This post was originally published on this site

A sign just outside Creekmoor, a golf course subdivision in Raymore, implores drivers to stop a proposed landfill less than a mile away. Officials from the city of Raymore are negotiating with developers of the project to keep it from being built (Allison Kite/Missouri Independent).

Kansas City-area communities fighting a proposed landfill are hopeful negotiations with the developers will end the controversy and “eliminate” the project.

For more than a year, communities that border south Kansas City have been fighting a proposed 270-acre landfill. They’ve pleaded with state lawmakers to pass legislation to kill the project, hired lobbyists and formed a political action committee. 

The push was stymied last week when a group of state senators outside the Kansas City area used a filibuster to block a vote on legislation meant to kill the landfill project. Now, it appears, the city of Raymore is near a deal with developers that would halt the project in exchange for cash payments. 

Melissa Harmer, a spokeswoman for Raymore, which borders Kansas City at the proposed site, said in an email to The Independent on Wednesday that the city was working toward an agreement with the developers “that would eliminate the landfill,” contingent on the passage of the legislation. She said there was little to share “except that we’re feeling positive.”

She did not answer an email asking follow-up questions.

A day later, the city of Raymore posted on its website an agenda for a special meeting of the City Council to approve legislation establishing an agreement wherein the city would make settlement payments in exchange for restrictive covenants preventing the site from becoming a landfill. According to the agenda, the settlement would also include “mutual support” for state legislation that would prevent the landfill from being built at the proposed site. 

“This is the local step necessary to advance legislative election in Jefferson City to end the threat of a landfill on Raymore’s northern border,” the agenda says. 

Jennifer Monheiser, one of the developers, said in a statement Wednesday that the team is “dedicated to finding a solution that works for everyone.” 

“Our team is focused on conversations that address the region’s waste management needs as well as concerns about the environmental impact of our project,” Monheiser said. A spokeswoman for Monheiser declined to answer follow-up questions about possible negotiations with local municipalities, saying there are “a lot of moving parts.” 

The landfill — proposed by Monheiser’s business, KC Recycle & Waste Solutions — was proposed just south of Missouri Highway 150 in Kansas City. It’s less than a mile from the Creekmoor golf course community, located in Raymore, with homes priced as high as $1 million. 

Under current law, KC Recycle & Waste Solutions’ proposal to place the landfill within a mile of the city’s boundary with a nearby community is permissible — subject to state permitting requirements. If it were within a half mile of city limits, though, it would need the approval of neighboring municipalities.

Critics of the project in nearby Raymore, Lee’s Summit and other suburban Kansas City municipalities want that buffer zone increased to one mile. They have decried the project, saying it will harm their constituents’ property values, health and ability to enjoy their homes.

After legislative efforts to block the project failed last year, area residents launched Kill The Fill, a political action committee that has raised money through small dollar donations, a golf tournament and bourbon tasting. 

The PAC hired a lobbying firm run by Steve Tilley, a veteran Jefferson City lobbyist with ties to Gov. Mike Parson, and has paid $46,500 for lobbying and public relations since October.

Kill The Fill’s treasurer, Jennifer Phanton, said in an interview that she can see the proposed landfill site from her upstairs window. 

“When this becomes a mountain of trash,” he said, “I’ll be able to see it from my house.” 

Phanton said she was hopeful about the negotiations between the developers and opponents like the city of Raymore, which she described as “close-lipped.” 

She argued the municipalities around the landfill deserve a seat at the table because its placement will affect them. The closest fire station, she said, isn’t one of Kansas City’s. And the roads leading to the landfill that will incur heavy truck traffic pass through surrounding cities. 

“You’re putting the onus, you know, on these neighboring municipalities to support this landfill…but you’re not willing to give them a seat at the table,” she said. “That’s insane to me.”

Lawmakers have debated increasing the buffer zones for the past two legislative sessions, but it has yet to clear the Missouri General Assembly.

One of several identical bills to increase the buffer zone cleared the Missouri House in March and has passed a Senate committee. It awaits floor action. Another version came up last week in the Missouri Senate, but lawmakers from other parts of  Missouri launched an hours-long filibuster, shutting down the chamber. 

The same thing happened last year when State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, stood opposed to the legislation.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville who represents neighbors of the proposed landfill, responded the next day with a filibuster meant to shut down debate of the state budget as a deadline to pass it loomed.

Kansas City-area senators have since criticized colleagues from other parts of the state for fighting on behalf of the landfill, saying they should respect the judgment of senators who represent the area of the proposed project to determine what’s best for their communities.

State Sen. Mike Cierpiot, a Lee’s Summit Republican, said the Senate has a tradition of deferring to senators from the area when considering legislation that affects a particular part of the state. He called it “troubling” that lawmakers who live “nowhere near” the affected communities would fight for the landfill when the senators representing the Kansas City area stand opposed.

Cierpiot said the entire Kansas City delegation — including both Republicans and Democrats — agree the site isn’t appropriate for a landfill. 

“I ask this body to trust those senators that represent this entire area,” Cierpiot said. “We know what is best for our area, as I’m sure each of you do.”

The post After Missouri Senate filibuster, KC landfill critics hope to cut a deal with developers appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Amina Tollin receives infusions through a port in her chest to reduce the debilitating symptoms of her chronic nerve condition. Three months ago, Medicaid stopped paying for the therapy as a result of an increasingly common process among private and public insurers known as prior authorization. States are taking action to curb it, but enforcement will be a challenge. (Courtesy of Amina Tollin)

For decades, Amina Tollin struggled with mysterious, debilitating pain that radiated throughout her body. A few years ago, when a doctor finally diagnosed her with polyneuropathy, a chronic nerve condition, she had begun to use a wheelchair.

The doctor prescribed a blood infusion therapy that allowed Tollin, 40, to live her life normally. That is, until about three months ago, when it came time for reapproval and Medicaid stopped paying for the therapy. It was the result of an increasingly common process among private and public insurers known as prior authorization.

The monthly infusions for Tollin’s condition cost about $18,000 for each session. When Medicaid stopped covering the infusions, she simply stopped getting them.

“The doctor has shown why I need it and they just decided I don’t,” Tollin, who lives in Tucson, Arizona, told Stateline. “It’s been awful. I’m in pain.”

To curb health care costs and block unnecessary services, insurers have long required doctors to obtain their approval before they’ll pay for certain drugs, treatments and procedures. But in recent years insurers have ratcheted up their use of prior authorization, causing delays and denials of care that are harming or even killing people, many doctors and patients say.

In the past couple of years, more than two dozen states have considered legislation designed to minimize prior authorization delays and denials, and nine states have enacted new laws, according to the American Medical Association, which has advocated for them.

A New Jersey law, for example, sets a 72-hour deadline for most claims. Texas created a “gold card” system that exempts physicians with a 90% approval rate from prior authorization requirements. Washington state sets deadlines and requires insurers to automate the process to speed approvals, while Michigan mandates that prior authorization requirements be based on peer-reviewed criteria.

“It really is just a matter of building momentum and continuing to see this in more and more states,” said Dr. Jack Resneck, who stepped down as president of the American Medical Association last June. Many of the bills are based on the organization’s model legislation.

“We hope insurance plans will recognize that they have taken this entirely too far and will recognize that they are harming patients and preventing people from getting evidence-based appropriate care,” Resneck told Stateline.

Insurers argue that prior authorization ensures that doctors only prescribe therapies and treatments that are medically necessary, protecting patients and lowering health care costs for everybody. Prior authorization “is designed to ensure that clinical care aligns with evidence-based recommendations — not to deny or discourage patients from getting the care they need,” Robert Traynham, a spokesperson for AHIP, a trade group formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, some who support curbs on prior authorization caution that the new state laws might not make much of a difference, largely because they lack strong enforcement mechanisms.

Ron Howrigon, a former executive at insurance giant Cigna and current president of Fulcrum Strategies, a firm specializing in insurance contracts, said the laws are “better than nothing” and that “there are definitely some people [they’re] going to help.”

But, Howrigon said, insurance companies are adept at finding ways to get around laws designed to hold them accountable, especially if the only type of enforcement against them involves third-party reviews or relatively small fines.

“Nobody should kid themselves and think that patients aren’t going to have to deal with incorrect denials,” Howrigon told Stateline. “Because that’s not right.”

Furthermore, state laws generally apply to state-regulated private health insurance plans, which excludes the 65% of people who work for large firms and are covered by self-funded employer plans. And many of the state laws don’t apply to people on Medicaid, the joint state-federal health care program for people with low incomes, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Earlier this year, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services finalized a rule designed to speed up prior authorization in government insurance programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health care insurance program for people aged 65 and over and the disabled. The new rule, most of which will go into effect in 2026, requires a decision on “urgent” requests within 72 hours. But it applies only to “medical items and services,” not drugs.

‘Fed up’

Dr. Amy Faith Ho, an emergency medicine physician in Dallas, said many patients whose treatments are delayed or denied through prior authorization often end up in her waiting room.

“At some point they just get fed up. But what’s sad to me is they did everything right,” Ho said. She added that some patients with chronic illnesses don’t end up in the emergency room, but they do experience a loss in quality of life. “We see those patients sometimes present as suicide attempts,” she said.

For patients with certain diseases and conditions, such as cancer, prior authorization delays and denials are a common occurrence: A 2023 study found that 1 out of every 5 cancer patients did not receive the care recommended by their treatment team because of the prior authorization process. In a 2022 survey conducted by the American Medical Association, 94% of doctors said prior authorization had led to a delay in care, and a third reported that prior authorization had led to a “serious adverse event” for a patient in their care.

States have generally tried to attack the problem in four ways, said Kaye Pestaina, the director of the program on patient and consumer protection at KFF, a nonprofit research organization.

The first strategy is to shorten the amount of time an insurer is allowed to decide on a medication or service request.

The second is to reduce the administrative burden physicians experience, often by giving a pass to doctors who have a high rate of approvals — Texas’ gold card system is one example.

The third approach is to bolster transparency and data requirements.

And the fourth focuses on the review process itself by mandating that decisions be based on peer-reviewed, clinical data.

Pestaina said it might take years to determine which strategy, or combination of strategies, would yield the best outcomes.

In Texas, for example, the 2022 gold card law so far has had mixed results. Doctors who have received the pass say there’s a more streamlined process, but there aren’t very many of them: Only 3% of physicians had achieved gold card status by the end of last year, according to the Texas Medical Association.

“That should really be upside down and in the other direction,” said Resneck, the former American Medical Association president. “We should see 97% of doctors getting gold cards instead of 97% not getting them.”

Enforcement challenges

State insurance commissioners largely will be responsible for enforcing the state laws. Many of the new laws empower commissioners to investigate insurers, issue fines for noncompliance and even take insurers to court to remove their license to operate in the state.

But to uncover violations, commissioners will rely heavily on complaints from patients and doctors, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. And Howrigon notes that doctors and patients won’t know to complain unless they are aware of their rights under the new laws.

Howrigon also emphasized that state-issued fines and penalties might not be enough to cow insurance giants that make tens of billions of dollars in profits. And, he noted, in 11 states insurance commissioners are elected and often get campaign donations from the companies they regulate.

A better enforcement approach, he suggested, would be to hold the medical directors within insurance companies accountable for decisions that harm patients.

“If those doctors had the same accountability and responsibility as the doctors who are writing the prescriptions, meaning they could be sued for malpractice … all of this would go away,” Howrigon said.

Under a prior authorization bill advancing in Oklahoma, insurance company medical directors could be held liable for medical malpractice, opening them up to lawsuits.

“I have had doctors tell me this is what is some of the best legislation they’ve seen in the country. It’s fair to the insurance company and it’s fair to the to the patient,” said Republican state Rep. Ross Ford, one of the cosponsors. “It gives the right balance of oversight, but it also goes far enough to hold the insurance company responsible if they choose to deny a procedure.”

Three months of limbo

In Arizona, a bill has been introduced that would require insurers to honor prior authorizations for at least 90 days, even if the patient switches insurers. But according to the Arizona Department of Insurance, it would not apply to Medicaid.

That means it wouldn’t apply to Amina Tollin.

Medicaid finally approved Tollin for her infusions in late March. But through the three months of limbo, she says her symptoms — including pain, exhaustion, numbness and tingling — were agonizing.

She fears that at some point in the future, Arizona Medicaid might once again refuse to cover the infusions, which are covered for the next twelve months.

“I feel like I won, but I didn’t really win because it’s going to be a whole new fight in a year,” she said.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

The post States want to make it harder for health insurers to deny care, but firms might evade enforcement appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

The Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA)’s Columbia operating center, as photographed Feb. 28 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

A U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday dug into complaints against a Missouri-based student-loan servicer, though the organization’s executive director refused to attend. 

Wednesday’s meeting of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs focused on the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA, and other loan servicers that have received widespread criticism in recent years. 

It follows an explosive investigative report by the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) and the American Federation of Teachers alleging four in 10 people with a loan serviced by MOHELA have been impacted by servicing failures.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is the committee’s chair and has made student loan cancellation a key part of her political platform. 

But MOHELA, in a cease-and-desist letter dated March 25 to the SBPC, said the report contained “false, misleading and sensationalized claims.”

Yet committee members often looked to the SBPC’s deputy executive director and managing counsel, Persis Yu, to describe MOHELA’s conduct during Wednesday’s hearing.

Yu repeated elements of the SBPC’s report, saying Wednesday that, “MOHELA chose a complex call-deflection scheme, a Byzantine loop of misinformation and false promises.”

MOHELA’s “call deflection” was outlined in a playbook for the return-to-repayment period in the fall, but the servicer said it was given directions to use call deflection from the federal government. In fact, the FSA’s communications playbook sent to servicers in July 2023 mentions call deflection 13 times.

Some witnesses on Wednesday called for statutory fixes, saying that complaints against MOHELA stem from problems at a federal level.

There are two class-action lawsuits alleging MOHELA mismanaged loans. One additionally names the federal government as a plaintiff.

“Recent accusations suggesting servicers are responsible for a large backlog of public service loan forgiveness applications and that the backlog is intentional are also false,” Scott Buchanan, executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance, told the committee. “Today, FSA makes all decisions about whether to approve or deny forgiveness. So the vast majority of the backlog resides at a resource-constrained FSA.”

The latest Public Service Loan Forgiveness report, dated June 2023, shows a backlog of almost 890,000 applications. This report does not say where the applications are in the approval process and whether they are waiting on federal approval or action from MOHELA.

MOHELA said in its March 25 letter to the SBPC that it has fewer than 15,000 new forms to process.

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, said he felt like Buchanan was making excuses for MOHELA.

“​When I hear (issues) with this frequency and depth and stories, then you know something is wrong,” he said. “I support additional funding for the Office of Student Aid, but I don’t believe MOHELA was living up to its customer service commitments under its existing contract.”

Menendez mentioned legislation, like one that sought to eliminate student-loan relief as taxable income. The concept and perceived perks of loan forgiveness was part of the discussion.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas testifies in a U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs hearing Wednesday afternoon (Screenshot from U.S. Senate stream).

Mayor of Kansas City Quinton Lucas was in Washington, D.C., to testify on Wednesday, telling the committee  he had a loan serviced by MOHELA but focusing primarily on federal relief programs.

“Student debt relief fundamentally would alleviate the financial burden on our residents, helping families cover rising costs of living and encouraging them importantly to invest in our local economies and their own futures,” he said.

U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, lauded President Joe Biden’s administration’s efforts to trim student debt, adding the administration had “its hands tied behind its back” after a first attempt at loan forgiveness.

He brought up Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s successful case before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that blocked pandemic-induced loan forgiveness.

Warren noted that MOHELA was the crux of that case.

“The Republican states challenging President Biden’s plan basically couldn’t explain how they were harmed by student debt cancellation, and without an explanation of how they were harmed, they didn’t have legal standing to sue,” she said. “So their answer was MOHELA.”

Warnock had a similar view of the court’s decision, adding he believes MOHELA was “complicit” in the takedown of loan forgiveness because the company “stayed silent” during legal proceedings.

Internal communications released last year show employees were troubled about the quasi-governmental nonprofits inclusion in the lawsuit.

Tuesday, Bailey filed a lawsuit against another student-debt-relief plan, also naming MOHELA. It does not appear that the nonprofit consented to this lawsuit, either.

The post U.S. Senate committee critical of MOHELA after widespread complaints appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Potential buyers try out guns which are displayed on an exhibitor’s table during the Nation’s Gun Show on Nov. 18, 2016 at Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Virginia (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Thursday finalized a new rule that would require anyone selling a gun to obtain a federal license and conduct background checks.

The rule aims to close what’s known as the “gun show loophole.” Gun merchants who sell online, by mail or at flea markets and gun shows until now have not been subject to the same federal regulations as those who own and operate gun stores as their main source of income.

“This single gap in our federal background check system has caused unimaginable pain and suffering,” Vice President Kamala Harris, who oversees the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, said on a call with reporters Wednesday previewing the regulation.

The new rule by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, stems from requirements of the bipartisan gun safety legislation package Congress passed in 2022. 

It’s likely to face legal challenges, but a senior White House official told  reporters on the call that the Biden administration is confident the rule will survive any legal disputes.

“Strong regulations like this one are not in conflict with the Second Amendment,” the senior White House official said.

The 2022 law would require those gun sellers to obtain a Federal Firearm License, record gun purchases and conduct background checks, which are the same requirements as brick-and-mortar gun shops.

Prior to the rule, if someone claimed that selling guns was not a main source of income, they were not required to obtain a license or perform a background check.

There are 80,000 individuals who have a Federal Firearm License, a senior Department of Justice official on the call said. Under the new rule, there would be about 20,000 additional individuals who would be required to obtain a license and “that has the potential to impact tens and tens of thousands of gun sales,” the official said.

“This is part of a broader administration effort, where the president has focused our attention, resources and strategy at the source of illegal guns,” the senior Department of Justice official said. “All of this is intended to get beyond the individual who has committed a crime and look to the source of those illegal guns.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said on the call that the new rule is one of the “most significant gun regulations in decades.”

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or in a brick and mortar store,” Garland said. “If you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed and you must conduct background checks.”

ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said that “repeatedly selling guns for profit without running a criminal background check is not safe for innocent, abiding Americans, in fact, it’s doggone dangerous.”

Dettelbach added that there are some exemptions to the rule for hobbyists, antique gun collectors and occasional family transfers.

“(The rule) provides … clarity to make sure that true hobbyists and true collectors can enhance or liquidate their professional and personal collection without fear of violating the law,” Dettelbach said.

The new rule will go into effect 30 days after being published in the Federal Register.

The post New rule to close ‘gun show loophole’ finalized by Biden administration appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Palestinian emergency services and local citizens search for victims in buildings destroyed during Israeli raids in the southern Gaza Strip on Oct. 17, 2023 in Khan Yunis, Gaza (Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty Images).

As a humanitarian aid worker, having traveled to over 40 refugee camp sites around the world throughout Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, I have seen the worst of human nature: experiencing second-hand trauma through horrific recounts of torture, sexual assault, slaughter, and oppression.

Yet even after all of my field experiences, I have yet to see anything so intentionally cruel on such a wide scale as what we are witnessing in Gaza.

For the first time in history, a genocide is being live streamed by the very population that is being targeted. Horrific scenes of wide-scale devastation, slaughter and now starvation flood our screens.

Israeli military forces, armed predominately by the United States, have killed more than 32,800 in Gaza (as of April 2), including over 13,000 children. More than 8,000 Palestinians are missing and presumed dead under the rubble of bombed buildings. About 75,000 more Palestinians have been injured, with at least 1,000 children having lost one or more limbs.

Of the 2.2 million people living in Gaza, more than 70% are now internally displaced, with the majority of the population crammed and cornered into Rafah. More than a million Palestinians will face famine in the coming weeks, as Palestinians have resorted to eating grass and animal-feed in a desperate attempt to ward off starvation.

As a barbaric and internationally illegal form of collective punishment, the population in Gaza — besides being bombed — is literally being starved, dehydrated and diseased to death by Israel. By many metrics, Gaza has become the most severe humanitarian crisis in modern history and has turned into a 21st century concentration camp.

Since World War II, the international community has developed a legal framework that, at least theoretically, prohibits acts of apartheid, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

After the horrors of WWII, the world said “never again.”

Yet time and again, the same world has stayed largely silent and watched as genocides and other atrocities have taken place in Rwanda, Bosnia, Guatemala and elsewhere. Today, the same leaders and nations that have developed these international laws of moral conduct are the very same ones ignoring them, as they passively stand by and watch Israel blatantly disregard international law after international law on a massive scale.

South Africa, on the other hand, demonstrated international leadership last year in bringing Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which agreed in January there is a “plausible” case that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. The ICJ ordered Israel to halt its ongoing crimes against Palestinians as their investigation continues, but time-and-time again Israel has carried out its deadly campaign in Gaza by continuing its decades-long flouting of international law. Meanwhile, human rights organizations and aid workers collectively call on world leaders to immediately intervene and put an end to this carnage.

Soon after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, the Biden administration bypassed Congress to assist in arming Israel’s war on Palestinians. In an investigation by the Washington Post, it was revealed that the Biden administration quietly approved and delivered more than 100 different weapons transfers to Israel.

From October to December, it is estimated that U.S. weapons sales made to Israel amounted to over $573 million. By the end of March, U.S. officials stated that the State Department authorized the transfer of fighter jets and engines worth roughly $2.5 billion to Israel. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Democratic and Republican officials continue to openly support Israel’s “right to defend itself” by numerous resolutions in support of a foreign government that is currently in court on genocide charges.

The United States needs to exercise its leverage and press Israel to immediately both halt its war on Gaza and allow in without delay desperately-needed humanitarian aid to Palestinians through its border crossings. It’s long past time for the U.S. to terminate its partnership in Israel’s ongoing campaign of occupation and apartheid against the Palestinian people, and to altogether cut off military aid to the veritable rogue state.

As heavy bombardments continue in Gaza, aid workers and even Israeli hostages have not been spared from the fury of the Israeli military. Since October, numerous United Nations, Red Crescent and WCK workers have been killed, along with three Israeli hostages (at least) by the Israeli military. Empty words such as “accident” and “investigation” are used in a callous attempt to evade accountability seem to be all the norm these days.

So how have we gotten to the point of acceptance to this level of excessive cruelty?

I am the child of Palestinian refugees from the original 1948 Nakba (or “catastrophe” in Arabic). My father, one of the 700,000 Palestinians expelled or forced to flee, was a mere 8-year-old child when his family was violently forced out of their home in Haifa, and my mother’s family was expelled from their ancestral land in Nazareth. Both families were forced to walk their way into Lebanon, where my father spent 21 years in a Palestinian refugee camp. My entire existence as a Palestinian is politicized, vilified, dehumanized and questioned.

Simply for stating, “My heritage is Palestinian,” I am no longer seen as American (or “American” enough). I am looked at with suspicious eyes and accused of being hateful and violent, and that the Palestinian existence is “complicated.”

For decades, Palestinian history has been erased, appropriated, and taken over by settler-colonialist propaganda. Anti-Palestinian sentiment and rhetoric is so normalized and acceptable, that American politicians can openly call for mass killings and dropping atomic bombs in Gaza (as we heard since October from several public hearings). American society has been all too easily convinced that Palestinians are undeserving of even the most basic human rights.

Decades from now, when future generations study this “war,” they will discuss how the world failed to stop yet another genocide. They will read accounts of the horrors that took place in Gaza and think to themselves exactly what so many of us think now about past atrocities – “I would have said something!”

Except what you are doing now is exactly what you would have been doing then. In the words of the great Albus Dumbledore: “Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.” Indeed, we shall.

So how do you want to be remembered, complicit through your silence or brave enough to take a stand?

The post Gaza and the failed lessons of the past appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

A pro-Trump mob breaks into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger sought to ease concerns from the lawmakers in charge of his agency’s budget on Wednesday, saying the department is preparing for major upcoming events — including another potential Jan. 6 — by trying to grow the size of its force and overhauling its intelligence gathering activities.

During an hour-long hearing in front of the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Manger argued the agency is far better positioned than in the past to address the safety of members both in the Capitol complex and at their residences, though at one point he said USCP’s “resources are strained.”

Manger also noted USCP has fallen behind and is trying to enhance protection for House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and Senate Speaker pro tempore Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, since they are second and third in the line of presidential succession, respectively.

The U.S. Secretary of State, who sits fourth in the line of succession below both those lawmakers, has a security detail three times larger than anything USCP provides, Manger told the committee.

“We know we’ve got to expand the protection for the individuals that are in the line of succession,” he said. “We can’t just go back to the days when we said, ‘Well, we’ll just follow them around and we’ll make sure they’re well protected wherever they are,’ because their homes, their families are at risk.”

Several members of the panel pressed Manger about how exactly the agency has updated its thinking, staffing and tactics since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building by pro-Trump rioters. Dozens of police officers were injured in that attack and two law enforcement officers died as a result of that day.

The insurrection disrupted Congress certifying the Electoral College votes to affirm President Joe Biden’s win in the election. That was the first time the United States didn’t have a peaceful transition of power.

Votes must be certified again by Congress on Jan. 6, 2025, following this November’s presidential election.

Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley asked Manger during the hearing about USCP’s response plan for a threat that would require additional police officers to come in quickly.

Manger said the department has already started preparing for the “election, the next January 6, the inauguration.”

“We already have committed hundreds of police officers from allied organizations. And by the time we get to those dates, we could have thousands of trained law enforcement officers… So the cavalry will be here on site for all the big events.”

Manger said USCP is able to maintain relationships with other law enforcement agencies, in part, because those other agencies are reimbursed for helping.

In addition to keeping that funding stream available, USCP needs the spending panel to preserve retention bonuses to try to reduce attrition.

“We need for people to stay for the conventions, for the election, for the next January 6, for the inauguration and beyond,” Manger said, implying retention bonuses will help to do that.

One of the largest criticisms of USCP following the Jan. 6 attack was that its intelligence operation failed to realize the extent of the threat to the Capitol and the lawmakers inside, an issue that Manger said has been addressed in the last three years.

“It’s night and day,” he said.

“We have U.S. Capitol Police employees that are sitting in joint operation centers, that are sitting in other agencies, so that we immediately get that information,” he testified. “But we’re also doing two things that weren’t being done very well before, in my view.”

USCP is now analyzing intelligence to see what threats are credible and sharing those with its own officers on a daily basis.

The department also has a new working relationship with the National Guard, including Manger’s ability to call up troops without needing to wait on anyone else’s approval, though he seemed wary of doing that during a crisis.

“I will tell you that the National Guard is terrific,” Manger said. “But what I really need is trained, equipped law enforcement officers, who are trained in crowd control, civil disturbance. And, again, if we need it, we will have thousands of those on our campus.”

Outside of responding to possibly large-scale attacks on Congress, USCP should expand its presence at airports in the Washington, D.C. area, according to the panel’s ranking member Adriano Espaillat, a New York Democrat.

Lawmakers traveling through airports, Espaillat said, “are subject to threats.”

“I think there needs to be a greater presence in the airport,” he said.

Manger said USCP tries to “accommodate” all lawmakers who request police escorts through airports and noted it has people at the three main airports in the Washington, D.C., region.

The fiscal 2025 budget request for Capitol Police proposes that Congress approve $636.5 million for salaries and $263.8 million for general expenses.

USCP’s current funding bill, approved in March, provides the agency with a total spending level of $791.5 million, with $588.6 million of that dedicated to salaries and $202.8 million for general expenses.

The House and Senate Appropriations committees will likely release their respective spending bills in the late spring or early summer. The spending process is unlikely to wrap up before Election Day.

The post U.S. Capitol Police chief describes preparations for possible post-election turmoil appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Missouri River and Capitol Building during sunset in Jefferson City (Getty Images).

Missouri House members on Wednesday took a step toward prohibiting exports of water, arguing the state’s “most precious resource” should be protected and reserved for residents.

The bill, which prohibits water exports without a state permit, cleared an initial Missouri House vote 115-25. It needs second approval before it moves to the Missouri Senate, where a similar bill has passed a committee vote and awaits action by senators.

