Tag Archives: General Assembly

HB 728: the right wingnut cult of religious victimhood

03 Wednesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

“…quite a carve out.”

HB 728
Requires the name of the real party in interest to be named in civil actions involving the separation of church and state unless the party in interest is a minor
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1693H.01P
Last Action: 04/03/2019 – Perfected with Amendments (H)
Bill String: HB 728
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR PERFECTION – INFORMAL

1/29/2019 H 363 Introduced and Read First Time (H)
1/30/2019 H 377 Read Second Time (H)
2/07/2019 H 483 Referred: Judiciary(H)
2/26/2019 Public Hearing Completed (H)
3/05/2019 Executive Session Completed (H)
3/05/2019 Voted Do Pass (H)
3/06/2019 H 860 Reported Do Pass (H) – AYES: 11 NOES: 5 PRESENT: 0
3/06/2019 H 860 Referred: Rules – Administrative Oversight(H)
3/13/2019 Executive Session Completed (H)
3/13/2019 Voted Do Pass (H)
3/14/2019 H 1010 Reported Do Pass (H) – AYES: 5 NOES: 2 PRESENT: 0
4/02/2019 H 1230 Placed on Informal Calendar
4/03/2019 Placed Back on Perfection Calendar
4/03/2019 Taken Up
4/03/2019 Title of Bill – Agreed To
4/03/2019 Perfected with Amendments (H) – HA 1 adopted

This one’s getting a lot of action. Today the Missouri House perfected the bill.

The Committee summary is a piece of work:

[….]
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this would require plaintiffs to be named in cases where people want to sue to remove religious symbols because such plaintiffs currently hide behind unknown names. We need to protect the rights of Missourians and this would make it more fair for religious people because they are currently being singled out. They say they hide behind anonymous names because they fear retaliation from religious people, but religious people in Missouri are not violent. This would treat claimants the same no matter the viewpoint. This will hopefully reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. Civic leaders have to endure scrutiny so why shouldn’t plaintiffs.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Billington; Concerned Women for America of Missouri; Don Hinkle, Missouri Baptist Convention; Missouri Family Network; and Keith Carnahan, Maranatha Baptist Church.

OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that people who file these lawsuits often face harassment and threats. This strips judges’ ability to allow plaintiffs to not name themselves. This will put people in danger and it is an attempt to stop only one kind of lawsuit. This would stop people’s ability to bring lawsuits when they think they’ve been wronged. This would also preclude people from exercising their religious rights and filing lawsuits anonymously. The intent is to silence religious minorities, like Atheists.

Testifying against the bill were Ryan Jayne, Freedom From Religion Foundation; James C. McLaurin, Secular Coalition for Missouri; Scott McKellar; American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri; David Rosman; and Eric Wells, American Atheists.

The ultimate in pearl clutching:

“Supporters say that this would require plaintiffs to be named in cases where people want to sue to remove religious symbols because such plaintiffs currently hide behind unknown names…”

Well, yeah, when religious symbols are imposed on others in blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.

“…this would make it more fair for religious people because they are currently being singled out…”

For what? Trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else? Just asking. Again, there is the small matter of the Establishment Clause.

“…they fear retaliation from religious people, but religious people in Missouri are not violent.”

Seriously? Someone said that last part with a straight face? It’s just the Agnostics and Atheists then?

Previously:

HB 728: there’s something about that establishment clause (January 30, 2019)

So, why hasn’t Medicaid Expansion happened in Missouri?

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Healthcare, Missouri General Assembly, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Good question.

From Representative Kip Kendrick (D):

Kip Kendrick @Kip_Kendrick
Missourians represent at least a quarter million of these individuals.

Kaiser Family Foundation @KaiserFamFound
Nationally, 2.5 million poor uninsured adults fall into the “coverage gap” that results from state decisions not to expand Medicaid.
They earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to…

3:09 PM – 30 Mar 2019

Rep. Kip Kendrick (D) [2019 file photo].

The human toll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Table 1: Uninsured Adults in Non-Expansion States Who Would Be Eligible for Medicaid if Their States Expanded by Current Eligibility for Coverage, 2017

State Total Currently Eligible for Medicaid Currently in the Coverage Gap (<100% FPL) Currently May Be Eligible for Marketplace Coverage (100%-138% FPL**)

Missouri 232,000 13,000 124,000 95,000

[emphasis added]

And:

[….]

