Kids stay in foster care longer than the federal standard in most Missouri counties

by Clara Bates, Missouri Independent
March 19, 2025

In most Missouri counties, children linger in foster care longer than the federal standard, according to data compiled by the state social services agency.

Under national standards, at least 35% of kids entering foster care should exit with a permanent living situation within one year. That can mean reunification with family, adoption or guardianship. 

But only 12 of Missouri’s 114 counties met that standard every month between July and September last year.

That’s according to a report the Missouri Department of Social Services is required to release on a quarterly basis. A law passed in 2020 mandated those reports and created a “response and evaluation” team tasked with reviewing state foster care practices. The team, which includes Children’s Division staff and foster care case management agency staff, met Tuesday.

In the previous report, covering April through June, there were 23 counties meeting that benchmark.

Missouri’s Children’s Division is acting under a performance improvement plan with the federal Children’s Bureau over the issue of timely permanent placements. The state’s performance “has continued to decline over the last several reporting periods,” a report from last summer states. 

While in care, foster kids have also faced more instability with their placements than nationally, meaning they can be frequently moved around among foster homes or other placements.

Marcia Wetzel, a program coordinator with the social services department, said during Tuesday’s public meeting that a plan is in the works to establish what are called team decision-making meetings statewide before a foster child is moved to a new placement.

Team decision-making meetings involve those closest to the child and a facilitator. There will be training before it’s rolled out in each region across the state, Wetzel said, with the expectation that the meetings “hopefully will help us improve the data…to really try to stabilize placements.”

As of February 2024, for every 1,000 days a child spent in foster care in Missouri, they were moved 6.23 times. The federal rate was 4.48. Wetzel said more data will come out related to this issue in April.

According to the department’s budget request, team decision-making meetings have been implemented in some parts of the state and will be expanding statewide. 

Missouri’s foster care system has faced scrutiny for years and is a major focus of the 2025 legislative session. 

A bill sponsored by Sen. Travis Fitzwater of Holts Summit seeks to reduce the amount of time foster children languish in care by changing the model of legal representation for them. Under the proposal, older foster children would be assigned client-director counsel, who act based on the child’s own wishes and goals. Currently, foster children have guardians ad litem, who are attorneys tasked with acting in what they view as the child’s best interest, which Fitzwater said means children are sometimes left without a voice, drawing out their time in care. 

Lawmakers are also concerned with foster kids being held in inappropriate placements, such as hospitals, hotels, offices and out-of-state residential treatment facilities. 

There are around 85 kids receiving treatment out of state, according to department data shared at an appropriations hearing. And last year, there were 314 foster children residing in hospitals.

Issues with foster care delayed Senate confirmation of Gov. Mike Kehoe’s pick to lead the social services department. State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican, briefly held up the appointment to force the agency to provide answers about chronic problems that have plagued the foster care system for years and what she says has been the agency’s failure to implement laws designed to help.

Bax was eventually confirmed after Coleman said the department was responsive to her inquiries. 

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

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].

Missourians can face years-long waits for records requested from some state agencies

by Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent
March 17, 2025

When Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey took office in January 2023, he inherited a pile of more than 200 unfilled open records requests left over from his predecessor.

Some of the requests had been languishing for more than a year before Bailey took over. 

It wasn’t a good look for the state official specifically empowered to enforce the Missouri Sunshine Law. To tackle the backlog, Bailey assigned new staff to the problem and implemented a policy to work through requests on a first-come, first-served basis.

It took more than two years, but in February Bailey finally could say he had cleared the backlog and was down to 75 recent requests still pending.

But Bailey’s office isn’t the only Missouri state agency where the public sometimes waits years to receive requested records. 

This is Sunshine Week, set aside each year to focus on open government and the public’s right to know about the conduct of public business. To test state government compliance with the Sunshine Law, The Independent sent an identical request for logs showing pending requests to 26 state departments and divisions and the five statewide elected officials inaugurated in January.

The requests were sent in the third week of February. By Friday, every agency had provided its log — or reported that it did not maintain a formal log — except the departments of conservation, corrections and natural resources.

The state agency where the public faced the longest delays getting access to government records was the Missouri Department of Social Services.

The department received 988 records requests last year. As of last month, it had 54 still pending, including four from 2022 and five from 2023. Two of those longstanding requests were noted as “pending legal review” and seven as “time extension.” 

Seven of the long-standing requests are from news reporters and two are from individuals. All sought records regarding child abuse investigations, including at least one looking for department records for the Agape Boarding School, the Stockton-based Christian residential that closed in January 2023 while under scrutiny for alleged abuse of its students over decades..

There is no reason records requests should drag on so long, said Echo Menges, president of the Missouri Sunshine  Coalition. 

Requesters should expect complex requests to take a reasonable amount of time, she said, but requests that linger unfilled for years smack of deliberate delays.

“They’re basically being stonewalled and withholding information,” said Menges, editor of the Edina Sentinel. “There’s no way to gently explain that.”

Dan Curry, legal adviser to the Missouri Press Association, said the public is entitled to ask for a specific date for producing records and specific reasons if the response is delayed.

“They should always make that request if they feel like they’re being slow walked or or stonewalled in any way,” Curry said. “Submit a written request demanding a detailed explanation, and the government body is required to provide a detailed explanation. A generic ‘we just need more time’ is not sufficient.”

Other findings from The Independent’s investigation:

The Department of Transportation was the only other agency besides social services with pending requests received before Jan. 1, 2024. It had two, one from 2022 and another from 2023. There is no indication on the log provided of the nature of the records sought.The Missouri State Highway Patrol, which because of its work generates thousands of crash and arrest reports annually, provided a 968-page log of its requests for 2024 that contains approximately 30,000 entries. There were 171 open requests listed.There are 12 agencies that provide an online portal that requires registering an email address and creating a password to submit and retrieve records. The remaining agencies and officials handle requests through a dedicated email for the custodian of records.

The Department of Conservation, in an interim response, said to expect a copy of its Sunshine log by March 7. The department’s custodian of records did not respond to a message sent early last week seeking a reason for the delay and the date when the records would be available.

The Department of Corrections sent the same formulaic response to two requests, one sent to the department’s custodian of records and another sent to the Board of Probation and Parole.

“Due to the size of our agency and the volume of records we maintain, locating, reviewing and copying the records could take up to sixty working days,” the response stated. “Should we find that we will not be able to get the records to you within sixty working days, we will contact you again to tell you the reason for the delay.”

The Department of Natural Resources, in an interim response, said to expect a copy of its log by March 24. The department’s custodian of records did not respond to a message sent early last week seeking a reason for the delay and the date when the records would be available.

“It is like an A-minus to me, state government as a whole,” Menges said when asked to grade the quality of the responses. “Although graded on their own, natural resources still has some time, but conservation is an F.”

When a public agency misses the date it has set for fulfilling a request, or does not set a specific date in a response stating it cannot provide the records immediately, requesters should demand a specific date — and the specific reasons for the delay, said Dave Roland, litigation director of the Freedom Center of Missouri.