Speaking in favor of the bill, Bridget Walsh Moore, a Democrat from St. Louis, said “the water wars are coming.” 

“The western water table is drying up,” Walsh Moore said. “This is forward thinking and protecting Missouri from future problems.”

With the Missouri River running through the middle of the state, the Mississippi along its eastern border and the Osage River that feeds the Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri is home to a host of reliable freshwater systems. But lawmakers fear as other states struggle with a drier future, they might look to Missouri as a solution.

To the west, Kansas is grappling with the decline of the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground supply of fresh water that has been over pumped for decades and threatens running dry. The changing climate and overuse threaten water supplies in much of the western U.S.

Republicans Sen. Jason Bean and Rep. Jamie Burger — from Holcomb and Benton, respectively — introduced legislation this year that would prohibit water exports from Missouri without a permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

The bill would prioritize Missouri users over requests from out of state. In order to receive an export permit, according to the bill, there would have to be enough water present and the out-of-state proposal could not interfere with existing or proposed uses within Missouri. The applicant would also have to demonstrate they need the water and intend to put it to good use.

Missouri officials would have to analyze whether existing and proposed water uses in Missouri would still have access to adequate supply before approving a water export. 

Burger told The Independent earlier this year that he wasn’t aware of any efforts to export water from the state aside from some long standing agreements along the state’s borders with Arkansas and Oklahoma.As of last week, about one-third of Missouri is in a moderate or severe drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The post ‘The water wars are coming’: Missouri looks to limit exports from rivers, lakes appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas holds a press conference at a U.S. Border Patrol station on Jan. 8, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas (John Moore/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans will delay until next week their delivery to the Senate of the two articles of impeachment against Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, a spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday.

“To ensure the Senate has adequate time to perform its constitutional duty, the House will transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week,” the spokesperson wrote in a late afternoon statement. “There is no reason whatsoever for the Senate to abdicate its responsibility to hold an impeachment trial.”

Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, and 11 impeachment managers had informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that they planned to walk over the two articles of impeachment to the Senate Wednesday, but postponed after a request from Senate Republicans.

The articles accuse Mayorkas of a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,” and of a breach of public trust.

Once the articles are delivered in the Senate, the process for an impeachment trial immediately starts. Senate Republicans sought to avoid a timeline that had them conducting the early stages of an impeachment trial instead of flying home on Thursday as they typically do.

During a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Senate Republicans said they didn’t expect an impeachment trial to last a week, but didn’t want a trial to start so close to a fly-out date.

“If we don’t start it until the end of the week, that leaves us no adequate opportunity to debate it and you don’t want members trying to get out of town so quickly that they are influenced by the jet fumes,” Utah’s Mike Lee said.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, said during a Tuesday press conference that he plans to move through the process quickly, which has angered Senate Republicans who are pushing for a trial.

Schumer said the articles of impeachment are “absurd and there are no charges in the House complaint that rise to the level of impeachment.”

“Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements,” he said.

Schumer can make a motion to dismiss or table the articles with a simple majority, where Democrats hold a slim 51 seats.

Schumer said in a statement that the Senate is prepared to move forward.

“We’re ready to go whenever they are,” Schumer said. “We are sticking with our plan. We’re going to move this as expeditiously as possible.”

If the articles are delivered to the Senate next week, the trial would begin within days of another Mayorkas appearance on Capitol Hill.

The House Homeland Security Committee, which held two impeachment proceedings and moved forward with articles of impeachment, will have Mayorkas testify on April 16 about the DHS budget for fiscal year 2025.

The chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, is also one of the 11 impeachment managers.

The rest of the Republican impeachment managers are Reps. Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ben Cline of Virginia, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Michael Guest of Mississippi, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Laurel Lee of Florida, August Pfluger of Texas and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

The post Republicans in Congress delay Mayorkas impeachment proceedings appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

The director of the Republican National Committee’s department for “election integrity” spoke at an online meeting hosted by two Florida activists who are close allies of the pillow entrepreneur and leading election-conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell, pictured above (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

As the Republican National Committee ramps up plans to monitor the polls for illegal voting this fall, the national party is increasingly working with a loose network of anti-fraud extremists who have been found to routinely spread election lies.

The extremists also have close ties to the prominent far-right conspiracy theorists who tried to overturn the 2020 results of the presidential election.

The director of the Republican National Committee’s department for “election integrity” — tighter voting rules that prioritize anti-fraud measures over access — spoke at an April 4 online meeting hosted by two Florida activists who are close allies of the pillow entrepreneur and leading election-conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell.

States Newsroom attended the meeting, and video of it was posted online by the organizers.

It was just one of several recent episodes in which top RNC staff have reached out to large-scale purveyors of election falsehoods or right-wing extremists as the party recruits volunteers to guard the vote.

Election officials and election administration experts have repeatedly said there is no evidence of large-scale fraud or illegal voting in the 2020 election. Hundreds of lawsuits intended to uncover significant fraud have found very little.

The GOP’s growing outreach to these groups serves as the latest warning about the threat to this fall’s vote that could still be posed by the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, election experts say.

“It’s one thing when fringe conspiracy theorists spread lies about elections,” said David Becker, an election administration expert who founded and runs the Center for Election Innovation and Research. “But it’s particularly disappointing to see a major political party give a platform to extremists whose testimony and statements have been found time and again to be false, and non-credible by the courts.”

“On the issue of democracy, today’s Republican Party is more irresponsible and more dangerous than it was in 2020,” said Marc Elias, a top Democratic election lawyer, in a statement that blasted the GOP’s effort to “court and nurture a network of right-wing election vigilantes.”

A spokesperson for the RNC did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

At the April 4 meeting, RNC election integrity director Christina Norton laid out the party’s plan to closely monitor the voting process, especially in swing states. Norton explained how the volunteers in attendance, eager to root out voter fraud, could get involved.

“We don’t see this program as being siloed or separate,” said Norton, a former deputy director of the Republican National Lawyers Association and a veteran of Florida GOP politics. “This is a full partnership with the grassroots and the local activists on the ground.”

Soon after, Seth Keshel, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer, began his own presentation, stressing that Republicans would face a challenge to overcome what he said is mass Democratic fraud in states across the country.

Based on his own “quick count” done before the call, Keshel said, five key counties in North Carolina saw a total of 150,000 fraudulent votes in the 2020 election.

There’s also “big-time abuse” in Madison, Wisconsin, said Keshel, who has made frequent presentations across the country, using comparisons of vote totals in past elections to falsely claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Milwaukee, too, has a “big-time ballot harvesting scene,” he said.

As for Arizona, Keshel declared, the state’s two largest counties are “where the cheating is going on,” though Democrats are also “stuffing margins in the event of a close race” in other parts of the state.

“The corruption of elections is based on the corruption of voter rolls, and everything springs forward from that,” Keshel said.

Neither Norton nor anyone else on the call, which organizers said reached its Zoom capacity of 500 attendees, with around 1000 more watching a livestream, objected to Keshel’s claims, for which he provided no evidence.

Jessica Marsden, a counsel at Protect Democracy, a democracy advocacy group, said it’s become common for anti-fraud activists to style themselves as data experts, and to use scraps of information to build complex conspiracy theories.

“There’s this common thread of almost pseudo-science,” said Marsden. “These fraud theories have been totally debunked, but the aura of expertise that they bring to the effort seems to be seductive to some of these audiences.”

To promote the April 4 meeting in advance, its two hosts, Steve Stern and Raj Doraisamy, used what have been found to be lies about the threat of voting by undocumented immigrants.

In a March 26 appearance on “War Room,” the popular podcast hosted by Steve Bannon, who served as a Trump White House adviser, Stern promised:  “We have so many illegal aliens in this country. They want to vote. We gotta stop them. We’re gonna tell you on April 4th how to do this.”

Bannon urged listeners to join the call, telling Stern: “You’re the best.”

A mass April 3 email sent by Doraisamy included a screenshot of a viral post on X charging that “8 million illegal aliens have invaded America under Biden,” and falsely suggesting that they’re being deliberately allowed in so that they can illegally vote for Democrats.

Thanks to this scheme, “the risk of Trump losing is now higher than ever,” Doraisamy wrote, urging readers to attend the meeting.

In fact, the claim in the post, which was also promoted by X owner Elon Musk to his over 180 million followers, is riddled with flaws, as the progressive journalist Judd Legum has shown.

Politifact has rated the claim that 8 million undocumented people have entered the country during the Biden presidency “mostly false.”

In addition to filing a slew of lawsuits aimed at restricting voting, the RNC is planning a ground operation of volunteers to aggressively monitor the voting process.

A Trump campaign spokesperson promised in a TV appearance last month that there would be “soldiers — poll watchers, on the ground, who are making sure that there are no irregularities and fraud like we saw in the last election cycle.” 

Meanwhile, a leadership change has increased Trump’s control over the national party.

In late February, Ronna McDaniel, whom Trump backers had criticized as out of touch with the grassroots, stepped down as chair. She was replaced by Lara Trump, Trump’s daughter-in-law, and Michael Whatley, the former chair of the North Carolina GOP, who has emphasized the election integrity issue.

In an April 7 interview, Whatley avoided answering whether the 2020 election had been stolen.

Speaking on Fox News in March, Lara Trump pledged that the election integrity department would receive “massive resources.”

In recent weeks, the RNC has been at pains to show conservative activists — including those who have played key roles in spreading election lies — that it needs their help.

Gates McGavick, a senior adviser to Whatley and the RNC’s top spokesperson on election integrity issues, joined Stern’s podcast last month.

“We want to have open communication with the grassroots. We want to be providing as many resources as we possibly can to the grassroots,” McGavick told Stern. “Our election integrity department is a huge part of how we do that.”

And Christina Bobb, a former Trump lawyer who played a role in the Trump campaign’s “fake elector” scheme and was recently hired as a top RNC attorney, spoke with the far-right podcaster Breanna Morello last month.  

“The most important aspect of election integrity from the RNC is empowering the grassroots to do what the grassroots does,” Bobb told Morello.

Bobb also joined a conference call last month with several Trump-allied groups that have spread lies about 2020, the Guardian reported.

The RNC appears not to have publicized any of these meetings, including the April 4 event with Norton, on its social media accounts or its website.

But for activists like Stern, who were used to being kept at arm’s length by the national party, the RNC’s new approach is a godsend.

“I think the RNC is the most important thing here,” Stern told Bannon as he previewed the April 4 meeting. “We’ve never been able to do this with Ronna McDaniel. But they’re coming to us now because they realize the grassroots are the important people in this country, that are going to save this country.”

The April 4 meeting’s two organizers, Stern and Doraisamy, both have close ties to Lindell, as do several of the other speakers, who have been key spreaders of baseless claims about mass voter fraud.

Lindell spoke at a March 11 event Stern organized, video of which was posted online, to raise money and recruit conservative activists, held at Trump International Golf Club. “There is no more important patriot in this United States than Mike Lindell,” Stern declared as he introduced the conspiracy theorist.

Doraisamy was outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune has reported, and went on to found a group, Defend Florida, that went door to door to gather thousands of “affidavits” from Floridians in an effort to show that the state’s 2020 election was corrupted by massive fraud. Election officials have said there’s no evidence for that.

At a 2022 event celebrating the signing into law of a controversial state measure creating an election crimes unit, which Defend Florida said was spurred by their work, Doraisamy thanked Lindell for his help with transportation for the door-to-door effort.

“We could not have been able to do that without your help,” Doraisamy said.

A 2021 Defend Florida rally included numerous Proud Boys, the self-described “western chauvinist” group that played a key role in the events of Jan. 6, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported.

Another speaker on the April 4 call, Linda Szynkowicz, the Connecticut-based founder of FightVoterFraud.org, claimed recently on Stern’s podcast that her team has gathered evidence of election violations committed by over 40,000 people across the country. “Most of them are class D felonies,” she added.

In Connecticut alone, Szynkowicz said, her group has found around 11,000 people that potentially can be proven to have violated election laws. She provided no evidence for the claim

“I always have to say ‘potentially’ because I’m not law enforcement,” Szynkowicz added. “But we know we got ‘em.”

Also given a speaking spot at the April 4 meeting was Linda Rantz, who runs the Missouri chapter of Cause of America, a group that Lindell founded with the goal of getting rid of voting machines.

Another speaker, Jay Valentine, used initial funding from Lindell, the Texas Tribune has reported, to create voter data monitoring software.

According to documents obtained by the progressive group American Oversight, Valentine has worked closely with Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, a key figure in the effort to overturn the 2020 election, to convince lawmakers in Wisconsin and other states to use his “fractal programming technology” to uncover mass fraud.

“Voter fraud is a nationwide crime perpetrated locally, mostly by Democrats,” Valentine has written separately, promoting the idea of a national election fraud database. “We cannot fight industrial, sovereign, large-scale, election fraud with reports, press releases, and webinars.”

Yet another April 4 speaker, Marly Hornik, founded New York Citizens Audit, which she has said conducted an “open-source audit” of the state’s voter registration database.

“We have found millions and millions of registrations that are clear violations of New York state election law,” Hornik said last year on The Lindell Report, a TV show and podcast started by Lindell. “The database is being manipulated. We have hard evidence of that.”

Last year, New York Citizens Audit received a cease and desist letter from the state attorney general, charging that the group’s volunteers “confronted voters across the state at their homes, falsely claimed to be Board of Elections officials, and falsely accused voters of committing felony voter fraud.”

To those working for a fair and peaceful election this year, it all adds up to a major concern.

“Lying about election fraud is dangerous, plain and simple,” said Marsden of Protect Democracy, noting the Jan. 6 insurrection, as well as threats leveled against election workers. “Having a major political party sign on to those lies and lend them credibility is reckless and heightens the risk of violence affecting voters and the election.”

The post Republican National Committee courts election conspiracy theorists to help watch polls appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

The exterior of Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Center is seen on May 31, 2019 in St. Louis (Photo by Michael Thomas/Getty Images).

A bill that would make Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive reimbursements from the state’s Medicaid program passed out of the Missouri Senate early Wednesday morning after an 11-hour Democrat filibuster.

The bill now returns to the House, where it can be sent to Gov. Mike Parson to sign into law.

This legislation, originally filed by Republican state Rep. Cody Smith of Carthage, is nearly identical to a bill filed by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, which was blocked by a Democratic filibuster in February. 

The legislation would make it financially tenuous, if not impossible, for the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics to continue seeing patients on Medicaid since the clinics would no longer be reimbursed for the cost of seeing these low-income patients.

Coleman, who is running for Secretary of State, said Tuesday afternoon that she hopes putting her bill into law makes it “abundantly clear to the state of Missouri that people who are engaged in, are associated with, who are providing abortions in the state of Missouri, shall be ineligible to be part of the Medicaid program.”

Missouri was the first state to outlaw abortion in June 2022 after the constitutional right to the procedure was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. From June 2022 through 2023 , there were 52 abortions performed in Missouri under the state’s emergency exemption, according to data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. 

None took place at Missouri Planned Parenthood clinics; however, Planned Parenthood clinics in the neighboring states of Kansas and Illinois still provide abortions.

“Dollars are fungible,” Coleman said Tuesday. 

Health professionals push to reduce congenital syphilis infections killing Missouri babies

Her Democratic colleagues blocked a vote on the legislation past midnight, arguing that the state’s health care safety net couldn’t reasonably support displaced Medicaid patients. 

State Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, called the bill a “bizarre quest to just continue to punish Planned Parenthood.” 

“But the reality is it’s not punishing Planned Parenthood,” she said. “This is hurting our very own constituents.”

Missouri’s Medicaid program, called MO HealthNet, serves low-income and disabled citizens, and has long banned funding for abortion, with limited exceptions. Planned Parenthood clinics primarily provide contraceptives, STI testing, cancer screenings and wellness checks. 

The bill was ultimately approved along party lines around 12:30 a.m. 

The bills filed this session attempt to cut Planned Parenthood’s funding through state law after Missouri Republicans twice tried to end Medicaid reimbursements through the state budget. Both times, including as recently as February, courts ruled those attempts unconstitutional.

Despite the legal victories, Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri last month said they have not received any Medicaid reimbursements since 2022. 

Emily Wales, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which oversees clinics in western Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, said previously that her organization has been privately fundraising to offset the cost of care to continue seeing Missouri Medicaid patients. 

When a similar law passed in Arkansas several years ago, clinics immediately ceased seeing Medicaid patients. Arkansas’ law was upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

Nearly one in five Planned Parenthood patients in Missouri are on Medicaid. Wales said they’re still evaluating their options if the bill becomes law. 

Coleman on Tuesday said this bill is not about access to health care, reiterating that federally qualified health centers, which also take patients on Medicaid, could take on the patients. She again suggested that Planned Parenthood clinics could also drop their Planned Parenthood affiliation to become eligible for reimbursements. 

“It’s no politician’s business to tell somebody where they can and can’t go for healthcare,” McCreery said, emphasizing her concerns that patients won’t quickly be able to find new providers.

Missouri looks to mirror Arkansas law that forced Planned Parenthood to turn away patients

The Missouri Family Health Council Inc has over the past two years informally surveyed the capacity at the state’s safety net clinics. 

When calling to inquire about availability for new patients, the organization found wait times at the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics averaged between the same day and three days to get an appointment. Across the other safety net clinics, wait times averaged between five and seven weeks, with some clinics as few as two weeks and some pausing new patients completely.  

In 2022, across all 68 safety net clinics in the state that take Title X funding, around 24% of the clients were on Medicaid, said Michelle Trupiano, the council’s executive director. She previously testified that Planned Parenthood is the primary family planning services provider for about 20,000 patients across the state.

State Sen. Karla May, a Democrat from St. Louis, said in her travels around rural Missouri last year she heard a resounding cry for more health care providers. A bill like this, she argued, would create “chaos.”

McCreery on Tuesday brought forward an amendment that would exempt in vitro fertilization from Missouri’s current statute which states that life begins at conception. 

The amendment never made it to a vote, but it fueled much of the Democratic senators’ filibuster.  

“I assumed wrongly, stupidly, that when the legislature passed a total ban on abortion, that that would be enough. People would feel like they had their pro life credentials,” said state Sen. Lauren Arthur, a Democrat from Kansas City. “What I have since realized is it’s never enough.”

The post Bill ending Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood clears Missouri Senate appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

State Treasurer Vivek Malek testifies in January in support of a bill by Sen. Andrew Koenig that would expand the MOScholars program. Both are campaigning for the 2024 State Treasurer’s election (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Lawmakers are raising concerns about what they believe is a lack of transparency in Missouri’s nearly two-year old private school tax credit program.

The administrator of the MOScholars program, State Treasurer Vivek Malek, says the criticism is misplaced, arguing lawmakers are making overly broad requests for data in a manner that is taxing the small staff in the treasurer’s office.

And the debate is playing out as the GOP-run legislature seeks to expand the program to make it available to more students, both by raising the income threshold and permitting its use statewide.

“It is honestly getting very difficult to get any information out of the treasurer’s office at all,” state Sen. Andrew Koenig, a Republican from Manchester who is running against Malek in the GOP primary, said during a Senate debate last month.

The criticism began during a Senate committee hearing on a MOScholars expansion bill in January. Democrats on the committee asked Malek and his staff about program demographics, information they argued has been murky.

“We’re having a hard time getting information,” state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, said during the hearing. “Do you have any thoughts on if the schools that are receiving the voucher plans should also be subject to Sunshine Law, just like other educational institutions?”

Malek told Democrats: “I can assure you my office will provide you those answers within 48 hours.”

Sen. Doug Beck questions State Treasurer Vivek Malek during a Senate Education and Workforce Development Committee hearing in January (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

State Sen. Doug Beck, an Affton Democrat, asked for data on the program before the January hearing and received a screenshot of a webpage with basic demographic information.

“After I asked for all the data, (a staff member) sent me a screenshot of a website,” Beck said. “That’s why I went off in the meeting. Like, this is crap.”

According to emails obtained by The Independent, Beck on Jan. 7 asked for “all the data you have compiled on the MO Scholars program.” He did not cite Missouri’s Sunshine Law, which outlines procedures for public records requests.

Ray Bozarth, Malek’s chief of staff,  responded, writing: “It’s my understanding you may have some questions regarding the MOScholars program. How may I help you?”

Kern Chhikara, Malek’s spokesman, told The Independent the treasurer’s office had to guess what Beck wanted because of the broad nature of his request.

“Sen. Beck asked vaguely for ‘all the data,’ and we interpreted that request as all the key metrics for the program,” Chhikara said. “When Sen. Beck complained about the data we provided him, we promptly followed up with data that was responsive to some of the various questions and concerns he expressed in a hearing.”

Immediately following the committee hearing, Bozarth sent a spreadsheet that answered questions Beck had, like how many students previously attended private schools before receiving MOScholars funding. Beck still has unanswered questions.

In the program’s first enrollment class, 33% of students had attended private school prior to receiving the scholarship, 36% attended public school, 24% were entering kindergarten or first grade and were thereby not counted as attending private or public schools previously. 

The remaining students were educated at home or in charter schools.

Beck is particularly concerned with the number of students who are receiving the money, which is rerouted from the state’s general fund, to pay for a private school they were already attending.

Koenig told The Independent he asked for data such as program enrollment by school, student demographics and student testing data. He never received the data showing which schools students attend. The Independent obtained a file with that information from the treasurer’s office in November.

In a statement to The Independent, Chhikara said the office only recalls Koenig’s request for performance data. A report on student performance must be publicly available, by state law, after the third year of the program, which would be next year.

The office has the raw data, but it does not have the staff required to generate a report.

“The legislature wrote the bill to require students to take a state achievement test or a nationally norm-referenced test. The problem here is that there are a lot of different norm referenced tests,” Chhikara told The Independent. “The large amount of eligible tests for students to take resulted in diversely formatted testing data being submitted to the State Treasurer’s Office.”

The sheer volume of testing data, and the diverse formatting, would require a full-time employee to learn software that could be used to aggregate the data, Chhikara said. 

 “We do not have the staff capacity to handle such a task,” he said, “which is why we had planned on posting the position this summer. If legislators want testing data provided sooner, they could change the statute.”

Koenig said he received some data but hoped to get more so that he could compare program participants to public-school test scores.

“I would have hoped that they would have done a little bit of work on that,” Koenig said, “because they would have at least gotten one year of data by May of last year.” 

The State Treasurer’s Office has 49 employees, according to the state’s accountability portal, with some not working any hours in the last pay period. In 2020, prior to the creation of MOScholar, the treasurer’s office had 51 employees on its books.

Malek has been at the helm of the operation since January of 2023, after Gov. Mike Parson appointed him to fill the vacancy left when Scott Fitzpatrick was elected state auditor. 

Much of the staff under Fitzpatrick followed him to the auditor’s office.

Beck said he never asked the office for information when Fitzpatrick was treasurer.

“I actually have more confidence that (Fitzpatrick) knew what was going on,” Beck said.

It is unclear whether Malek was aware of lawmakers’ difficulties with the office. Chhikara said he doesn’t know which inquiries staff members briefed Malek on.

“Generally,” he said, “staff keep (Malek) informed about media and legislator inquiries.” 

The post Missouri treasurer pushes back on legislative criticism of MoScholars data transparency appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

State Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, speaks on the House floor during the 2022 session (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

The post Missouri Senate committee debates wide-ranging crime legislation appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is leading a group of six states in a legal challenge against the federal government’s SAVE Plan, an income-driven student-loan repayment plan (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is seeking to squash a nearly eight-month-old program that has waived $1.2 billion in student loans for 153,000 borrowers and limited the payment amounts for 8 million others. 

He is joined by the attorneys general from Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s SAVE Plan, an income-driven repayment plan launched in August of last year and is set to be fully implemented in July.

The Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis, home of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach filed his own legal challenge of the SAVE Plan at the end of March alongside 10 other states. Bailey said at the time that he was “extremely pleased” to see Kobach’s lawsuit, announcing the same day that he intended to file a similar motion.

He followed through on the promise Tuesday. 

“Between our two coalitions of states, we will get this matter in front of a judge even more quickly to deliver a win for the American people,” he said in a news release.

Bailey was part of a legal challenge of an earlier program for student-loan forgiveness, which culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the federal government’s plan last June.

In that lawsuit, the Department of Education had proposed using the Heroes Act to give widespread relief during the pandemic.

Included in Bailey’s argument in that lawsuit was that debt relief would hurt the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA. 

The quasi-governmental nonprofit did not consent to be part of the original lawsuit, and internal communications released last year showed some of the company’s employees expressing apprehension about being involved. .

Bailey’s latest lawsuit also claims harm against MOHELA.

“By accelerating the forgiveness timeline for the typical borrower by as much as 15 years, the final rule imposes financial harm on MOHELA, and thus the State of Missouri, by depriving MOHELA of up to 15 years in servicing fees,” the attorneys general wrote in the lawsuit.

MOHELA did not respond to a request for comment.

Although some of the arguments remain, the department has used a different federal law to justify the SAVE Plan. This time around, the department is pulling its authority from the Higher Education Act, which was first enacted in 1965 but has been amended since.

The Higher Education Act authorizes need-based financial aid for college students, among other provisions.

Bailey argues that, when Congress passed the Higher Education Act, they didn’t intend for it to be used as the SAVE Plan does.

The SAVE Plan, when fully implemented, would cap borrowers’ loan payments at 5% of their discretionary income. In February, the Department of Education announced that of the 7.5 million people that had enrolled in the program, 4.3 million had a $0 monthly payment.

The SAVE Plan also promises loan forgiveness within 10 years for those who borrowed $12,000 or less. For those who initially borrowed over $12,000, the department says it will relieve debts with an additional year for each $1,000 beyond $12,000 borrowed.

Bailey argues in Tuesday’s lawsuit that the 10-year period is problematic because of another federal program, Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or PSLF, which forgives student debt for those who have worked in public service for 10 years and made payments on their loans during that period.

“PSLF is so important for government agencies because, before the Final Rule, PSLF was comparatively much more generous than any other federal loan repayment program. That gave borrowers a sizeable incentive to work for public service employers,” the lawsuit says.

Bailey repeatedly refers to the 10-year cost of loan forgiveness citing both the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of $276 billion and the Penn-Wharton Budget Model’s $475 billion prediction.

The lawsuit mentions a debt-relief plan announced Monday by President Joe Biden but does not appear to explicitly challenge it. 

The SAVE Plan is a component of the latest plan, which also relies on the Higher Education Act.

Solicitor General Josh Divine, who signed Tuesday’s lawsuit on behalf of Bailey’s office, was part of a rulemaking committee that shapes the latest debt-relief plan announced Monday. He stepped down from the committee after his peers rejected his proposal to bring in business leaders as a constituency group.

“There’s essentially no program for small business owners, people who didn’t go to college, people who went to trade schools or went through alternative career processes,” Divine told the committee in December.

Bailey, who was appointed to his position by Gov. Mike Parson, is running for a full term in office this year.

The post Missouri Attorney General leads coalition challenging Biden student debt relief appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during U.S. Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Feb. 22, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Demetrius Freeman-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri thinks he’s found a path for stalled tax legislation that would temporarily expand the child tax credit and restore business tax breaks that are expired or have sunset under the 2017 tax law.

Hawley’s idea is to attach the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to the tax bill to entice his party colleagues to pass it through the upper chamber — including top tax writer and radiation compensation champion Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho. The House already has passed the tax package with overwhelming bipartisan support.

“I think if they want to move the tax bill, I would say put RECA onto the tax bill and move them together. I think you can get 60 (votes) for that. I would go for it. I think other people would vote for it. It’s hard to see a path if that doesn’t happen, to be honest with you,” Hawley told States Newsroom and a small group of reporters Tuesday.

Hawley’s RECA proposal would expand the expiring compensation fund for victims of past government radiation and atomic bomb testing in the St. Louis area and the western and southwestern U.S.

Senators voted in favor of the bill in March, 69-30.

When asked by States Newsroom if the proposal — first reported by Punchbowl News —  had gained traction, Hawley said he’s “talked to multiple senators about this and where my position is.”

