROCK PORT, MO 64482

SMITH , CONNIE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – CRAWFORD COUNTY

203 MAIN STREET

STEELVILLE, MO 65565

STEWARD , LINDA , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – DAVIESS COUNTY

102 N MAIN STREET

GALLATIN, MO 64640

BERRY , MARY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – DEKALB COUNTY

109 N MAIN STREET

MAYSVILLE, MO 64469

REIDLINGER , CAROL , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – GENTRY COUNTY

200 W CLAY

ALBANY, MO 64402

BASIER , KAY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK-STE GENEVIEBE CTY

55 S THIRD STREET

SAINTE GENEVIEVE, MO 63670

CARNAHAN , ROBIN , Defendant    

SECRETARY OF STATE

STATE OF MISSOURI

600 WEST MAIN STREET

JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

KOSTER , CHRIS , Defendant    

1100 SOUTH MAIN STREET

HARRISONVILLE, MO 64701

And this is what’s happened so far:

08CY-CV08262 – MARGARET DONNELLY ET AL V SANDY COLLOP ET AL

08/26/2008

Docket Entry:   Pet Filed in Circuit Ct

Docket Entry: Certificate of Service

Filing Party: RHYNE , RICHARD DALY

Docket Entry: Motion Filed

Text: MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO RESPONDENTS. KST

Filing Party: RHYNE , RICHARD DALY

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Circuit

Text: Document ID: 08-SMCC-1941, for KOSTER, CHRIS;SUMMONS ISSUED AND DELIVERED BACK TO ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE TOGETHER WITH FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.bp

Docket Entry: Order

Text: Order Setting Preliminary Hearing for Election Contest for 9-02-2008 @ 1:00 pm by agreement. LDH

Filing Party: HARMAN , LARRY DALE

Docket Entry: Order

Text: Contestant’s Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to the First Request for Production of Documents to Respondents is granted. Respondents shall respond not later than August 29, 2008. LDH

Filing Party: HARMAN , LARRY DALE

Docket Entry:   Hearing Scheduled

Associated Events: 09/02/2008 , 13:00:00 – Hearing

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Reg/Cert Mail

Text: Document ID: 08-SMCM-87, for COLLOP, SANDY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-88, for HARVEY, SHELLEY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-89, for CONWAY, PAT; Document ID: 08-SMCM-90, for REINHART, DAVE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-91, for EVANS, PATTY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-92, for KEMPF, DARRYL; Document ID: 08-SMCM-93, for DOOR, DEBBIE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-94, for NICHOLS, ROBERT C; Document ID: 08-SMCM-95, for DAVIS, CHARLE
NE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-96, for MCTHOMAS, SHELLEY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-97, for KIEFFER, SHAWN; Document ID: 08-SMCM-98, for WAGNER, WES; Document ID: 08-SMCM-99, for CHRISTOPHER, KELLY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-100, for GROEPPER, ANITA E; Document ID: 08-SMCM-101, for ERICKSON, MARY BETH; Document ID: 08-SMCM-102, for FLANIGAN, WENDY M; Document ID: 08-SMCM-103, for CHRISMER, RICH; Document ID: 08-SMCM-104, for JONES, MARY WHEELER; Document ID: 08-SMCM-105, for LINENDECKER, SCOTT; Document ID: 08-SMCM-106, for DONAHUE, JOE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-107, for GOEKE, JOSEPH; Document ID: 08-SMCM-108, for REGISTER, MARVIN; Document ID: 08-SMCM-109, for LUCK, ELAINE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-110, for WILLIAMS, BARBARA; Document ID: 08-SMCM-111, for BAUM, KAY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-112, for BRYANT, KENNETH R; Document ID: 08-SMCM-113, for TAYLOR, SUSETTE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-114, for SMITH, CONNIE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-115, for STEWARD, LINDA; Document ID: 08-SMCM-116, for BERRY, MARY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-117, for REIDLINGER, CAROL; Document ID: 08-SMCM-118, for BASIER, KAY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-119, for CARNAHAN, ROBIN; SUMMONS ISSUED AND MAILED BY CERTIFIED MAILED TOGETHER WITH FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DOCUMENTS.bp

We’ll know more on Tuesday, September 2nd after the hearing. This lawsuit is separate from the actual recount under the aegis of the Secretary of State.  