Under the Sunshine Law, every request “shall be acted upon as soon as possible” with a requirement that the records, or a reason why they cannot be provided immediately, by “the end of the third business day following the date the request is received.”

When responding to ask for reasons, Roland said requesters should incorporate the statutory language requiring “a detailed explanation of the cause for further delay and the place and earliest time and date that the record will be available for inspection.”

“Then you see what they say,” Roland said. “If they do not give an adequate explanation or an adequate estimate as to when they’re going to comply, then you can let them know, well, you’re at risk of violating the Sunshine Law.”

The Missouri Supreme Court, in a 2021 decision, ruled that then-Gov. Mike Parson’s office violated the Sunshine Law by giving an approximate number of days rather than a particular date when records would be available. That decision was also notable because it barred public agencies from charging for time spent by attorneys reviewing records before release.

Open government as a right

Rebecca Varney, left, speaks with attorney Dave Roland outside the Phelps County Courthouse after a Sept. 2, 2023 trial of her civil rights and Sunshine Law case against her hometown of Edgar Springs (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).

The public’s right to see government records is rooted in common law. The Sunshine Law, passed in 1973 to codify that right, wasn’t the first statute to do so. In 1961, the legislature passed a law imposing criminal penalties on officials who interfere with the right to inspect public records and protecting the public’s ability to make copies of those records.

Under the Sunshine Law, every public agency from the largest state department to the smallest water district must have a custodian of records responsible for providing access. There is no requirement that a requester state a reason for seeking the records and no requirement that the requester be a resident of Missouri or the place where a local agency has jurisdiction.

Agencies are not required to create new records in response to a request. And they are allowed to require payment for staff time needed to search for records and the costs of copying them. The costs are limited to no more than 10 cents per page for copying costs and by “using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time.”

High charges for public records have been found to be a violation of the law. In 2020, Boone County Circuit Judge Jeff Harris ruled that the University of Missouri had sought an excessive amount when it demanded $82,000 for records of dogs used in research.

“The cost estimate in this case was tantamount to a denial of the request,” Harris wrote.

The general compliance by state agencies in their responses to a simple request isn’t surprising, Menges said, because as the largest and most complex organizations subject to the law, they should set the standard.

The most common violations, she said, are by local government agencies. Throughout Missouri, there are fire, hospital, water and other districts governed by part-time boards with members who have never been subject to the Sunshine Law before.

The attorney general’s office provides training, as do many state associations, but it is the responsibility of those board members to learn the law and make sure their agencies follow it, Menges said.

“On a local level, we have a huge education issue, which is people do not understand or know how to follow the Sunshine Law in public boards, public offices,” Menges said. “It’s rampant, especially in rural communities.”

Failure to follow the law can be costly. A lawsuit to enforce the Sunshine Law means large legal fees even if the government agency wins.

The Western District Court of Appeals is considering a case against the Western Cass Fire Protection District where a former board member accuses it of 46 violations at 11 different meetings. One of the meetings had an agenda item “special considerations” with no other explanation; the intent was to remove two board members.

The attorney general’s office filed a brief in the case, supporting the accusations that the district violated the law. Agenda items must be written to describe what will be discussed, Assistant Attorney General Jason Lewis wrote in the brief.

“That means that a public governmental body cannot hide an elephant in a mouse hole by using vague or excessively broad terms to hide what the body intends to do,” Lewis wrote. “The tentative agenda must be specific enough for the public to be able to make an informed decision about whether to attend the meeting.”

In tiny Edgar Springs in Phelps County, Roland represented Rebecca Varney in a case where she was banned from city hall because staff became annoyed at her visits seeking city records.

The city was found to have purposefully violated the Sunshine Law and ordered to pay $750 to Varney and almost $80,000 to Roland for his time. The city is appealing an order compelling it to turn over most of its available cash to pay the judgment, with interest accumulating since the 2023 ruling

“It really flows through not just publicly elected officials, but voters themselves,” Menges said. “It’s OK if you want to vote for someone who doesn’t care to follow the Sunshine Law, but what that case has shown us is you’re going to pay for it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].

Lawmakers and business groups push rollback of Missouri minimum wage hike, sick leave law

by Clara Bates, Missouri Independent
March 12, 2025

Months after Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a minimum wage increase and paid sick leave requirements, the new laws face challenges this week in court and the state legislature. 

On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court Court heard arguments in a lawsuit seeking to strike down Proposition A, which guarantees sick leave for hundreds of thousands of workers and gradually hikes the minimum wage to $15. 

A day earlier, the Missouri House gave initial approval to a bill repealing the sick leave law and modifying the minimum wage. 

“This is a one-two punch to businesses, and it creates a one size fits all approach,” said Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, who is sponsoring the legislation targeting the paid sick leave law. 

A coalition of business groups and individuals argued Wednesday morning to the Missouri Supreme Court that the minimum wage and paid sick leave laws should be thrown out for violating constitutional rules on ballot initiatives.

“Both on the statutory side and the constitutional side, voters were misled,” Marc Ellinger, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told the court. “The constitution was not complied with.”

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

The lawsuit, filed late last year, argues the election results should be overturned because of several alleged constitutional violations, including violations of the state constitution’s single-subject requirement and a lack of a clear title. 

It also contends that sick time and minimum wage are distinct issues that violate the single-subject rule, which should result in the election outcome being invalidated. It requests a new election be held, alleging the ballot title, which includes a summary of the proposition and its potential cost to the state, was misleading. 

“This case is an example of where all of those procedures have been ignored,” Ellinger said.

A lawyer for Missouri Jobs with Justice, which led the campaign in support of Proposition A, said the court should uphold the law if at all possible, since voters approved it.

“The challengers ask you to overturn the will of the voters who exercised their fundamental right of the initiative,” said attorney Loretta Haggard, “based on technical issues that were not raised before the election.”

The measure won by a margin of over 400,000 votes. Haggard and other attorneys representing the responding parties wrote in a recent filing that the plaintiffs are asking the court “to tell these voters that their votes do not matter, and the court, not the people, will decide whether Proposition A should stay in effect,” calling it an “extraordinary request.” 

Andrew Crane, an assistant attorney general representing the Secretary of State on Wednesday, defended the single subject of employee compensation, saying sick leave and pay “logically relate together… these are the kind things that employees and lawyers consider in any hiring decision.” 

Robert Tillman, representing the auditor’s office, defended the fiscal note summary and said the plaintiffs didn’t prove any alleged irregularities that would have impacted the election.

“Even if contestants could establish election irregularities, they must then demonstrate that such irregularity sufficiently cast doubt for the entire election, to justify a new election.” Tillman said. “…As you can see from the record, contestants have offered no such evidence.”

The judges asked a few questions about whether they have jurisdiction to review the case, or whether a lower court would be the more appropriate venue.

Prop A passed with 58% of the vote and had the support of numerous unions, workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights organizations, as well as over 500 business owners. A group of businesses filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case defending the proposition. 

Under the law, beginning May 1, the law requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 workers must allow workers to earn at least 40 hours per year, with larger employers mandated to allow at least 56 hours. 

