Politics

Missouri lawmaker wants Congress members to live in their district

Published

3 weeks ago

April 25, 2024

Rep. Aaron McMullen is fighting an uphill battle — and he knows it.McMullen, R-Independence, is pushing legislation that would require Missouri’s members of Congress to reside in the district they represent.But there’s one problem: His proposal conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution states that to be a U.S. representative, a candidate must be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for seven years and a resident of the state they seek to represent at the time of the election. Adding further requirements, such as those proposed in McMullen’s bill, would go against the Constitution.McMullen’s 2-page proposal states that beginning in the 2026 federal elections, a candidate running to represent a congressional district in Missouri may do so only if they live in that district.The bill further states that if a candidate runs for a congressional district in which the boundaries have not been changed in the past 24 months, that candidate must reside in that district for a period of 12 months before the election and for three months if the district’s boundaries have been changed. Before a candidate’s name appears on the ballot, their residency would have to be verified by the secretary of state’s office, the bill states.But all of these requirements conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as determined by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1995.In that ruling, Arkansas residents passed an amendment to their state constitution that sought to limit the number of terms members of their state legislatures and their congressional representatives could serve. In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that putting additional requirements on members of Congress is prohibited, and thus unconstitutional. The ruling invalidated similar measures passed by 22 other states, including Missouri.“This is going to be a long process,” McMullen said in an interview, adding that he and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office are currently working to amend some language in the bill.When McMullen first presented his bill during last year’s session, he faced stern opposition from Rep. Adam Schwadron, a St. Charles Republican, who called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional” and said he couldn’t support it.Last week, Schwadron again laid out his argument for why the bill is flawed when it was heard by the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee.“I understand where people are coming from,” Schwadron later said in his office. “Unfortunately, I don’t want to have to spend state money on something that we 100% know will be struck down by the courts.”The question at the heart of McMullen’s bill is one of representation. Specifically, whether a candidate who doesn’t live in a particular district should be able to represent it.The Missouri Constitution lays out requirements for members of the legislature, which includes district residency. But the U.S. Constitution, while specifying age, citizenship and state residency requirements, does not address the issue.“The members of the Constitutional Convention were familiar with district residency requirements and many of the states imposed them in state constitutions. But they did not choose to put them in the U.S. Constitution,” said Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri. “While many Americans might agree on requiring district representation, it could only be mandated through a constitutional amendment.”And an amendment is something McMullen, a candidate for Senate District 11, said he is open to.“I feel like what this bill does is start the conversation to try to look and, you know, amend, possibly, the (U.S.) Constitution,” he said. “Everybody agrees with the concept and agrees that this is something that needs to be fixed. It’s just a long and arduous process.”In 1996, Missouri residents passed a constitutional amendment that sought to place term limits on members of Congress to a maximum of three terms for House representatives and two for Senators. The measure passed with more than 57%, but was deemed invalid by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2001 decision.Opposition to McMullen’s bill is sparse, with most either indifferent as a result of the legal hurdles still in its way or concerned with the precedent it might set.“I get a little bit weary anytime we start confining the requirements that are already in the federal constitution,” said Rep. Kevin Windham, a Democrat from Hillsdale, who sits on the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee.Windham said the bill raises a few red flags for him as it relates to placing boundaries around certain areas of the law.“The state legislature draws the lines for congressional districts. What happens when what has seemingly been a practice of drawing folks out of certain congressional districts (occurs during redistricting every 10 years)? It has a little bit more of an effect when you say that that person can’t run at all in that district,” Windham said.Windham added that he thinks there’s a clear conflict of interest when the legislature controls the process of both drawing the lines for congressional districts and narrowing down the district residency requirements in the U.S. Constitution.“It puts, at least me, in particular, in a weird space as far as being able to support (the bill),” Windham said.Squire said candidates can easily find themselves in new districts following redistricting, which could then place them in situations where they’re running for a district they do not live in.“District lines shift and candidates may not want to move with them,” Squire said.“In urban areas,” he added, “the lines don’t usually match media markets and members may be sufficiently well-known to run even if they don’t currently live in the district.”It’s been nearly 32 years since the U.S. Constitution has last been amended, when in May 1992 Michigan became the 38th state needed to ratify the 27th Amendment.Yet despite the slim odds McMullen’s bill might be facing during this legislative session, he remains optimistic.“The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step,” McMullen said.And if he somehow manages to pull it off, beginning the process of amending the U.S Constitution, even Schwadron, McMullen’s most ardent opponent, said he would support it.“I would vote for that,” Schwadron said, “I would approve that, so long as it is an amendment to the United States Constitution.”This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