“Listen, I don’t control the floor. So it’s not my decision. But I’m just saying that if they want to move that bill … I can only control my own vote, but I’d vote for it,” he said.

Some Senate Republicans refuse to support the tax bill over a Democratic proposal to allow taxpayers to receive the child tax credit even if they had no annual income the prior year — a “look-back” provision that they liken to expanding welfare.

Several also oppose a provision that would phase-in the credit at a faster rate, therefore increasing the amount parents could receive as a refund.

Crapo, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance and lead Senate Republican negotiator on the tax bill, has championed compensation for victims of government radiation exposure.

The Idaho Republican’s invited guest to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address in March was Tona Henderson, head of the Idaho Downwinders in Emmett, Idaho, a group that advocates for compensation for Idahoans affected by government nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s.

A Senate Finance Committee spokesperson said Crapo does not have any comment about Hawley’s idea.

A staunch opponent of the tax legislation, GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said Hawley’s proposal does nothing to move his position.

“You’re talking about the tax legislation I oppose?” he said when asked by States Newsroom Tuesday if attaching RECA would change his mind. “No.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and originally sponsored the tax bill, said he hasn’t yet been briefed on the proposal, which also would have to make it through the Republican-controlled House.

“But, you know, when I hear United States senators, particularly Republicans, say that they’re interested in families and small businesses, and getting a roof over people’s heads, I think that’s a good thing,” the Oregon Democrat said.

Wyden said he’s interested in “approaches that add votes, don’t subtract votes.”

What Republicans want to do — strip the bill of the look-back provision for the child tax credit — would alienate Democratic supporters of the bill, Wyden said.

“What has been offered thus far by the Senate Republicans would not get a single Democratic vote, and the sponsors of it know that.”

The post U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley proposes adding radiation exposure bill to stalled tax package appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Dana Williams, top, and Khalyson McDuffie, doulas with Birth in Color, a Virginia group that offers doula services for pregnant patients of color and training for local maternal health care workers to combat racial bias, participate in a doula simulation training session. Some states are mandating implicit bias training (Courtesy of Kenda Sutton-El/Birth in Color)

Countless times, Kenda Sutton-El, a Virginia doula, has witnessed her Black pregnant clients being dismissed or ignored by clinicians.

One woman was told by doctors that swelling, pain and warmth in her leg was normal, despite warning the clinicians that she had a history of blood clots. Sutton-El urged her to visit the emergency room. Tests found the pregnant patient did indeed have a blood clot, a situation that can be deadly.

Some clients were told they weren’t doing enough to lose weight. After another client was treated dismissively when she paid for a visit in cash, Sutton-El posed as a patient and got the same response, making her wonder how many other Black women had been treated the same way.

“The biggest thing is that they’re not being listened to,” said Sutton-El, founder of Birth in Color, a nonprofit that offers doula services to expecting Virginians. Doulas support and advocate for pregnant patients. “They’re being dismissed or [clinicians] act as if the pain isn’t there, or act as if the issue is normal, when it’s not.”

As the United States contends with stark racial disparities in maternal health, experts are pushing states to mandate training for medical professionals to combat “implicit bias,” the prejudiced attitudes a person might hold without being aware of it. Lawmakers in more states are heeding that call.

Since 2019, at least five states (California, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey) have enacted laws mandating implicit bias training for maternal health care providers, according to Stateline research and an analysis by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. Lawmakers in at least 20 other states have introduced legislation related to implicit bias training for general health care professionals.

Virginia lawmakers recently approved similar legislation, sending it to Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. He has not said whether he will sign it.

The training can take different forms. Some courses are offered online, while others can be one-day workshops. Participants typically examine certain scenarios and learn about the history and harms of racial stereotypes.

Sutton-El argues that the training can make a huge difference. She said that one white doctor who completed the training recently told her how it had influenced his treatment of a Black patient. She recalled him telling her: “I had your voice in my head that said, ‘Follow the patient down the rabbit hole, because you’ll find out what’s the real issue.’”

But others say implicit bias training can be insufficient or ineffective. Okunsola Amadou, a doula who founded Jamaa Birth Village, a midwifery clinic and maternal health nonprofit in Ferguson, Missouri, said bias trainings alone can’t change a hospital’s culture.

“The ultimate problem with that is that it is barely the surface,” Amadou said. “If they’re not working with [Black maternal health] pioneers who are rooted in this work to help them restructure, then the ‘click-and-go’ implicit bias trainings will not hold any weight at all.”

Tiffany Green, an associate professor at the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said her team’s review of studies on anti-bias trainings in clinical settings found little evidence that it led to long-term behavioral changes.

Because racism isn’t just an individual problem but a systemic one, Green said, institutions must combat bias at the organizational level. If done incorrectly, it can induce anger in white employees and exacerbate inequities, she said.

While there is evidence that providers’ racial stereotyping affects treatment, it’s not known whether or how bias trainings will impact pregnant patient health outcomes, she told Stateline.

Rachel Hardeman, health equity director at the University of Minnesota Center for Antiracism Research and a co-author of the study on Black and white doctors, developed the widely used “Dignity in Childbirth and Pregnancy” course offered online in states with training mandates, including California and Minnesota. For Minnesota, her team designed a course focused on bias against Indigenous women. She said the courses are designed for both clinicians and hospital management: “People who may not be directly involved in patient care in the day-to-day but are involved in making leadership decisions.”

There is ample research suggesting there is racial bias in health care.

Black women in the United States are nearly three times more likely to die of maternal health complications than white women, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indigenous women are nearly twice as likely to die.

Research has shown implicit racial bias plays a role in those stark disparities. Examples of that bias include false beliefs that Black patients have higher pain tolerance and thicker skin, as well as long-used diagnostic tools — such as lung and kidney function tests — that have prevented proper diagnoses for Black patients.

A CDC study published last year found that nearly 1 in 3 Black, Hispanic and multiracial women reported mistreatment during pregnancy and delivery, such as receiving no response to requests for help, being shouted at, or being threatened with the withholding of treatment.

Another review, also published last year, analyzed 42 studies since 2014 and concluded that racial biases and structural racism contributed to maternal health complications for Black women. And a 2020 study found Black infants were twice as likely to survive when cared for by Black doctors.

Research by Hardeman and others has found that clinicians are more likely to describe Black patients as “not compliant,” “agitated” or “aggressive.” When such descriptions are included in a patient’s medical record, it can color the perceptions of other providers who consult it, influencing their interactions with the patient.

Hardeman’s courses include patient anecdotes that illustrate bias as well as strategies for curbing assumptions and practicing more empathy. The courses also include a history of racism in medicine, such as the gynecological experiments by J. Marion Sims, often called the father of modern gynecology, on Black enslaved people.

Given that history, many Black, Indigenous and Hispanic patients are wary of health care systems.

“We’re talking about the fact that our medical education system has been built within this history of racism, and so we have to be aware of it to undo it,” Hardeman said.

“We wanted to make sure that people walked away understanding that we all have a role in dismantling these systems, and it starts with educating ourselves, and then making sure that what we’re learning and what we’ve been educated on, we’re applying it to the way that we are interacting with different patients and their families.”

But passage of a law doesn’t always lead to immediate change.

A year and half after California’s law took effect in 2020, a California Department of Justice investigation found just 17% of providers surveyed had trained their entire staff. Nearly a year after the probe began and more outreach was conducted, completed training rates rose to 81%. New legislation introduced this year aims to strengthen the law by fining health care centers that fail to train their staff, and would extend training requirements to nursing staff.

In many states, implicit bias legislation has stalled before reaching the governor’s desk.

In Missouri, a bill introduced in 2022 died in committee. State Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, a Democrat, reintroduced it this year. And in Georgia, lawmakers reintroduced this session a bill that would mandate implicit bias training for health care professionals in childbirth settings. Both of the reintroduced bills remain in committee.

Dr. Lethenia “Joy” Baker, an obstetrician and gynecologist in rural Georgia, often sees Black patients who specifically sought her out.

“[They] say, ‘I chose you, because you were the one Black woman in town, and I just feel more comfortable,’” she said. “We have to think about the fact that there’s such a lack of diversity in medicine,” making training for everyone important.

“We really need to unpack about the legacy of Southern slaves, and how we begin to move past that. So, I think that legislation is important around this topic, because let’s just face it, that legacy is very painful,” she said.

In South Carolina, Democratic state Rep. JA Moore and other Democrats have introduced implicit bias bills twice since 2020, but neither has passed. Moore said he plans to propose it again.

“I will continue to fight like hell,” Moore told Stateline, saying his aim is to address some of the “challenges so many women have, specifically minority women, low-income women have, in the state of South Carolina.”

South Carolina Black women were more than four times as likely as white women to die of maternal health complications in 2020, according to the state’s latest report. The state’s Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee found that discrimination contributed to more than a third of deaths from 2018 to 2020.

“This is just another way in which we can try to change those numbers,” Moore said. “[It’s] an opportunity to lead a dramatic change in these very horrific, disproportionately racialized health outcomes for so many citizens.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

The post To close racial gap in maternal health, some states take aim at ‘implicit bias’ appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., speaks to reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Building after a vote on a funding bill that would avert a government shutdown on March 22, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Greene spoke to reporters about introducing a motion to vacate U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., over the bill’s passage (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans are returning from a two-week recess Tuesday with an even slimmer majority and the potential looming chaos of a second speaker fight in less than a year.

Hours before recess began on March 22, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia filed a motion to vacate the U.S. House speaker’s office, threatening to boot Mike Johnson of Louisiana from the role he’s held for just over five months.

The potential leadership crisis looms over a serious to-do list that includes renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and pressure to finally approve a long-stalled foreign aid request for conflicts in Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific.

Adding to the risk of chaos for the GOP: Two House Republicans abruptly announced resignations days before lawmakers headed home for the Easter holiday break, narrowing the House GOP’s majority to 217-213 once both are finished and prior to a series of special elections later this spring.

Colorado’s Ken Buck resigned on March 22, quickly followed by the abrupt resignation of Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, whose last day is slated for April 19.

And as the 2024 election cycle accelerates, political observers will be watching for whether House GOP lawmakers will balance day-to-day business while appeasing the political base for presumed Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump.

House Republicans have struggled to unify during the 118th Congress, which started with the party slogging through more than a dozen ballots to seat Kevin McCarthy at the helm, said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University.

McCarthy, of California, was ousted in the fall, and the former leader left Congress in December, chipping away at the majority’s margin.

“This is a continuation of the tumult that really began when the Republicans took power,” Dallek said.

With a two-week work period ahead, House GOP lawmakers face another chance to prove whether they can coalesce around billions in aid to U.S. allies. House Republicans also face big questions about federal funds to help rebuild the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore and the renewal of a surveillance law that expires April 19, a self-imposed deadline after lawmakers extended it in December.

Johnson has vowed to prioritize Ukraine aid when House lawmakers return Tuesday, despite the prospect of continued opposition from the party’s far-right faction.

The U.S. Senate passed a $95.3 billion foreign aid package in February that would cover assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, but the House has yet to advance it.

The standalone foreign aid package received support after Senate Republicans, heeding to Trump’s opposition, blocked a deal to alter U.S. immigration laws in exchange for Ukraine aid after months of bipartisan negotiations.

Johnson has said the House will be considering Ukraine aid again. “We’ve been talking to all the members especially now over the district work period. When we return after this period, we’ll be moving a product but it’s going to, I think, have some important innovations,” the Louisiana Republican said March 31 on Fox News’ “Sunday Night in America,” hosted by former GOP South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy.

Johnson said he wants to see the REPO Act as part of the deal. The legislation, introduced last year, would build a fund for Ukraine using the profits from the sale of seized Russian assets, which Johnson said would be “pure poetry.”

Johnson also said he expects conference members to rally in support if the bill restructured Ukraine aid in the form of loans and if it included a measure that would “unleash” American natural gas exports as a way to “help unfund Vladimir Putin’s war effort.”

The speaker faces an uphill battle in unifying House Republicans on the issue.

Georgia’s Rep. Andrew Clyde, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X April 3 that “(b)orrowing billions of dollars to protect Ukraine’s borders while OUR southern border is being invaded is a slap in the face to the American people.”

Some of Johnson’s conservative colleagues think amending the foreign aid bill could be a winning strategy.

Rep. French Hill of Arkansas said adding the REPO Act “would go a long way to filling the Ukrainian budget gap and be a good down payment for reconstruction, to make Putin pay the ultimate cost of his illegal invasion of Ukraine.”

“It would be, in my judgment, a way to get more support for the total package for Ukraine, seizing these Russian assets,” Hill told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan on Sunday.

When Brennan pressed him on the skepticism from his colleagues on the far right, including Greene, Hill responded: “I think overwhelmingly Americans and Republican primary voters believe that Putin should be defeated in Ukraine. As I’ve said before, we should draw the line on authoritarian dictators, particularly permanent members of the (United Nations) Security Council invading neighboring countries.”

If Johnson can’t unify the House GOP conference, votes from across the aisle may be the only path to passing an aid package, particularly if Johnson bypasses the House Committee on Rules. That fast-track to the floor requires a two-thirds majority for passage, which will inevitably mean Democrats’ support will matter.

However, striking a government funding deal with President Joe Biden last year was a flash point that led to the far-right House Republicans’ ouster of McCarthy.

Business in the lower chamber ground to a halt for weeks in October after seven House Republicans joined Florida’s Matt Gaetz in taking the gavel from McCarthy. All Democrats joined in voting for his removal.

Greene’s motion in late March to sack Johnson followed a fast-tracked bipartisan House vote  that resulted in the passage of the last round of overdue spending bills.

Greene did not force a vote on removing Johnson, but rather said it was a “warning” to him that the conference would begin looking for a new speaker who “will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with Democrats,” she told reporters after filing the motion.

Dallek said that Johnson putting a Ukraine deal on the floor “may be the final straw for the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, and they might move to get rid of him.”

“There’s talk that Democrats would save (Johnson) in agreement for putting Ukraine funding on the floor. You know, retaining your speakership because you’re saved by the opposition party is not exactly a great place to be, right?” Dallek said.

Johnson said he believes his Republican colleagues view Greene’s effort as “a distraction from our mission.”

“Again, the mission is to save the republic,” he told Fox News’s Gowdy on Easter. “And the only way we can do that is if we grow the House majority, win the Senate and win the White House.

“So we don’t need any dissension right now. Look, Marjorie Taylor Greene filed the motion, it’s not a privileged motion so it doesn’t move automatically. It’s just hanging there. And she’s frustrated. She and I exchanged text messages. Even today. We’re going to talk early next week,” Johnson said.

GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he’s “optimistic” the House can pass the Ukraine aid bill during this work period.

“But it is very likely that after this Ukraine bill, we may have a standoff with the speaker. I hope the speaker prevails. He’s doing the right thing. It’s in our national security interest that Ukraine remain independent,” Bacon told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 31.

On Monday, Greene wrote on X that she remains opposed to Johnson bypassing the Rules Committee and calling a floor vote.

“Our Republican Speaker of the House is upsetting many of our members by relying on Democrats to pass major bills and working with Dems by giving them everything they want,” Greene wrote.

“That makes him the Democrat Speaker of the House not our Republican Speaker of the House.”

The post Republicans return to D.C. amid dwindling majority, suspense over House speaker post appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

State Rep. Justin Hicks, a Republican from Lake St. Louis (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

A St. Charles County judge found no “compelling justification” to seal a congressional candidate’s lawsuit against a political opponent who published 14-year-old court records of a domestic violence incident.

On Friday, Circuit Judge Christopher McDonough unsealed state Rep. Justin Hicks’ lawsuit against Max Calfo, who is running for Hicks’ seat in the Missouri House, and Lindi Williford, Calfo’s campaign treasurer.

Hicks sued Calfo in September, when he was preparing to seek re-election in the 108th District and Calfo was planning to challenge him in the Republican primary. Hicks switched from seeking a new term in Jefferson City to a bid for the 3rd District congressional seat being given up by retiring U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer.

On his campaign website, Calfo has a page he titled “The Truth about Justin Hicks.” It includes links to images from a 2010 St. Louis County adult abuse case. Hicks agreed to a consent order barring him from contact with a woman who accused him of grabbing her by the neck and choking her.

The order of protection expired on June 15, 2011, and the case was sealed on a motion filed by Hicks in 2021. Hicks’ lawsuit against Calfo and Williford accuses them of illegally revealing the contents of the file.

McDonough granted Hicks’ motion to seal the case against Calfo and Williford when it was filed. Calfo, through his attorneys, has been seeking to have it unsealed.

In the order issued Friday, McDonough noted that neither Calfo nor Williford were parties in the 2010 case or “subject to any court order requiring them to keep any documents or information pertaining to the St. Louis County case confidential. In this case, (Hicks) has not demonstrated a sufficiently compelling justification to overcome the strong constitutional presumption favoring open court records.”

Hicks could not be reached Monday evening for comment. 

Calfo said in an interview with The Independent that the opening of the case file is the first step toward proving he had a right to make the documents public.

“I am glad that Lindi and I have been vindicated that it never should have been sealed and I am optimistic we will see a resolution this spring,” Calfo said.

Hicks, who is in his first term in the Missouri House, jumped into the 3rd District primary on March 12. His campaign committee organized with the Missouri Ethics Commission was raising money for re-election, but he had not filed.

Hicks faces a field of seven other candidates in the GOP primary, including two former state senators, Bob Onder of Lake St. Louis and Kurt Schaefer of Columbia.

Calfo has a primary opponent, Mike Costlow of Lake St. Louis, and a Democrat, Susan Shumway of O’Fallon, is also in the race.

Along with the court documents, Calfo’s website accuses Hicks of lying about his military record by claiming to have been in combat and takes issue with several of his legislative efforts. 

Hicks joined the Army after graduating high school. His campaign website for his House race states he is “a combat veteran.” 

Calfo’s website has a military service record that shows Hicks was deployed overseas for a 10-month posting to the United Arab Emirates, which is technically a combat zone, when he held the rank of Human Resources Specialist.

Calfo accuses Hicks of using his power as a legislator to write a new law that hides information in court cases, including birth dates of parties to a case, that has generally been public in the past.

In the domestic abuse case, Hicks, who is 31, was 17 at the time. Under Missouri law in 2010, a 17-year-old was treated as an adult by the courts. The age has since been raised to 18. The order of protection expired on June 15, 2011.

In the now-unsealed lawsuit, Hicks states that the adult abuse case file was sealed by a St. Louis County court order on Aug. 3, 2021.
“At the time the order was signed, (Hicks) was not running for any elected office, had not formed a candidate committee, was not a public figure of any kind, just a young man seeking to create a life for himself,” Jonathan Lerman, Hicks attorney, wrote.

When Calfo put the documents online, he expected to be in a primary against Hicks. Calfo had no right to obtain or use the documents in his campaign, Lerman wrote.

“As the documents published were not open court records, the clear inference is that they are not the subject of legitimate public concern, but instead private facts,” Lerman wrote.

As much as Hicks would like to hide his past, Calfo’s campaign has done nothing wrong, Calfo’s attorneys, Justin Mulligan and Michael Nepple wrote. 

“The fact (Hicks) would like to forget about his past does not mean the public has to,” they wrote. “Or that the public does not have a right to that information. Especially given his role as a public figure.”

In an order issued March 19, McDonough found that Hicks had not stated enough facts to show he had a case against Calfo, his campaign and Williford. The initial filing, McDonough wrote, had not shown that Calfo had disclosed “private matters in which the public has no legitimate concern” or that Calfo obtained the information through some privileged communication.

And there were nothing but “bare and conclusory” statements about Williford and whether she participated in the disclosure, McDonough wrote.

In a filing seeking dismissal of a revised lawsuit, Mulligan and Nepple wrote that it contained nothing new and asked for Hicks to be forced to pay their fees defending the “baseless” claims.

In the lawsuit, Lerman writes that politics has descended into an “ever-increasing race to the bottom” that needs the intervention of the courts.

Calfo, however, said he sees nothing wrong with his attacks on Hicks.

“Releasing information on one’s opponent has been done since the 1700s,” Calfo said. “It is as American as it gets.”

The post Judge unseals GOP legislator’s lawsuit against rival who published court documents appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

A collection of mementos, including footprints and handprints, were provided by a hospital in Richmond, Virginia, to Kelly Shannon of Alabama after she had to terminate a pregnancy because of fatal anomalies. (Courtesy of Kelly Shannon) 

Editor’s note: This is the fourth installment of an occasional States Newsroom series called When and Where: Abortion Access in America, profiling individuals who have needed abortion care in the U.S. before and after Dobbs. The first installment can be found here, the second installment is here, and the third is here.

Kelly Shannon was grieving a pregnancy she would need to terminate because of multiple fetal anomalies when she got the call that Alabama doctors wouldn’t approve an abortion procedure despite exceptions in the law. That meant she would have to leave the state.

Shannon, 36, was about 16 weeks along in January 2023 when genetic testing – and confirmation from an amniocentesis – showed her fetus likely had Trisomy 21, better known as Down syndrome. It didn’t take long for the doctor to determine the fetus likely wouldn’t survive to term. There was fluid buildup in the head and body, evidence of a heart defect, and a tumor on the abdomen that was roughly one-third the size of its entire body.

“There was so much decision-making and processing, and you’re still feeling the baby kick the whole time,” Shannon said. “And every time she would kick, I was just sitting there like, ‘I’m so sorry. I wish I got to be your mom, but I don’t get to be your mom.’”

Three years before the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision in June 2022 and returned the ability to regulate abortion to the states, Alabama had already passed an abortion ban. Gov. Kay Ivey said at the time she signed the bill that even though it was likely unenforceable since abortion was still legal nationally, it was a signal to the courts to overturn Roe v. Wade. A group of physicians challenged the Alabama law in court and received a preliminary injunction that had barred its enforcement for years. But when Dobbs took effect, the injunction was lifted. Doctors are now subject to felony charges with punishment of up to life in prison.

Alabama is one of few states with an abortion ban at any stage of pregnancy that also contains an exception for lethal fetal anomalies. In the law, it’s defined as a condition from which the fetus would die after birth or shortly thereafter, or be stillborn. There are also exceptions for performing an abortion to save a pregnant patient’s life or preserve their health. However, according to the latest WeCount report of abortions performed since Dobbs, Alabama has recorded zero abortion procedures. Activists have argued that exceptions in abortion bans are meaningless because there is too much fear and uncertainty about what circumstances will qualify for an exception.

Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal abnormality, and more often occurs when the pregnant person is over the age of 35. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infants with Down syndrome and a heart defect are five times more likely to die in their first year of life than those without.

Each abnormality on its own would possibly have been manageable, Shannon said, but the maternal-fetal medicine specialist told her the combination meant she would likely either miscarry at some point during the pregnancy or her daughter’s life would be short and punctuated by multiple surgeries. Shannon and her husband made the difficult decision at that point to terminate.

“That made the decision easier because it was like, well now if I know I’m going to lose her regardless, I can lose her on a controlled timeline, protect my health, start the grieving process, get healthy and then still be able to have another child,” she said.

Shannon filled out paperwork and made a termination appointment pending approval from the other maternal-fetal medicine specialists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her doctor felt confident that given the severity of the anomalies, the abortion would be allowed.

A few days later, in the car on her way to meet her husband and toddler at a local dog park, the doctor called back.

Kelly Shannon, 36, had to leave Alabama and drive 730 miles to Richmond, Virginia, in 2023 to terminate a pregnancy after her fetus was diagnosed with severe abnormalities, including a large tumor. (Courtesy of Kelly Shannon)

“I knew why she was calling me. I knew that was the day the (second) committee was supposed to meet and she’d be calling me with their decision,” Shannon said.

Shannon scheduled the Jan. 24  termination date, made arrangements to take leave from work and had decided on cremation. But with one phone call, all the decisions she’d made had to change.

The termination had easily been approved by the first committee, and it seemed like the higher-level committee would sign off too. But in a halting manner, the doctor explained the committee had decided since each condition by itself was survivable, it didn’t meet the criteria for termination. She told Shannon it was the hardest phone call she’d made in her professional career.

The only way the committee might approve the request was if the fetus also developed a condition called hydrops fetalis, an excessive buildup of fluid that is often fatal. Shannon said that put her in a strange place of having some kind of hope that her pregnancy was even worse than originally thought. But she wasn’t upset with the doctors themselves.

“I mostly just felt sorry for them, even at the time,” she said. “As angry as I was that I wasn’t going to get to handle my pregnancy and my termination in the way that made the most sense to me … if I had been in their shoes and thought well, is this one case worth my license and jail time and prosecution? Her life’s not in danger, her baby’s probably going to die. I don’t think I would’ve taken that risk on me.”

The manager of public relations at the University of Alabama at Birmingham said no one was available to speak with States Newsroom for this story.

She had one more ultrasound at 17 weeks, where her providers checked for hydrops, but there was no presence of it. As the pregnancy had progressed further since the last ultrasound,  multiple holes between the chambers of the fetus’s heart were clearly visible, and the tumor had grown .7 centimeters. Despite the increased severity of those issues, without hydrops, she still had to go out of state.

A scheduling error meant Shannon had to wait two more weeks before she could get an appointment at a hospital in Richmond, Virginia — an 11-hour drive. Rather than bring her husband and toddler along for the ordeal, Shannon’s parents accompanied her. It was the first night she’d ever spent away from her toddler.

She chose to be induced for the procedure. After a long day of waiting, Shannon gave birth a few minutes before midnight and got to hold her daughter.

“I kept her with me until about 2 or 3 in the morning,” she said.

The logistics of what to do with the remains became more complicated since she was now more than 700 miles away from home and wouldn’t be able to visit a burial site in Virginia the way she could have in Alabama. She opted to have her daughter buried with other babies that had died because of miscarriage, termination or other premature causes.

In mid-March, Shannon gave birth to a healthy baby boy that was a surprise pregnancy. She had been aiming for her next pregnancy to happen over the summer, when she wasn’t teaching.

“When I found out I was pregnant, I just started crying. Instead of being excited, the trauma came back,” she said. “And I felt like, I want to be excited and happy, but I’m not there yet because I don’t know if we get to keep this one yet either.”

She said she wants her story to make a difference, in hopes that another person doesn’t have to go through the same pain.

“I get angry whenever I see people with the ‘choose life’ bumper stickers and license plates, because they’re not thinking about me. They’re not recognizing that it’s not a black and white issue, it’s nothing but shades of gray when you’re dealing with pregnancy, particularly high-risk pregnancy,” Shannon said. “I am a married, white, straight, Christian, grew-up-in-the-church woman who was attempting to grow her family within the bounds of marriage, and I just keep thinking, if anybody is going to be able to change a mind about this issue, shouldn’t it be me?”

The post Fatal anomaly exception didn’t spare Alabama mom who needed an abortion appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Special counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment against former President Donald Trump at the Justice Department on June 9, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Former U.S. President Donald Trump had been indicted on 37 felony counts in the special counsel’s classified documents probe. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s view of absolute immunity for actions he took as president would radically change U.S. democracy and give presidents unprecedented power akin to monarchs rather than elected leaders, U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith wrote in a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday.

Smith’s 66-page brief, answering Trump’s argument to the high court that federal criminal charges against him for seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election should be dropped because he was president at the time, called Trump’s claim a “radical suggestion” that would upend foundational principles of U.S. democracy.

Trump’s argument that conduct a president commits in office cannot be prosecuted “would free the President from virtually all criminal law — even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition,” Smith wrote.

At oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in January, Trump lawyer D. John Sauer said his team’s theory of broad presidential immunity would mean that a president could not be prosecuted for ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, unless the president was first impeached and removed from office by Congress.

In Trump’s brief to the court last month, his lawyers claimed a theory of “absolute presidential immunity” that asserts a president cannot be criminally indicted for actions taken in office.

The one exception to that rule is a president who has been impeached and removed from office, Trump’s legal team has argued.

Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled U.S. House for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attempted to block the certification of the 2020 election results. An evenly split Senate fell short of the two-thirds standard for conviction, though seven Republicans voted with all Democrats and independents to convict.

Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president this year.