Legislature

On Tuesday, a bill in Missouri’s House to overturn the sick leave provisions and modify the minimum wage provisions was given initial approval. It needs to be approved one more time in the House before heading to the Senate for consideration.

Because the measure changed state law and not the constitution, the legislature can modify or overturn it without returning for a new vote of the people.

Gallick’s bill would repeal the paid sick leave provisions approved by voters.

It would also modify the minimum wage increase by no longer indexing it to inflation, a policy that has been in place since 2007. The minimum wage would still increase to $15 per hour in 2026, as voters approved, but it would not be adjusted for inflation thereafter. 

Gallick has argued employees will “abuse” the sick leave.

In states that have adopted sick leave mandates, employees take, on average, two more sick days a year than prior to the law going into effect, a National Bureau of Economic Research report found.

Studies have found that offering paid sick time can increase workers’ productivity and reduce illness, and generally adds little or nothing to business expenses.

States with paid sick leave laws, as of Dec. 2024 (Screenshot: U.S. Department of Labor issue brief).

Republican state Rep. Scott Miller from St. Charles said “just because 57% of the people that voted that day, voted in favor of something, that doesn’t make it right. “They’re taking away the choice of businesses to engage in free market.”

Businesses are not equipped to handle the additional expenses from the proposition, said Republican state Rep. Jeff Vernetti of from Camdenton.

“I know that the will of the people will be brought up several times in this and I think that we’ve also got to represent the 87 counties that did not vote for this,” Vernetti said. “I think it’s our duty to respect the will of the people, but also at the same time, safeguard the long term prosperity of Missouri.”

Rep. Eric Woods, a Democrat from Kansas City, pointed out that Prop A passed in rural counties as well, including Clark, Adair, Mississippi and Henry.

“This isn’t a situation where Proposition A just passed in the cities,” he said, “this was a broad acceptance percentage wise.” 

Lawmakers are wrong to treat voters as having been oblivious to what they were voting on, said state Rep. Keri Ingle, a Democrat from Lee’s Summit.

“The part that irks me is that you guys repeatedly call your constituents dumb,” Ingle said. “You say that they’re too stupid to understand what they voted for. I mean, you don’t use those words, but they hear you loud and clear, and they continue to vote for these policies.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].

Missouri senators seek to bar kids from accessing pornographic materials from libraries

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
March 4, 2025

The Missouri Senate Education Committee discussed legislation Tuesday seeking to ban materials deemed explicit from digital libraries and hold library boards responsible for the content made available to minors.

State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican, filed legislation applying safety measures to “digital library catalogs” after hearing about explicit material available on a state-subsidized application used by public schools.

Her bill adopts the state’s current definition of “pornographic for minors,” which includes “has a tendency to cater or appeal to a prurient interest of minors.”

Sora, an app school districts provide to students through a program run by the Missouri Secretary of State, allows students to check out books digitally. But Coleman said some resources have inappropriate content and link out to explicit material.

“It provides access to a really broad variety of titles, many of which are fantastic, and allows educators to provide books they otherwise couldn’t afford,” Coleman said. “Unfortunately, there are a lot of other materials that are available, including sexually explicit material.”

She contacted both the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education last year. Both told her it was a problem for school boards to handle.

Since 2003, libraries have been responsible for blocking access to pornographic content on their computers and internet terminals. Coleman’s bill would add digital resources, which can be accessed from home, to the existing statute and create accountability measures.

Schools would have to publish a list of required reading materials on their websites and allow parents access to digital library resources.

Parents would be able to challenge resources as inappropriate, with results of such claims available online. They could sue school personnel, including librarians, for not following the law as a result of “gross negligence” or intentional conduct.

Coleman said school districts should stop using Sora if they cannot thoroughly monitor its catalog.

Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, left, and Thomas More Society attorney Mary Catherine Martin stand together on the steps of the Missouri Supreme Court following oral arguments in a case involving the state’s abortion-rights amendment (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).

Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with conservative law firm Thomas More Society, said she helped draft the legislation to put the onus on schools.

“What we need is an enforcement mechanism that requires school districts to get ahead (of the content) and gives them the obligation of screening things before they hand them to the children,” she said.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican and chair of the education committee, said some content is “definitely not G-rated.”

“To me this is no different than if a school district just left a gun laying somewhere and then wants to act dumb,” he said.

The committee also heard a bill sponsored by state Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance, that would hold library board members accountable for material accessible to children. The bill would add board members to a 2022 law that makes providing explicit sexual material to a minor a class A misdemeanor.

When the law was passed in 2022, some expressed concerns that it would lead to “book banning” and suppression of LGBTQ+ literature.

Schroer said his bill would “protect the innocence and integrity of children’s learning environment.”

The legislation would keep the existing definition of explicit sexual material, which only applies to visual material.

Brattin, who helped draft the bill, said it didn’t include literature because of opposition.

“I think this is just a common sense approach to things,” he said.

The American Library Association included Schroer’s legislation in a list of 98 “adverse” bills. The organization noted a legislative push in recent years to “impair” librarians from providing diverse materials.

These bills come less than two years after a rule by former Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft that requires libraries to create policies preventing minors from accessing obscene materials. Thousands of public comments opposed the rule, calling it censorship.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].

Legislation would prohibit transgender Missourians from changing birth certificates

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
March 5, 2025

A Republican push to bar transgender Missourians from changing the sex on their birth certificates was briefly debated Wednesday morning by a state Senate committee.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Mike Cierpiot of Lee’s Summit, said birth certificates reflect “facts on the day you were born” and should be unchangeable except in cases of sex development disorders.

Cierpiot filed the same bill in 2023, but it was never debated by the full Senate. He did not file the bill last year.

The bill was inspired, he said, by a lawsuit in his district where a transgender student sued the Blue Springs School District in 2015 after being barred from locker rooms and multi-stall bathrooms. A jury awarded the student $4 million, but the case was appealed and is currently awaiting a Missouri Supreme Court opinion.

“The reason this (bill) is needed is because some courts are making decisions partly because of modified birth certificates,” Cierpiot said.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican, mentioned that some transgender Missourians have changed their gender marker on their driver’s license. The Department of Revenue recently rescinded that policy after pressure from lawmakers.

Cierpiot said he was less worried about driver’s licenses.

“A birth certificate is a historic document,” he said. “If someone wants to change things later in life, this is quiet on that.”

A Senate committee room was full of people waiting to testify on the bill, but the public hearing was cut short after 30 minutes with three speaking in favor and four able to speak in opposition before the committee chair moved to the next bill.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sharon Dunski Vermont, a pediatrician from the St. Louis area, told committee members that the bill is dangerous for transgender people.

“People have been attacked, bullied and even killed because their documents don’t reflect who they see themselves to be,” she said.

Brattin asked Vermont about the Washington University Transgender Center, which was the subject of a whistleblower’s affidavit in 2023 and closed after state law made gender-affirming care illegal for minors.

Brattin criticized the center, calling treatments “detrimental to (children’s) health.”

Dunski Vermont, who worked there, said the allegations were untrue.

“I don’t tell you how to be a senator, and I would appreciate if you don’t tell me how to be a doctor,” she said, as Brattin interrupted.

