The first lawsuit to address the Missouri General Assembly’s refusal to fund Medicaid expansion in the state has been filed.

Steve Edwards @SDECoxHealth
Today, Jefferson City attorneys Chuck Hatfield and Lowell Pearson filed suit requiring the state to expand Medicaid as specified by the Missouri Constitution. They filed on behalf of three adults who will be newly eligible for the expanded program.
8:00 PM · May 20, 2021

Yesterday, in the 19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County:

21AC-CC00186 – STEPHANIE DOYLE ET AL V JENNIFER TIDBALL ET AL (E-CASE)
Judge/Commissioner Assigned: BEETEM, JON EDWARD Date Filed: 05/20/2021
Location: Cole Circuit Case Type: CC Declaratory Judgment
[….]

Filed on behalf of three individuals, with the following defendants:

TIDBALL , JENNIFER , Defendant
MO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVIC
[….]

STATE OF MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES , Defendant
BROADWAY STATE OFFICE BUILDING
[….]

MATHEWS , KIRK , Defendant
MO HEALTHNET DIVISION
[….]

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – MO HEALTHNET DIVISION , Defendant
[….]

EVANS , KIM , Defendant
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, FSD
[….]

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION , Defendant
[….]

Previously:

Sen. Ed Emery (r): if you want Medicaid move to another state (May 19, 2014)

So, why hasn’t Medicaid Expansion happened in Missouri? (March 31, 2019)

Medicaid Expansion in Missouri: petition signatures submitted – for the November ballot (May 1, 2020)

Medicaid Expansion Rally – Clinton, Missouri – April 17, 2021 (April 17, 2021)

Medicaid expansion? What Medicaid expansion? (May 3, 2021)

This morning, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Yesterday the House voted to defend the Constitution and curb executive overreach. Read my statement here: [….] 8:29 AM – 31 Jul 2014

She voted with the republican majority in the House to authorize a lawsuit against President Obama.

There were a number of responses:

pat ‏@PATR2014

@RepHartzler what Constittution..it has Redress built in ..but party of stupid sued instead. Keep listening to @KarlRove. 8:32 AM – 31 Jul 2014

That was blunt.

Lady With A Voice ‏@champa10

@RepHartzler Not buying it lady. Yet GOP wants America to believe they bare no blame.. Since day 1 your party has been NO GO GOP! 8:32 AM – 31 Jul 2014

So was that.

Cody Welton ‏@acoupstick

@RepHartzler Do nothing, blame Obama. Wash, rinse, repeat. 8:34 AM – 31 Jul 2014

I don’t think they actually wash and rinse.

hungryprof ‏@hungryprof

@RepHartzler Please. You’re probably smart enough to know how stupid and wasteful this lawsuit is but you’re afraid to speak up. 10:04 AM – 31 Jul 2014

That assumes facts not in evidence.

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler Why such a half measure? If the President has violated the Constitution, you should impeach him! 10:56 AM – 31 Jul 2014

One can only hope, Bob.

Thursday, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [pdf]:

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-56827

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN

OPINION

[….] Representative CYNTHIA DAVIS, Missouri [….] State Representative TIMOTHY

JONES, Esq., Missouri [….]

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; MICHELLE L.R. OBAMA; HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Secretary of State; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Vice President and President of the Senate [….]

Defendants – Appellees.

Appellate cases are always an interesting read because there’s usually a succinct summary of what’s what:

Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Well, that was short and to the point.

[….]

A.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: STANDING

[….]

3. State Representatives

Plaintiffs allege that state representatives have “unique standing” because they have a “special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of [federal] funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.”

In South Lake Tahoe, we rejected as insufficient to establish standing a similar contention that a public official could conceivably be exposed to civil liability while carrying out his official duties. 625 F.2d at 238-39. We noted that whether the officials could in fact be subject to civil liability was dependent on “multiple contingencies,” including the likelihood of any civil suit and the question whether the official would be immune from any such suit. Id. at 239. The alleged harm to the state representatives in this case is just as speculative and conjectural as in South Lake Tahoe, for similar reasons. This group of plaintiffs therefore fails to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

[….]

[footnote] 6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [end footnote]

[….]

…noting that Plaintiffs had six months between the original complaint and the amended complaint to attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”

[….]