The Missouri Plan: In Plain English

31 Wednesday Oct 2007

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

In 1940, following an era of machine politics in St. Louis and Kansas City that out-Tammanied Tammany Hall, Missourians amended the state constitution to change the way judges were selected to fill vacancies on the benches of the Missouri Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts of Jackson County and the municipality of St. Louis.

The amendment was placed on the ballot and enacted in response to the hijacking of the justice system by the powerful political machines of Tom Pendergast in Kansas City and Edward Butler of St. Louis.  Under the Bosses, justice resided in their pockets, and nowhere else.

The amendment offered was dubbed “The Missouri Plan” and under it, judicial elections were replaced with a judicial commission comprised of judges, lawyers and citizens which reviews and interviews applicants for vacancies on the bench and winnows the field to three choices.  The Governor then has sixty days to select the new judge from those three candidates.  If he fails to do so in the allotted time, the decision reverts to the recommending body.  At the first General Election following one year on the bench, the new judge faces the voters who decide whether the appointed jurist shall be retained.

In balloting to determine whether judges be retained, the state Bar Association issues ratings for the judges before the election, and the ratings and recommendations are made available to the public.  It is in the best interest of attorneys and  citizens alike for judges to be fair-minded and non-partisan, so the ratings are extremely apolitical.

This system has worked very well for us for 67 years, and has served to keep the state courts as apolitical as possible, while efficiently and promptly filling vacancies on the bench with qualified jurists.  In the years since 1940, it has been expanded to include all circuit court judges in Clay, Platte and St. Louis Counties.

One of the most elegant features of the plan is the way it defangs the money monster.  Success in partisan elections depends on money, on the financial contributors of donors (a very iffy proposition when we are talking about the very concept of Justice).

The Missouri plan works so well that in the intervening decades, 36 additional states have adopted the plan in whole or in part.

Unfortunately, last summer the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White (famously “blue slipped” by Ashcroft and denied a hearing after Clinton nominated him to the Federal bench) created a vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court and  gave little Matty Blunt the opportunity to stamp his wittle feet and pitch a hissy-fit and try to break another part of the state  government that actually works.  Injecting politics back into the process appeals to him, too, of course.  And as a bonus, he got to throw a tantrum because he doesn’t think the commissions  pay him proper homage as the elected executive of the state.

Don’t be fooled, his hissy-fit is pure political theater.  Blunt is attacking the nonpartisan judge selection because he wants total control of the appointments.  But there is a more insidious undertone to it, too.  He’s firing a warning shot across the bow of the judges not covered by the non-partisan system who do have to stand for election.  It makes the Governors position crystal clear – if he doesn’t like their decisions, he can orchestrate a deluge of money for opposing candidates.  It has already happened.

In June, a thinly-veiled BluntCo initiative rolled out to attack the judicial selection process.  Flying under the flag of something called “The Adam Smith Foundation” the minions of the governor went on the attack, while simultaneously playing the victim card….neat trick, that.

June 26th, 2007

 

Adam Smith Foundation Launched

  (Jefferson City) – The Adam Smith Foundation is proud to announce its official launch as an organization committed to promoting conservative principals [sic] and individual liberties for Missouri. Our Foundation seeks to provide Missourian’s with information they need to hold their State and local elected officials as well as activist judges directly accountable for their actions.

“There are countless leftist political groups in Missouri, but only a handful of conservative organizations. We strive to fill an important void by holding politicians in Jefferson City accountable.” said John Elliott, organization President. “Big spenders in state and local governments have forgotten that tax dollars belong to the citizens, and we will promote ways to reduce the size of government.”

Blunt pursues this agenda at the peril of further splitting the Missouri GOP.  When State Senator Kris Koster left the Republican party in August, he cited the Blunt Administrations attack on the judiciary was one of his key reasons for switching parties.  Koster, a former prosecuting attorney for Cass County summed up the Blunt administration very well when he said “I can’t think of another administration in our lifetime that has such disregard and such contempt for the third branch of government.”

Missouri Supreme Court: give the money back, mostly

28 Tuesday Aug 2007

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

Yesterday the Missouri Supreme Court followed up its earlier campaign finance ruling with an opinion stating that campaign contributions over the limit must be returned to contributors. Mostly.