Keith Rose, who is a legal advocate with nonprofit law firm Center for Growing Justice, said he has assisted people changing their birth certificates as part of his work.

He called birth certificates “living documents,” instead of historic.

“It is common sense that birth records should reflect your lived reality,” he said.

Few judges are willing to issue court orders to change birth certificates, Rose said, and it has grown more difficult in the past three years.

The committee did not take action on the bill Wednesday.

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].

Child care tax credits legislation scores bipartisan support in Missouri House

by Natanya Friedheim, Missouri Independent
February 25, 2025

A bill to create three new child care tax credits received initial approval by the Missouri House on Tuesday. A similar measure received bipartisan support last year but fell victim to Republican infighting in the Senate.

The measure would help employers foot the bill for their employees’ child care costs and encourage existing providers to grow their capacity. Shields said three-fourths of Missouri’s 115 counties are considered “child care deserts.” It needs to be approved one more time in the House before heading to the Senate.

“We have a child care crisis in our state. We’re all familiar with it,” state Rep. Brenda Shields, a Republican from St. Joseph, who sponsored the bill, said during House debate Tuesday. “We hear from our business leaders across the state that they have trouble recruiting and retaining employees because the lack of child care.”

The bill creates three tax credits. Under the first, people or businesses who donate to child care centers would receive a tax credit worth 75% of their donation. The donor cannot personally benefit from the contribution; for example, a parent cannot make a donation and expect lower tuition.

The second is for businesses that help pay for their employees’ child care costs or create child care programs for their employee’s children.

The third allows child care providers to claim a tax credit worth up to 30% of expenses related to construction projects. The credit also grants tax relief equal to the provider’s employer withholding tax, which applies to providers with at least three employees who work at least 10 hours per week and have been employed for at least three months.

A number of business groups have voiced support for the measure, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Columbia Chamber of Commerce.

“Without child care, Missouri’s economy cannot grow,” Shields said.

The credits cannot be transferred to another person or entity and cannot reduce a citizen’s tax burden below zero, meaning the credits cannot be used to add to a tax refund. The measures proposed this year would expire in 2026 without reapproval by the legislature due to a “sunset” provision included in the bill. Parents would not be able to claim tax credits for child care tuition under any of the proposed credits.

State Rep. Sherri Gallick, a Republican from Belton, spoke about her own experience as a single parent while voicing her support for the bill.

“My career took a backseat because I didn’t have adequate child care,” she said.

Earlier, the bill passed unanimously out of the House Economic Development Committee. Three of 10 members of the rules committee, all Republicans, voted against its passage, and it faced additional Republican opposition on the floor.

STate Rep. Jamie Gragg, an Ozark Republican, said the credits would pit the school system in competition with day cares. State Rep. Terry Thompson, a Lexington Republican, also spoke in opposition to the measure, citing a bill he said he planned to propose. This is the third year Shields has introduced tax credits for child care costs.

“Right now,” Shields said, “child care costs more than your freshman year at university.”

This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online. 

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].

Federal Medicaid cuts could leave Missouri with huge budget shortfall

by Clara Bates, Missouri Independent
February 25, 2025

Proposed cuts to Medicaid being considered by the Republican-controlled Congress could create a massive budget shortfall in Missouri, the director of the state Medicaid program told lawmakers on Tuesday.

Todd Richardson, director of MO HealthNet, the state’s health insurance program for low-income and disabled Missourians, told the Senate Appropriations Committee that the state could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid costs under proposals being debated in Congress.

Roughly 70% of the state’s Medicaid funding comes from the federal government. 

Richardson said that while his department is excited about some of the changes Congress is exploring, such as creating more flexibility for states to make Medicaid-related decisions, others will “present a challenge.”

There are “things that I think a state we would wholeheartedly embrace, and would be an exciting opportunity for us to have, but that’s also got to come with the same level of financial commitment,” Richardson said.

“If not,” he told the committee, “it’s going to be a significant challenge for us and for you all to figure out.”

Under one proposal, the federal government would drastically reduce the rate at which it pays states for low-income Americans covered under Medicaid expansion. 

Missouri expanded Medicaid eligibility in 2021, over opposition from Republican lawmakers, via a ballot measure.  The state Supreme Court upheld the measure, and Medicaid expansion is enshrined in the state constitution.

State Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Republican from Springfield who chairs the appropriations committee, prompted the discussion by asking what the Missouri Department of Social Services is doing to prepare for potential federal changes.

“I did want to at least put it on the radar of the committee,” Hough said, “that when people talk about changes at the federal level, there are pretty significant implications in what we’re able to do here.”

Jessica Bax, acting director of the department, told senators that the agency will need to “plan for everything that could possibly happen at the federal level, which is difficult to do.”

The Senate Appropriations committee listens to the Department of Social Services budget hearing on Feb. 25, 2025. (Clara Bates/Missouri Independent)

Republicans in the U.S. House have forwarded a number of proposals to slash Medicaid in order to help pay for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts pushed by President Donald Trump, along with other priorities including border security. 

The U.S. House is expected to vote on a budget resolution this week.

The federal government currently pays for 90% of the cost of Medicaid for enrollees who qualify under Medicaid expansion. Those are adults who make up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $21,597 for an individual in 2025.

There are currently over 348,000 enrollees in the adult expansion group in Missouri, making up around one-quarter of all Missourians on Medicaid — so any decrease in the federal match rate would have a significant effect on the state budget. 

Richardson said the department estimates that it could cost the state between $30 million and $35 million for every percent decrease in the federal match rate, meaning even a federal decline from 90% down to 80% would cost between $300 million and $350 million. 

One federal proposal would entirely eliminate the federal match for the adult expansion group. If the federal match rate were eliminated and Missouri kept covering the expansion population, KFF estimated, it would cost Missouri $7.3 billion. 

Missouri’s overall budget for the coming fiscal year is $53.7 billion, as recommended by the governor.

While other states could reverse their decision to expand Medicaid if the federal government drops the reimbursement rate, expansion is codified in Missouri’s constitution, which would require another statewide vote to change. 

Some Republicans have opposed cuts to Medicaid, citing the effect on their constituents. It’s a popular program: According to a survey last year by the health policy organization KFF, 71% of Americans want Medicaid to continue as it is today. 

That includes Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who told HuffPost last week: ““I would not do severe cuts to Medicaid.”

One in every five Missourians is enrolled in Medicaid. Nearly 40% of all Missouri children are covered by Medicaid. 

Medicaid in the state pays for two-thirds of all nursing home care in the state, and 38% of all births.

There are several other proposals that have been floated by Congressional Republicans.

One is to impose Medicaid work requirements, which the progressive think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated could put 445,000 Missourians at risk of losing coverage.

Another would shift the payment model to a block grant system, limiting states’ flexibility to receive more reimbursement as costs rise. And it’s not the only safety net program on the chopping block: the House Republican plan could also slash the federal food benefits program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reducing federal spending by $230 billion over a decade. 

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

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].

Plan to shift from income tax to sales tax advances to Missouri Senate

by Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent
February 19, 2025

A plan to make Missouri dependent on sales tax for general revenue by eliminating the income tax is heading to the state Senate for debate after a party-line committee vote on Wednesday.

