Missouri Amendment 6: Should court fees fund retirement for sheriffs and prosecutors?

by Mary Sanchez, Beacon: Missouri
October 2, 2024

Missouri voters will decide Nov. 5 if retirement funds for sheriffs and prosecutors should be supported with fees collected on court cases.

A fee used to fund sheriffs’ pensions was put in place by state law in 1983.

The Missouri General Assembly placed Amendment 6 on the ballot to reverse a 2021 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that found the fees unconstitutional.

The state’s high court found that court fees for pensions were “not reasonably related to expense of the administration of justice” and thus violated a constitutional ban against using court fees to enhance the compensation of executive department officials, which would include retired county sheriffs.  

If approved by a simple majority of voters, the Missouri Constitution will be changed, allowing the legislature to fund benefits for the state’s 114 elected county sheriffs or their surviving spouses through the collection of a $3 fee per case where a guilty verdict or plea is reached. Retirement benefits for prosecutors are also included, through a $4 fee.

The exact ballot language is below: 

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide that the administration of justice shall include the levying of costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for certain current and former law enforcement personnel?

State and local governmental entities estimate an unknown fiscal impact.

Fair Ballot Language: 

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to levy costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, and circuit attorneys to ensure all Missourians have access to the courts of justice.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to levy costs and fees related to current or former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys and circuit attorneys.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

What happens if Amendment 6 fails?

If it fails, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement System predicts that its fund will be insolvent within nine years, said Melissa Lorts, executive director.

“We feel like the $3 fee is really a user fee of the court system,” Lorts said.

Sheriffs are responsible for bringing defendants to the courthouse from the jail, and they administer warrants and manage other aspects of a criminal case, she said.

“So we have a heavy hand in what happens in the court system,” Lorts said.

More than 200 former sheriffs or their surviving spouses currently receive benefits, Lorts said.

The amendment traces back to two speeding tickets in Kansas City and the state supreme court ruling that followed.

Two men admitted to the traffic violations in 2017, ultimately paying a total of $223.50 in fines and fees to the city’s municipal court.

But the men later argued that they didn’t realize that $3 from each case would go toward the sheriffs’ retirement benefits.

The two men led a class action filed with Jackson County Circuit Court, arguing that the extra charge was “unjust enrichment,” a violation of the state constitution.

The case continued to wind through the courts until the Missouri Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs in 2021, Lorts said.

The court’s decision cited a 1986 ruling, noting that it laid down “a bright-line rule” barring court fees that benefit executive officials that are not “reasonably related to the expense of the administration of justice.”

The ruling in the traffic case cost the retirement system about $9 million in court costs and settlements and ended its ability to collect the money, Lorts said.

In December 2023, the fund had $38.4 million in assets, a drop of $800,000 from the end of the previous calendar year, according to the Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement System annual report.

Beginning in January 2024, active sheriffs began contributing 5% of their salaries to the retirement fund, a change instituted by the legislature.

The legislature also approved $2.5 million to help stabilize the fund, an amount that has been requested again in the coming fiscal year, Lorts said.

What are the arguments against Amendment 6? 

Critics of the fees that Amendment 6 would allow say each county should pay for pensions and other costs related to law enforcement and the courts.

The Washington, D.C.-based Fines and Fees Justice Center told lawmakers that the salaries and benefits for prosecutors and sheriffs should be adequately funded, but that court fees are an “ineffective and counterproductive” approach.

“When fines and fees go unpaid, judges may issue arrest warrants for failing to pay, leading to law enforcement arresting people for not paying financial obligations — most often because they are too poor to pay,” testified Priya Sarathy Jones, deputy executive director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center. 

“The time spent on these debt collection and enforcement efforts diverts law enforcement and courts from their core responsibilities … In fact, the collection of fines and fees by law enforcement has been found to be associated with lower clearance rates for more serious crimes.”

Some studies have shown that the cost to municipalities to collect fines and fees can exceed the revenue generated.

The Missouri NAACP argued that the fees “create a negative incentive to give more tickets and charge unnecessary crimes.”

Leonard Charles Gilroy, a vice president of the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles, wrote that changing the state constitution to allow the fees would violate “basics of public finance and fiscal stewardship.”

Public pensions are constitutionally protected benefits, which are obligated to be paid in full regardless of market conditions or revenue generated.

“Law enforcement and courts are core functions of government that should be funded through legislative appropriations, not fees,” Gilroy’s statement said.

“It would be imprudent to revive a policy to fund pension contributions with dedicated fine/fee revenues because those revenues can fluctuate over time, while pension liabilities are always locked in.”

Meanwhile, Amendment 6 came under fire for ballot summary language that the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District ruled was insufficient and unfair. 

The court clarified that passage of the measure by voters in the general election would enshrine a broader meaning of the administration of justice in the state constitution. 

That court reworded the ballot language voters will see to read: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide that the administration of justice shall include the levying of costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for certain current and former law enforcement personnel?”

This article first appeared on Beacon: Missouri and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Missourians with disabilities and seniors could lose at-home care under new eligibility algorithm

by Clara Bates, Missouri Independent
October 2, 2024

Nearly 8,000 seniors and Missourians with disabilities could lose at-home care over the next year after a new eligibility algorithm went into effect this week, a spokesperson for the state health department told The Independent.