The ACA Medicaid expansion was designed to address the high uninsured rates among low-income adults, providing a coverage option for people with limited access to employer coverage and limited income to purchase coverage on their own. In states that expanded Medicaid, millions of people gained coverage, and the uninsured rate dropped significantly as a result of the expansion. However, with many states opting not to implement the Medicaid expansion, millions of uninsured adults remain outside the reach of the ACA and continue to have limited options for affordable health coverage. From 2016 to 2017, non-expansion states saw a significant increase in their uninsured rate, while expansion states saw a decrease.

By definition, people in the coverage gap have limited family income and live below the poverty level. They are likely in families employed in very low wage jobs, employed part-time, or with a fragile or unpredictable connection to the workforce. Given limited offer rates of employer-based coverage for employees with these work characteristics, it is likely that they will continue to fall between the cracks in the employer-based system.

It is unlikely that people who fall into the coverage gap will be able to afford ACA coverage, as they are not eligible for premium subsidies: in 2019, the national average unsubsidized premium for a 40-year-old non-smoking individual purchasing coverage through the Marketplace was $478 per month for the lowest-cost silver plan and $340 per month for a bronze plan, which equates to nearly eighty percent of income for those at the lower income range of people in the gap and more than a third of income for those at the higher income range of people in the gap.

If they remain uninsured, adults in the coverage gap are likely to face barriers to needed health services or, if they do require medical care, potentially serious financial consequences. Many are in fair or poor health or are in the age range when health problems start to arise but lack of coverage may lead them to postpone needed care due to the cost. While the safety net of clinics and hospitals that has traditionally served the uninsured population will continue to be an important source of care for the remaining uninsured under the ACA, this system has been stretched in recent years due to increasing demand and limited resources.

Most people in the coverage gap live in the South, leading state decisions about Medicaid expansion to exacerbate geographic disparities in health coverage. In addition, because several states that have not expanded Medicaid have large populations of people of color, state decisions not to expand their programs disproportionately affect people of color, particularly Black Americans. As a result, state decisions about whether to expand Medicaid have implications for efforts to address disparities in health coverage, access, and outcomes among people of color.

[….]

From former State Representative Chris Kelly (D):

Chris Kelly @repckelly
And virtually all of them are working.
Props to @Kip_Kendrick for articulating this serious problem.
7:31 AM – 31 Mar 2019

But, the right wingnut republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly can’t believe this problem has adverse affects on rural Missourians? Right.

HCS HB 573: if you put marshmallows and sprinkles on a mud pie it’s still a mud pie

13 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The House Judiciary Committee met yesterday and voted 11-6 to move HB 573 (on gutting Title IX in Missouri) forward with a lot of amendments.

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

The summary [pdf] of HCS HB 573:

HCS HB 573 — DUE PROCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
SPONSOR: Dohrman

COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted “Do Pass with HCS” by the Standing Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 11 to 6.

This bill provides, students in higher education, due process protections and allows students to request that Federal Title IX procedural hearings be heard before the Administrative Hearing Commission (Section 173.1898 RSMo).

This bill allows any students in an institution of higher education who have received a disciplinary action in a Title IX case to appeal to the Administrative Hearing Commission (Section 173.1905).

The Administrative Hearing Commission shall compile relevant statistics on the cases it hears (Section 173.1907).

This bill provides institutions of higher education guidance for Title IX formal complaints. This guidance includes interim measures that avoid depriving any student of an education during investigation and resolution of the formal complaint.

Notice of the right to request a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission must be provided.

This bill sets forth hearing procedures for Title IX formal complaints.

To reach a determination of responsibility, the decisionmaker or decisionmakers shall apply either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard. However, the preponderance of the evidence standard may only be used if it is also used in all other discriminatory harassment complaints involving faculty (Section 173.1910).

The bill specifies that failure to provide due process for a Title IX proceeding will entitle students to a civil cause of action. It will be considered a breach of contract for the institution of higher education and be considered an illegal act by the Attorney General for purposes of investigation (Section 173.1915).

This bill authorizes the Attorney General to investigate alleged or suspected violations and outlines information that should be collected regarding procedures and policies for formal complaints (Section 173.1925).