Smith said Monday that Trump’s broad immunity argument placed too much faith in Congress’ execution of an inherently political process to achieve criminal accountability.

Impeachment is “not intended to provide accountability under the ordinary course of law,” he wrote.

The prosecutor also took aim at the historical examples Trump cited to back up his immunity claim.

The examples Trump used either applied only to sitting presidents and not to former presidents, or were used to dismiss civil lawsuits and not criminal charges, Smith said.

In contrast, the Watergate scandal provided an example to show that presidents have long understood they are subject to criminal justice after they leave office.

By offering a pardon, President Gerald R. Ford implied that former President Richard Nixon could be held liable for criminal conduct. And by accepting the pardon, Nixon endorsed that view, Smith said.

Every president since George Washington has understood they are subject to criminal charges and punishment, Smith said.

The U.S. legal system rests on the principle that no person — no matter their office — is above the law, Smith said.

A different interpretation, including the one advanced by Trump and his legal team, would make the presidency indistinguishable from a monarchy, Smith wrote. That view “would have been anathema to the Framers” of the Constitution, who “adopted a system of checks and balances to avoid” dangers of a monarch who is above the law.

Smith also argued that Trump’s claim that rejecting a broad interpretation of presidential immunity would motivate political prosecutions of every future former president was unfounded.

Protections against civil suits may be appropriate, Smith said, citing Supreme Court precedent.

But federal criminal charges, which can be brought only by the Department of Justice and are subject to “institutional standards of impartial prosecution,” are much harder to abuse, Smith said.

There are “strong safeguards against groundless prosecutions,” Smith said.

Smith’s brief was a response to Trump’s argument last month in which the former president advanced his theory of “absolute presidential immunity.”

Trump’s attorneys said presidents needed immunity from any criminal prosecutions for the office itself to function. The framers were willing to trade a president’s criminal accountability for the office’s independence, Trump’s team argued, saying that a similar prohibition against civil suits should apply to the charges brought by a federal grand jury.

Trump has the option to respond to Smith’s brief by the end of the day April 15.

Oral arguments on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25.

The Supreme Court case is meant to decide a pretrial issue in a federal case related to Trump’s part in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump asked the trial court to dismiss the charges based on his presidential immunity claim. Both the trial judge and the D.C. Circuit rejected that argument.

In the Monday brief, prosecutors asked the court to quickly issue an opinion in the case. The start of the trial has been delayed for months while the immunity question has been pending.

With less than seven months to Election Day, the four criminal proceedings against Trump will increasingly conflict with his campaign schedule as he pursues a return to the White House.

A separate criminal trial — on New York state business records falsification charges — against Trump is scheduled to begin April 15.

The post Trump immunity claim a ‘radical’ departure from democracy, special counsel Jack Smith says appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

President Joe Biden delivered remarks Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, on his plans for student debt forgiveness. (C-SPAN screenshot)

WASHINGTON — During a speech in Madison, Wisconsin on Monday, President Joe Biden touted his administration’s efforts to provide student debt relief through several new proposals, such as canceling accrued interest.

“While (a) college degree still is a ticket to the middle class, that ticket is becoming much too expensive,” Biden said. “Things are a lot different from when college tuition was more affordable and borrowing for colleges, repaying those loans was reasonable.”

The new proposals announced earlier Monday, if finalized, would include a one-time cancellation of all accrued interest for 23 million borrowers; cancellation of the full amount of student loan debt for 4 million borrowers; and providing more than 10 million borrowers with at least $5,000 in student debt relief, among other initiatives.

As Biden makes his bid for another term, his stance on providing debt relief for student loan borrowers has evolved since he won the 2020 presidential election.

In 2021, during a town hall, a voter from Racine, Wisconsin asked Biden if he would support student loan debt cancellation and he bluntly replied that he would not, and instead said he would support congressional action on the issue.

The White House believes the new proposals are narrowly targeted enough that they will survive any anticipated legal challenges in order to avoid an outcome similar to last summer, when the Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s earlier version of student debt cancellation.

“Today, too many Americans, especially young people, are saddled with unsustainable debts in exchange for a college degree,” Biden said in Madison.

Student debt forgiveness remains a key issue for voters, especially young ones. The administration has begun to lose support from some young voters who back a ceasefire in Gaza and are frustrated with the administration’s support of Israel in its war against Hamas that has led to the death of more than 30,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in Gaza.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a center-leaning think tank, has not estimated the cost of the new proposal, but in a statement Monday argued against any debt cancellation.

“This new plan will cost tens of billions of dollars at a time when we should be working to reduce the debt, and by worsening inflationary pressures it’s likely to lead the Fed to keep interest rates higher for longer,” Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement.

The post In Wisconsin, Biden underlines plans to help college students with ‘unsustainable debts’ appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Former President Donald Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican nominee for president, said in a video on Monday that abortion law should be set by the states. Trump is shown speaking May 28, 2022 in Casper, Wyoming. (Chet Strange/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced a shift in his views on abortion laws Monday, releasing a video advocating for state legislatures to make those decisions, not Congress — and was immediately met with strong criticism from an influential anti-abortion group that said it should remain a national debate.

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state,” Trump said in a nearly five-minute video he posted to social media.

“Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be,” he added. “At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart, or in many cases your religion or your faith.”

Trump said he supports exceptions to abortion bans to allow pregnancy terminations in cases of rape, incest and the life of the pregnant patient.

Trump’s video is a departure from comments he’s made on the campaign trail that he would support a 16-week nationwide ban.

The shift in his policy platform less than seven months before Election Day could be viewed as an effort by Trump to appeal to centrist Republicans and swing voters, especially women, as Democrats have sought to rally supporters behind reproductive rights.

In the last two years, voters in a number of states have approved ballot questions that bolstered support for abortion access, including those in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio.

Several other states, including Arizona and Florida, are likely to have abortion access questions on this November’s ballot, alongside the choice for president and representation in both chambers of Congress.

President Joe Biden wrote in a statement released by his reelection campaign that “Trump once said women must be punished for seeking reproductive health care — and he’s gotten his wish.”

“Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to go to court to seek permission for the medical attention they need, and left to travel hundreds of miles for health care,” Biden wrote.

“Because of Donald Trump, one in three women in America already live under extreme and dangerous bans that put their lives at risk and threaten doctors with prosecution for doing their jobs,” Biden added. “And that is only going to get worse.”

Anti-abortion organizations immediately expressed frustration with Trump’s most recent campaign stance, while reproductive rights organizations questioned its truthfulness.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote in a statement the organization is “deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position” and reiterated the Supreme Court’s “Dobbs decision clearly allows both states and Congress to act.”

“Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy,” Dannenfelser wrote. “If successful, they will wipe out states’ rights.”

South Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham also broke with Trump on the issue, writing in a statement that “the pro-life movement has always been about the wellbeing of the unborn child — not geography.”

Graham, ranking member on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would continue to press for a 15-week nationwide abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant patient.

Until he can garner the votes to move that bill through Congress, Graham wrote, he would press for a law “requiring abortion providers to administer anesthesia to an unborn child at fifteen weeks.”

Abortion rights supporters were highly critical. Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju wrote in a statement that she didn’t believe Trump’s comments in the video, calling him a “liar.”

“He knows that publicly supporting bans loses voters, so he deployed dangerous disinformation about abortion in order to distract from the truth about what he will do if elected,” Timmaraju wrote.

“He’s responsible for the harm and chaos caused by Republicans’ abortion bans in the states, and all he is saying is that he wants more of it,” Timmaraju added. “The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we need to elect reproductive freedom majorities in Congress and send President Biden and Vice President Harris back to the White House to restore the federal right to abortion and expand access.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, cast doubt that Trump would hold the stance for any length of time, writing in a statement, “Let’s wait a few weeks and see what his new position will be.”

​​Biden-Harris 2024 Campaign Manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said on a call with reporters Monday afternoon that Trump’s video shows “his support for those extreme bans and made clear he will support these bans in all 50 states.”

“Make no mistake, leaving it to the states is an endorsement of the cruel and dangerous abortion bans across the country made possible only by Donald Trump,” Rodriguez said.

The abortion bans currently in place in Republican states sometimes exclude exceptions for rape and incest, and can take effect before a woman knows she’s pregnant, Rodriguez said.

Trump was president before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to abortion it established in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case and reaffirmed in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling.

The conservative justices on the court wrote in their ruling ending nationwide protections that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

That would include Congress, should lawmakers choose to pursue a nationwide law. Trump didn’t say in the video if he would veto such a bill or work to prevent it from reaching his desk, in the event he is reelected president and has a Republican-controlled Congress.

In the video, Trump personally thanked the conservative justices on the Supreme Court who ended the right to an abortion and commented that he was “proudly the person who was responsible” for that ruling.

Trump didn’t comment specifically in the video about whether he would seek to enforce an 1873 anti-obscenity law that many anti-abortion advocates say could ban the mailing of medication abortion.

The Comstock Act, as it’s called, came up at the U.S. Supreme Court in late March when the justices heard oral arguments over access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions.

That law hasn’t been enforced in decades but it bars the mailing of “Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.”

Trump also addressed access to in vitro fertilization in his video, saying the Republican Party “wants to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies, not harder.”

“That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments, like IVF, in every state in America,” Trump said, later adding he “strongly supports the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”

Trump thanked lawmakers in Alabama for enacting civil and criminal protections for IVF clinics so they could resume treatments after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos constituted children.

While many of the IVF clinics in the state restarted their work after the new law was put in place, a Mobile, Alabama, IVF clinic said it will cease at the end of the year due to a lawsuit over the process.

“Today I’m pleased that the Alabama Legislature has acted very quickly and passed legislation that preserves the availability of IVF in Alabama,” Trump said. “They really did a great and fast job.”

Trump said that the GOP “should always be on the side of the miracle of life and the side of mothers, fathers and their beautiful babies. And that’s what we are.”

“IVF is an important part of that and our great Republican Party will always be with you in your quest for the ultimate joy in life,” Trump said.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate have blocked two bills from moving forward that would have addressed access to IVF, following the questions about the process in Alabama.

Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi in late February blocked efforts by Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth to pass a bill that would have implemented nationwide protections of IVF patients and health care providers.

That legislation would have barred limitations on “assisted reproductive technology services” that are “more burdensome than limitations or requirements imposed on medically comparable procedures, do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of such services and unduly restrict access to such services.”

In mid-March, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford blocked Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray from quickly passing legislation that would have expanded access to fertility treatments for military members and veterans.

The bill, titled the Veteran Families Health Services Act, would have allowed troops to freeze their eggs or sperm before shipping out to a combat zone or a hazardous duty assignment. It would also have broadened access to VA’s adoption services.

The post Trump says abortion policy should be left to the states, backing away from national ban appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Amy Moore, (right) director of the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation, speaks at the National Cannabis Industry Association’s summit on March 28, 2024 in St. Louis. At left is Mitch Meyers, partner at BeLeaf Medical marijuana company. (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

Veterans John and Kara Grady received a Facebook message last week from a man who was, “looking for a female veteran to be part of our dispensary license.” 

Being a veteran is one of the seven categories that makes people eligible to win one of the state’s social-equity marijuana licenses, called “microbusiness licenses.” The other categories range from having a lower income or living in an area considered impoverished to having past arrests or incarcerations related to marijuana offenses. 

When the Gradys — who run Slaphappy Beverage Co. that sells hemp-derived THC drinks — turned him down, the man began attacking them on their social media pages.

“I was like, ‘What kind of tactics are these?’” John Grady said in an interview with The Independent. “You have to ask yourself — if it’s that competitive on the microbusiness licenses, then really what’s going on?” 

Just hours before Grady received that message, the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation issued a warning about “predatory practices” in  social-equity marijuana licensing throughout the country. 

And those tactics are likely escalating, with the next round of applications running April 15 to 29. 

“(The Division of Cannabis Regulation) has become aware of solicitation efforts by companies to apply for microbusiness licenses on behalf of qualified individuals with promises of future ownership in the license,” the agency said in a press release last week. 

The division warned that some groups are scamming eligible people by giving them, “no agreements in place that would actually result in the eligible individuals being the owners of the license.”

The division recently revoked nine of the 48 social-equity cannabis licenses issued in October — following an investigation by The Independent that found some applicants thought they were partnering with the Michigan investor but in reality signed agreements requiring them to relinquish all control and profits of the business. 

The revocations came just as the division was gearing up for the second round of microbusiness applications, and now the state is urging applicants to be extra careful regarding who they partner with.

“Eligible individuals should exercise caution in accepting such arrangements as some of the solicitations may be predatory in nature,” the division’s Thursday press release states. 

Because only 39 of the 48 microbusiness licenses were ultimately issued from the first round, the division will award one additional wholesale license and eight additional dispensary licenses in the upcoming round.

The owners of the revoked licenses have vowed to appeal, though nothing has been filed as of yet. 

The microbusiness program is meant to boost opportunities in the industry for businesses in disadvantaged communities, and it was part of the constitutional amendment to legalize recreational marijuana that voters passed in November 2022. 

The program was designed for these licensees to hopefully develop their businesses, so it will put them in a good position to obtain regular licenses, or what the state calls comprehensive licenses.

By law, the state cannot issue any new comprehensive licenses until June 2024. If the state decides to allow for more regular licenses at that point, then 50% of them must go to microbusiness license holders. 

“The clear intent [of the constitution] is that a microbusiness license should provide a path to facility ownership for individuals who might not otherwise easily access that opportunity,” the division’s press release states.

The microlicenses must always be majority owned and operated by people who meet the eligibility criteria.

 The division gave examples of behaviors that may indicate predatory arrangements:

• Applicants are promised a 51% ownership stake of the license and a fair market value buyout for that 51%.
• Applicants are promised a payment when the license is initially issued, then receive a salary for 3-5 years that is equal to the remaining 51% of the license value or some other payment arrangement.
• Solicitor does not ask for any payment and offers to pay for upfront application and business costs.
• Solicitor informs the potential applicant that if they want to actually own and operate an awarded license, they should apply on their own.
• Solicitor promises they will provide their own money, resources, and time to run the day-to-day business operations so that the applicant owner does not need to invest their own money, resources or time.

 “A purported owner with little to no knowledge, control, agency or decision-making authority in an application or license does not meet the intent or meaning of the requirement,” in the constitution, the guidance states. 

John Grady said he hasn’t heard of any other veterans who were targeted as he and his wife were. However, he said the commander of their Veterans of Foreign Wars post is aware of the issue now. 

“So we can tell any of our guys who are looking at that industry,” Grady said. “Or if somebody sends them a note saying ‘Hey, we need a veteran,’ they can be aware that they’re probably going to get taken advantage of.”

The post State warns social-equity marijuana licenses applicants of ‘predatory practices’ appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

State Rep. Kurtis Gregory, R-Marshall, speaks during House debate on April 27, 2022 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

The Missouri Farm Bureau would be allowed to sell health insurance plans that skirt certain federal regulations under legislation critics worry could leave consumers without proper protections or adequate coverage.

The bill, which has already cleared the Missouri House and is awaiting a committee hearing in the Senate, allows health plans that don’t follow the rules set by the the Affordable Care Act, also referred to as Obamacare.

The Farm Bureau would be permitted to deny people coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, for example, or offer benefits that are more limited than what is allowed under federal law.

Those practices would allow also allow the organization to sell less-expensive plans. Many farmers and other members of the Farm Bureau, proponents say, are uninsured because they can’t afford to buy a federally-subsidized plan on the Affordable Care Act marketplace or make too much money to qualify.

“What we’re really trying to do here is get coverage options to these young farmers, potentially ranchers and members of this organization to better have care for their family and their loved ones,” state Rep. Kurtis Gregory, a Republican from Marshall and the bill’s sponsor, said in a committee hearing in January.

The Missouri Farm Bureau is a nonprofit agricultural membership organization which partners with for-profit companies to sell various kinds of insurance to its members. Anyone can join, though historically the group has been primarily made up of people in farming communities.

“This is about allowing people to make choices for themselves,” state Rep. Dean Van Schoiack, a Republican from Andrew, said during House debate on the bill in March.

Missouri would join six other states that have passed similar carve outs for Farm Bureau insurance plans: Tennessee, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and South Dakota. Several other state legislatures are considering similar legislation this year.

The idea has faced opposition from some House Democrats, patient advocacy groups and other insurance companies who have raised concerns about inadequate consumer protections and coverage, as well as disrupting the market.

“I don’t want people to sign up for something that is unregulated health insurance and then fall through the cracks even further,” said state Rep. Emily Weber, a Democrat of Kansas City, during the House debate.

Emily Kalmer, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, raised concern in a January committee hearing that Missourians could be “left without coverage, face large costs or denied coverage,” and lack any of the consumer protections in the law. 

The Farm Bureau would revert to the pre-Obamacare practice of what’s called medical underwriting, carefully evaluating applicants’ medical history and risk, to determine whether to cover them and at what price.

“While we don’t have experience in Missouri with Farm Bureau plans, we do have experience in Missouri with medical underwriting,” Kalmer said. “And that was horrible for cancer patients in the past…those practices used to be allowed in the state of Missouri and they were horrible for cancer patients. So it’s not a ‘what if’? It’s a ‘what would be legally allowed here’?” 

The Farm Bureau has argued that its members hold the organization accountable, even absent regulations, and that its enrollees in states with the program report high levels of satisfaction.

Benjamin Sanders, a lobbyist from Farm Bureau Health Plans of Tennessee, testified in committee in January that the organization’s acceptance rate for applicants is 90%.

Tennessee enacted a version of the law exempting the Farm Bureau from regulation in 1993.

“There are conditions that will cause someone to be denied coverage…The best way to look at it is if someone has an ongoing catastrophic health condition, they will likely be the non-covered,” Sanders said. 

The organization uses a six month waiting period, upon enrollment, before those with certain conditions can use the benefits. It’s a “safeguard,” Sanders said, to ensure people don’t sign on for an expensive surgery then drop the plan, for instance.

Some of the Farm Bureau plans offer the 10 essential benefits the ACA requires and some do not. Sanders said 75% of members select a plan that does include all of those benefits.

Asked about whether pregnancy could be considered a pre-existing condition resulting in that six-month waiting period or denial, Sanders said it depends on the plan.

“Generally speaking, pregnancy would be considered a pre-existing condition…it depends on when they join and the length of the pregnancy,” he said, adding that someone trying to join at eight months pregnant wouldn’t be eligible but a few days pregnant, would likely be. Individual plans don’t cover maternity care but the family plans do.

State Rep. Danny Busick, a Republican of Sullivan, said opponents of the legislation were presenting a lot of “what-ifs.”

The Farm Bureau in other states doesn’t need to abide by data transparency requirements of regulated insurance companies. But the organization says internal numbers show a high retention rate.

“Why is there a 98% retention rate in the states where they have this? If they weren’t covering these things, people would be getting out of the system right and left,” Busick said.

“Just because they’re not required by law doesn’t mean they won’t do it,” Busick said. “And I think that premise is what I have a problem with.”

The plans wouldn’t be overseen by the state’s insurance department: Proponents have said because it’s a contract, those with grievances could go to court. Opponents argued that is not a viable option for many.

“The current system, it’s a regulated product,” said Kalmer, the American Cancer Society lobbyist, “you have appellate rights with the Department of Insurance, you can call their consumer protection hotline and go through the processes and they’ll help mediate the issues.”

There are still issues with the regulated market, Kalmer said, “but at least there is a process by which you can make sure that anything that the legislature here has required them to do, that they’re legally doing it.” 

State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican, said the Farm Bureau “answers to their membership,” adding that if they started dropping people from their plans, for instance, “I believe their membership would hold them accountable for doing the right thing, because that’s how those folks have been raised.” 

Other insurance companies oppose the legislation for allowing just one group to be exempt from federal rules, which they say gives the Farm Bureau an advantage over competitors.

Michael Henderson, lobbyist for the Missouri Insurance Coalition, called the proposal “unequal treatment in the marketplace.”

Henderson said insurers abide by pages of state health mandates.

“I have heard testimony that some of that coverage may be included in the plans,” Henderson said. “And Rep. Busick, I know you mentioned we’re talking a lot about what ifs. We’re also talking a lot about ‘trust us.’”

The Farm Bureau plans would be designed to help those who aren’t eligible for or can’t afford Affordable Care Act subsidies. 

Tim McBride, a health policy analyst and professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said his concern would be that the Farm Bureau plans would attract healthier people and have a more limited benefit package.

“The purpose of the ACA was to make sure that there wasn’t cherry picking going on by the insurance companies,” McBride said, meaning some companies siphoning off healthy people and driving up the cost of coverage for others.

He said research shows people get “enticed by the low premium number,” but don’t always study the fine print, which is one reason the ACA has rules about what needs to be covered. 

“I can certainly understand why people want to go to get low premium plans, especially farmers or their spouses or their children,” he said. “But that’s part of what the purpose of the subsidies are in the Affordable Care Act is to try to make the plans affordable.”

The federal government expanded subsidy eligibility in the Affordable Care Act marketplace through next year.

In Tennessee, Stat News reported in 2017, some experts say the effect of pulling healthy people onto Farm Bureau plans has been that participants in the Affordable Care Act marketplace are sicker than in other states, which can cause market issues such as companies being less willing to participate and sell plans. The Farm Bureau has denied having any such effect.

Gregory estimated around 11,475 Missouri Farm Bureau members lack health insurance, and said they would be the target audience for enrolling in the Farm Bureau plans. Others could sign on, too, including members who are currently insured but switch over to the Farm Bureau plans, or people who join the Farm Bureau in order to access the insurance. 

Sanders, with Farm Bureau Health Plans of Tennessee, said the volume wouldn’t be enough to make a difference in the market. 

“But to the members that use these plans,” he said, “it makes a difference.”

The post Bill would exempt Missouri Farm Bureau health insurance plans from federal rules appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

President Joe Biden is expected to deliver remarks in Madison, Wisconsin on Monday about the administration’s new plan for student debt relief. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Monday will announce the rollout of a student debt forgiveness proposal that the White House believes is narrowly targeted enough to survive legal challenges.

The plan, if finalized, would include a one-time cancellation of all accrued interest for 23 million borrowers. It would also cancel the full amount of student loan debt for 4 million borrowers and provide more than 10 million borrowers with at least $5,000 in student debt relief.

The president will unveil the Department of Education proposed regulations during a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on a call Sunday.

The announcement comes seven months ahead of the November elections, in which student debt forgiveness remains a key issue for voters, especially younger ones. Some of those younger voters who back a ceasefire have been turned off by the administration’s support of Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza.

The proposed rule will be released in the coming months, and the Biden administration expects some provisions, such as the interest cancellation, could be implemented as early as this fall, Jean-Pierre said.

“President Biden will use every tool available to cancel student loan debt for as many borrowers as possible, no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stand in his way,” she said.

The proposal is likely to face legal challenges, similar to the battle that engulfed Biden’s original student debt forgiveness plan. The Supreme Court struck it down last year when it was challenged in lawsuits backed by six Republican-led states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.

Senior administration officials told reporters that the Biden administration carefully studied the Supreme Court’s opinion last year, which turned aside the administration’s argument that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona had the legal authority under the HEROES Act to enact a one-time student debt relief plan of up to $20,000 for some borrowers.

A senior administration official said the new proposals “address specific situations and specific populations in ways that we feel very confident are covered by what the secretary’s long-standing authority under (the Higher Education Act) allows him to do, and we’re confident that we’re acting within the scope of the law, as set forth by the Supreme Court.”

After the Supreme Court ruling, Biden directed the Department of Education to take a more targeted route to provide student debt relief through the Higher Education Act in anticipation of legal challenges.

“The negotiated rulemaking process is how we change and improve our higher education policies,” Cardona said to reporters Sunday, adding that the Department of Education is moving to quickly finalize the proposals.

While the rulemaking process can take months or years, Cardona has the ability to designate provisions for early implementation, a senior administration official said.

About 43.5 million people have student loan debt, totaling $1.73 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.

The new plan builds on several student debt relief programs the Biden administration already has rolled out, such as the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan, known as the SAVE plan, or any other income-driven repayment plans. For the SAVE plan, borrowers who make monthly payments are not charged accrued interest; payments are based on a borrower’s income and family size; and the plan forgives balances after a set number of years.

Under the proposed regulations, there would be a one-time cancellation of up to $20,000 of unpaid interest regardless of a borrower’s income level. Low-and-middle-income borrowers enrolled in any Department of Education income-driven repayment plan would be eligible to have the entire amount of their interest accrued balance canceled. Eligibility would apply to single borrowers who earn $120,000 or less and married borrowers who earn $240,000 or less.

The Biden administration estimates that 25 million borrowers would benefit from some type of interest cancellation.

“The interest forgiveness is currently crafted as a one-time benefit for example, but going forward, borrowers will benefit from substantially more favorable treatment through the SAVE program,” a senior administration official said.

The plan would also automatically cancel debt for borrowers eligible for that forgiveness under the SAVE, Public Service Loan Forgiveness or other programs like the closed school loan discharge who have not yet applied for those programs.

The Department of Education would also be able to use its own data to identify those borrowers who would be eligible for student loan debt forgiveness, but have yet to apply. The Biden administration estimates that this would cancel debt for about 2 million borrowers.

Under the proposed plan, borrowers who began repayment of their undergraduate student loans 20 years ago, and borrowers who began repayment of their graduate loans 25 years ago, would have their student loan debt canceled. Those borrowers would need to be on an income-driven repayment plan in order to qualify for that relief.

The plan also aims to cancel debt for borrowers who enrolled in low-financial-value-programs, which means the total cost of attending exceeded the financial benefits.

Borrowers who attended institutions or programs that lost eligibility to participate in the federal student aid program or were denied recertification would be eligible to have their student loans canceled. And borrowers who attended those intuitions that either closed or failed to provide “sufficient value” would be eligible for relief.

Cardona added that this could include some career training programs that have “taken advantage” of borrowers, or institutions that have an unusually high student loan debt default rate.

The plan would also provide relief for borrowers who are experiencing some sort of hardship in their daily lives that creates a barrier to paying back loans. Some of those financial hardships would include medical debt or child care.

While the administration is aiming for this debt relief to be immediate, a senior administration official said that some additional information would be required for the borrowers who qualify under the hardship relief.

“Our goal is for the overwhelming majority of things like interest, loans that are older, borrowers (who) attended programs that didn’t deliver financial value, to do that all automatically,” the senior administration official said.

The post Biden proposes new student debt relief plan for millions of borrowers appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, speaks to reporters about the first half of the 2024 legislative session on March 14 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

A wide-ranging investigation into allegations of misconduct by the leader of the Missouri House appears to be escalating, with three more hearings scheduled this week.

The House Ethics Committee has already met eight times since the beginning of March as part of its inquiry into the actions of Speaker Dean Plocher. Last week, a six-hour hearing focused on questioning members of Plocher’s inner circle, including his chief of staff, legislative assistant and top political consultant. 

The committee has posted public notice that it intends to meet Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week. 

Neither the public nor the media can observe the committee’s work, as House rules require investigations be kept confidential until a final report is issued. That final report could also include recommendations for punishment, if the committee finds it warranted, such as a formal reprimand, censure, fines or even expulsion from the House. 

When that report might be released, however, remains unclear. And the committee’s chair, Republican state Rep. Hannah Kelly of Mountain Grove, is not offering any details.

“The committee’s work is ongoing,” Kelly told reporters last week. “A commitment to upholding the integrity and ethics of the House of Representatives is our charge.”

Plocher, a Republican from Des Peres who is running for secretary of state, has been accused of a litany of wrongdoing, including pushing for the House to enter into a contract with a private company outside the normal bidding process; threatening retaliation against legislative staff who pushed back on that contract; improperly firing a potential whistleblower; and filing false expense reports for travel already paid for by his campaign.  

Last week’s hearing appeared focus on Plocher’s efforts to steer the House into an $800,000 contract with a private software company called Fireside to manage constituent information. Plocher was accused by nonpartisan legislative staff of engaging in “unethical and perhaps unlawful conduct” as part of his months-long push for the contract.