Two proposals — one to immediately end the state individual income tax and depend on sales tax for revenue, and another a proposed constitutional amendment to allow the transition to sales taxes, — make up the package intended to keep Republicans’ campaign promise to eliminate the state income tax.

If the constitutional amendment passes, it would end the individual income tax starting in 2027. 

The two proposals were each approved Wednesday on a 5-2 vote in the Senate Economic and Workforce Development Committee, with all Republicans in support and Democrats opposed.

Democratic state Sen. Barbara Washington of Kansas City said she’s worried about the impact of the immediate tax cut.

“I don’t see a clear plan as to how we make this money up,” Washington said.

Missouri House votes on party lines to eliminate income tax on capital gains

The income tax is a tax on productivity, and shifting taxes to other areas will help the economy, said Republican state Sen. Ben Brown of Washington, chairman of the committee and sponsor of the two bills.

“That has a more negative impact in our society than taxes in other areas,” Brown said of the income tax.

The top marginal rate for Missouri’s income tax has declined from 6% in 2015 to 4.7% this year under a design to slowly cut it as revenue increases that began with legislation passed in 2014.

Two future tax cuts, to a 4.5% rate, are already in state law and will take effect if general revenue growth hits targets.

Income tax remains the single largest portion of state general revenue, with the individual income tax contributing 65% and the corporate income tax about 7% of the $13.4 billion received in fiscal 2024.

The tax cut bill passed in 2014 also began indexing state tax brackets, which had not been changed since the 1930s, for inflation. The top tax rate applies to taxable income of more than $8,900, which is about $23,500 in total income when the standard deduction is included.

The tie between the two measures takes effect after the statewide vote to eliminate the income tax.

The constitutional proposal, intended to be on a ballot by November 2026, would create a mechanism for limiting the growth in state spending and directing revenue in excess of the cap to a special fund dedicated to sales tax reduction.

When the special fund holds at least $45 million, and revenues exceed a cap on spending, the state sales tax rate would be cut by one-hundredth of a percentage point. When the sales tax rate has been reduced to 4%, excess funds would be dedicated to reducing or eliminating the corporate income tax.

While every Republican on the committee voted for the measures, at least one showed he’s nervous about the key revenue-raising portion of the proposal — an expanded sales tax.

State Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall said he couldn’t go along with any proposal that repealed sales tax exemptions enjoyed by farmers. Farmers don’t pay sales tax on fertilizer, fuel for farm vehicles and a host of other products.

“I don’t know where that sales tax rate is going to end up, but I’m just instantly looking at some of this and folks are going to be seeing a $50 to maybe $60 an acre increase in cost of production of row crops,” Gregory said.

The constitutional amendment does not directly repeal any sales tax exemption, Brown said.

“I don’t see anything that would be impacted one way or another by this bill,” he said.

It does repeal a 2016 initiative, placed on the ballot by Missouri Realtors, that barred lawmakers from imposing state sales tax on any market transaction “that was not subject to sales, use or similar transaction-based tax on January 1, 2015.”

Along with preventing any effort to tax services such as mechanic’s labor or tax accounting, the amendment protected from repeal exemptions to the sales tax on tangible goods in law at the time, such as prescription drugs and the general revenue portion of sales tax on groceries.

Retail sales in Missouri are taxed at 4.225% for state purposes — 3% for general revenue, 1% for public schools, 0.125% for the Department of Conservation and 0.1% for state parks and soil conservation. Local option sales taxes are in addition to the state tax and push the total rate in some areas above 10%.

Brown’s proposal would target a state sales tax of up to 4%.

The tax would be applied to “all sellers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property or rendering taxable services at retail in this state.”

The constitutional amendment does target one service with a special, higher tax. Lobbying firms would be required to pay a 6% sales tax on top of the general sales tax of up to 4%.

Missouri Realtors, who have shown substantial financial strength in campaigns, will oppose any effort to weaken the provisions added to the constitution in 2016, said Bobbi Howe, president of the Realtors

“Adding new taxes to services Missourians use every day,” Howe said, “is not sound policy and it unfairly impacts those least able to pay.”

CORRECTION: This article was updated on February. 20 at 7 a.m.  to reflect the changes made when the Senate committee voted for substitute bills.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

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].

Missouri Senators propose tax credit for homeschool and private school families

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
February 18, 2025

Missouri’s homeschool families and those enrolled in private schools could receive a tax credit for their educational expenses under legislation debated Tuesday by the Senate Education Committee.

The credit would be capped at the annual state adequacy target, a number determined by the per-pupil expenditure of the highest performing school districts in the state. 

Currently, that amount is $7,145.

The credit would be administered by the Missouri Department of Revenue. There is currently a tax-credit scholarship program overseen by the State Treasurer’s Office, called MOScholars, which provides a credit for donations to certain nonprofits that then disperse the money to families enrolling in private schools. 

The proposals debated on Tuesday, in contrast, would allow families to directly get a refund for expenses related to educating their children.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville and one of the bill’s sponsors, compared the structure to the gas tax refund, in which drivers can submit gas receipts to the state for reimbursement.

The tax credit program would be a path for families to escape underperforming schools, said state Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance sponsoring a similar bill.

“For decades, Missouri dramatically increased education spending, yet student outcomes continue to decline,” he said. “More money has not solved the problem in the state of Missouri, and it’s clear that a one-size-fits-all system for educating our youth is failing to educate many of our children.”

Budget battle brewing over Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe’s school funding proposal

While the state education budget is due for an increase in the hundreds of millions this year, the formula that funds public schools has been relatively stagnant for over a decade with inflation outpacing any increases.

Gov. Mike Kehoe, lawmakers and the State Board of Education have all called for an examination of the formula.

Schroer began considering a homeschool tax credit when he was a state representative after hearing from homeschooling families about other states’ policies.

“There are many individuals, whether it’s private school, homeschool or hybrid, who’ve indicated that they would like to at least recoup some of those expenses since they’re not utilizing the public school system,” he said.

Brattin said his office received “an influx of opposition,” referring to homeschooling families worried about alterations to the state’s homeschool protections. Home educators have opposed tax credits and other public programs in recent years, saying they are worried about governmental oversight.

Brattin said the idea that it would impose restrictions on homeschooling families is a “myth.”

“Nothing in this bill is a requirement. Nothing in this bill is a database. Nothing in this bill is a list to take away rights, freedoms and liberties of individuals,” he said. “In fact, this only bolsters that and gives the full capability and freedom and liberty for families that want different options.”

Despite his reassurance, the first person in opposition represented home educators.

David Klarich, a lobbyist for the homeschooling group Family Covenant Ministries, said Missouri has “the best home education statute in the United States.” He asked for the bill to only apply to a separate category of home educators created last year in a large education package.

“Those parents who want to participate in public schools or take public dollars may then do so, and there would be no concern about governmental intrusion because then those parents and students go wide-eyed into the governmental system and they can still participate,” Klarich said.

He feared there would be “strings attached,” leading to curriculum oversight.