The Kansas City Star published the following summary in today’s edition [tiny URL]:

The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday ordered candidates to refund any oversized campaign contributions they accepted this year unless they could show such refunds would create a serious hardship.

The court ordered the Missouri Ethics Commission to give any candidate a hearing to show why refunding the money would be overly burdensome….

Jack Cardetti, Communications Director for the Missouri Democratic Party, issued the following press release:

Statement on Campaign Finance Ruling
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, August Date, 2007

“Today’s ruling is a victory for those Missourians who believe elections should be fought on a level playing field,” said Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party spokesman. “The Supreme Court and the Ethics Commission agree that this ruling should be applied retroactively. In the one instance where the court had all the available information, it determined that James Trout did not have a hardship and therefore retroactivity must apply. Therefore the Ethics Commission can now order refunds of contributions in excess of the limits unless individual candidates can prove that enforcing retroactivity ‘would be a hardship.’

“It will be hard for Matt Blunt to argue that returning $350,000 from the Swift Boat benefactors creates a hardship,” Cardetti said.

“Candidates who have not yet decided to challenge an opponent, will now be able to without the fear that they must play by a completely separate set of rules,” Cardetti said. “Most importantly, today’s ruling is a step in the right direction for anyone who wants to loosen the grip of special interest money on Missouri politics.”

# # #

The Supreme Court opinion in James Trout, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants. SC88476 starts [The document states: “This slip opinion is subject to modification until the Court has ruled on the parties’ motions for rehearing, if any, and will become final only after the Court issues its mandate.”]:

The campaign finance reform bill, H.B. 1900, became effective on January 1, 2007. James Trout filed suit challenging its constitutionality the following day. In its opinion of July 19, 2007, the Court found the removal of campaign limits could not be severed from the blackout provision that the trial court found to be unconstitutional. The Court invited interested parties to submit letter briefs as to the appropriate remedy, particularly whether the Court’s decision should be applied prospectively only…

The court tried to find a solution to the unfair advantage a candidate would have in garnering large contributions before the limits were reimposed over another candidate who had not yet started raising money or declared their candidacy after the limits were reimposed.

The law concerning whether a decision is given retroactive or prospective application is simple in theory. “An unconstitutional statute is no law and confers no rights. This is true from the date of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” State ex rel. Miller v. O’Malley, 117 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Mo. banc 1938); see also Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

That is, in general, the law is void from the day it was enacted, not the day the court found it invalid. If this does not create a hardship.

Moreover, no candidate’s campaign can be considered in a vacuum. It could create, rather than alleviate, hardship and injustice if only certain candidates who enjoyed periods of unlimited fundraising are granted prospective application of the Court’s July 19, 2007, opinion. Those candidates who have not yet or have only recently entered the field might have great difficulty matching the sums their opponents raised if they were subjected to campaign contribution limits that had not been applied to their opponents. It is well accepted that “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. . . . The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976). Such an uneven playing field raises obvious equitable and constitutional concerns. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 802 (1983); see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 564 (1964) (“[f]ree and honest elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government”). In balancing these variables in an election case such as this, one must endeavor to avoid doing so in a way that creates a political advantage for one candidate over another by virtue of the decision.

In the case of this particular statute, the balancing of hardships and the determination whether retroactive application would work an injustice is further complicated by the fact that this Court’s July 19 decision does not preclude the legislature from again enacting legislation lifting limits on campaign contributions. The Court invalidated the statute at issue in this case solely because it could not be severed from the blackout period the trial court found to be unconstitutional, rather than because a bill lifting contribution limits is inherently unconstitutional. Nothing in the July 19 decision precludes the legislature from enacting, in general or special session, new legislation that constitutionally lifts campaign limits entirely. Alternatively, it could enact new legislation that effectively reaffirms that campaign limits are in place because of the lack of a blackout period. Indeed, it would not be precluded from adopting more novel approaches in an effort to even the playing field, such as by enacting much higher campaign contribution limits or by enacting legislation that would impose contribution limits on a candidate only at such time, if any, as that candidate had reached the same level of contributions over permissible contribution limits as had other candidates for that office prior to this Court’s July 19 ruling. The Missouri Constitution commits any such decision to the discretion of the legislative branch.