Among the witnesses called to testify was John Bardgett, who worked as Fireside’s lobbyist at the same time Plocher was jockeying for the contract. After roughly an hour speaking to the committee Wednesday night, Bardgett left without talking to reporters. 

The ethics panel previously questioned state Rep. Dale Wright, chairman of the committee that handles purchasing for the House, and Dana Rademan Miller, the chief clerk of the House who raised red flags about the Fireside contract. 

Also testifying at last Wednesday’s hearing was David Barklage, a longtime political consultant who is working for Plocher’s secretary of state campaign. 

A fixture in state politics for decades, Barklage was also a key political adviser to John Diehl, the man Plocher replaced in the Missouri House after he was forced to resign in 2015 following revelations he’d been sending sexually inappropriate messages to a 19-year-old House intern.

Barklage chatted briefly with reporters prior to testifying Wednesday, but later left the hearing without commenting.

Plocher’s chief of staff, Rod Jetton, and his legislative assistant, Diana Hennerich, also testified. Both were accompanied to the hearing by one of Plocher’s private attorneys. 

Jetton, who was hired in November, was represented at the hearing by David Steelman, a ex-legislator and former member of the University of Missouri Board of Curators. 

Hennerich was represented by Lowell Pearson, a longtime Jefferson City attorney who has worked for the Missouri Republican Party and House Republican Campaign Committee. 

Rep. Don Mayhew, R-Crocker, address the Missouri House on May 8, 2023 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

As the committee’s work continues, lawmakers are left to ponder what happens if a report is issued in the legislative session’s final weeks. 

State Rep. Don Mayhew, a Republican from Crocker, said he would like to know what caused the investigation to take so long. 

The committee met three times last year, then did not meet again until March 4. Between the December and March hearings, an attorney hired by the committee conducted interviews and gathered evidence. The investigator reportedly presented their findings to the committee on March 6. After that, hearings were convened to allow testimony, including from Plocher and a handful of legislative staff.

Mayhew knows the committee can’t comment on its investigation, but he would like to hear from its leadership about whether any delays are due to difficulty obtaining records or witness statements.

“At the very least,” Mayhew said, “they can update us on why (they) haven’t come to a decision.”

There are six weeks left in the session, Mayhew noted, and at this point of the year, House members rely on leadership to work with Senate leaders to manage final action on bills.

“It’s critical that we have our leadership intimately involved in the negotiating and the gamesmanship of that legislation bouncing back and forth,” he said.

The ethics committee report will disrupt that, he said.

“There are two possibilities,” Mayhew said, “neither one of which are good.”

The first is a negative report that will be debated at a critical point in session.

The other, he said, is “potentially keeping a speaker with some ethics issues. And so it’s one of those devil’s choices that admittedly, we’re frequently left with in the House of Representatives.”

Within the past week some of Plocher’s supporters have begun saying that the committee has deliberately delayed its work for political reasons, said state Rep. Scott Cupps, a Republican from Shell Knob.

He believes the rumors are intended to undermine the final report when it is issued by the committee. 

“If you start those rumors and get all that going and get people talking,” Cupps said, “then it’s a pretty easy way to, whatever something might say, say that it’s not credible.”

Plocher appointed each of the members of the ethics committee and helped craft the rules governing ethics investigations put in place his first year as speaker. Last week he declined comment, through a spokesman, on the process or any complaints he may have about how it is being handled. 

Cupps said he trusts the committee members and believes the time taken by the investigation shows diligence in finding the truth.

“It’s very, very obvious that they are just doing what they feel like is their responsibility,” Cupps said.  

The hours are long and, unlike other lengthy hearings, members cannot step out to take a phone call or have a side conversation, he said. At the same time, Cupps said members are barred from discussing what they learn, leaving a wide field for speculation and planting rumors.

“You have people that are expecting you to do the work and to take that immense responsibility, while you also very, very clearly have people working behind the scenes to try to discredit everything you’re doing,” Cupps said.

Cupps believes any delays in the investigation actually play to Plocher’s advantage. As the session nears its conclusion, he said, there is more to grab the media’s and public’s attention. 

“I assure you it would have been much more damning in February, than it would be in the next couple of weeks,” Cupps said, “even if it said the same exact thing.”

The first Republican lawmaker to call for Plocher to resign amid the allegations of misconduct was state Rep. Chris Sander, a Republican from Lone Jack. He believes he has faced retaliation from Plocher over his public comments. 

Only one of the 17 bills he filed — to do away with Daylight Savings Time — has been referred to a committee. And last week, he claims Plocher took away a ceremonial job of escorting a visiting dignitary into the House chamber just minutes after he had been assigned.

Two other Republican lawmakers who called for Plocher to resign — Reps. Mazzie Christensen and Adam Schwadron — also saw their bills held up earlier in the year by Plocher, though the speaker has denied retaliating against anyone.   

Sander said he was asked early in the year to retract his call for Plocher to step down but refused. 

“I am confident,” Sander said, “that the members of the ethics committee are feeling a lot of stress.”

The post Dean Plocher ethics probe picks up steam as legislative session enters final weeks appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

SNAP benefits help 330,000 Missourians provide for their families. Access to food is closely linked to other social needs such as transportation, employment, and housing (Scott Heins/Getty Images).

People with drug felonies on their criminal record are uniquely excluded from receiving benefits in Missouri from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, after they are released from prison.

This deprivation of SNAP benefits is solely because of their categorization as a former drug felon.

This treatment of people charged with drug crimes — and not people with any other type of criminal record — is inconsistent with other ways in which Missouri promotes public safety in aiming to reduce recidivism post-incarceration. Public safety is improved when people who leave jail or prison are given the tools to succeed.

The ban on SNAP benefits for people with drug convictions can be considered a “double punishment” for these individuals who not only serve time for their crimes, but also face persisting barriers after they are released from prison.

Missouri lawmakers have identified the elimination of the SNAP benefits ban for people with drug felonies on their criminal record as imperative to the health of Missourians.

State Rep. Chad Perkins is sponsoring legislation that would eliminate the ban on SNAP benefits for people with drug charges on their record. It passed the Missouri House with a vote of 125 to 23.

SNAP benefits help 330,000 Missourians provide for their families. Access to food is closely linked to other social needs such as transportation, employment, and housing — and all of which contribute to allowing formerly incarcerated people meet their basic needs as they work to get back on their feet post-incarceration.

Banning individuals with drug convictions from accessing lifesaving SNAP benefits is counterproductive to reducing recidivism, which is the return of formerly incarcerated people back to jail or prison. Research shows that increased social benefits for formerly incarcerated people contribute to a decrease in recidivism.

As of 2016, the Missouri Department of Corrections recidivism rate was 43.9% for all releases and 36.9% for those who were in jail or prison for the first time. Recidivism can increase when instability after incarceration remains for people recently out of the jail or prison. The instability that formerly incarcerated people face upon re-entry into society is exacerbated when the formerly incarcerated population is not given the help it needs—particularly when they could access that help before they were incarcerated.

If the SNAP ban is repealed, Missouri’s public safety will improve.

In 2002, the Missouri Department of Corrections established a Missouri Reentry Process, which promotes several principles and practices to ensure seamless reentry of individuals into society from the state’s prison system. These principles include offering services to offenders when they leave the Department of Corrections to help reduce future criminal behavior.

The Missouri Department of Corrections also recognizes that ensuring that formerly incarcerated individuals are better prepared to take care of their children means they are better situated to break cycles of intergenerational crime. Missouri is committed to public safety, and repealing the SNAP ban is aligned with these goals of facilitating reentry into society for formerly incarcerated individuals.

Data show that services provided to those transitioning from jail or prison to society are impactful. When formerly incarcerated individuals went through Missouri’s reentry process, which included spending time in a Transitional Housing Unit where pre-release services are provided, recidivism rates decreased from 44.9% to 37.5%.

Missouri should follow in the footsteps of other states that repealed the SNAP ban. South Carolina is currently the only state that has a full SNAP benefit ban. Mississippi repealed its SNAP ban in 2019, which helped not only helped low-income families put food on the table, but also was seen as having the capability to disproportionately helped women and single mothers. In 2016, Alabama similarly repealed their SNAP ban for those with drug felonies on their criminal record. This move was viewed to benefit Alabama’s homelessness rates, recidivism rates, and state budget.

In Missouri, as of 2016, the daily cost per person in the state prison system was $57.76 per day. Enacting legislation that keeps people out of the prison system keeps state costs down.

SNAP benefits are federally funded, so Missouri receives funds from the federal government to pay for Missourians to be on the SNAP program. If Missouri is serious about improving public safety in the state, the legislature will repeal the state’s SNAP ban for people with drug felonies.

The post Repealing Missouri ban on food stamps for people with drug felonies would improve public safety appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Simrand Thind holds a Leave it Blank flyer outside of Masjid Al-Abidin on March 29, 2024, in the Queens borough of New York City. The “Leave It Blank NY” campaign, which gained about 12% of the vote statewide on April 2, sought to persuade primary voters to submit empty ballots in protest of the Biden administration’s handling of the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas (Adam Gray/Getty Images).

Joe Biden has a problem.

Seven months ahead of the presidential election, some progressives, young voters and Muslim American voters are showing serious reservations about the Democrat’s reelection campaign as his administration backs Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

“For some of those people — maybe a critical number — what’s happening in Gaza is so salient and existential that they really see this election as a referendum on that issue,” Larry Jacobs, the director of the Center for the Study of Politics at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.

The pushback has played out in otherwise uneventful primaries as Biden has clinched the presidential nomination. About 13% of Michigan’s Democratic primary voters cast ballots in February for uncommitted, rather than Biden.

In Minnesota a week later, the percentage grew to 19% of the Democratic electorate. Both states have sizable Muslim American populations and progressive activists who oppose Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza.

And in Wisconsin on April 2, more than 45,000 Democrats voted uninstructed instead of for Biden. That total more than doubled Biden’s margin of victory in the state in the 2020 general election.

The movement has also landed in New Jersey, where in most of the state, Democrats on June 4 will be able to essentially cast an “uncommitted” vote by choosing delegates under the slogan “Justice for Palestine, Permanent Ceasefire Now.”

Recent polling has shown dissatisfaction with Biden among young voters, who skew more progressive than the general electorate, and are demanding a ceasefire to a war that has so far claimed more than 30,000 lives in Gaza, according to health authorities there. Moves the administration has taken that critics claim are meant to appease those voters appear to have had little effect.

“He’s in trouble with young voters and voters of color,” Stevie O’Hanlon, the national communications director for the progressive, youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, said in an interview.

Jacobs said not everyone who cast a protest vote in a primary election will sit out in November.

But the number should be concerning for a Biden campaign that only eked out a victory against Donald Trump four years ago, Jacobs said.

Anger flared anew after the Israeli military bombing April 1 that killed seven aid workers, including an American, delivering supplies for World Central Kitchen, a humanitarian nonprofit led by Spanish American celebrity chef José Andrés. Andrés has said the workers were targeted; the Israeli military said April 5 two officers have been dismissed and three others reprimanded.

In a written statement to States Newsroom, a Biden campaign spokesperson said the votes for uncommitted were part of the democratic process and said the president was working to find a peaceful resolution to the war.

“The President believes making your voice heard and participating in our democracy is fundamental to who we are as Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “He shares the goal for an end to the violence and a just, lasting peace in the Middle East. He’s working tirelessly to that end.”

In the 2020 election, Biden flipped five states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that Trump had won in 2016.

Razor-thin margins provided his victories in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin, which he won by a combined margin of less than 50,000 votes.

If those states flipped again in 2024, their 37 electoral votes would be enough to swing the election to Trump.

Additionally, Michigan, which Biden won in 2020 with a margin of 150,000 votes out of about 5.5 million cast, is among the states whose Democratic electorate appears most displeased with the incumbent.

More than 100,000 Democrats voted uncommitted instead of Biden in the primary there last month, showing just how little room for error Biden has to win a second term.

Democratic primary voters casting protest ballots against an incumbent president is not unprecedented. More than 20% of North Carolina Democrats, 14% of Rhode Island Democrats and 11% of Michigan Democrats selected uncommitted over then-President Barack Obama in 2012 on his path to reelection.

But in a 2024 race that could again be decided by slim margins in a handful of states, every lost Democratic vote is a problem for Biden, Jacobs said.

“Slivers really matter,” Jacobs said. “These close elections are happening in a period where Arab Americans and voters from Africa are kind of coming into their own. They have a consciousness of themselves. They have a consciousness of their interests. They’re organized politically.”

Eighty Muslim American groups wrote to Biden April 3 urging an end to military support of Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The groups said Israel’s military action in Gaza was responsible for significant civilian casualties and widespread food insecurity in the territory.

“Risking your presidential legacy and the reputation of our nation around the world to enable the Netanyahu government’s genocide has been a disastrous decision,” they wrote to Biden. “We implore you to reverse course before thousands more die.”

The advocacy for Palestinians comes at a time when Muslim American communities in the U.S., especially Arab Americans outside Detroit and Somali Americans in the Twin Cities, are wielding greater political power, Jacobs said.

A leader among Minnesota’s Muslim American voters, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who represents Minneapolis and the first Somali American member of Congress, said in a CNN interview last month that she would vote for Biden despite her differences with him over Israel.

However, she said, “I think it is the responsibility of every citizen of this country that cares for the humanity of all to continue to push this administration to do what it can do to end the onslaught that Palestinians are living through every single day.”

But communicating with those groups generally has proven a challenge for Biden, Jacobs said, despite efforts by the administration and campaign to make inroads.

“You’ve got a kind of mid-20th-century politician who really doesn’t understand the enormous shift in American politics, as you’re getting large groups of voters of color, with a whole variety of kinds of backgrounds and interests, moving into the electorate,” he said.

“What would have worked with blue-collar workers in Detroit in 1970 is just not going to work with Arab Americans. And understanding that, appreciating it, I think is a real barrier for the White House.”

Biden condemned the killing of the aid workers and told Netanyahu on an April 4 call that further U.S. aid would be conditional on Israel putting in place “a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.”

But while “jawboning from the president” may attract some headlines, it has been insufficient for voters who want to see policy changes, Jacobs said.

“These voters are smart,” he said. “They see the 2,000-pound bombs are still being sent to Israel.”

Even progressive groups that traditionally are not active on foreign policy will evaluate Biden’s handling of the war when deciding how much support to lend the president’s reelection effort.

O’Hanlon said whether and to what degree Sunrise campaigns for Biden in the fall will depend in part on the administration’s actions between now and Election Day on climate — and Gaza.

“As a climate group, we’re fighting to make sure that people have clean air, access to clean water, to healthy food, that everyone has safe homes and doesn’t have to fear for losing their loved ones to something that they didn’t cause,” O’Hanlon said. “Whether that’s climate change or bombs from the (Israeli military).”

But surveys of young voters also show that, while they are more likely to oppose Israeli military action against Palestinians, there are a host of other issues affecting their votes.

Data show that the Israel-Hamas war, and the U.S. role in it, may not be the most important issue influencing younger voters, who tend to be more progressive.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted March 30 to April 2 found that foreign policy was tied for 13th among voters younger than 30 in a list of 15 issues respondents were asked to select as the “most important issue for you.”

Just 1% of respondents said foreign policy was most important. By comparison, 24% said inflation/prices, 14% said health care, 12% said jobs and the economy, and 11% said abortion.

That’s consistent with survey data by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, or CIRCLE, at Tufts University from last fall that showed 10 issues that voters ages 18 to 34 ranked as their top three.

Cost of living and inflation topped the list, with 53% surveyed including the issue in their top three. Jobs that pay a living wage, gun violence prevention and climate change were between 26% and 28% of responses. Expanding access to abortion was the fifth-most popular response at 19%.

The CIRCLE poll, with questions designed before the Israel-Hamas war and surveys conducted in the early weeks of the war, found that among youth voters who called themselves extremely likely to vote, Biden held a 21-percentage-point advantage, roughly the same margin as he won in the 2020 election.

Other foreign policy crises, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have not significantly boosted the importance of foreign policy to young voters, according to a follow-up report CIRCLE published in February, though there are signs that the war in Gaza is breaking through more.

Younger voters are more likely to describe Israel’s action in Gaza as “genocide,” according to an Economist/YouGov poll that found 49% of young voters agreed with that description.

They are less likely to describe Israel’s reasons for fighting as valid, and more likely to consider Hamas’ reason for fighting valid, according to a separate Pew Research survey in March.

“Beyond any specific data points, our sense is that this issue is certainly important to many young people, and that youth overall do seem to have different views than older Americans,” Alberto Medina, an author of the CIRCLE poll, wrote in an email to States Newsroom.

“That said, as our own poll reveals and as we’ve been tracking in recent election cycles, young people do not tend to be single-issue voters and they have a wide range of economic, environmental, and social issues they’re concerned about that may drive their electoral participation this November.”

But as the war has dragged on, Biden has seen a drastic change in support among young voters.

A February Economist/YouGov poll showed his job approval rating with voters ages 18 to 29 was 20 points higher than his disapproval rating. That was much better than the net +4 rating voters the same age gave Obama, the last president to win reelection, at the same point in his reelection race.

But the more recent data from the same pollster showed Biden’s approval rating had nearly flipped among young voters in less than two months. In the most recent poll, the percentage of young voters who disapproved of his performance was 18 points higher than those who approved.

The Biden White House has taken steps in recent months to highlight action on other issues that are important to younger voters, even as that strategy has attracted criticism that the White House is “playing politics” in an election year.

Jacobs, the political scientist, said Biden can rightly tout to progressive voters a highly effective first term of historic accomplishments.

“Biden has probably been the most progressive president since (Lyndon) Johnson,” Jacobs said. “The administration has done a whole lot and it’s tended to be progressive leaning.”

In February, the Biden administration paused exports of liquid natural gas to certain countries, giving environmental groups a policy win.

The White House deployed Vice President Kamala Harris to North Carolina, a competitive presidential election state, on April 3 to announce $20 billion in grant funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a program created in Democrats’ 2022 climate, taxes and policy bill that Biden championed.

The administration and campaign have continually highlighted Biden’s moves to forgive student debt.

Those moves have opened the administration to accusations of valuing electoral politics over policy.

“The White House has gone out of its way to signal that the pause is a political ploy intended to get votes in an election year—it’s all about politics, not economics,” U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin III, a centrist West Virginia Democrat and frequent Biden critic, said of the LNG export pause.

Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos tweeted about loan forgiveness that Biden would “stop at nothing to buy votes.”

And even as Biden promotes policies meant to appeal to progressives, that has not been enough to win full-throated endorsements from some on the far left.

“His record on climate is mixed,” O’Hanlon, with Sunrise, said. “It’s both true that he’s delivered more on climate than any president in history, and it’s also true that the bar is incredibly low.”

The post Israel-Hamas war sets progressive and young voters on collision course with White House appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

The IRS estimates that 19 million taxpayers are eligible to use a new Direct File program in advance of the April 15 tax filing deadline (Phillip Rubino/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Many U.S. taxpayers in a dozen states for the first time can electronically file their federal returns directly to the Internal Revenue Service for free — but critics insist the new federal benefit is not needed and will even harm both users and states.

More than 50,000 taxpayers in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have so far used the new online IRS Direct File program this tax season, according to the agency.

The free alternative to potentially costly private tax filing software rolled out in mid-March for the 2023 filing season. It is only available for those with W-2 income or simple credits and deductions, like the child tax credit or student loan interest.

The IRS estimates that 19 million taxpayers are eligible to use the new program in advance of the April 15 tax filing deadline.

But opponents argue the government Direct File program is a waste of resources and will snag business from professional tax preparers. They say it will confuse taxpayers who are accustomed to automatically filing their federal and state returns together through private software.

Some states also claim it will cost them revenue and increase what they have to spend on collections from taxpayers who owe money to their states.

The IRS program is purposefully small for now. The agency said in a launch-day release that it’s following “best practices for launching a new technology platform by starting small, making sure it works and then building from there.”

The pilot program “is almost tailor-made for students and young people with simple tax situations,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in late March, encouraging people to visit the new directfile.irs.gov.

The White House is celebrating the launch as a win for President Joe Biden, who in 2022 along with a Democratic-led Congress authorized its funding to jumpstart the program as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The progressive Economic Security Project estimates that if the program scales up, it could eventually save the average taxpayer up to $160 annually in tax prep costs. Assuming broad public adoption, that could add up to Americans saving $11 billion a year in filing fees and time.

The organization also estimates low-income households could gain up to $12 billion in unclaimed federal tax credits, and that the IRS would see a return on investment of more than $100 per federal dollar spent on the program due to less paperwork and fewer errors.

Roxy Caines, director of the Get It Back campaign, said Direct File could increase tax participation, particularly for low-income households.

“Having an accessible way to file taxes is really important because of the high cost of tax preparation as well as the arduous process. It’s often viewed as intimidating,” said Caines, who runs the financial literacy and tax credit advocacy campaign by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But not everyone is on board.

When Werfel appeared in February before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Republican Chair Jason Smith of Missouri described the program as a “scheme the American people didn’t ask for.”

In January, 13 Republican attorneys general sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen opposing “the unnecessary and unconstitutional efforts to empower the Internal Revenue Service with the expansive authority to prepare and file tax returns for all taxpayers.”

“American taxpayers do not want to invite the proverbial fox into the hen house,” wrote the officials, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

Attorneys general from Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia co-signed it.

The officials wrote that a program for taxpayers to directly file with the IRS at no cost “needlessly threatens” the livelihoods of tax preparers.

“Every year, tens of millions of taxpayers file their taxes for free with help from existing programs or online software. Additionally, millions of Americans work with small businesses in our states to file their taxes at an affordable cost, including both independent tax preparation services and local accountants. They choose to do so because they want an advocate in their corner who will represent their interests against the IRS bureaucracy,” they wrote.

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment about the criticism.

Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, a fiscally conservative organization that advocates for simplifying the tax code, told States Newsroom the project has been “dramatically oversold” and is being piloted in “some very easy places,” including states that don’t collect their own income tax.

Money for the IRS would be better spent on improving customer service, he argues.

“Every single penny they can scrounge up from other places needs to be poured into that effort, right? Now, in our opinion, designing a portal for direct file that is underpowered and is competing with other services is just not a priority,” he said, referring to the 22-year “Free File” arrangement the IRS has had with select private companies.

Today, the vast majority of taxpayers file electronically, according to IRS data. Of the 160 million individual federal tax returns that the IRS processed in 2022, 150.6 million, or 94%, were e-filed. Of those, just under 3.3 million used what’s been criticized as an opaque and complicated electronic Free File program.

Free File dates back to the early 2000s, when the idea of e-filing was just budding, and the government had no such program in place.

President George W. Bush’s administration was exploring the possibility of a free direct file portal through the IRS website.

At the time the agency was struggling after failed modernization efforts, and a public-private partnership with the burgeoning tax preparation software companies became an appealing option.

“The tax companies just said, ‘Well, we got a deal for you,’” recalls Nina Olson, who served as the National Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS from 2001 to 2019.

“And at that time, I was very suspect of the deal. I said at the time that they’re going to find themselves in 20 years, that you know, tax companies would pull out and you would have a patchwork of services available to people,” Olson, who now runs the nonprofit Center for Taxpayer Rights, said in an interview with States Newsroom.

What began in 2002 was an agreement between the IRS and a group of  private tax prep software companies, under the name Free File Alliance, to offer free federal tax returns to those under a certain income threshold. In 2023, that annual earnings threshold was $79,000 or less.

Taxpayers who earn above that income threshold have the option to complete their federal returns for free, unguided, using fillable PDF tax forms.

The just over two-decade-old program has been scrutinized for not reaching the taxpayers who most need a free filing option and for not providing a better user experience.

A 2019 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report described the program as “fraught with complexity and confusion.”

The inspector general found that in 2018 only 2.5 million of the 104 million taxpayers eligible for Free File actually used it.

About 34.5 million of those Free File-eligible taxpayers used one of the alliance companies’ commercial software options, and a likely 14 million of them paid to e-file their federal returns, the report found.

The low number of Free File users likely was because an estimated 9 million eligible taxpayers were unaware that they had to access the Free File software options via the IRS website.

Those who, for example, searched the web and found one of the IRS partner companies’ websites were “not guaranteed a free return filing,” and subsequently susceptible to advertising for potentially costly add-ons like “audit defense,” the report found.

Investigative reporting in 2019 by ProPublica revealed deliberate tactics to cloud the Free File program by Intuit, maker of TurboTax, one of the Free File Alliance’s largest partners.

Terms between the IRS and Free File Alliance initially included a commitment from the agency to not develop its own free online filing program. In exchange, the partner companies agreed to limit advertising and add-on solicitation on their free file web pages.

In 2019 the IRS dropped the prohibition on developing its own program. Limits on company marketing and solicitation for add-on products continued as part of the agreement — though Intuit would eventually have to pay for breaking its commitment.

H&R Block and Intuit respectively left the Free File Alliance in 2020 and 2021. Together they served about 70% of eligible Free File taxpayers in 2019, according to a 2022 Government Accountability Office report that recommended the IRS develop additional options for taxpayers to file for free.

Acknowledging the opposing viewpoints on whether the IRS should create, or could handle, its own program, the report concluded the agency “should work to manage the risk of taxpayers having fewer options to electronically file their federal taxes for free.”

In 2022, Intuit settled with attorneys general from across the U.S., agreeing to pay $141 million to Intuit TurboTax customers who ended up buying services that should have been free to them.

Today there are eight companies in the Free File Alliance, with differing income and tax situation criteria. All are listed on the IRS website.

Olson said she doesn’t view the IRS Direct File pilot as a competitor to the already existing Free File partnership. Rather, it’s “one more component of a robust tax online taxpayer account,” she said.

“This is what countries do around the world. We’re so far behind,” Olson said. “There’s a response to folks who say ‘The government doesn’t need to do this’ or ‘There’s no interest in this product.’ Regardless of whether there’s interest in the product, it’s a government obligation.”

Among the tens of billions of dollars Congress authorized for the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act, $15 million was earmarked for exploring the possibility of an IRS-run direct federal tax filing system.

Specifically Congress mandated the agency to use the money to survey taxpayers’ wants and needs, obtain a third-party opinion, and report back to lawmakers on the costs to create and run such a program.

In its third-party review, the left-leaning think tank New America assessed that a successful IRS-run Direct File program “depends critically” on whether the agency prioritizes the project and begins with limited testing before building up.

The organization estimated that development, staffing, infrastructure and customer service for a scaled-up platform would cost the IRS annually anywhere from $22 million to $47 million if 1 million taxpayers use a Direct File program, and up to $126 million to $213 million in the event that 25 million taxpayers jump on board.

New America also recommended the IRS consider the importance of customer service, data privacy and taxpayers’ habits of filing federal and state returns all on one platform — one of the main concerns from critics.

Ayushi Roy, deputy director of New America’s New Practice Lab, which led the review, told States Newsroom she’s been talking to taxpayers using the Direct File pilot and “broadly speaking, we’re finding that filers are really landing on either ‘Wow,’ or ‘it didn’t include me for now.’”

The group will conduct its own analysis of the IRS trial run, particularly focusing on the experience for Spanish-speaking filers.

As for taxpayer interest, the IRS found that 72% of survey respondents said they were “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in a free IRS-provided tool to prepare and file federal taxes.

The survey conducted in 2022 by MITRE, a nonprofit that runs federally funded research and development centers, also found that a top reason cited by 46% of those interested is that they would rather give their financial data to the IRS than to a third party.

An October 2023 report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration took issue with the design of the survey, warning that the interest level may be “overstated” because the survey did not include a “neutral” option for respondents to choose.

However, the largely Democrat- and progressive-aligned international polling firm GQR found in late January through early February that between 92% and 95% of taxpayers across political ideologies and income levels in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New York and Texas support a free online IRS filing service.

Several state governments already offer free public electronic filing for state income tax returns, including Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, which offer the service regardless of income level. Some states, like California and Iowa, have income thresholds for free filing.

States bite back

Despite the adoption of free public filing in some states, 21 state auditors, comptrollers and treasurers from 18 states sent a letter on March 25 to Yellen and Werfel expressing concern about the “serious harm” the IRS Direct File program will cause and urging them to “shut down” the service.