State Sen. David Gregory, a Republican from Chesterfield, said he is “not seeing where the strings are attached.”

Public education groups also had concerns.

Otto Fajen, lobbyist for teachers’ union Missouri National Education Association, told committee members that the legislation could further restrict the amount of the state’s general revenue available for public education.

“(This bill) is on its own, without connecting with what’s going on with the (public school funding) formula, what’s going on with minimum salaries, and kicks in quickly to offer this tax benefit for supporting educational expenditures and significantly affects state general revenues,” he said.

A large education package passed a year ago has raised teacher salaries statewide with the help of general revenue and created a funding obligation of $200 million this year with all its provisions.

Kehoe has also indicated he will push to eliminate the state’s income tax. If the governor’s plan succeeds, Fajen said, there will be no money available for the rebate.

“It creates a lot of problems that you all will have to deal with through the budgeting process,” he said, “and that schools will have to deal with going forward.” 

The committee, which is chaired by Brattin, did not take action on the legislation Tuesday.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].

Missouri Republicans seek to criminalize certain drag shows witnessed by children

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
February 19, 2025

For the third year in a row, Missouri Republicans are trying to place restrictions on drag performances.

The effort has stalled in years past, clearing a House committee last year but never coming up for debate in the Senate.

That changed Wednesday, when a Senate committee held a public hearing on legislation sponsored by state Sen. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican, that he argued was “geared towards protecting children from displays of sexual content.”

The bill would make it a class-A misdemeanor to participate in an “adult cabaret performance” in a public area or other space where children might see. A repeat violation becomes a class-E felony.

State Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance who chairs the Senate’s judiciary committee, discussed possible fixes to the bill’s definitions following opponent’s testifying that community theater could be impacted.

The issue is a definition of “adult cabaret performance” that includes “male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest or similar entertainers.” 

Including “or similar entertainers,” opponents said, is too vague and may draw police to plays where women play male roles or a non-sexual performance by a transgender person.

Chris Lehman, co-founder of LGBTQ-focused entertainment company Nclusion+, said there are already “safeguards in place for all-ages drag.”

Lehman checks IDs before shows with racy performances, and kid-friendly routines are scrutinized to eliminate swearing and other mature content. Even music by Taylor Swift is censored and edited for a young audience, he said.

Schroer said the bill was tailored to not ban age-designated spaces and asked Lehman if parents should be allowed to take children to a “topless strip club.”

“Of course not,” Lehman said. “However, the rest of the bill language goes on and bundles everything together.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lawmakers criticized an Nclusion+ performance in 2023 where drag queens lip-synched to songs like “Hold on (for one more day)” by Wilson Phillips during a City of Columbia diversity event attended by middle-school students.

Attorney General Andrew Bailey sent the city’s mayor and the Columbia Public Schools superintendent letters accusing them of trying “actively to undermine Missouri’s laws by deliberately subjecting a group of middle-school students to an adult-themed drag show performance.” 

Those letters have since been removed from the attorney general’s website.

Schroer mentioned that letter when questioning Cara Carter, a theater teacher in Columbia.

“It was alleged that kids were sent to a drag show on a field trip without parental consent,” he said.

Carter said the event had drag performers but was not wholly a drag show.

“I was in theater,” Schroer said. “And I think that we need to carefully define what we believe is drag that has the prurient interest and what doesn’t.”

Carter uses content warnings when shows have depictions of violence or other mature matters, she said, adding that these disclosures are “a much cleaner way of doing this than straight up banning it entirely.”

No one testified in favor of the bill, and the committee took no action on Wednesday.

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].

Budget battle brewing over Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe’s school funding proposal

by Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent
February 12, 2025

The debate over how much to spend on public schools could turn into the first big disagreement between Gov. Mike Kehoe and the GOP-dominated Missouri General Assembly.

Kehoe, a Republican who took office in January, refused to recommend a $300 million boost to public school funding in his first budget proposal. But education advocates in the legislature, and the State Board of Education, are defending the request and pushing for it to be funded as lawmakers rewrite Kehoe’s $54 billion spending plan.

During a House Budget Committee hearing Monday, GOP state Rep. Ed Lewis spent a lot of time defending the law that generated the request. He did so, Lewis said in an interview, because the committee has many new members who need to learn that the question of how much money schools require is not just a question of how much lawmakers are willing to spend.

Of the 31 lawmakers on the committee, nine are new to the panel, including its vice chairman, state Rep. Bishop Davidson, a Republican from Republic.

“I am trying to do that because there are a lot of newbies, and the person who’s sitting next to me has never been there, and now he’s the vice chair and the chair of education appropriations,” said Lewis, a former educator from Moberly who chairs the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. “I think it’s my job to make sure that the things I’ve learned over the last four years are understood by some of those people that have never done this before.”

Gov. Mike Kehoe dips deeply into surplus as Missouri budget grows to nearly $54 billion

At one point in the hearing, Lewis told his colleagues that if they don’t provide the money, the state Senate will when it gets the budget later this year.

“The question is, do we want to, as the House of Representatives, think we want to go beyond the governor’s recommendation or leave that for the Senate to do?” Lewis said.

The budget committee is in the middle of hearings on department budgets. Any decisions on what will be in, and what will be out, of Kehoe’s recommended budget will be made next month in markup sessions.

The foundation formula, as the public school funding mechanism is known, is costing taxpayers $3.8 billion in the current year. 

The amount required to fund it is determined by a variety of factors, including the amount spent in districts that do well on state achievement tests and expected attendance.

To meet that obligation, lawmakers use money from the state lottery, casino taxes and the general revenue fund.

Kehoe agreed to fund changes to the formula included last year in a major education bill that will add $200 million to the total cost. What Kehoe doesn’t want to fund is the new, higher basic spending requirement determined by annual evaluation under the Missouri School Improvement Program, or MSIP.

If lawmakers accept Kehoe’s recommendation, it would be the first time since fiscal 2018 that the budget doesn’t fully fund the formula.

“While we are committed to making good on the funding commitments passed by the legislature last year,” Kehoe said in his State of the State Address last month, “this budget does not include the additional $300 million liability that was imposed by an administrative body.”

That “administrative body” is the  State Board of Education, which met Tuesday for the first time since Kehoe presented his budget proposal. Board President Charlie Shields, who helped write the foundation formula in 2005 when he was a state legislator, said he understands Kehoe’s position even if he doesn’t like it.

The state general revenue fund must provide the $300 million, if appropriated, and it is also being tapped for money to replace shortfalls in revenue from gambling on the lottery and in casinos. Kehoe’s budget proposal increases general revenue spending for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education by $464 million, Shields noted.

“In my time, in both the legislature and on the State Board of Education, I have not seen those levels of increases in education funding,” Shields said in an interview.

He has not spoken to Kehoe about the budget proposal, Shields said, or Kehoe’s call to rewrite the formula. 

“We’re cognizant that (the education department) sits within, you know, 14 other state departments, and there’s limited resources,” Shields said. “The legislature will make decisions about that, but I don’t think we have any question of either defending or explaining why we put in the request that we did.”