***

The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal by the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellants’ emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.

[….]

COUNSEL

Gary G. Kreep, Ramona, California, and Orly Taitz, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

That reads a might testy.

It’s gonna be really interesting when Speker Elect Jones (r) takes over.

Oh, boy. Pass the popcorn. It looks like Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich (r) probably won’t assimilate this lesson.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Post-Dispatch: Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado bit.ly/pVskRn 7 hours ago

Evidently the State Auditor doesn’t understand the optics. In today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado

Say this for Missouri Auditor Thomas Schweich: His audacity knows no bounds.

On Friday, Mr. Schweich, a Republican, sued Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, over how Mr. Nixon has chosen to balance the state’s budget.

On its surface, the action might seem like just another example of a politician who equates governance with campaigning, a typical attempt at blatant partisanship wrapped up in legal arguments weaker than a first-year law student’s paper written after an all-night bender….

…Missourians should be grateful that our constitution and our Legislature gave the governor the flexibility to respond to disasters. That same constitution gave Mr. Schweich a legitimate avenue to protest Mr. Nixon’s decisions: He could run for governor.

Good luck getting votes in Joplin.

[emphasis added]

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Did Schweich really hold presser to demand retraction on editorial about lawsuit he refused to talk about? Really? Good luck with that. 3 hours ago

Yep, there you have it, the best State Auditor money could buy.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Schweich is right about the need for an apology on the editorial. I apologize to post-bender first-year law students. bit.ly/ocK2iq 3 hours ago

Okay, that left a mark.

Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Previously: Am I still shrill? (July 6, 2011)

“…The summary statement here is insufficient and unfair because it deceives and misleads voters about what the Proposed Constitutional Amendment would do, and would not do, and, thus, is neither true nor impartial, but instead likely to create prejudice for the proposed measure…”

Civil Rights Groups Sue Missouri Officials Over “Deceptive and Misleading” Voter ID Ballot Initiative

ST. LOUIS, MO — Advancement Project, the Fair Elections Legal Network (FELN), the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri today announced a legal challenge to a ballot proposal to amend the state constitution’s voting requirements, saying that the ballot language misleads voters and if passed will restrict the voting rights of Missourians, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and students, among others.

The ballot initiative, SJR2, slated to be placed on the ballot for November 2012, was passed by the legislature in May in an attempt to circumvent the Missouri Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling that restrictive photo ID voting laws are unconstitutional.

“I cannot imagine anything more cynical and shameful than using the voting process itself to trick voters into giving up their rights,” said Denise Lieberman, senior attorney for Advancement Project, a civil rights organization that works to eliminate barriers to voting and has been fighting photo ID laws across the country. “Just as the Missouri Supreme Court rejected Missouri’s photo ID law as a ‘heavy and substantial burden’ on voting rights, the court should reject this deceptive initiative. It does not make clear to voters that they will be giving up a fundamental right.”

The lawsuit – the first-ever challenge to a constitutional amendment on photo ID laws and the first lawsuit in the nation filed challenging the rash of photo ID proposals introduced in states across the country this year- was filed on Wednesday and names eight Missouri voters as plaintiffs….

Yep, true to form, republicans will do anything to suppress the vote of their opposition. They have a plan.

The lawsuit as filed:

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=59534746&access_key=key-s4whi35odzh0mqgk429&page=1&viewMode=list

Missouri Attoney General Chris Koster filed an amicus brief [pdf] today in a federal lawsuit challenging health care reform.

From Attorney General Koster’s letter to the leadership of the Missouri General Assembly:

…Although these are complex questions on which many scholars, judges, and interested parties sincerely disagree, it is the opinion of this office that the Congress reached beyond current Commerce Clause precedent when it regulated that individuals maintain “minimum essential [healthcare] coverage” or pay a penalty. Therefore, it follows that the federal courts, in reviewing this aspect of the law, must either expand Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, justify the provision on alternate constitutional grounds, or strike down the individual mandate.

It is also the legal view of this office that the individual mandate is severable from the ACA and that those provisions of the bill not clearly dependant upon the mandate may stand. Our argument against the expansion of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority is emphatically not based on any opposition to the expansion of health coverage for uninsured Americans.

To the contrary, I favor the expansion of health coverage…