The bill defines “exempt record” and “personally identifiable information,” and provides that any record related to a Title IX formal complaint or investigation would be considered an exempt record (Section 173.1930).

The bill contains an emergency clause.

PROPONENTS: Supporters say that, under current Title IX laws, principles of “justice for all” are lost. They system currently denies accused parties of certain rights, like being able to face their accuser or being represented by counsel. If they are represented by counsel, counsel is not permitted to speak at the hearings. The school hearings do not always occur in person; rather, sometimes they occur only in writing. Additionally, decisions can be reached very quickly, whereas, for regular trials, there is more time to prepare. It is arguably more comfortable for an accuser to go through an institution’s disciplinary process rather than proceed in court because they are not open to crossexaminations. The legislation does not address whether the hearings are confidential, but they should be. There are some institutions that are better than others at allowing the parties as much time as they need to prepare.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Dohrman; Chris Slusher; and Michael J Colona.

OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that arms are not as overreaching as they are in a courtroom, which is part of the reason people prefer not to go through the criminal process. Part of the reason school hearings do not go as far as actual criminal trials is because they do not always need an investigation and a hearing. Complainants just want to feel safe where they are; sometimes the resolution is as simple as changing classroom or dorm room. There are proposed federal changes they are waiting on, and they will know better how to proceed with hearings going forward. They also say this is incorrect to add private institutions because the hearing commission is designed to hear appeals from state agency action, and some of the institutions are not state agencies. There are many conflicts between this legislation and federal law, so some of the institutions feel like they will have to choose between the two.

Testifying against the bill were Council on Public Higher Education; Chris Bowser, State Technical College of Missouri; Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri; The Associated Students of The University of Missouri; J P Hasman, St Louis University; Kate Nash; Andrea Hayes, University Of Missouri; Lyman Mitten III, Southeast Missouri State University; Kelli Wilson; Kayla Everett, Mizzou College Democrats; and Mark Falkowski, Columbia College.

Still, in the bill text:

“…Throughout the process of handling a formal complaint filed under 20 U.S.C. 78 Sections 1681 to 1688, or any amendments thereto, the institution of higher education shall:
(1) Ensure that all parties use the terms “complainant” and “respondent” and refrain from using the term “survivor” or any other term that presumes guilt before an actual finding of guilt…”

We all know survivors.

“…To reach a determination of responsibility, the decisionmaker or decisionmakers may apply either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard. However, the preponderance of the evidence standard may be used only if it used as the standard for all other discriminatory harassment complaints involving faculty…”

WTF?

“…173.1927. If any entity of the federal government brings suit against an institution of higher education for complying with the requirements of sections 173.1898 to 173.1935, the attorney general shall have authority to bring suit on behalf of the institution against any entity in order to defend the requirements established under sections 173.1898 to 5 173.1935…”

So, this really is about gutting Title IX.

The emergency clause:

“…Section B. Because of the importance of protecting the due process rights of individuals in Title IX proceedings and ensuring that individuals accused of sexual misconduct are able to defend their character, the enactment of sections 173.1898, 173.1905, 173.1907, 173.1910, 173.1915, 173.1920, 173.1925, 173.1927, 173.1930, and 173.1935 of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the enactment of sections 173.1898, 173.1905, 173.1907, 173.1910, 173.1915, 173.1920, 173.1925, 173.1927, 173.1930, and 173.1935 of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval…”

So, who benefits from the “emergency”, really?

Earlier in the bill:

“…2. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 610, any record related to a formal complaint or investigation under 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681 to 1688, or any amendments thereto, at an institution of higher education, or at the administrative hearing commission, which contains personally identifiable information about a party to the formal complaint is an exempt record…”

That means the information would not be an open and accessible public record under the Missouri Sunshine Law. The “respondent” can “defend their character” in a closed hearing under current Title IX procedures and under these bill procedures and requirements.

So then, again, why the emergency clause? Who benefits?

On a complete reading – HCS HB573: a recipe for legislative mud pie – sprinkles, marshmallows, and baking optional.

Previously:

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

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

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

HB 573 and SB 259: What took you so long? (March 12, 2019)

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

12 Tuesday Mar 2019

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Today’s expression of moral outrage on Twitter.

A pop up social media account:

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

Ironically anonymous.

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

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

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

Another circumstance? Do tell.