State Board of Education president Charlie Shields opens the December State Board of Education meeting (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Missouri has a substantial balance in the general revenue fund — $4.3 billion at the end of January — and Kehoe’s budget projects a $2.6 billion surplus at the end of the fiscal year in June.

But state revenues are falling so far this fiscal year, and Kehoe wants a big income tax cut. That is putting pressure both on the governor and the legislature to limit new spending.

The key figure driving the increase for the foundation formula is called the State Adequacy Target, determined by the cost of education in districts that do well on the MSIP evaluation. Far fewer districts met the standards of the newly revised MSIP, and they tended to be districts with more property wealth and fewer students in poverty or having special needs.

Over the past two years, the adequacy target has increased from $6,375 per student to $7,145. But the figure was nearly static for nearly two decades prior to that, increasing from $6,117 in 2005 to $6,375 in 2020, where it remained for four years.

The reluctance to fund the higher target, which has increased 17% since it was created while inflation has increased prices by 65%, has drawn fire from Democrats.

“It’s very concerning that when the foundation formula remained flat for year after year after year, as inflation was just climbing through the roof, we didn’t have a problem with the formula,” state Rep. Kathy Steinhoff said when Kehoe unveiled his budget.

Steinhoff is a Columbia Democrat and former teacher. 

“But now that the formula is starting to work and the student adequacy target is starting to gain and getting more money into our schools,” she said, “now all of a sudden we’re looking at it.”

If lawmakers don’t include the $300 million for the increased adequacy target, the board of education can adjust it so spending matches the appropriated amount.

The education department didn’t design the new MSIP evaluation to increase the cost of the formula, Kari Monsees, deputy commissioner of education, told the House Budget Committee on Monday.

“The office of quality schools had no inside baseball on what the impact would be of the MSIP criteria that were established,” Monsees said.

During the state board meeting, members said they want legislators to consider what the state needs, not how much it will cost.

“I would just, again, put in a plea to our legislators that if we want to have a high quality workforce for tomorrow, we have to invest today,” said Carol Halquist of Kansas City, vice president of the state board.

While he expects the money to get into the spending plan, Lewis said, politics may have a bigger role in the decision than anything else.

“Is there a reason that we aren’t going to fund it other than just raw money?” Lewis said. “By doing it right now, in his first year, kind of obligates you to continue to do that in future years.”

The question, Lewis acknowledged, could come down to whether lawmakers are ready to buck Kehoe so soon after his election. 

“It’s his first budget, right?” Lewis noted. “Do you want to stomp on the first budget?”

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

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].

Missouri Republicans consider delaying voter-approved minimum wage hike, paid sick leave

by Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent
February 5, 2025

A bill changing the terms of the Missouri minimum wage law approved by voters four months ago will leave all the promised benefits in place but may delay their implementation, the chairman of a House committee looking at the law said Wednesday.

State Rep. David Casteel, a High Ridge Republican, told members of the House Commerce Committee during a hearing that they will rewrite the several bills seeking to change Proposition A. That process will take time, he said, telling them not to expect a vote at the panel’s regular meeting next week.

“No one in this body is trying to overturn the choice of the people,” Casteel said.

In an interview, Casteel said he’s considering ideas that would delay a minimum wage increase set for Jan. 1, 2026, or the provision requiring most employers to offer paid sick and family leave.

“We’re going to get into the nitty gritty of everything within the bill,” Casteel said. “There’s a lot we don’t like, and there’s a lot we do like, about all the bills that have been and will be presented.”

Republicans who control the legislature must find a sweet spot between the 58% majority who approved Proposition A and the major business groups who opposed the measure and are among the GOP’s most reliable supporters.

Proposition A increased the minimum wage in Missouri to $13.75 an hour on Jan. 1 and $15 an hour next year. In future years, the wage would be adjusted for changes in prices, a provision that has been in state law since 2006. It also requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide one hour of paid sick and family time for every 30 hours worked.

The paid leave provisions take effect May 1.

On Wednesday, the Commerce Committee held public hearings on two of the five bills on its agenda that would alter aspects of Proposition A.

One of the bills, filed by state Rep. Carolyn Caton, a Republican from Blue Springs, would repeal the inflation adjustment. It would also allow employers to pay workers younger than 20 the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and exempt all employers with business receipts less than $10 million annually.

“It isn’t that we don’t want to pay people,” Caton said. “We want to pay people well, but we need to do so in a manner that is going to protect our small businesses.”

The other bill, filed by state Rep. Scott Miller, a Republican from St. Charles, would exempt workers under 21 from the state minimum wage and businesses with fewer than 50 employees. It would also allow employers to reduce the final paycheck of anyone who doesn’t give at least two weeks notice before quitting, or any employee who violates the provisions of the employer’s worker handbook.

“If a business is going to be obligated by law to pay a minimum wage, which is, frankly, the government is price-fixing labor, then the government ought to performance-fix the employees,” Miller said.

The campaign to pass Proposition A drew no large-scale opposition prior to the vote. But a court challenge filed in early December by major business advocacy groups asks the Missouri Supreme Court to invalidate the vote. The court has set the case for arguments on March 12.

At the same time, those business groups — Associated Industries of Missouri, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry and industry groups representing retailers, restaurants and grocers — are urging lawmakers to repeal portions or delay their implementation.

“In an ideal world, we would love to roll it all back,” Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in a recent webinar. “But part of the legislative process, or the sausage making process as we say sometimes, you don’t always get, in the end, what you started with.”

Ron Berry, lobbyist for one of Proposition A’s biggest backers, Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter Action, said during Wednesday’s hearing that the proposals to exempt businesses with fewer than 50 employees would cover 96% of all private businesses.

Responding to a question about the difficulty employers will have covering the additional cost, Berry said labor isn’t the only thing driving up prices.

“Whether it’s wages or it’s the cost of energy, all of you know inflation is higher, and we’re all having to tighten our belts,” Berry said.

Buddy Lahl, CEO of the Missouri Restaurant Association, told the committee that his members want the exemption threshold raised to 100 employees as well as implementing the $10 million revenue floor.

He also said the sick leave provisions should not allow hours to be carried over from one year to the other.

“It should be a use it or lose it thing,” Lahl said.

Business lobbyists also warned of job losses, or even businesses that won’t survive, if the increased minimum wage stands.

State Rep. Steve Butz, a Democrat from St. Louis, said he didn’t believe that argument, noting that Missouri voters increased the minimum wage twice before without sinking the state’s economy. 

“We’ve had other increases in minimum wage,” Butz said. “We always have been told that it’s going to kill jobs and jobs continue to grow in the state.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].

Missouri lawmakers seek to restrict cell-phone use in high schools statewide

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
February 5, 2025

Missouri lawmakers are hoping to reduce cell-phone usage in schools with bipartisan legislation that would require school districts make a policy restricting mobile devices during instructional time.

State Reps. Kathy Steinhoff, a Columbia Democrat, and Jamie Gragg, a Republican from Ozark, presented similar bills in the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee Wednesday afternoon. The committee’s chair, GOP state Rep. Ed Lewis of Moberly, also has legislation that is nearly identical to Steinhoff’s.