“Taxpayers are not the only parties who will suffer from Direct File. States will suffer too. States will lose out on payments from Direct File taxpayers who owe state taxes but incorrectly assume that Direct File covers federal and state filings.

“States will then have to increase resources dedicated to collection efforts,” wrote the officials from Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

According to the Treasury Department, taxpayers using the IRS Direct File pilot in Arizona, California, Massachusetts or New York are automatically directed to their state-supported tax filing websites. Those in Washington are sent to that state’s page to claim the Working Families Tax Credit.

The IRS could not provide a more specific figure of how many taxpayers have so far used Direct File, and its latest estimate stands at 50,000. Advocates say they expect to learn updated numbers as soon as a week after federal taxes are due on April 15.

The post The IRS is testing a free method to directly file taxes. But not everyone is thrilled appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

The Downtown Children’s Center in St. Louis, Missouri, was able to stay open for working families during the pandemic by using federal grants (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

Attempts to create tax credits for child care related causes continue to be at a roadblock because of challenges from Freedom Caucus members in the Missouri Senate.

Legislation ponsored by Sen. Lauren Arthur, a Kansas City Democrat, would create several provisions aiming to offer tax credits related to childcare services. The bill would offer the credits to individuals spending money for child care services, employers who provide child care services to their employees or reimburse them for some of those costs and to child care providers who pay employee payroll taxes and have certain construction expenses related to their services.

An identical House bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Brenda Shields of St. Joseph, passed a Senate earlier this week on a 5-0 bipartisan vote. The effort to provide tax credits for child care was championed by Gov. Mike Parson during his January State of the State address.

“There are three different tax credits targeted in different areas,” Arthur said, “all with the intention of making child care more accessible and affordable.”

Despite bipartisan support, senators of the Freedom Caucus have stalled the Senate version.

“Generally, the tax credit programs benefit some in the population, but not everybody,” said Sen. Bill Eigel, a Weldon Spring Republican who is running for governor. “I think if we want to help everybody we can do so far more effectively.”

Arthur criticized this pushback as a political stunt for senators to get their own priorities through the legislature first.

“They see this as leverage as a way to get their legislation passed by trying to take this bigger priority of the Senate, of the House and of the governor and trying to derail it so that they can pass something they would rather see done,” Arthur said.

As far as a strategy goes for moving the bill forward, Arthur said she will “sit down with the senators, see if they have actual changes they would like to see made to the bill.”

Arthur added that this may involve a larger negotiation regarding the priorities those senators wish to pursue.

“I’m always open to ideas,” Eigel said. “I would suspect that if there’s gonna be a path forward on these tax cuts, we’re going to have to see the movement of a major tax cut bill make its way in the Senate chamber.”

Arthur added that the child care tax credit is a priority she wants to see completed this session.

“Depending on who the next governor is, this may or may not be a priority anymore,” Arthur said.

“The fact that we have a governor who is support of this legislation…gives us a strong footing,” she said, “and I think that’s all the more reason why it’s important to get it done this year.”

This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be reprinted in print or online. 

The post Child care tax credit bills face continued Freedom Caucus opposition in Missouri Senate appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

A rendering of the Royals proposed downtown ballpark (image submitted).

The Royals and the Chiefs had everything.

Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce — fresh off of a Super Bowl victory — endorsed a “yes” vote in ads airing on TV and on YouTube. Endorsements rolled in from the city’s top political players: Mayor Quinton Lucas (belatedly), U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and nearly every union in town.

All in all, the teams spent $3 million trying to convince voters a 40-year sales tax for a downtown ballpark would mean a win for everybody.

From a thorny stadium location and murky financial details to a community benefits agreement that drew criticism from workers groups and economists, the weeks leading up to the vote brought gaffe after gaffe, all in the public eye.

Jackson County voters couldn’t be convinced. With turnout higher than a typical April election and an unprecedented level of early voting, they shot the sales tax down by a 16-point margin.

The theories on what cursed the pitch to voters will pile up like Royals losses this summer, but some reasons already stick out.

Any number of opposition groups will claim that the sales tax failed because of one key reason or another.

But a lot has to go wrong for a referendum to lose by such a wide margin.

In many ways, the stadium sales tax question was so complicated that it was doomed from the start, said Debra Leiter, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

“It wasn’t just a three-eighths cent sales tax,” she said. “It came with a load of baggage.”

If a voter supported funding the Chiefs but not the Royals, they were a “no” vote. If they wanted a downtown ballpark but not in the Crossroads, they were a “no” vote. If they wanted a downtown ballpark in the Crossroads but with a stronger community benefits agreement, they were a “no” vote.

That made it easy to convince voters that the stadium tax was a bad deal.

“The coalition with a small but clear message and less funding ended up winning,” Leiter said. “It’s a good reminder that it’s not just how much you spend. The message that you’re selling really can influence what voters are going to end up doing.”

KC Tenants, the citywide tenants union, managed to hone its message in a way that resonated with voters. The group expanded its reach into eastern Jackson County ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“People out here have a real bullshit detector,” said Keith Sadler, a leader with KC Tenants who lives in Blue Springs. “People can really hear when the message keeps changing.”

Part of the problem for some voters rested in the price tag and an awareness that taxpayers have become increasingly weary of subsidizing the stadiums of big-money sports teams.

For a referendum like Question 1, the teams would only want to win by a narrow margin, said Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economics professor at Smith College. Winning by a big margin, he said, would signal that they could have squeezed more tax dollars out of a deal.

“​​If they were to win 60%,” he said, “it means that they haven’t asked for as much as they could have asked for.”

At the same time, teams are losing the sway they once enjoyed with voters and the leverage to score better terms with taxpayers.

Patrick Tuohey, a senior fellow at the anti-tax Show-Me Institute, said teams will need to reevaluate their approach going forward. Public sentiment is shifting, he said, and that will require a new approach from sports teams nationwide seeking public stadium subsidies.

He pointed to Virginia, where the Democratic-controlled legislature last month declined to include any state dollars for an arena that would bring the region’s hockey and basketball teams from Washington, D.C., into Virginia. The package was a top priority of the state’s Republican governor.

It will be difficult for teams looking to make a move to find a friendly destination that’s willing to pay, Zimbalist said.

“(Teams) claim they’re going to be wonderful economic engines — they’re not,” Zimbalist said. “More and more cities are realizing that.”

In Jackson County, anger about 2023’s property tax assessments is still swirling, said Mark Jones, the chairman of the county GOP.

“We’re just not through with the 2023 property tax debacle,” Jones said. “People are still in their appeal process. People have absolutely no appetite for anything to increase taxes.”

A fear-based approach — that the Royals might leave Kansas City for a place like Salt Lake City that’s trying to seduce teams with big subsidies — won’t work for Republicans in Jackson County, Jones said.

“Don’t patronize us with threats,” he said.

Team owners Clark Hunt and John Sherman will have to go back to the drawing board, Tuohey said.

“The Chiefs and Royals can come back and demonstrate that they’ve listened, they’ve learned a lesson,” he said. “Jackson County doesn’t want the teams to leave. I don’t think the teams will want to leave.”

The cost of moving a team from city to city is high. When Rams owner Stan Kroenke decided to move the football team from St. Louis to Los Angeles, he ultimately had to agree to a settlement of $790 million. That’s real money even for an NFL owner.

When teams inevitably ask for tax money again, they’ll need a better rollout. And elected officials will need to get on the same page, Leiter said, pointing to Jackson County Executive Frank White’s opposition to the measure and Mayor Lucas’ eleventh-hour endorsement.

Tuohey said the Royals and Chiefs may need to revisit the economic argument for stadium subsidies.

“(Teams have) been able to make claims of economic benefit in the past,” he said. “They’ve been able to threaten to leave. That has worked in the past. I think that may not work anymore.”

The vote saw left-leaning KC Tenants campaigning on the same side as the libertarian Show-Me Institute and some Republicans in eastern Jackson County.

But for other issues, it’s unlikely that Kansas City will see these groups work together again, Leiter said.

Many Jackson County voters, left and right, share a common sentiment: it’s not the time to foot the bill for those who don’t really need the help.

“It’s a unique movement that’s anti-elite,” Leiter said. “There is a lot of skepticism and people are skeptical of how the government is spending money.”

That’s what organizers and political parties are hoping to translate into future elections.

“I know we’re not going to get the entire coalition,” Jones said. “But as much of this coalition as we can that backs this populism, let’s translate that into the fall. … We’re tired of paying the entire bill.”

The KC Tenants group senses that momentum, as well, and is looking at expanding its reach into other parts of eastern Jackson County by propping up a new union in Independence.

The way voters rallied in opposition points to the importance of participating in local politics, Tuohey said.

“You don’t have to be a liberal or conservative to know that the potholes are making you crazy or that you want your trash to be picked up,” he said. “Municipal politics is the least beholden to these broad, vague national things. It’s really just that people want a return on their investment.”

This article first appeared on The Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post What the KC stadium tax defeat says about teams, their subsidies and Jackson County voters appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Erin Hawley, a Missouri attorney representing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, speaks to the media as she departs the Supreme Court following oral arguments in the case of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on March 26, 2024, in Washington, DC. The case bears on access to mifepristone, a commonly used abortion medication (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — An anti-obscenity law enacted in 1873 that hasn’t been enforced in decades shot to the forefront of the nation’s abortion debate in the past week thanks to two U.S. Supreme Court justices, amid expectations a future Republican president would use the law to order a nationwide ban on medication abortion.

The Comstock Act, which prohibited the mailing of anatomy textbooks and boxing photographs as well as contraceptives, drew fresh attention after Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas during March 26 oral arguments seemed to suggest the law would block the mailing of mifepristone.

Legal experts and a medical historian interviewed by States Newsroom said enforcing the law would be possible since it’s still on the books. But one legal expert noted it may be challenging to prosecute only the sections on abortion while ignoring those that bar sending anything deemed to have an “indecent or immoral use.”

The law, they said, also stems from a time when medical understanding and terminology around pregnancy was vastly different than today, though that’s unlikely to deter those who see the Comstock Act as a path to curtailing or ending abortion access.

Trying to fend off any possibility, a few Democrats in Congress hope to repeal the statute ahead of another Republican presidency — a difficult task amid divided government.

Sarah​​​​ Perry, senior legal fellow for the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, said a future Republican attorney general could prosecute any manufacturer that ships mifepristone through the U.S. Postal Service — or a private company contracting with USPS.

“The reason we don’t see more involvement with Comstock in federal litigation is simply because you have to have a Department of Justice with the political will to actually go out and to enforce it, and to charge people with those types of violations,” Perry said.

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions, which are currently FDA-approved for use up to 10 weeks gestation. The two-drug regimen accounts for about 63% of abortions nationwide, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute.

The pharmaceutical is at the center of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Months of litigation began when anti-abortion medical organizations filed a lawsuit in November 2022 asking the federal courts to either severely restrict or end access to the drug.

The Comstock Act bars more than just sending abortion pharmaceuticals and reigniting enforcement of its various provisions could be complicated, according to Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at UC Davis School of Law.

“If you look at the statute, very few words in it are about abortion. Almost all of it is about stuff having to do with sex,” Ziegler said. “So if you’re going to revive the Comstock Act, that’s part of the Pandora’s Box you’re opening.”

The first line of the law, for example, bans mailing “Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance.”

One of the lines addressing abortion says the statute bans mailing “Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.”

Ziegler said she wasn’t sure how a court today would interpret what would be “for any indecent or immoral use.”

The lawmakers in Congress who voted to approve the Comstock Act, which was enacted less than a decade after the end of the Civil War, weren’t especially concerned with “protecting fetal life or rights,” Ziegler said.

“It was really about sex, and abortion came into it the same way contraception did,” she said. “And the people who passed the law didn’t really distinguish the two.”

Anthony Comstock, who advocated for the law, used to call “people who sold contraceptives, abortionists, even though they didn’t perform abortions, because to him there really wasn’t much of a difference,” Ziegler said.

The law’s full title is “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Laura Olson/States Newsroom).

While the Biden administration has issued a legal opinion saying the Comstock Act doesn’t apply when the “sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully,” a future GOP president and the legal teams within that administration could feel quite differently. Former President Donald Trump has clinched the Republican presidential nomination.

The Biden administration’s legal interpretation of the Comstock Act, Perry said, “doesn’t really pass the straight face test, particularly the plain reading of the text itself for which ‘intent’ does not appear.”

Perry and Thomas Jipping, a fellow Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, wrote in a February 2023 report that the Biden Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion “wants Americans to believe that a law enacted as part of the national pro-life legislative movement and championed by an aggressive and uncompromising anti-vice crusader is today, with no change in its language, entirely unenforceable for its intended purpose.”

“The OLC wants Americans to ignore what they can read for themselves, that the statute has clear and unqualified language, and that Congress repeatedly demonstrated its intention to keep it that way,” the two wrote. “The OLC wants Americans to believe that while enacting the Comstock Act required Congress to act, rendering it inert and unenforceable could be accomplished by Congress failing to act at all.”

A Republican-controlled Justice Department could bring charges against the manufacturers of mifepristone unless those companies used entirely private transportation companies, Perry said.

“If they were seeking a private driver to deliver or a private delivery service to deliver, that’s legally permissible, but they cannot use the U.S. Postal Service or any common carrier that contracts with the U.S. Postal Service,” Perry said.

Some legal experts or judges could interpret the law as having a wider reach, Ziegler said.

“The statute’s written to be really broad,” she said. “So it’s not obvious to me that if you used a private carrier that it would be exempted. Again, if you assume the interpretation of the law that they have, which I don’t, but if you do, I don’t think it makes a difference if you have a private carrier.”

In that case, the law could mean no medication abortion at all as well as enforcement of the Comstock Act’s other provisions, Ziegler said.

The law was used in federal prosecution as recently as 2002, but that was for “obscene or lewd materials,” not for the mailing of anything having to do with abortions, Perry said.

Enforcement of the abortion sections of the law wasn’t allowed after the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutional right in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, but that all changed two years ago when the court overturned that opinion, Perry said.

“The law essentially laid dormant for many years because of course in 1971 the birth control prohibition was eliminated and then in 1973 we were given Roe,” Perry said.

“So for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court finding a right to abortion superseded what the Comstock Act actually said, because if there was an unfettered right to abortion, then there could not be congressional restriction on any tool, medication, or implement used to facilitate abortion,” said Perry.

The court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could lead to “renewed interest” in enforcing the Comstock Act, including comments made just last week by the two Supreme Court justices, she said.

Thomas and Alito brought up the Comstock Act during a case that will determine whether access to mifepristone stays the way it is now or reverts to what was in place before 2016.

Thomas asked the attorney representing Danco Laboratories LLC, manufacturer of the brand name of mifepristone called Mifeprex, if the Comstock Act applied to the company.

“The government, the solicitor general points out, would not be susceptible to a Comstock Act problem,” Thomas said. “But in your case, you would be, so how do you respond to an argument that mailing your product and advertising it, would violate the Comstock Act?”

Thomas said that his “problem” with aspects of the case was that Danco Laboratories is “private, and the statute doesn’t have the sort of safe harbor that you’re suggesting.”

“It is fairly broad and it specifically covers drugs such as yours,” Thomas said.

Danco lawyer Jessica Ellsworth responded that she disagreed that was “the correct interpretation of the statute.”

“We think that in order to address the correct interpretation, there would need to be a situation in which that issue was actually teed up,” Ellsworth said. “I don’t believe that this case presents an opportunity for this court to opine on the reach of the statute.”

Alito appeared to argue that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should have considered the Comstock Act before relaxing previous restrictions on use, allowing mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth and sent to patients through the mail.

“It didn’t say anything about it. And this is a prominent provision,” Alito said. “It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated obscure law. They knew about it. Everybody in this field knew about it.”

After filing for re-election, Congresswoman Cori Bush speaks to reporters about her campaign (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Following the comments by the two justices, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush immediately called on Congress to repeal the law, a scenario that’s unlikely to happen given that Republicans control the U.S. House and Democrats the Senate.

“Enacted in 1873, it is a zombie statute, a dead law that the far-right is trying to reanimate,” Bush wrote on social media. “The anti-abortion movement wants to weaponize the Comstock Act as a quick route to a nationwide medication abortion ban. Not on our watch.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith wrote in an op-ed published by The New York Times on April 2 that she would work with her colleagues to repeal the law, saying that neither the Supreme Court nor another Trump administration should be allowed to rely on it to ban access to medication abortion.

“Very few Republicans will admit to wanting to see a total, no-exceptions ban on abortion in all 50 states, but the Comstock Act could allow them to achieve that in effect, if not in so many words,” Smith wrote. “Americans deserve better. The Constitution demands better. And common sense dictates that we stop this outrageous backdoor ploy to eliminate abortion access in its tracks.”

Ziegler said that “the Comstock Act passed at a time when the meaning of obscene was up for grabs” and that its namesake, Anthony Comstock, “was really anxious about people’s exposure to what he saw as pornography.”

Some of the prohibited items under the anti-obscenity law were things people today would still think of as pornography, but Comstock also didn’t approve of nudity in medical textbooks or art, literature with “risque humor,” or newspaper articles about people who died as the result of illegal abortions.

“He thought all of that was encouraging people to have sex they shouldn’t be having, either by being arousing or in the case of abortion or contraception, convincing them that they could have sex without pregnancy,” Ziegler said.

At various points in the law’s history, Ziegler said, it was used to target people discussing LGBTQ rights and against opponents of the law in a way that basically silenced political speech.

Even though it hasn’t been used in quite some time, Ziegler said, “it’s a very real possibility” a future Republican DOJ could seek to enforce the law with respect to abortion access.

“The only caveat, of course, is if that happened, the person being prosecuted would be right back in federal court saying, ‘Number one, this is not what the Comstock Act means and number two, the Comstock Act is unconstitutional,’” Ziegler said. “So the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually have to settle those questions.”

One question for the justices will have to be what the word abortion meant in the late 19th century.

“If you look at what the law in general said at the time, procuring abortion was only a problem if it was done intentionally, and if it was done with basically criminal intent, which excluded cases where someone’s life was at risk or health was at risk,” Ziegler said.

Mary Fissell, inaugural J. Mario Molina professor in the history of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and vice president of the American Association for the History of Medicine, said during the 19th century around the time the law was written the terms abortion and miscarriage were often used interchangeably and typically meant the same thing.

“Both of those terms describe a pregnancy that ended sooner than it should have done and did not result in what we would call a live birth,” Fissell said.

People and organizations that wanted to outlaw pregnancy termination often used the term “feticide,” as in fetal homicide, to advocate for laws banning or significantly restricting the practice, Fissell said.

“Doctors start calling it criminal abortion, to distinguish it from everyday abortion, which is just fetal loss,” she said. “And so it’s over time that these terms come to mean, sort of separate things. At that point, they are very much just used interchangeably.”

The way women and most doctors understood pregnancy more than 150 years ago was before and after “quickening,” the first time a woman felt the fetus move, which is typically sometime in the middle of the second trimester, Fissell said.

“Before quickening, ending a pregnancy was not a big deal. It was not even fully always understood as ending a pregnancy,” Fissell said. “I think sometimes that’s what a woman knew she was doing. Other times she was getting back a lost menstrual cycle.”

In the late 19th century many physicians practiced what’s now referred to as humoral medicine, in which they believed the body contained four humors or fluids that needed to be kept in balance in order for a person to stay healthy.

They believed the body contained black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm and that those four substances corresponded to being either hot or cold as well as wet or dry.

“Women’s bodies were cooler and wetter than men’s,” Fissell said of medical beliefs around that time. “That’s good because, they thought of it as analogous to agriculture, and a seed was planted in the womb. And we all know what happens if you plant a seed somewhere that’s too hot and dry. It doesn’t go well.”

“So it was good that women were cooler and wetter, but it meant they didn’t fully process their food in the same way,” she added, again referring to beliefs at the time. “And the excess, the leftover, had to be gotten rid of from the body and that was what menstruation was.”

Doctors and others at the time often sold products that were designed to help women get a regular period, including herbal combinations. But there are significant differences between how that was thought of around 1873 and now, Fissell said.

“From a long time before that, there had been a blurring between what we call contraception and abortion,” Fissell said. “It doesn’t make sense to us, but in their worldview, they were more connected in part because the same kind of plant that you might take to get your cycle back, you could also be ending a pregnancy.”

“So, you can imagine some of those same preparations that women were advised to take every month, and you won’t get pregnant,” she added. “We would biochemically analyze it very differently than the way they were understanding it.”

Fissell said that around the time the Comstock Act was written, women and doctors — not typically male lawmakers — held the knowledge about menstrual cycles and pregnancy. “I think the extent of ignorance cannot be overestimated.”

The post An 1873 law banned the mailing of boxing photos. Could it block abortion pills, too? appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Jess Piper stands on the side of a highway in Smithville across from the Herzog Foundation in July 2023 with a sign that says, “Our schools are not your church.” The Herzog Foundation is a supporter of Christian education and the largest organization in Missouri’s tax-credit-based program (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Even with strong job growth, infrastructure development, including boosts to ag regions, and other financial metrics trending positively, President Joe Biden is struggling to break through on the economy with voters — a fact former presidents Obama and Clinton delved into last week at a record-breaking New York City fundraiser for the president’s reelection.

Instead of searching for to-this-point unobtainable messaging on the economy for Biden, a leader of a progressive Missouri organization has another answer for rural Democrats: Don’t bring up Biden and focus on local candidates.

“I specifically don’t talk about Biden because all he’s doing is delivering roads and that sort of thing, but they need to talk about who’s really impacting their life and that’s people in the Statehouse,” Jess Piper, the executive director of Blue Missouri and the host of the “Dirt Road Democrat” podcast, said in an interview with The Iowa Mercury.

How could Democrats cut through on the economy?

“You don’t,” Piper said.

Piper, a Missouri farmer who lives near Maryville in the northwest corner of the Show Me State, close to the Iowa border, headlined the recent Progress Iowa 12th Birthday Party in Des Moines at the Tom and Ruth Harkin Institute on the Drake University campus.

A former Missouri Statehouse candidate who challenged GOP headwinds herself in 2022, Piper came north with a message for Democrats in red regions of Iowa: running for office is worth it, even if you lose, as it likely will take several elections for the party to climb back in wide swaths of the nation.

“I did come from Missouri,” Piper said in her speech at the Progress Iowa celebration. “I heard that Kim Reynolds had sent the troops down to the Southern border, and I got through.”

Piper said she became energized in 2018 when Missouri passed an abortion ban with no exception for rape and incest after 6 months.

“I’d kind of been coasting through because Obama was president and everything was cool,” she said. “And then I was jarred awake.”

In 2020, she voted for Biden. No Democrat was on the ballot in 2022 in her House district, so she ran herself.

“That was a tough two years and I got my butt kicked — I mean bad,” Piper said. “But here’s the thing: It’s worth it.”

State Rep. Jeff Farnan, a Missouri Republican in that state’s House District 1, captured the race with 75% of the vote to Piper’s 25%.

A Democrat hasn’t been elected to the Missouri House from her region for 32 years, she said.

“And you can tell because there’s no shoulders on our roads,” Piper said. “Because our schools are four days a week. Because they close our hospitals. Because they ban our books and they pay our teachers $33,000 a year to teach.”

Even when Democrats in conservative districts know they can’t win, their candidacies make the Republicans spend money.

“That person I ran against had to show up to forums,” Piper said. “He had to face me. He had to knock doors. He had to make calls. He had to raise money, and he had to use it in the district. He couldn’t take that money when there’s nobody running and pocket it and head to Columbia or St. Louis or Kansas City where they have blue places. He had to spend $100,000.”

Piper said she was aware of the challenge of flipping her district in one cycle. But people need to hear the Democratic message — over and over, she said.

“They understood I didn’t have horns,” Piper, a longtime teacher, said. “They understood that I was someone from their community, that I taught their son or their nephew or their granddaughter and they remember that.”

When Democrats come back and knock doors in successive election cycles, maybe voters will reconsider in her Statehouse district, Piper said.

“I am a patriotic person, but I also believe you ought to have access to health care,” Piper, 48, said.

She said the voucher/education savings account legislation that passed in Iowa is destroying public schools.

“There is misinformation, they don’t understand what is going on,” Piper said.

Democrats can change that, Piper said.

Iowa Democrats can “claw your way back” to power more quickly than in other states, like her native Missouri or Idaho, she said.

In an interview after the speech, Piper said Democrats can’t surrender on core principles like abortion rights in rural areas where such positioning could potentially shake seats loose.

In Pennsylvania, a Democrat in the Johnstown area, State Rep. Frank Burns of Cambria, defies conventional political wisdom by holding a seat with an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association and an anti-abortion voting record.

Should Democrats embrace “pro-life” candidates again in rural areas — elected officials who would be with Democrats on labor issues and other economic matters, but stray on culture issues like abortion?

“I don’t think so,” Piper said. “Bodily autonomy is a right and I think that we should draw a clear distinction. I think the time for pro-life Democrats has come and gone. Most of the progressives I know, even pretty conservative women that I know, are not going to vote for someone who has a pro-life stance at all.”

What’s the draw in rural America to Donald Trump?

“It’s a team,” Piper said. “It’s a winning team. It’s red versus blue. It’s not politics anymore. It has nothing to do with economics. It has nothing to do with their schools, their farms or anything else, because they are voting against their self interest. I think it’s just identity politics.”

This column was originally published by Douglas Burns’ blog, “The Iowa Mercury.” It is shared here through the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative.

The post Blue Missouri leader tells rural Iowa Democrats: Don’t talk about Biden appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith speaks Thursday as the Missouri House completed work on a $50.8 billion spending plan for fiscal 2025 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Missouri has plenty of money left in reserve as the state Senate prepares to work on the almost $51 billion budget passed Thursday in the House, but one looming issue could disrupt final passage and put the surplus in danger of disappearing.

Lawmakers must renew a set of medical provider taxes, known as the federal reimbursement allowance, vital to funding Medicaid. The taxes, set to expire this year, were last renewed in a 2021 special session called when factional fighting in the Missouri Senate prevented the bill from passing earlier.

Neither chamber has even debated a bill extending the taxes this year. 

“Unless we pass the federal reimbursement allowance, this whole budget is a lie and it’s a complete joke,” House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat, said during a news conference Thursday.

The budget approved Thursday in the Missouri House would provide a 3.2% pay raise for state workers and a 2% boost to higher education institutions as well as fund major upgrades on Interstate 44 and pay for sending National Guard troops to the border with Mexico.

It proposes spending $14.1 billion in general revenue for ongoing state operations, with another $800 million of general revenue for state building construction and maintenance. Spending at that level would consume about $1.6 billion of the accumulated state surplus, which currently stands at about $6.4 billion in general revenue and other unrestricted funds.

The provider taxes bring in about $1.4 billion annually and draw an additional federal match of nearly $3 billion. If lawmakers do not renew the taxes, the surplus would have to be tapped to maintain the Medicaid program without cuts.

The same issue that forced a special session in 2021 again faces lawmakers — whether Planned Parenthood, which operates family planning clinics in Missouri should be barred from providing services paid for by Medicaid.

Planned Parenthood was the last abortion provider in Missouri when the procedure became illegal in 2022 and its affiliates continue to provide abortions in other states. 

The Missouri House has passed a bill to make it illegal for any public funds, including Medicaid reimbursements, to go to abortion facilities or their affiliates, targeting Planned Parenthood. The bill has been passed in a Senate committee and is awaiting floor debate.

A bill renewing the provider taxes is also awaiting Senate approval. The Senate will work on the Planned Parenthood bill next week, Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden said, followed by the provider tax bill.

The provider taxes must be passed before the budget can be debated, Rowden said.

“That’s the only responsible thing to do,” he said. “In the absence of that $4 billion, you have a much different equation in front of you.”

Democrats in the Senate will work to defeat the bill targeting Planned Parenthood and pass the provider taxes, Sen. Doug Beck of St. Louis said during a news conference. He said a proposal expected to be on the Nov. 5 ballot restoring the right to abortion would also protect Planned Parenthood’s status as a Medicaid provider.