Starting Oct. 1, Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services implemented a change in the scoring algorithm they use to determine eligibility during annual reviews and enrollment for those receiving help with everyday tasks like going to the bathroom, getting dressed and taking their prescriptions. The assistance is part of a Medicaid-funded program called home and community based services designed to provide an alternative to those who would otherwise need to receive institutional care. 

That change, according to the department, is designed to help ensure those who truly need the services receive them, and those who don’t — for instance, because their conditions have improved or they’re not severe enough to qualify — are removed.

“We want to ensure those with higher acuity needs are receiving the care they need,” said DHSS spokesperson Lisa Cox. “That is what this transformation is about—to ensure we are providing the right services, in the right setting, at the right time to those who would go into a facility placement if not for [home and community based services].”    

But advocates are raising alarm that certain people who still need services will lose them, causing their health to decline or forcing them into institutional settings like nursing homes. 

Jennifer Gundy, who runs a center for independent living in southwest Missouri, which provides in-home care support for 370 people, estimates 18% of her clients will fall off the rolls.

And most of them will still be in need of services, she said, including cases of those with severe diabetes, mobility issues, complicated medication regimes and other issues that are eased by current assistance but will worsen without it.

“So that’s our concern,” she said. “And we’ve been voicing that concern with the state for probably the last two years,” she said.

Joel Ferber, director of advocacy at Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, said there are “truly needy folks who are going to lose services.” 

Legal Services of Eastern Missouri has been working with national advocacy groups to analyze the new algorithm and its effects, and provide guidance. One client they identified, a 70-year-old woman who receives 40 hours of weekly paid help, won’t be eligible after her review, according to LSEM. She weighs under 100 pounds and has had a stroke.

Without a caretaker, she won’t be able to make herself meals or bathe, and has no family in the area. She may have to be hospitalized or go to a nursing home.

State Rep. Deb Lavender, a Democrat of Manchester, said thousands will lose services, “without any support from the state” to fill in the gap.

“They’re going to be people who have received services for years,” she said, “and we have provided that for them — to then drop them because they don’t meet the new algorithm doesn’t seem right.”

Cox said 7,818 people are at risk of losing services, but she didn’t provide an estimate of any possible net change, saying the program will “continue to add more participants every month due to the increase in needs of our population.” New people will also qualify based on the new algorithm, adding to the population, she said.

From 2021 to last month, the department used both the new and old algorithm, so that anyone who qualified on either basis could qualify for the program. Cox said thousands of people have gained access to services under the new algorithm who wouldn’t have qualified on the old calculation: She said 7,708 people have gained eligibility under the new algorithm since it was introduced in Nov. 2021.

There were around 68,000 people monthly on the program last fiscal year, Cox said.

The new algorithm has been years in the making. 

The legislature in 2017 grew concerned with the home and community based services program “just blossoming” in participation and cost, said Jessica Schaefer, program director for home and community based services in a recent training. 

To cut the budget, the legislature in 2017 raised the threshold for eligibility. It also capped costs for services at a lower level. 

The program is jointly funded by the state and federal government, and states vary widely in how they run the programs.

The department found those changes weren’t entirely effective, Schafer said — that some people who needed services most didn’t qualify anymore — so they launched a “transformation” of the eligibility criteria. It was designed to be more accurate at directing limited services to the correct people.

The “transformation is about ensuring those most in need of care receive the services needed to remain independent in their community,” Cox said.

There have been several delays in implementing the new algorithm — most recently because of federal rules tied to accepting American Rescue Plan Act funds. 

The state has generally characterized those who will lose coverage as people who don’t have needs significant enough to qualify in the first place.

In a slideshow for providers during a recent training, the state recommended when delivering the news of ineligibility to individuals, that they “exude confidence” and “put a positive spin on ineligibility,” along with connecting them to other resources and expressing sympathy.

Because the department has been providing two scores, advocates can see which clients will not qualify under the new algorithm and have been able to track it.

Advocates say they’ve repeatedly brought up concerns with the state based on clients they see are desperately in need of services who will no longer qualify.

“The only thing that we can do is just go ahead and allow them to do this, and then if there’s enough people that fall off the services and end up going to the nursing home, going in the hospital, having lots of problems because they’re not getting the services, then we can look at doing a class action lawsuit,” said Gundy, the southwest Missouri advocate.

“Which is really sad, because those people have to get hurt or have really bad health problems for something to get done.”

States across the country have made similar cuts to the program, based on automated decisions, including in Arkansas, where the algorithm was successfully challenged in court.

Legal Services of Eastern Missouri and a group of national advocates published a toolkit for providers and participants to understand the changes and track those who lose services.

Emily Paul, project director at Upturn, a national organization that advocates for equity and justice in technology, has been involved in that analysis.

“What we understand in general is that automation is a tool that states are using to deal with inadequate funding for these programs, and to create a rationale for who doesn’t get services,” Paul said.

“Underfunding really drives the need to have this whole rationale for trying to distribute the resources and trying to make claims to fairness and objectivity within a system that is not really set up to actually meet people’s needs,” she said. “And so that’s the fundamental issue. States can still try to make better or worse choices about how they allocate the resources.”

This story was updated at 9:10 A.M. with additional comment from the Department of Health and Senior Services.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: [email protected]. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and X.