“This is not a partisan issue,” Steinhoff told committee members. “When you look around our country, there are eight states that have initiated some kind of restriction on cell phones already. Some of them are red states. Some of them are blue states.”

According to Education Week, three states have a law restricting cell-phone use during instructional time, and five states have requirements that districts set policies restricting use. An additional 11 states have recommended policies and incentive programs for districts to establish restrictions.

Steinhoff and Gragg plan to combine their bills into a version that recommends or requires school districts to set policies prohibiting cell-phone use during instructional hours while allowing exceptions, like for students who use a mobile device for health reasons.

“I do believe in local control,” Gragg said. “I believe our school districts are all unique in their own special way, just like our communities are, and they need to make the policy that fits them the best.”

Gragg said he heard from teachers that have cell-phone policies in their classrooms that test scores improved.

Steinhoff, a retired math teacher, believes the bill will lead to “better engagement.”

“As somebody who was leading a classroom just two years ago, I can attest to the fact that some of our students really are almost addicted to their cell phones,” she said.

Administrators from the Cape Girardeau School District told committee members they established a zero-tolerance policy for cell phones in high schools in 2024.

James Russell, assistant superintendent of academic services for the district, said it has provided a “culture shift.”

“This year, after a full year of implementation at the high school, kids really came back ready to learn,” he said.

Lewis said the districts who have already established the policies can assist others.

“We aren’t going to be the ones that are going to be telling what policies those local school districts should implement,” Lewis said. “We’ve already got multiple pilots around the state that are already doing this, and that’s where they’re going to get those pilot policies from.”

State Rep. Ann Kelley, a Republican from Lamar, said the state should allow the districts leniency to create their own policies while giving support when needed.

“It needs to be in the school district’s hands. It should not be the state dictating anything, just offering a suggestion that they have a plan in place and offering them that support,” she said. “Because it is a big thing whenever school districts do this, and they get a lot of grief from parents and students.”

State Rep. Kem Smith, a Democrat from Florissant and a former English teacher, said parents often have valid points, like security concerns in case of a school shooting.

“I’ve been on lockdown with students who have survived that, and their parents have wanted to talk to them while we were in lockdown,” she said.

Gragg said schools would be able to decide “what they feel is best for their community,” so cell phones do not necessarily have to be out of the students’ possession.

The committee plans to combine the three lawmakers’ bills before voting to send them to the full House in a future hearing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].

Missouri House speaker says ‘bounty hunter’ immigration bill has little chance of passing

by Jason Hancock, Missouri Independent
January 30, 2025

There is no appetite among House Republicans for a bill that would put a bounty on undocumented immigrants, Speaker Jon Patterson told reporters Thursday. 

The legislation, which was debated Tuesday in a Missouri Senate committee, would award a $1,000 bounty for tips that result in the arrest of a person present in the United States without authorization. The sponsor of the bill also wants to to authorize bounty hunters to track down people identified in tips.

No one in the House has filed a similar bill, and Patterson said it stands little chance of getting any traction in the chamber even if it does clear the Senate. 

“We are committed to making sure that we have legal immigration but that we don’t tolerate illegal immigration,” said Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican. “I have not heard any enthusiasm from our members about doing any sort of bounty.  I don’t think that’s something that you’re going to see on this side.”

Missouri bill putting a bounty on undocumented immigrants faces fierce resistance

Patterson said the issue is being handled by the federal government, noting that President Donald Trump recently signed legislation that requires the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting.

It also authorizes states to sue the federal government for “decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.”

Gov. Mike Kehoe signed executive orders on his first day in office earlier this month designed to prepare Missouri to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement. 

“A lot of it’s being addressed at the federal level,” Patterson said. 

State Rep. Bridget Walsh Moore, a St. Louis Democrat, called the Senate bill authorizing bounty hunters “fear mongering” and “a very bold step towards fascism.”

“Any talk of rounding up and getting your papers,” she said, “especially during the same week as Holocaust Remembrance Day, is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly, should terrify anyone who calls himself a patriot.”

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].

Open enrollment bill gets public hearing after winning praise from Missouri governor

by Annelise Hanshaw, Missouri Independent
January 29, 2025

A Republican lawmaker from Sedalia has once again begun his push to allow some students to enroll in schools outside the district where they live.

For the fifth year in a row on Wednesday, the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee debated an open enrollment bill sponsored by state Rep. Brad Pollitt. 

As he introduced the legislation, Pollitt called it the “only school-choice bill that allows students to make a choice and stay in the public school system.”

In the previous four years that Pollitt filed the bill, state lawmakers have prioritized programs allowing families to use state funds for homeschooling and to attend private schools. The state’s K-12 tax credit program, dubbed MOScholars, passed in 2021, and it was expanded last year in a sweeping education package.

Pollitt’s bill has cleared committee and made it out of the House four times. But it has never been debated by the Senate.

He addressed his bill’s four-year purgatory in Wednesday’s committee hearing, saying good legislation doesn’t completely please anyone.

“All four years I’ve passed this bill, neither side was happy. It didn’t go far enough or it went too far,” he said. “Sometimes Missouri does a disservice by looking for perfection and bypassing what is better.”

Pollitt’s legislation has evolved through the years of deliberation. The current version has a cap of 3% on the portion of students allowed to leave a district annually.

He also added language suggested by the Missouri High School Activities Association, which oversees competitive athletics in Missouri schools, that would restrict students who transfer into a new district from competing in sports for one year.

The bill does not require school districts to accept students living outside the area but, instead, has an opt-in structure. Receiving districts would get state funding for the students coming in, but local funds would remain with the district of residence.

Some testified Wednesday that they are concerned the legislation would become mandatory for school districts in the future.

“Our worry is in the future. A lot of (laws) tend to start as voluntary and become mandatory,” said Tammy Henderson, who represents the North Kansas City School District. “We are concerned about losing some of the local control.”

Steve Carroll, a former lawmaker who now lobbies for school districts, cited his experience in the Missouri House in critiquing the bill.

“If this bill passes, within two or three legislative sessions, there is going to be a bill that is going to mandate this,” he said. “Mark my word.” 

A majority of public comments were against the bill, and 220 school districts sent in a letter opposed to the legislation.

Gov. Mike Kehoe begins his State of the State address Tuesday afternoon in the House chamber (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

However, Pollitt’s proposal is not without its supporters — including Gov. Mike Kehoe, who included the bill in his State of the State speech Tuesday.

“To expand school choice, I urge the General Assembly to pass voluntary open enrollment in public schools,” he said.

Jordan Zachary, representing a national education nonprofit started by Jeb Bush called ExcelinEd, said Missouri’s neighbors already have open enrollment.

“We believe open enrollment to be one of those student-centered policies,”’ he said. “We do believe in giving students an opportunity to attend a school that best fits their needs.”

The bill would not require school districts to add accommodations for incoming students, and some worry the program would exclude students in special education.

Pollitt said he would work with Rep. Matthew Overcast, a Republican from Ava who serves on the education committee, to revise the bill to help students requiring accommodations. Overcast is an attorney with experience assisting students in special education.

The updated version would be presented to the committee before a vote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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].