“Voters are going to get a chance in the fall to actually be able to fund these things and bring back women’s health care and things that have been defunded by the Republicans,” Beck said.

During the final votes on 17 spending bills Thursday, House Democrats complained that the spending plan shortchanges education and services for vulnerable people.

Democrats argued that the budget was inadequate because it cut Gov. Mike Parson’s proposal for higher education funding, reduced funding for teacher pay supplements and put caps on how much providers can pay personal care aides who help people with disabilities.

State Rep. Kevin Windham, a Hillsdale Democrat, said he would rate this year’s budget with “two out of five stars” because rank-and-file members were frozen out of big decisions.

“This year the process felt especially dominated by the budget chair,” Windham said.

Republicans defended the budget and Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, a Republican from Carthage and a candidate for state Treasurer. .

“It is very difficult for me to hear that we are not doing everything we can,” said state Rep. Ed Lewis, a Republican from Moberly.

The budget approved Thursday is $1.9 billion less in total spending than the spending plan proposed in January by Parson. Much of that reduction is in the Medicaid program and other services provided by the departments of Mental Health, Health and Senior Services and Social Services.

Smith cut nearly $200 million in general revenue and more than $1 billion in those departments.

The cuts were made, Smith said, because of lower demand for services because of declining Medicaid enrollment. Missouri is examining the eligibility of everyone on Medicaid for the first time in several years because the process was suspended during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The number of people on Medicaid has fallen by about 160,000 – or about 10% of those enrolled – since eligibility reviews began last year. 

At their news conference and during Thursday’s debate, Democrats said some of Smith’s cuts, and language restricting how money can be spent, will mean fewer people get services. 

State Rep. Peter Merideth of St. Louis, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, speaks during a news conference after passage of a $50.8 billion spending plan for fiscal 2025 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

“They’re not going to be able to hire, they’re still going to have vacancies and then he’s going to look at the leftover money that they weren’t able to spend and say, now I can cut you more because look, you’re not spending all the money we gave you,” said state Rep. Peter Merideth, ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Lawmakers now have five weeks remaining for the Senate to write its version of the budget, pass it and reconcile differences with the House. The constitutional deadline to pass spending bills is May 10.

Senate leaders expressed confidence the upper chamber can meet those deadlines while acknowledging that factional disputes could disrupt quick action.

“The time frame is going to be tough, honestly,” Rowden said. 

The Freedom Caucus, a group of six Republican senators, is going to examine the House-passed budget to look for additional cuts, said state Sen. Bill Eigel of Weldon Spring. He doesn’t want to spend any more general revenue than the state anticipates in tax receipts.

Estimates released in December project the state will receive under $13.2 billion in general revenue in the fiscal year that begins July 1. 

The budget proposed by Parson anticipates spending $15 billion in general revenue, including $14.1 billion on ongoing operations. The House-passed budget has a net cut of about $60 million in general revenue and about $136 million when building construction and maintenance spending is included.

“I can’t imagine that we would want to spend more than we took in,” said Eigel, who is a candidate for governor. “I don’t want to shy away from the idea that we need to make some significant cuts to the finances of the state.”

The post Senate leader warns of ‘tough timeframe’ to complete work on Missouri state budget appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Climate-induced weather disasters include record wildfires in the West, record-setting heat waves and droughts, and aggressive hurricanes. Here, smoke plumes and hurricane clouds are visible at once (photo courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory).

After years of legal appeals and delays, some oil companies are set to stand trial in lawsuits brought by state and local governments over the damages caused by climate change.

Meanwhile, dozens more governments large and small have brought new claims against the fossil fuel industry as those initial cases, filed up to a half-dozen years ago, inch closer to the courtroom.

“It’s all building toward more cases in more places using more legal theories to hold these companies accountable,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that offers legal and communication support to communities suing oil companies.

Wiles’ group has tracked 32 cases filed by state attorneys general, cities, counties and tribal nations against companies including Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell. The lawsuits cite extensive news reporting — including investigations by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News — showing oil companies’ own research projected the dangers of climate change decades ago, even as the industry tried to undermine scientific consensus about the crisis.

Those practices, the claims argue, violate a variety of laws including consumer protection, public nuisance, failure to warn, fraud and racketeering. Some of the lawsuits seek to force oil companies to help pay for the damages caused by climate change. Others aim to impose penalties for the use of deceptive business practices. Some want to compel the companies to fund a corrective education campaign about the climate threats they once downplayed.

Given the massive price tag of climate disasters and governments’ adaptation costs, experts say the lawsuits could put the oil industry on the hook for many billions of dollars.

Oil companies have long sought to move such cases to federal court, where they believe national regulations such as the Clean Air Act could supersede local governments’ claims against them. But a string of circuit court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the cases alleging violations of state laws belong in state court, finally clearing the way for jury trials.

Legal experts on both sides say there is a long way to go — perhaps decades — before there is any sort of resolution. But environmental advocates say the first trials could lead to a “tidal wave” of new cases, similar to the nationwide push that forced tobacco companies to pay billions under a settlement reached in the 1990s.

Oil industry backers argue that governments themselves have promoted the use of fossil fuels, and that attempts to hold companies accountable for climate change will hurt consumers.

“We don’t have an economy without oil,” said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank that advocates for free market principles and is supported in part by oil industry-affiliated groups.

“Consumers are aware of global climate change and continue to use oil,” he said. “[The lawsuits] are an underhanded way of the states throwing on carbon taxes without having to take responsibility for it.”

In the past year, the Supreme Court has issued three denials covering eight cases, rejecting oil companies’ attempts to move them to federal court. The decisions, which uphold lower court rulings, will finally allow cases to proceed in state court, after years of delays over the “venue” question.

Two of those lawsuits, filed by the state of Massachusetts and the city of Honolulu, have moved past oil companies’ motions for dismissal and reached the pretrial discovery phase, when both sides exchange information about evidence they could present in court.

Wiles said the Massachusetts case against Exxon Mobil could reach trial as soon as next year. When the case was filed in 2019, then-Attorney General Maura Healey, now the Democratic governor, said the monetary damages could reach “untold amounts.”

If the Massachusetts suit wins a ruling that fossil fuel companies can be held liable for climate damages, it would prompt a “flood” of cases, Wiles said, as other attorneys general seek money for their states.

The Massachusetts attorney general’s office declined an interview request. None of the industry organizations facing lawsuits — Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, Sunoco, Suncor, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute — would grant an interview.

While all eyes are on the Massachusetts case, which appears on track to be the first climate trial, others are close behind. Boulder County, Colorado, also received Supreme Court validation last year that its lawsuit, filed in 2018, belongs in state court. Oil companies have now filed a motion to dismiss. Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett said the move is a delay tactic used by the industry in nearly every climate case. If the claim is not dismissed, the county expects its case to move into the discovery phase later this year.

“We already have documentation that the companies involved in the suit knew about the effects of climate change as much as 50 years ago,” Brockett said. “We expect discovery to uncover a great deal more of that evidence. They knew about the damage that their products were causing, so they deserve to pay their fair share.”

Boulder County, he said, is spending millions to prepare for a climate future that is projected to include wildfires, droughts, floods and intense storm events. The lawsuit seeks to force oil companies to pay for the past and future damages caused by climate change.

Attorneys for the oil companies have argued in court filings that Boulder is attempting to use state law to tackle global climate change.

“Plaintiffs’ claims are not limited to harms allegedly caused by fossil fuels extracted, marketed, sold, or used in Colorado,” they wrote. “Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to use this state’s tort law to control the worldwide activity of companies that play a crucial role in virtually every sector of the global economy.”

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, issued in January, denied attempts to move the state of Minnesota’s case, which was filed in 2020, to federal court.

“The fact that this whole avenue of delay and distraction has been shut down is huge,” said Leigh Currie, director of strategic litigation with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Currie helped write and litigate the lawsuit in her previous role with the state attorney general’s office. “We can go forward and actually answer some of the questions that these lawsuits pose.”

Minnesota is experiencing extreme weather, droughts, floods and wildfire smoke as a result of climate change, Currie said. While the state’s lawsuit does not directly seek damages for those harms, it attempts to compel the oil companies to surrender the profits they made as a result of unlawful behavior.

In their petition before the Supreme Court, the oil companies facing the Minnesota lawsuit argued that without federal review, “climate-change cases will continue to proliferate in state courts, resulting in the application of the laws of fifty states to climate change-related disputes, in conflict with the national-security, economic, and energy policies of the United States.”

The cases illustrate the arduous legal path just to get before a jury.

“[Oil companies] have an open checkbook, and they’re making record profits,” said Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School, who also serves in an informal advisory group that supports some of the governments’ cases. “The real test for the plaintiffs is whether they can compete and fight tooth and nail for years. It’s a war of attrition. That’s what Exxon’s counting on.”

The steep cost of taking on the oil industry has kept some states from joining the fray. But climate advocates say they’re seeing increasing momentum after the Supreme Court wins. Chicago filed a lawsuit this year. Last September, California became the largest government to file a lawsuit, seeking to force oil companies to pay into a fund that would help pay for climate adaptation efforts. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office told Politico that the earlier victories gave California confidence that its case would be heard in state court.

“Having California in the mix could meaningfully alter the course of climate litigation,” said Hannah Wiseman, a professor of law at Penn State University’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. “They have the resources for this type of litigation that other states have been working to amass.”

Neither Newsom’s office nor Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office granted interview requests.

New York City, which filed its own lawsuit in 2021, is among the cases to cite laws that penalize deceptive advertising. New York argues “greenwashing” ads from oil companies portray them as climate leaders even as they continue to increase fossil fuel production.

“Part of the relief we are seeking is to stop the defendants from making false and misleading statements to New York City consumers,” said Hilary Meltzer, chief of the city’s environmental law division. The suit also seeks financial penalties.

Meanwhile, a pair of tribal nations in Washington state filed lawsuits late last year, citing the costs of moving to higher ground as rising sea levels threaten their communities. Environmental advocates say the entry of tribes — many of which are facing the worst effects of climate change — is a welcome development in the legal fight.

The Washington cases, brought by the Makah and Shoalwater Bay tribes, are among those seeking damages for specific harms. Another, filed by Multnomah County, Oregon, cites the deadly 2021 “heat dome” event that brought record temperatures to the region. And a pair of cases brought by Puerto Rico municipalities seek damages for the 2017 hurricane season.

So far, the climate cases have been brought by governments with Democratic leaders, as Republican officials remain largely hostile to climate action and more friendly to fossil fuel interests. Advocates say that political dynamic means such lawsuits will likely be limited to blue states for the near future. But they noted that red states are also in the path of climate disasters.

“Money talks,” said Wiles, with the climate group. “If New Jersey has a multibillion-dollar decision against Big Oil, why wouldn’t North Carolina say, ‘Damn!’?”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

The post After a long slog, climate change lawsuits will finally put Big Oil on trial appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Attendees cheer at the west Michigan city of Grand Haven’s first Pride Fest in June. The surrounding county of Ottawa had more people moving in than any other in the swing state. Like many other fast-growing counties, Ottawa is staunchly Republican but becoming more Democratic (Kristen Norman/The Associated Press).

In recent years, millions of people across the United States have moved from Democratic cities to Republican suburbs, complicating the politics of swing states in a pivotal election year, according to a Stateline analysis.

Republican suburban counties in four swing states — Georgia in the South and Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the Midwest — gained the most new arrivals; heavily Democratic cities lost the most. In Western swing states Arizona and Nevada, meanwhile, the biggest people magnets have been slightly Democratic cities that are expected to be hotly contested.

Those shifts reflect a nationwide trend: In Republican counties, as defined by the 2020 presidential vote, 3.7 million more people have moved in than have left since 2020, while Democratic counties had a net loss of 3.7 million, according to a Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau estimates and county presidential election data kept by the University of Michigan.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates released in March included people who moved within the country between mid-2020 and mid-2023, a time of pandemic dislocations, lockdowns in big cities, and the rise of remote work that fed a search for affordable housing in less crowded and more scenic settings. Those settings, as it turns out, also tend to be more conservative. The census numbers do not include births or immigration.

Whether the newcomers will vote Democratic this year, or whether they were disenchanted with Democratic policies in their former homes and will vote Republican, remains to be seen. The changes might affect local and congressional races the most, but even a few movers crossing state lines could sway presidential vote totals in swing states.

“We are looking at an election to be determined by a shift of such small numbers of people in each of these states that a few thousand votes in any one state can impact the electoral vote there,” said David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University in Minnesota who has edited and helped write several books on presidential swing states.

The counties gaining the most movers in Georgia (Forsyth County), Michigan (Ottawa County), Pennsylvania (Cumberland County) and Wisconsin (Waukesha County) were solidly for then-incumbent President Donald Trump in 2020. But in the three Midwest counties, Joe Biden had the best showing for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

In some of the growing counties, there has been tension as new residents bring their own expectations.

“People keep moving here because they like it, then they try to make it like the place they left,” said David Avant, who runs a business networking website in Forsyth County, Georgia. His county gained about 17,000 new arrivals between mid-2020 and mid-2023, according to the Stateline analysis.

Politics might not yet be changing in some of the red counties surveyed. In Michigan, Doug Zylstra became the first Democrat elected in almost 50 years to the 11-member Ottawa County Board of Commissioners in 2018 and was reelected in 2022, but the commission took a more conservative turn in 2023 when a new majority took office.

“The people of Ottawa County chose to replace the previous Republican-majority board, which promoted Democratic ideology and practices,” said Sylvia Rhodea, one of the new Republicans on the commission.

In a January 2023 meeting, Rhodea criticized the previous board’s diversity, equity and inclusion program as “based on the premise that county resident characteristics of being 90% white and largely conservative were problematic for businesses” and as one that “seeks to replace the American value of equality with the Marxist value of equity.”

“There is not a racial divide in Ottawa County, there is an ideological divide. The welcoming of people will continue, but the ideology that tries to divide us has to end,” Rhodea said in the meeting.

The Rev. James Ellis III, who is Black and who moved to Ottawa County in April 2023, lives in the area that elected the county’s sole Democrat. He said the “racial divide” remark “feels inaccurate to me, not to mention unhelpful.” And while he said he has no party affiliation, he thinks “people on every side have a hard time listening to each other.”

Ellis grew up in Maryland and has lived in cities including Washington, D.C., and British Columbia, Canada. He attended a local seminary in Ottawa County.

“Ottawa County is not a utopia. It is an area full of wonderful citizens, lakeshore living, lots of churches and winter sports, and yet simultaneously it has power dynamics and inequities like any place that need addressing,” said Ellis, of Maplewood Reformed Church. The county’s population is about 83% white with small but growing Asian, Black and Hispanic populations.

In Wisconsin, affluent and suburban Waukesha County has gained about 5,200 movers, while urban Milwaukee County has lost 37,000. Still, that’s not likely to change the politics of either county soon, said Steve Styza, a Republican who won an open seat on the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors in Tuesday’s election.

“Democrats are definitely trying to make as big of a push as they can to turn the most conservative counties in our state blue or purple and try to gain some kind of foothold because it is strategically important,” Styza said before the election. “If I was on the other team, I’d be trying to do the same thing.”

Waukesha County voted almost 60% for Trump in 2020, though the roughly 38.8% vote for Biden was the highest share for a Democrat since 1964. The county’s 2022 vote for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers was slightly higher at 39.4%. Milwaukee County voted 69% for Biden in 2020 and 71% for Evers in 2022.

Like Avant in Georgia, Styza said that Democratic newcomers sometimes pose a threat to the suburban lifestyle that drew them there in the first place.

“They say, ‘Well, I gotta get out of there because of what’s going on,’ and then they vote for the same thing in a different place and then wonder why things turn out poorly,” Styza said.

In the Western swing states of Arizona and Nevada, the politics are similar, but the largest cities are still growing fast. Arizona’s Maricopa County, home of Phoenix, voted Democratic in 2020 for the first time since 1948, when Harry Truman carried the county.

In Nevada, Clark County, the home of Las Vegas, has voted Democratic for president since 1992, but the Republican vote has been growing since 2008, reaching 44% for Trump in 2020. Some of the new Republican strength could be transplants from California’s conservative inland region east of Los Angeles, said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“In contrast, Reno, which has been voting more Democratic in recent cycles, is attracting more liberal Californians from Sacramento and the Bay Area,” Damore said. “Statewide, the vote share that the Democrats lost in Las Vegas, they gained in Reno.”

Some conservative scholars argue that residential moves from blue to red areas show a political preference or at least an attraction to the results of conservative policies.

“Every day, Americans appear to have a clear preference about the sort of state government they want. Far from flocking to states that have imposed mandates and lockdowns, they have freely chosen to move to states that focus on securing the mandates of liberty,” Jeffrey Anderson, president of the conservative nonprofit American Main Street Initiative, wrote in an analysis of state-by-state moving statistics published in City Journal in January.

Other demographers see the movement of people as a search for housing and jobs that doesn’t take politics into account.

“Domestic migration [moving] across state and metro areas is not strongly affected by politics but by labor market and housing conditions,” said William Frey, a demographer at The Brookings Institution. He added that movers from blue to red states “could make their destination states less red — Arizona and Nevada are good examples.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

The post Swing states see newcomers as Americans move from blue to red counties appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Marilyn Gleason, the director of human resources for BeLeaf Medical marijuana company, signs a sealed envelope containing 11 BeLeaf employees’ votes that the company is contesting as not being eligible to unionize on Feb. 6, 2024 (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

A push by workers in a St. Louis marijuana facility to form a union could have national ramifications on labor law, with the company hoping to block their effort by asking the federal government to intervene. 

At issue is a group of “post-harvest workers” at BeLeaf Medical’s Sinse cultivation facility in St. Louis. They have been trying to form a union since September but have thus far been blocked by their employer’s continuous legal challenges. 

The company argues the employees at its Sinse facility don’t have the right to unionize because they’re considered agricultural workers.

Agricultural workers aren’t protected under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which ensures employees have the right to unionize without fear of retaliation.

Twice so far this year, National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Andrea Wilkes – who oversees a swath of six states in the Midwest —  has ruled against BeLeaf’s argument. 

Last week, BeLeaf filed a request for the national five-member board appointed by the president to review Wilkes’ decisions. 

Legal experts, union officials and industry insiders interviewed by The Independent agree that whichever way the NLRB ultimately rules would have sweeping ramifications for the burgeoning industry across the nation. 

“I know for a fact that people in these facilities are told ‘You’re ag workers. You don’t have any rights,’ no matter what position they are,” said Sean Shannon, lead organizer with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 655. “People won’t have to be in this gray area of doubt anymore about whether or not they can organize.”

Wilkes’ decision followed a similar ruling in September by another regional NLRB director in a case regarding some New Jersey post-harvest workers.

However, this would be the first time that the national board weighs in on the issue, setting a national legal precedent.

And that’s what BeLeaf is hoping for, the company said in its request to the NLRB. 

“The legal cannabis cultivation industry is relatively new in the United States, and it is different from all previously analyzed agricultural industries,” the company argues.  

“Accordingly, there is no officially reported board precedent and no reported judicial decisions to help establish where the line between agricultural and non-agricultural activities may be drawn in a particular situation.” 

BeLeaf did not return The Independent’s repeated requests for comment.

Shannon said BeLeaf employees were not surprised to see the company’s appeal.  

“We were expecting it,” he said. “The company made it very clear that they were going to fight us with every avenue they could. And they’re doing just that.”

Ahmad Haynes, a post-harvest technician at BeLeaf Medical’s Sinse facility, reacts to the company’s representative announcing the company wants to continue contesting the eligibility of 11 employees to vote in a Feb. 6 election to unionize. The election was held at the St. Louis Public Library Barr branch (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent),

The company’s appeal comes after Wilkes ordered a unionization election be held on Feb. 6, where 16 employees at BeLeaf’s cultivation facility on Cherokee Street in St. Louis cast votes. 

Employees are hoping to learn the results of the contested election any day now.

Wilkes found that none of these post-harvest employees are “engaged in primary agricultural activities.” They work separately from the cultivation and harvest departments, she wrote, and don’t overlap in duties. 

However, BeLeaf says the employees work with their hands and they are still working with “raw flower.” 

BeLeaf operates three cannabis cultivation facilities and five Swade dispensaries, according to case documents. The Cherokee Street location is the largest of their cultivation facilities in Missouri, where 29 cultivation employees care for the plants and five people harvest the marijuana plants and hang them to dry. 

In a completely separate department, Wilkes said there are 13 post-harvest employees who take down the dried plants and begin the de-stemming process. Some weigh the product and input that information into state’s tracking system Metrc.

After de-stemming and separating, the marijuana is packaged or processed into pre-rolled joints. The facility produces anywhere from 900 to 1,200 pre-rolls a day.

She compared the Sinse post-harvest employees’ work to that of employees in a tobacco processing plant. 

“Removing the veins from tobacco leaves and fermenting the leaves has been held to be outside the definition of agriculture,” under federal labor law, she wrote.

To determine whether or not an employee is performing agricultural work, Wilkes wrote the federal courts looked at whether the product has undergone a change from its ‘raw and natural state,’ and is more like manufacturing than to agriculture.

“In sum, the employer’s post-harvest production process is not a mere preparation for market but a process that utilizes industrialized processes to transform the marijuana from its natural state into finished products prepared for sale,” Wilkes wrote. “I therefore find that the post-harvest employees are statutory employees under the Act and are not exempted as agricultural laborers.”

Mitch Meyers, partner at BeLeaf Medical marijuana company, speaks at the National Cannabis Industry Association summit meeting on March 29, 2024 (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

BeLeaf argues that the regional director’s comparison to the tobacco industry is “misplaced.”

“The regional director’s analysis is flawed,” the company’s appeal states. “The post-harvest de-stemming and other processes bear no resemblance to de-stemming tobacco leaves.” 

BeLeaf argues that tobacco leaves are first dried and then fermented over a period of four to eight months. However, BeLeaf workers de-stem, buck, and trim the cannabis plant, and then the buds are “cured to preserve the product in its raw state by preventing the terpenes and terpenoids from breaking down.” 

The regional director found the task of creating pre-rolls is a mechanized process that adds value and could be an independent business.

But the company argues the marijuana in pre-rolls is still in a raw state.

“The raw cannabis plant remains in the same, natural state throughout the entire post-harvest process,” it states. “Accordingly, the post-harvest employees are agricultural workers exempt from coverage of the Act and must be excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.”

In the New Jersey NLRB case, a company called Columbia Care New Jersey made this exact same argument.

NLRB Regional Director Kimberly Andrews dismissed it, concluding: “The transformation of the harvested cannabis plants to the ultimate packaged products ready for market in this case is far more substantial than processes that the courts have found not to be secondary agriculture.” 

Jeff Toppel, a labor law attorney with the Bianchi Brandt firm in Arizona, said the regional directors’ decisions give a strong indication on how the national board will rule. 

“It is a significant decision,” Toppel said, “and could have a wide-ranging impact.”

The post Union drive at St. Louis cannabis company could have major impact on national labor law appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, speaking, and, from left, Sens. Denny Hoskins, Nick Schroer, Jill Carter and Andrew Koenig, members of the Freedom Caucus, during a Jan. 11 news conference (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Three Missouri Republicans – including one running for statewide office – are being sued for defamation over social media posts incorrectly identifying a Kansas man as an undocumented immigrant and the shooter at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory celebration.

On Tuesday, Denton Loudermill of Olathe, Kansas, filed federal lawsuits against state Sens. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg and Nick Schroer of Defiance.

Loudermill last week filed a similar complaint against U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee.

The four lawsuits are almost identical in their allegations against, which involve the lawmakers using social media platforms to repost a photo of Loudermill in handcuffs shortly after the shooting.

“The publication of the false representation that plaintiff was an ‘illegal alien’ and a ‘shooter’ was not made in good faith nor was it made by defendant with any legitimate interest in making or duty to make such assertions,” the lawsuit against Brattin states. 

Identical language is in all four lawsuits.

No hearings have been scheduled in any of the cases.

The Feb. 14 parade and rally at Union Station in Kansas City drew approximately 1 million people. The joy the city expressed over a second consecutive Super Bowl victory turned to fear as shots rang out as the crowd near Union Station began to disperse.

The violence, tied to a dispute among the partiers, led to the death of KKFI DJ Lisa Lopez-Galvan and left 22 others injured. Three men, none of whom is an immigrant, face state murder charges for their role in the shootings and three others face federal firearms charges for selling guns involved in the shootings.

Loudermill, who was born in Kansas, was detained briefly because he was too slow to leave the area of the shooting, he told The Independent in an interview last month. At the time, he said he was contemplating lawsuits against any public officials who posted false information about him and later refused to apologize.

“Everybody that said everything and posted everything should be held accountable,” Loudermill said.

Through representatives in their offices, Hoskins and Schroer declined to comment on the lawsuit. Hoskins is a Republican candidate for secretary of state.

Brattin was not available for comment when The Independent visited his Capitol office.

At a Feb. 22 news conference, Brattin said he and the others who shared the false information had nothing to apologize for.

“There’s nothing that I see even worth that,” Brattin told reporters at the time. “We’ve done nothing and, you know, I have no comment.”

The lawsuits claim that the actions of the four defendants were “willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious” and seek a minimum of $75,000 from each defendant for damages Loudermill said he has suffered since his image was linked to the shooting.

The false identification caused Loudermill “to receive death threats and to suffer mental distress from having been exposed to public view and more specifically to experience periods of anxiety, agitation, and sleep disruption and such damages are likely to continue into the future,” the lawsuits state.

Arthur Benson, the lead attorney for Loudermill, declined to comment on the filing or why separate lawsuits have been filed against the lawmakers.

Brattin, Hoskins and Schroer are members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, a hardcore conservative group that began as a Congressional faction among Republicans. Burchett is not a member of the Congressional caucus.

A memorial for Lisa Lopez-Galvan, a local DJ and Johnson County mother, sits outside Union Station days after a shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl LVIII victory parade killed Lopez-Galvan and wounded 22 others (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).

The first social media account to accuse Loudermill of being the shooter and in the country illegally was on an account on X, formally known as Twitter, with the name Deep Truth Intel. That post, with a seated photo of Loudermill in handcuffs, incorrectly identified him with a name associated with misinformation posted after other shootings, including an October mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, that left 18 dead. 

Soon after that initial social media post, the Missouri Freedom Caucus, Hoskins, Brattin, Schroer and Burchett posted their own versions.

“These are 3 people arrested at the parade…at least one of those arrested is an illegal immigrant. CLOSE OUR BORDERS!” the Missouri Freedom Caucus posted on X. 

The post has since been deleted. The Missouri Freedom Caucus also sought to retract its mistake, linking to a KMBC post about Loudermill’s effort to clear his name.

“Denton is an Olathe native, a father of three & a proud @Chiefs fan,” the post states. “He’s not a mass shooter. Images of him being detained for being intoxicated & not moving away from the crime scene at the Chiefs rally have spread online. He just wants to clear his name.”

Hoskins’ version on X shared a screenshot of the Deep Truth Intel post and blamed President Joe Biden and political leaders of Kansas City for making the shooting possible.

“Fact – President Biden’s open border policies & cities who promote themselves as Sanctuary Cities like #Kansas City invite illegal violent immigrants into the U.S.,” Hoskins posted.

That post has been deleted, but in a Feb. 14 post without a photo, Hoskins wrote that “information I’ve seen” states “at least one of the alleged shooters is an illegal immigrant and all 3 arrested are repeat violent offenders.”

Hoskins hedged it with “IF THIS IS ACCURATE” and repetition of conservative rhetoric to stop immigration and restrain cities that help immigrants, blaming crime on “catch and release policies of liberal cities.” 

Brattin’s first post linking Loudermill to the shooting, since deleted, demanded “#POTUS CLOSE THE BORDER” and incorporated the deleted Deep Truth Intel post.

Schroer was the least certain post about the immigration and arrest status of Loudermill among the three now being sued.

Schroer’s post included a link to one from Burchett stating, over Loudermill’s photo, that “One of the Kansas City Chiefs victory parade shooters has been identified as an illegal Alien.”