The court stated that the General Assembly can do away with campaign contribution limits, but because the “blackout” provision [forbidding contributions while the General Assembly was in session] in the law in question could not be separated from the lifting of those limits, the court struck down the entire mess.

The opinion places the process for determining “hardship” squarely in the lap of the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Finally, and of key importance, is the fact that it is not this Court, but the Missouri Ethics Commission, that must initiate any enforcement action to require disgorgement of campaign contributions as to those not before this Court….If a candidate believes that retroactive application of the decision would be a hardship in his or her particular circumstances because he or she acted in good faith and in reasonable reliance and retroactive application would work an injustice, that candidate must develop with specificity what those circumstances are to the Missouri Ethics Commission. In considering these factors in particular cases or classes of cases, however, the Commission must ensure that it not become a vehicle for creating an uneven playing field for a particular office; to do so would itself create an undue hardship for and injustice to the other candidates for that office.

The Kansas City Star article continues:

….Nixon’s office said the decision “clears the way for the ethics commission to order refunds of contributions in excess of limits.”

Bob Connor, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, said the agency’s attorneys would present their recommendations and analysis to the full commission on Thursday. The commission might adopt policies to comply with the court ruling, Connor said.

But Connor said the ruling appears to require the agency to conduct a case-by-case review of every candidate for office. The agency will have to weigh each hardship that is claimed on all the other candidates in a race, he said.

“If X says, ‘I have a hardship for these reasons,’?” the commission will have to consider it, Connor said. The commission will then determine how that affects every person in the same race….

There will be plenty of campaign finance fodder for us to wade through as the implementation of this ruling takes place. As always, follow the money.

Governor Matt “baby” Blunt doesn’t understand the Constitution

27 Monday Aug 2007

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

If you’re going to appoint someone to fill a vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court, why ask that question?

It appears that Missouri Governor Matt “baby” Blunt probably hasn’t read the U.S. Constitution, or the Missouri Constitution, for that matter. When it comes to the Missouri Supreme Court his “activist” agenda trumps everything else.

The United States Constitution states in Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I:

Section 5. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

The Appellate Judicial Commission got it right. From the Appellate Judicial Commission questionnaire:

14. Affiliations and activities outside of legal profession:

“baby” Blunt got it wrong. From Blunt’s questionnaire:

26. What groups or non work-related organizations have you joined, including non-profits, community groups, religious, secular or other organizations? Please list dates of service and offices held and describe each organization’s mission and purpose.

So, if you’re not supposed to use the information, why ask the question? Just curious.

Further, is there any question that the republicans’ 2008 campaign wedge issue is immigration?

You’ve got to love the answers to these questions asked by Blunt:

37. Have you or your family ever employed an illegal immigrant or a company that employed illegal immigrants?

38. Have you or your family ever worked for companies or been affiliated with
organizations (non-profit or other) that employ or provide services to illegal
immigrants?

Judge Nannnette Baker responded:

37. My immediate family includes me and my husband. I am without sufficient information to answer this question regarding extended family members. Based on the information family members have supplied me, they indicate they have not employed illegal immigrants.

38. To the best of my knowledge, no organization has provided information to me that indicates that they employed or provided services to illegal immigrants. However, I believe that my employer, the State of Missouri may provide services to illegal immigrants.

Judge Patricia Breckenridge responded:

37. No.

38. I understand that my employer, the State of Missouri, has employed a company or companies that employed illegal immigrants. I am told that Mattie Rhodes may provide services to illegal immigrants.”

Judge Ronald Holliger responded:

37. Not to my knowledge.

38. I work for the State of Missouri which I believe may have employed and provided services to illegal immigrants. In addition the Jackson County Juvenile Court may have provided services although I am not aware of any specific instance. You have not defined the term “family”. My brother has been president of a company of thousands of employees. He advises me that his company has never knowingly employed illegal immigrants. My sister is a Registered Nurse in a pediatric office and advises me that she feels certain that some patients and families may not have had legal status. My other sister is a retired U.S. Marshall. What she provided illegal immigrants I do not believe you mean by the word “service”. Otherwise the answer is no to my best knowledge and belief.

Can “baby” Blunt and his administration have a more transparent agenda? Go. Read the entire questionnaire and responses.