Capitol Report: Rep. Jeff Coleman (MO-32)

​This is an editorial: An editorial, like news reporting, is based on objective facts, but shares an opinion. The conclusions and opinions here have been derived by the guest contributor and are not associated with the news staff.​


Tightening Down Immigration Laws
 
In a recent session of the House Special Committee on Homeland Security, discussions centered around several immigration bills and how to strengthen border security while ensuring that individuals entering the state are doing so through lawful ports of entry.
HB 2470 addresses illegal entry, categorizing it as a class B misdemeanor with potential escalation to a class E felony for repeat offenses. The bill introduces additional offenses for illegal aliens and outlines penalties. Certain individuals enforcing these offenses are protected from arrest or detention in specific locations.
HB 2523 defines the offense of trespass by an illegal alien, classifying it as a class E felony for individuals aged 18 or older committing certain offenses on public or private land. The bill exempts federally authorized individuals, and a violation does not establish probable cause for any other offense.
HB 2367 specifies that illegal aliens committing offenses are guilty of trespass, with severity depending on the initial offense. Trespass is a class E felony for infractions and a class C felony for misdemeanors or felonies. The punishment for trespass is in addition to the initial offense's penalty and does not apply to federally authorized individuals.
The discussions reflect heightened concerns over immigration and border security at both the federal and state level. Within days of the hearing, Governor Mike Parson announced the deployment of resources and personnel to the southern border in support of Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star mission.
 
Defending Religious Freedom 
 
The Special Committee on Government Accountability recently conducted a hearing on two bills seeking to defend
Missourians’ First Amendment rights concerning their faith and religion.
HB 1959, also known as the "Missouri Religious Freedom Protection Act" focuses on protecting religious freedom.
The bill would prevent public officials from shutting down meetings or services held by religious groups. However,

 
it clarifies that this prohibition does not apply to religious groups planning or committing acts of violence. The bill also exempts emergency evacuation orders in cases of imminent danger, such as floods, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, terrorist threats, civil unrest, or hazardous material incidents. Once the imminent danger has passed, religious services are permitted to resume. Notably, the bill emphasizes that this prohibition does not exempt places of worship from complying with applicable building and fire codes.
Presenting his bill before the committee, the bill sponsor stressed the importance of places of worship, especially during times of crisis. “Our places of worship operate in a very unique way in this state, and we as government should not be in the business of trying to shut them down,” he said.
HB 1518 focuses on safeguarding belief-based student associations within public institutions of higher learning. Its primary objective is to prevent public institutions from taking actions or implementing policies that would deny belief-based student associations the benefits available to other student groups. The bill explicitly prohibits discrimination against these associations based on their leaders adhering to sincerely held beliefs, practice requirements, or conduct standards. Furthermore, it grants belief-based student associations the authority to seek relief through judicial or administrative proceedings against institutions that violate the bill's requirements. The hearing provided an opportunity for committee members to deliberate on the merits and implications of both bills. The testimonies and discussions covered a range of perspectives, including concerns about potential conflicts between religious freedom and institutional policies in educational settings, as well as the balance between ensuring freedom of worship and protecting public safety during emergencies. Further deliberations and considerations are expected as the bills progress through the legislative process. Both bills passed through committee and now await an opportunity to be heard on the House floor.
 
Debate on DEI Funding
 
The House Committee on General Laws recently discussed five bills centered on the use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) language. The primary objective of these bills, as highlighted by their sponsors, is to cease the allocation of taxpayer funds towards DEI initiatives within state bureaucracy. The intention is to defund DEI efforts and prevent the state from encouraging private sector adoption of DEI practices to secure state contract bids. One notable bill, HB 2567, introduced the "Do No Harm Act," which imposes limitations on DEI initiatives in medical higher education institutions. It bars funding for DEI offices, requires the redirection of these funds to merit scholarships, and mandates reporting on compliance. Additionally, the legislation outlines academic standards, necessitates transparency in courses, and establishes criteria for admissions tests. It also places restrictions on DEI requirements for licensing boards, disallows state contracts for entities mandating DEI, and permits legal action for violations, waiving sovereign immunity for a year post-violation.
Another bill, HB 2569, prohibits state departments from utilizing funds for DEI programs that endorse preferential treatment or necessitate private sector DEI adoption for state contracts. Two other bills, HB 2619 and HB 2448, share similar provisions by preventing state departments from funding intradepartmental DEI initiatives and limiting mandates on private sector DEI programs for state contracts.
Similar to HB 2569, HB 2365 bars state departments from financing intradepartmental DEI initiatives and enforcing private sector DEI programs for state contracts while emphasizing adherence to employment laws.
The attempt to restrict the use of DEI language, as reflected in these bills, reflects a larger societal and political discourse. While DEI initiatives aim to address systemic inequalities and promote equal opportunities, critics express concerns about potential overreach, ideological bias, and encroachment on individual freedoms.
Supporters of the legislation heard in committee argued that limiting funds for DEI initiatives in medical institutions is a response to concerns about enforced ideological conformity. They contend that such initiatives may impose specific viewpoints and restrict academic and professional freedom. Opponents emphasize the significance of DEI initiatives in addressing historical disparities, fostering inclusivity, and ensuring a diverse workforce. They see

restrictions as obstacles to efforts in creating equitable and inclusive environments, particularly in educational and healthcare settings.
 
Legislators Raise Concerns about Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission
 
In a recent session, the House Transportation Accountability Committee delved into proposed legislative changes aiming to reform the governance of Missouri's transportation system. The bills raised concerns about appointments to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, suggesting potential amendments to its structure or complete elimination.
The legislative efforts followed a contentious situation in 2021 when the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) sought to grant pay raises to its employees without prior legislative approval, resulting in a legal dispute.  Among the proposed changes were measures altering the selection process for commission members. The Highways and Transportation Commission, overseeing the Department of Transportation, became a focal point of tension between the legislature and MoDOT due to the pay raise controversy.
A lawsuit in 2021 arose from MoDOT's decision to increase wages without legislative consent, sparking political discord over transportation issues. The dispute primarily revolved around the allocation of funds, with MoDOT funded by appropriations under legislative control and revenues from transportation-related taxes beyond legislative reach.
While not all committee members agreed on the proposed changes, there was a shared belief in the need for some reform. Committee members acknowledged concerns about MoDOT's responsiveness to constituents and discussed potential changes to the Transportation and Highways Commission.
“Most of us feel like MoDOT’s not very responsive to our constituents’ concerns,” one member of the committee said. “No one is actually faulting MoDOT for the (employee) shortage because we all understand it. What we do see, however, is a seeming priority on things that aren’t necessary.”
During the session, frustration was expressed regarding transportation issues in the district, with an emphasis on the need for accountability. There was advocacy for direct legislative oversight of the department, potentially eliminating the commission for increased accountability.
“I do not have any issues personally with the members of the commission,” another member stated. “My issues are with the nature of the process, its lack of accountability and consistency.”
Still, others argued against the complete dismantling of the commission, emphasizing the need to improve the existing system rather than destroy it. The Missouri Transportation Commission, established in 1921, operates on a bipartisan basis with members appointed by the governor, ensuring a balanced political representation within the commission.
 
Closing Remarks
 
In closing I would like to encourage my readers to continue to be involved in the affairs of government. Thomas Jefferson once stated that liberty is best preserved by the people themselves stating that they are the “only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty”. I whole heartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson on this issue. It is always my intent to keep my constituents informed and to retain open transparency. If you have any questions or concerns please contact my office at any time. You can reach my office by calling 573-751-1487 or via email at [email protected]