Previously:

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

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

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

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

12 Tuesday Mar 2019

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

…in a mighty wind.

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

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

Representative Dean Dohrman (r).

Bet they reconsider the invitation for the next one?

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

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

At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

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

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

That’s going to cost a lot of money.

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

That was a short association.

Meanwhile:

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

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

10:12 AM – 12 Mar 2019

Yeah, about that “emergency clause”.

Previously:

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

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

SB 259: Really? For what purpose?

11 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Who benefits?

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

The bill summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then what? We all know survivors.

In the bill text:

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

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

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

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

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

“…in any manner whatsoever…”

And if the survivor says anything?

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

Previously:

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

HB 1254: transparency

04 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Representative Gina Mitten (D) [2019 file photo].

A bill, introduced on Friday:

HB 1254
Modifies provisions relating to electronic public records
Sponsor: Mitten, Gina (083)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2479H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1254
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Some of the bill text [pdf]:

[….]
Section A. Section 610.025, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu 2 thereof, to be known as section 610.025, to read as follows:

610.025. 1. Any elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body who transmits any message relating to public business by electronic means shall also concurrently transmit that message to the custodian of records for the public governmental body in the same format. Any such message received by the custodian shall be a public record subject to the exceptions of section 610.021.

2. No elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body shall download or use software designed to send encrypted messages by electronic means that automatically self-destruct on any communication device purchased with public moneys; except that, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the downloading or use of such software by law enforcement officers for purposes of conducting undercover investigations.

3. No elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body shall use software designed to send encrypted messages by electronic means that automatically self-destruct to conduct public business on any personally owned electronic device.

4. Any individual who knowingly or purposely violates this section shall only be held individually liable under section 610.027. A staff member or employee of a public governmental body shall be treated as a member of the public governmental body under section 610.027 only for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty for violation of this section.

Well, Josh?

HJR 56, HJR 57, HJR 58: Missouri voters have already spoken

03 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

That has never stopped the right wingnut republican controlled Missouri General Assembly from overturning their will.

Introduced on Friday by Representative Jeff Pogue (r):

HJR 56
Repeals campaign finance provisions
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2286H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 56
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

And:

HJR 57
Modifies provisions relating to redistricting and lobbying
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2282H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 57
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

And:

HJR 58
Repeals Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of Missouri relating to medical marijuana
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2280H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 58
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

In sum, repealing or altering the provisions in initiatives overwhelmingly approved by Missouri voters in the November 2018 general election.

Those who hold power and advantage never give it up willingly.

Previously:

That wasn’t $200,000.00 well spent (November 7, 2018)

HB 1247: Oh, sure, it’s all laughs and giggles until someone loses the encryption key

02 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

We can’t figure out why he hasn’t yet introduced a bill about banning water fluoridation.

A bill, filed on Friday by Representative Andrew McDaniel (r):

HB 1247
Requires the state and political subdivisions thereof to accept virtual currency as legal tender
Sponsor: McDaniel, Andrew (150)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2267H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1247
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

You think someone is getting ready to pitch another reality show offshoot of “Doomsday Preppers”? Just asking.

Previously:

HB 1052: Matchlock or flintlock? (February 25, 2019)

HB 1052: it’s all in the details (February 26, 2019)

HB 1108: Why choose? Buy one of each. (February 27, 2018)

HB 1127: Bottoms up…

01 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

A bill introduced on Wednesday by Representative Jeff Porter (r):

HB 1127
Provides a definition for Missouri bourbon whiskey
Sponsor: Porter, Jeff (042)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 0963H.04I
Last Action: 02/28/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1127
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1127 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE PORTER. 0963H.04I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 311, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to Missouri bourbon whiskey.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 311, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 311.025, to read as follows: 311.025.
To qualify as “Missouri Bourbon” or “Missouri Bourbon Whiskey”, and to be labeled as such, a product shall be a spirit that meets the following conditions: all corn used in the mash must be Missouri-grown corn; the product shall be mashed, fermented, distilled, aged, and bottled in Missouri; and the product shall be aged in Missouri in oak barrels manufactured in Missouri.

Think of the possibilities. An amendment that it has to aged in an oak barrel for 100 years? It then becomes someone else’s problem.

If it’s aged for two or three seconds it’s just moonshine (Yes, we know that’s not “technically” correct).

Welcome to Missouri.