Source link

Politics

Missouri House advances tax on state healthcare providers

Published

3 hours ago

May 13, 2024

Natural Bridge

With little fanfare, a Missouri House committee advanced a tax Monday that funds roughly a third of the state’s Medicaid program.The House Budget Committee voted 27-0 to pass the Federal Reimbursement Allowance. It now moves to the full House.Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, is the sponsor of the bill and presented it to the House committee.“I think you all are fairly aware of what this bill is and the necessity of about a third of our MO HealthNet budget being derived from these reimbursements from the feds,” Hough said.Rep. Ingrid Burnett, D-Kansas City, was the only representative to inquire about the bill in committee.“I’m very relieved that we’re bringing this up to the table now and getting it done,” Burnett said.The allowance is a tax on state health care providers like hospitals, ambulance districts and pharmacies. That tax is then reimbursed by the federal government on a greater scale.Right now, the tax is set to expire at the end of September if it is not reauthorized this session. The bill being considered would extend the tax until September 2029.The last time the Federal Reimbursement Allowance was up for reauthorization in 2021, it took a special session to pass it.This year, the tax’s passage again looked daunting due to a filibuster from a faction of Senate Republicans.Those senators held the floor for more than 40 hours a couple of weeks ago to advocate for the Senate to first pass an amendment that, if approved by voters, would make it harder to amend the constitution.However, the Federal Reimbursement Allowance was ultimately passed by the Senate without that demand being met.The road to pass the tax in the House appears smoother. The House Budget Committee both heard the bill and passed it Monday afternoon.The whole House could vote on it as early as Wednesday.House Majority Floor Leader Jon Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit, said that whenever the House is able to take up the bill and pass it on the floor, it will.“If you recall at the beginning of the year, that was one of the top priorities, making sure that our Medicaid program is funded,” Patterson said.Missouri lawmakers have until 6 p.m. Friday to pass any more legislation before adjourning.