“Can we get any confirmation or denial of this from local officials or law enforcement?” Schroer wrote on X. “I’ve been sent videos or stills showing at least 6 different people arrested from yesterday but officially told only 3 still in custody. The people deserve answers.”

Burchett’s original post has been deleted, but it is still visible as a screenshot in a Feb. 19 post by the congressman.

“It has come to my attention that in one of my previous posts, one of the shooters was identified as an illegal alien,” Burchett posted. “This was based on multiple, incorrect news reports stating that. I have removed the post.”

After the lawsuit was filed against Burchett, a spokesman told the Tennessee Lookout: “Our office is not able to comment on pending or active litigation.” 

A GoFundMe effort on Loudermill’s behalf has raised $2,254 of its $15,000 goal and the money is being used to support efforts to scrub his image and inaccurate information from the internet, his legal adviser, LaRonna Lassiter Saunders said last month.

The lawsuits state that the false images of Loudermill spread rapidly.

Each states that the defendants’ “false assertions about plaintiff were reposted and widely circulated to more than 100,000 persons around the world who had interactions or engagements with defendant’s false assertions about plaintiff.”

The post Three Missouri state senators sued for defamation over posts about Chiefs parade shooting appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Will Scharf, a GOP candidate for Missouri Attorney General, walks downstairs after filing his candidacy Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

A trio of checks totaling nearly $3 million rolled into a political action committee supporting Republican Will Scharf over the last week, boosting his campaign to unseat Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in the August GOP primary. 

On Wednesday, Club for Growth Action Missouri — which is supporting Scharf — reported a $1.4 million donation from Paul Singer, one of the nation’s richest hedge fund managers. 

The check comes just days after the PAC received two other massive donations: $500,000 from Club for Growth’s federal PAC and $1 million from the Concord Fund, which was formerly known as Judicial Crisis Network and is bankrolled by groups connected to conservative activist Leonard Leo. 

Leo is considered one of the main architects of conservatives’ efforts to reshape the American judicial system, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Another $1 million donation was reported last week coming from Leo directly, but a spokesman for Club for Growth said that was a filing error that is being corrected. 

“Will Scharf is one of America’s leading conservative warriors, his campaign’s momentum is growing and we are proud to support him,” said David McIntosh, president of Club for Growth Action, a national conservative anti-tax nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. that endorsed Scharf last year.

A spokesman for Bailey, who was appointed attorney general by Republican Gov. Mike Parson in 2022, hammered the donations as evidence that Scharf’s support isn’t coming from Missouri. 

“Wall Street Willy is not from Missouri and neither are his million dollar donors,” said Mike Hafner, Bailey’s spokesman. “They think they can come here and buy Missouri. Well Missouri is not for sale.”

April marked the end of the first fundraising quarter of 2024, though candidates and committees won’t file the next round of disclosure reports until later this month. 

The two seven-figure checks to Club for Growth are the biggest individual donations to a candidate or affiliated PAC this election cycle. The only donations that are larger went to initiative petition campaigns. 

The three donations in the last week also nearly equal the amount of cash on hand reported in January by the candidates and their affiliated PACs combined. 

Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who is seeking a full term in office after being appointed by Gov. Mike Parson, speaks on Feb. 29, 2024, at the Boone County Republican Lincoln Days dinner in Columbia (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).

In January, Scharf’s campaign reported having roughly $837,000 cash on hand. Club for Growth Action Missouri is an independent spending committee that Scharf can coordinate with to raise money but can’t control. It reported $605,000 cash on hand in January. 

Bailey’s campaign reported $530,000 cash on hand in January, and the independent spending committee supporting his candidacy, Liberty and Justice PAC, reported $1.2 million.

While candidates are bound by campaign contributions limits, independent committees are not. 

Since those January disclosure reports were filed, Liberty and Justice PAC has reported $835,000 in large donations, with the biggest chunk coming from retired Minneapolis couple Mike and Carolyn Rayner, who are part of the Cargill family and gave $500,000. 

The PAC also received $100,000 checks from retired investor Rex Sinquefield of St. Louis and Kansas trial attorney Michael Ketchmark. 

In a statement to Politico after the initial donations were reported last week, Scarf said that, “while my opponent is being supported by liberal trial lawyers, pot dealers and special interests, we’re proud to be supported by conservatives in Missouri and across the country.”

Bailey served a general counsel for Parson before taking over as attorney general when his predecessor, Eric Schmitt, won a seat in the U.S. Senate. He previously worked as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Warren County, an assistant attorney general and general counsel for the Missouri Department of Corrections.

An army veteran, Bailey was awarded two Army Achievement Medals, an Army Accommodation Medal, a Combat Action Badge and two Bronze Star Medals for his service.

Scharf is a former assistant U.S. attorney who worked as policy director in Gov. Eric Greitens’ brief administration. He entered politics in 2015 when he was hired to be policy director for Catherine Hanaway as she sought the 2016 GOP nomination for governor.

In October, he announced he had joined the team of lawyers representing former President Donald Trump in various legal issues pertaining to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The post Will Scharf gets $2.9 million boost to his campaign for Missouri attorney general appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Legislation sponsored by Republican state Rep. John Black to make it more difficult to amend the state constitution through the initiative petition process was approved by the Missouri House on Wednesday (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Two bills seeking to make it more difficult to amend the state constitution through the initiative petition process advanced through the Missouri House this week. 

On Wednesday, legislation sponsored by Republican state Rep. John Black of Marshfield was approved on a 106-49 vote. The only Republican to vote against the measure was House Majority Leader Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit. 

Earlier in the week, a House committee approved a different version of the bill sponsored by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman that the Senate passed last month. 

If either version is approved by both chambers, the question would go on the statewide ballot in either August or November.

Citizen-led initiative petitions currently require signatures from 8% of voters in five of the state’s eight congressional districts. To pass once on the ballot, a statewide vote of 50% plus one is required — a simple majority vote.

Both the House and Senate versions make the process harder, but in very different ways. 

The House joint resolution would:

• Require signatures from 8% of registered voters in all eight congressional districts to qualify for the ballot. 
• Establish a forum hosted by the Secretary of State for voters to review and comment on proposed amendments before they head to the ballot.
• Require a ballot measure receive a majority of votes in all eight of Missouri congressional districts to pass.
• Require the General Assembly to have the approval of at least four-sevenths of the members in each chamber to make any modifications to citizen-led constitutional amendments within two years of when they go into effect.

The Senate joint resolution would: 

• Require that constitutional amendments pass by both a simple majority of votes statewide and a majority of votes in at least a majority of the votes in Missouri’s congressional districts. 
• Require the General Assembly to have the approval of at least four-sevenths of the members in each chamber to make any modifications to citizen-led constitutional amendments within two years of when it goes into effect.

Last May, House Speaker Dean Plocher, a Republican from Des Peres, said his party anticipated an initiative petition to legalize abortion would be brought forward and would pass. 

Since then, a campaign to legalize abortion to the point of fetal viability in Missouri has raised millions of dollars, most recently bringing in internationally-known model and Webster Groves native Karlie Kloss to campaign on their behalf.

Republicans in support of changing the initiative petition process have said their motivation is more wide-reaching than abortion and pre-dates the 2023 session, anti-abortion groups have been some of the main champions of the legislation.

But the bulk of Wednesday’s conversation centered on the most recent citizen-led amendment to pass.

In 2022, Missourians legalized recreational marijuana with 53% of voters in favor of the amendment.

In that election, Black said, 15 counties carried the “yes” vote, arguing that urban voters “basically imposed their will on the rest of the state.”

Republicans in favor of changing the initiative petition process have repeatedly pointed to the length of the state constitution, which includes 134 amendments, as a reason for reform. 

State Rep. Robert Sauls, a Democrat from Independence, countered that only 19 of the amendments came from initiative petitions. The rest came from the General Assembly. 

“This idea that the constitution has gotten out of control, well look in the mirror,” Sauls said. “We’re the reason that it has. Not these 19 amendments that the people have put on.”

An analysis by The Independent found that under the concurrent majority standard, as few as 23% of voters could defeat a ballot measure. This was done by looking at the majority in the four districts with the fewest number of voters in 2020 and 2022.

“You want a minority to be able to block a majority,” said state Rep. Joe Adams, a Democrat from University City. “That is shameful.”

State Rep. Doug Richey, a Republican from Excelsior Springs, said with a simple majority, it’s possible for those leading initiative petition efforts to “ignore” congressional districts and still succeed. 

“That is a significant move to value the voices of people in the state of Missouri no matter where they happen to live,” Richey said. “No matter what their perspective is.” 

Reference to the current abortion initiative petition wasn’t raised until late in the debate by state Rep. Patty Lewis, a Democrat from Kansas City. 

Volunteers with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom collect signatures in support of putting forward a ballot measure that would legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability in Missouri. More than 500 people signed up for a campaign event on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024, in Kansas City (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).

“This is about reproductive freedom,” Lewis said. “And it’s about taking away our vote to restore reproductive freedom in the state of Missouri.”

In approving Black’s legislation on Wednesday, the House made little mention of the “ballot candy” written into the resolution. 

The ballot candy, which refers to provisions added to ballot measures in order to win over voters, has become a major point of contention between Republicans and Democrats. In the proposed initiative petition bills, language has been included that would ask voters if they want to define legal voters as citizens of the US who live in Missouri and are registered to vote and whether they want to prohibit foreign entities from sponsoring initiative petitions.

Democrats argue the inclusion of the ballot candy is an attempt by Republicans to mislead voters and distract from the effort to weaken the initiative petition process. In the Senate, a 21-hour filibuster ended with Republicans agreeing to remove the ballot candy in exchange for Democrats allowing the bill to come up for a vote. 

The House restored the ballot candy at Coleman’s request, setting up a potential showdown in the Senate if the bill makes its way back to that chamber. 

The post Bills making it harder to amend state constitution proceed in Missouri House appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Democratic U.S. Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, left, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, right, are seen as the chamber’s most vulnerable incumbent Democrats in 2024. In this photo, Brown, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee chairman, talks with committee member Tester during a hearing about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Capitol Hill on Dec. 15, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Political consultants and Beltway pollsters are setting up camp in purple states to join a towering battle for control of a narrowly split U.S. Senate, but come November, only the voters will make that choice.

The road to the majority in the upper chamber of Congress mostly runs through Arizona, Montana and Ohio, where candidates have already spent months pitching their accomplishments and plans. And while it’s still early, the presence of former President Donald Trump at the top of the ballot and Democrats’ stress on abortion rights both look likely to remain consequential through the summer and fall, political experts predict.

The struggle for control is also fluid and will likely remain that way until all the ballots are counted. The influential Cook Political Report with Amy Walter changed its rating for Nevada’s Senate contest on Wednesday, moving the state from “lean Democratic” to the toss-up category and increasing pressure on incumbent Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen, who will face the Republican nominee following a June primary.

J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Democrats are playing defense in multiple states, though they will be on offense in Florida and Texas despite long odds.

“I haven’t been designating the Republicans as favorites to flip the chamber, but they do have an easier path to getting to a majority than the Democrats do,” Coleman said.

Republicans only need to pick up West Virginia to hold 50 seats in the Senate, which would put them in the majority should former Trump win election. Longtime Democratic moderate Sen. Joe Manchin III is retiring in red-leaning West Virginia.

GOP candidates winning any one of the three toss-up races in Arizona, Montana and Ohio would push Republicans up to at least a 51-seat majority as long as they hold onto all their other seats, Coleman said.

“With all that in mind, I would say this year the biggest goal of Democrats is going to be to limit their losses,” he said.

Jessica Taylor, U.S. Senate and governors editor at The Cook Political Report, said during an interview with States Newsroom that this year holds a “very unfavorable Senate map for Democrats.”

“The bottom line is that there is no room for error,” Taylor said. “So even if they win the presidency, they cannot lose any incumbents.”

During the 2020 campaign, Trump’s unpopularity dragged down some of the GOP Senate candidates, leading Republicans to lose control of the chamber, but the reverse could be true this year, Taylor said.

“Democrats have to grapple with the fact that Biden is even more unpopular than Trump was at this point,” she said. “And the question becomes, how much can Democratic incumbents outrun him, especially when you have them in states that (Trump) won twice.”

Trump won in Ohio and Montana in both 2016 and 2020, though he lost in Arizona in 2020 after winning the state four years prior. That could be bad news for Democrats in those Senate races.

“In 2016, every single Senate race went the same way as the presidential race did,” Taylor said. “And in 2020, the only state that deviated was Maine, which Susan Collins was able to win even as (President Joe) Biden did win the state.”

The Senate incumbents seeking reelection this year last faced voters in 2018, a midterm election year. Senate terms run for six years.

Arizona’s Senate race doesn’t include an incumbent after Kyrsten Sinema announced her retirement, leaving the field open ahead of the July 30 primary.

Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake are expected to advance to the general election, though there are numerous Republicans challenging Lake in the primary.

The winner of the general election race, Coleman said, will likely gain the support of the “John McCain-type Republicans, who aren’t too happy about having to vote for a Democrat, but they really don’t like how extreme Lake is.”

“It’s one of the things that was working against the Republicans in 2022, because they really should have retaken the Senate,” Coleman said. “But in some of those races, the candidates that Mitch McConnell would have liked, were not the same candidates that Trump liked.”

McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, and Trump have long had differences.

Gallego, a former U.S. Marine, has represented the state’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House since 2015 after spending four years in the state legislature.

Lake mounted an unsuccessful campaign for governor in 2022, later claiming she lost due to fraud, but has opted not to defend herself in the defamation lawsuit filed by Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.

Lake posted on social media that she believed that by “participating in this lawsuit, it would only serve to legitimize this perversion of our legal system and allow bad actors to interfere in our upcoming election.”

Arizona Democratic Party Chairwoman Yolanda Bejarano said in an interview with States Newsroom that top issues voters are focused on this year are abortion access, immigration, water and democracy.

Voters, she said, aren’t likely to forget that Republicans in the Senate, urged on by Trump, blocked a bipartisan immigration and border security bill from moving forward. Sinema brokered that deal alongside Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford.

“Democrats put up, actually, a bipartisan plan, a border solution, and it was rejected, because Trump told his members of Congress that this would not help them in his election,” Bejarano said.

The Arizona Senate race is also likely to be influenced by a ballot question that could add abortion access to the state Constitution. The group leading the effort, Arizona for Abortion Access, said Tuesday it has collected more than 500,000 signatures, well above the required 383,923 ahead of a July deadline.

“Arizona currently bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. And what this would do, is it would guarantee the right to an abortion up until fetal viability,” Bejarano said, referring to a benchmark that is typically about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

“So yeah, I think this is a winning issue for us because Arizonans do not want the government interfering in those personal decisions,” she added.

The Arizona Republican Party did not return requests for an interview.

In Montana, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, will likely face former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, though Republican voters will make that decision during their June 4 primary.

Tester has represented the state in the U.S. Senate since he was first elected in 2006, defeating his Republican opponent by a margin of just over 3,500 votes. Montana voters reelected him in 2012 by providing him 18,000 more votes than his GOP opponent and in 2018 by about the same margin.

Sheehy is one of several Republican Senate candidates with significant wealth running this election cycle, a feature that could help or hamstring him with voters, Taylor said.

“What Republicans have turned to this time is they have a lot of wealthy candidates that are running and they’re able to self-finance their races,” Taylor said. “So that does give them an advantage.”

Eric Hovde, who is expected to clinch the Republican nomination in Wisconsin, and David McCormick, who is likely to win Pennsylvania’s GOP primary later this month given that he’s the only name on the ballot, are among the wealthier Republicans running this cycle, she said.

In Wisconsin, Republicans hope to defeat Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who won in 2018 with 55.4% of the vote. In Pennsylvania, they are targeting Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who won six years ago with 55.7%.

Both states are rated as lean Democratic by The Cook Political Report.

The wealth of the Republicans could become a “double-edged sword” for those candidates, Taylor said.

“That’s just where I think we have to wait and see which wins out — partisanship or the candidate quality,” Taylor said. “And we saw, certainly in 2022, the candidate quality mattered, but that was during a midterm year, not during a presidential year.”

Montana reproductive rights organizations are also moving forward with putting a question directly before voters that could enshrine abortion access in the state’s Constitution, an issue that may drive more voters to the polls in November.

Democrats believe abortion rights are a winning issue for them in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That theory has been supported by voters approving ballot questions in favor of abortion rights in several states during the last two years, including Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio.

In Ohio, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, chair of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Bernie Moreno, who won the Republican primary in mid-March, will compete for voters’ support during the general election this November.

Brown won his first race for U.S. Senate in 2006 with 56% of the vote. Buckeye State residents reelected him in 2012 with 50.7% of the vote and again in 2018 with 53.4% of the vote.

Ohio is the “most vulnerable” state on the map for Democrats, according to Taylor’s analysis, though she said Moreno is still a somewhat unknown candidate who will need to prove himself to voters.

All three of the GOP candidates in the toss-up states of Arizona, Montana and Ohio have endorsements from Trump, a feature they’re likely to tout on the campaign trail, but that Democrats could use to paint them as too partisan for swing voters.

Nevada joined the other three states on Wednesday as a toss-up race, according to the Cook Political Report, though Sabato’s Crystal Ball continues to categorize the state as “leans Democratic.”

The change in ratings from CPR puts more pressure on Democrats and Rosen to hold the line, while offering Republicans the possibility to have an even larger Senate majority.

Taylor wrote in the ratings change that “ultimately we are moving this race because of the unique forces at play in Nevada.”

“A combination of a newer electorate that Rosen must win over, Biden’s lagging numbers, and the unique post-COVID economic hangover in Nevada make this race a Toss Up,” she wrote

The Cook Political Report would “would certainly reassess our rating,” if  Army veteran Sam Brown doesn’t win the GOP primary to challenge Rosen in the general election.

At the moment, Taylor wrote, the “problems Democrats have in Arizona, especially on the issue of immigration and with lagging Latino voters, are similar in Nevada, though even Republicans are skeptical of polls that show them winning a majority of Hispanic voters.”

“Nonetheless, Republicans caution that the turnout machine the late Sen. Harry Reid built in the Silver State is still alive and well and will be active for Biden and especially Rosen, who was the former Senate majority leader’s protege,” Taylor added.

Democrats won the state in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests, but not by much. Hillary Clinton won by more than 27,000 votes in 2016 and Biden won in 2020 by more than 33,500 votes.

Rosen won her first term in the Senate in 2018 by a margin of nearly 49,000 more votes than her Republican opponent.

This year’s primary election on June 11 will determine exactly which Republican will challenge Rosen in the general election.

Other states could come into play the closer voters come to Election Day, including bright-blue Maryland moving towards Republicans with the surprise entry of an ex-governor, as Florida and Texas possibly inch a bit closer to Democratic control.

The more expensive media market in Texas and Florida could hamper Democratic efforts to pick up either of those seats, currently held by Ted Cruz and Rick Scott, according to Coleman.

“Eventually you could have the (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) or the Senate Majority PAC having to calculate, ‘Okay, well, do we spend more to shore up Tester and Brown, or do we want to go chase Texas?” Coleman said.

Scott, former governor of Florida, won his first term to the U.S. Senate in 2018 by defeating former Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who has since become the NASA administrator for the Biden administration. The two were separated by just 10,033 votes out of more than 8.1 million ballots cast.

This November, Scott will need to secure the support of more voters than former U.S. House Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the Democratic nominee.

One complicating factor for Scott could be that voters will decide the future of abortion rights and the legality of recreational cannabis use for people over the age of 21 through two ballot questions.

The Florida state Supreme Court ruled Monday that those two questions could go before voters this November, while also saying the state’s six-week abortion ban could go into effect.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Maeve Coyle wrote in a statement released after the ruling that the “fight against these new restrictions on access to abortion will shine a brighter spotlight on Rick Scott’s long, dangerous record of supporting draconian abortion bans.”

“In November, Florida voters will stand up for women’s freedom to make their most personal medical decisions by rejecting this abortion ban and firing Rick Scott from the Senate,” Coyle wrote.

Deciding where to spend money could also produce complications for Democrats in Maryland, where Republican nominee and former Gov. Larry Hogan has polled well compared to the two top Democratic primary candidates.

Hogan’s current favorability could “force the Democrats to spend a bit more money in Maryland that they would probably want to spend in Ohio or Montana,” Coleman said.

The odds are long against Hogan, considering that Charles M. Mathias Jr. was the last Republican to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate from 1969 until 1987.

But a Washington Post-University of Maryland survey from early March showed voters favor Hogan by 49% over Democratic Rep. David Trone, who received 37%, and by 50% over Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, who received 36%.

Taylor said she’s somewhat skeptical about a poll conducted this far out from Election Day, in part because 55% of respondents said they wanted to keep the U.S. Senate under Democratic control.

“Larry Hogan’s biggest problem is that he will have an R beside his name,” Taylor said. “I think voters ultimately look at a vote for governor and a vote for Senate very differently.”

The post Democrats’ quest to hang on to U.S. Senate majority centers on Arizona, Montana and Ohio appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above

This post was originally published on this site

Over the past several years, national voting rights and gun violence prevention advocates have been sounding the alarm over increased threats around elections, pointing to ballooning disinformation, looser gun laws, record firearm sales and vigilantism at polling locations and ballot tabulation centers (Photo illustration by Getty images).

Facing increased threats to election workers and superheated political rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his supporters, more states are considering firearm bans at polling places and ballot drop boxes ahead of November’s presidential election.

This month, New Mexico became the latest state to restrict guns where people vote or hand in ballots, joining at least 21 other states with similar laws — some banning either open or concealed carry but most banning both.

Nine of those prohibitions were enacted in the past two years, as states have sought to prevent voter intimidation or even violence at the polls driven by Trump’s false claims of election rigging. At least six states are debating bills that would ban firearms at polling places or expand existing bans to include more locations.

The New Mexico measure, which was supported entirely by Democrats, applies to within 100 feet of polling places and 50 feet of ballot drop boxes. People who violate the law are subject to a petty misdemeanor charge that could result in six months in jail.

“Our national climate is increasingly polarized,” said Democratic state Rep. Reena Szczepanski, one of the bill’s sponsors. “Anything we can do to turn the temperature down and allow for the safe operation of our very basic democratic right, voting, is critical.”

She told Stateline that she and her co-sponsors were inspired to introduce the legislation after concerned Santa Fe poll workers, who faced harassment by people openly carrying firearms during the 2020 presidential election, reached out to them.

The bill carved out an exception for people with concealed carry permits and members of law enforcement. Still, every Republican in the New Mexico legislature opposed the measure; many said they worried that gun owners might get charged with a crime for accidentally bringing their firearm to the polling place.

“We have a lot of real crime problems in this state,” said House Minority Floor Leader Ryan Lane, a Republican, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. “It’s puzzling to me why we’re making this a priority.”

But over the past several years, national voting rights and gun violence prevention advocates have been sounding the alarm over increased threats around elections, pointing to ballooning disinformation, looser gun laws, record firearm sales and vigilantism at polling locations and ballot tabulation centers.

National surveys show that election officials have left the field in droves because of the threats they’re facing, and many who remain in their posts are concerned for their safety.

Add in aggressive rhetoric from Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and it becomes “a storm” that makes it essential for states to pass laws that prohibit guns at polling places, said Robyn Sanders, a Democracy Program counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights group based at the New York University School of Law.

“Our democracy has come under new and unnerving pressure based on the emergence of the election denial movement, disinformation and false narratives about the integrity of our elections,” said Sanders, who co-authored a September report on how to protect elections from gun violence. The report was a partnership between the Brennan Center and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“The presence of guns in these places presents a risk of violence,” she added.

Over the past four years, threats have gone beyond voicemails, emails or social media posts. Armed vigilantes have harassed voters at ballot drop boxes and shown up outside vote tabulation centers. Other people reportedly have shot at local election officials.

While several states have enacted laws in recent years criminalizing threats to election officials, some states want to take it a step further through gun restrictions.

This year, primarily Democratic lawmakers in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia have introduced legislation that would ban most firearms in or near polling places or other election-related places. Most of these bills remain in committee.

Some of the states have seen political violence in recent years, including Pennsylvania, where a man tried to go into a Harrisburg polling place in November with a firearm and acted threateningly, confronting voters and pointing an unloaded gun at an unoccupied police cruiser.

A bill in Virginia to ban firearms at polling places got through the state legislature on a party-line vote this month, but Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has not yet acted on the legislation. His press office did not respond to a request for more information.

Two Democratic-backed bills in Michigan seek to ban most firearms at or within 100 feet of polling places, and ballot drop boxes and clerks’ offices during the 40 days before an election. They have passed the state Senate but await votes in the House.

Democratic state Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, the sponsor of one of those bills, told Stateline she expects the legislation to pass in April, after special elections fill two vacant seats.

“We want to make sure that we’re able to attract the needed election workers, and that they feel safe doing those jobs,” she said. “Sadly, we’re seeing more and more gun violence throughout our state and our nation. And I strongly believe that everyone should feel safe when they’re voting.”

But these bills are “good for headlines and nothing else,” said GOP state Sen. Jim Runestad in a statement on the Senate Republicans’ website.

“When one considers the sheer number of drop boxes placed throughout larger communities, like in the city of Detroit, these places could be nearly impossible to avoid,” he wrote, referring to gun owners.

One of his proposed amendments that failed would have exempted gun owners carrying guns for non-election-related business, such as going into a store near a ballot drop box.

In 2020, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson attempted to ban firearms within 100 feet of polling places, clerks’ offices and absentee ballot counting centers. But Michigan courts blocked her effort, finding she didn’t have the authority.

Michigan was one of many states where election officials faced violent threats during the 2020 presidential election. Last month, a man pleaded guilty to federal charges for threatening the life of former Rochester Hills Clerk Tina Barton, saying she deserved a “throat to the knife.”

There is broad bipartisan support among voters to ban firearms at polling places. According to a 2022 poll of more than 1,000 adults commissioned by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, nearly 80% of Democrats and more than half of Republicans and independents polled thought guns should be banned at polling places. Overall, 63% of adults surveyed supported a ban.

But that cross-party support has not translated to state legislatures.

Democratic-controlled states have spearheaded the effort to ban firearms at polling places in recent years, with only a handful of Republican lawmakers joining Democrats to pass the bills in some states.

In 2022, Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Washington state passed firearm restrictions at polling places. In 2023, California, Delaware, Hawaii and Maryland joined the list.

Nevada’s majority-Democratic legislature passed a similar ban last year, but Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed it. He said the measure would have infringed on the constitutional rights of Nevadans.

Maryland’s ban is facing a legal challenge from gun rights groups and activists who argue such bans infringe on Second Amendment protections and are ineffective.

“It’s a solution looking for a problem,” said Andi Turner, a spokesperson for the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is part of the lawsuit challenging the law. “We don’t have people threatening at polling places or going and shooting up election workers. I don’t see why this needs to be a thing.”

The states that had polling place firearm bans prior to the 2020 presidential election now have Republican-controlled legislatures: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas.

Georgia’s ban dates back to 1870, and in 1874 the state Supreme Court wrote that having a firearm at a polling place “is a thing so improper in itself, so shocking to all sense of propriety, so wholly useless and full of evil, that it would be strange if the framers of the constitution have used words broad enough to give it a constitutional guarantee.”

More Republican-led states should consider firearm prohibitions at polling places, said Jessie Ojeda, the guns and democracy attorney fellow at the Giffords Law Center, and one of the co-authors of the joint Brennan and Giffords report.

Gun safety advocates such as Ojeda see an opening for these laws, even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that widened the definition of protected firearm access. While the court struck down New York’s law that prohibited firearms in public, it did leave open the potential for bans in “sensitive places,” specifically noting polling places.

“We need to take action before 2024,” said Ojeda. “We have a growing number of incidents when firearms are thankfully not being used to shoot people, but they are being used to intimidate and deter voters and election officials from doing their job.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

The post Fearing political violence, more states ban firearms at polling places appeared first on Missouri Independent.

For the complete story from MissouriIndependent.com click on the title of this article or click on the "post" link above