Source link

Politics

Washington University graduation disrupted by Gaza war protests

Published

7 hours ago

May 13, 2024

Natural Bridge

Many of Washington University’s newest graduates at their commencement ceremony Monday expressed solidarity with Palestinians in the war zone of Gaza as dozens of students, alumni and supporters gathered outside campus to protest the university’s continuing investments in Boeing, which supplies the Israeli military with weapons.More than an hour before the 9 a.m. graduation ceremony began, protesters arrived near Lindell and Skinker boulevards to press their case that Wash U should disclose its investments and withdraw those in companies that provide weapons to Israel.They’re also calling an end to the war in Gaza where Israeli bombardments have killed thousands. Israel has waged the campaign since an Oct. 7 attack by Hamas fighters.“We are demanding that Wash U divest from Boeing and other military-industrial corporations that are supporting Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Palestine,” said Grace Iverson, who graduated from the university in 2020. “And we are continuing to keep up the pressure because Wash U has shown that they are clearly not interested in the community and in divesting. But we will not stop until they move to divest.”As the university prepared to start its ceremony, people outside the campus held signs calling for a “permanent global ceasefire.” Another poster was painted to resemble a Palestinian flag, with “Queer Jews for Palestine” written on it.Members of the “Ceasefire Choir” began singing “From Ferguson to Palestine, occupation is a crime!” outside the campus.Clayton police later arrived to tell protesters to stop using megaphones and speakers, which officers said are against city ordinances — and threatened to arrest those who continue doing so. They briefly put a woman in handcuffs after she honked her van’s horn in support of the protests. Police then released her.The demonstration is part of a series of protests on or near college campuses across the U.S., some of which have been forcefully shut down by police. Students staged minor disruptions at several commencement ceremonies across the nation over the weekend.Wash U maintains that it has not taken a position on the war and that it remains committed to free expression and peaceful protest.”Student Affairs staff have been working with our students and faculty to facilitate dialogue about this complex issue since Oct. 7, and we will continue to do so,” Wash U spokeswoman Julie Hail Flory said in a statement Friday.At the graduation ceremony, some students wore mortarboards with “Free Palestine” messages. Others wore Palestinian flag buttons and keffiyeh scarves to show their solidarity with Palestinians.Commencement speaker Alejandro Rodriguez, who earned a degree in Latin American studies and a Fulbright Scholarship to conduct research in Brazil, noted that many of the graduates support the Palestinian people.“Today I stand in solidarity with my peers, faculty and community members who have experienced hardship this last semester, who found their why and used it to express solidarity with the Palestinians around the world,” Ramirez said.Actor Jennifer Coolidge, who delivered the commencement address and is receiving an honorary fine arts doctorate, mentioned the protest and said “it illustrates the need for voices of brilliant, unique and nuanced graduates,” a line that received applause and a big cheer from the crowd.Some students say Wash U needs to pay better attention to student voices. Students are particularly outraged at the school’s response to two April pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus, where police made more than 100 arrests. They’re calling for Wash U to drop charges and disciplinary cases against students, faculty and staff. In a statement Friday, Wash U spokeswoman Flory said the tone of this protest was not peaceful and included “aggressive chanting.”“They were abhorrently violent,” said Kevin McCarthy, who is graduating with a degree in English. “I was there the Saturday that they arrested my friends. And they acted with complete impunity. They did it all with a smile on their face, which is what was most jarring to me. I could see school administrators I saw and interacted with on campus in different contexts smiling as they told the police to charge the protesters and violently assault them.“It shows that the university is completely tied into the military-industrial complex,” said McCarthy, 22. “They are fully focused on their bottom line of the endowment, and they do not care about their students one bit.”To express their displeasure with the university, some graduates walked out of the ceremony as Chancellor Andrew D. Martin gave closing remarks.McCarthy said students are determined to continue delivering thoughtful and compassionate messages.“We’re going to be out here until Gaza is free — until this genocide stops happening. I know that me and my fellow classmates have not lost their appetite to protest the apartheid state of Israel. And we have not lost our appetite for justice and decolonizing the world.”

Source link

Politics

4 questions for the Missouri legislature’s last week

Published

15 hours ago

May 13, 2024

Natural Bridge

Missouri lawmakers only have a handful of items to complete this week before embarking on a particularly active election season.While the House wants to finish work on several critical priorities, much of the spotlight in the final week of the 2024 legislative session will be on the Senate. The chamber has been a tinderbox this session thanks to an ugly split within the GOP caucus that’s loomed over much of the past few months.

Eric Lee

St. Louis Public RadioSenate Minority Leader John Rizzo, D-Independence, speaks during a post-session press conference on Jan. 25 in Jefferson City. Senate Democrats have vowed to filibuster any proposal to make it harder to amend the Missouri Constitution that contains other provisions, like barring noncitizens from voting, which is already illegal.

Can Missouri Democrats stop ‘IP reform’?Republicans in the Senate are set to consider Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s proposal to make it harder to amend the state’s constitution — dubbed ‘IP reform’ by supporters.That measure, which still needs voter approval, would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from a simple majority to passing in five out of eight congressional districts. The version that came out of the House features so-called “ballot candy,” such as a voting ban for noncitizens even though that’s already the law.Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, D-Independence, has made it clear that his caucus will filibuster any version of Coleman’s legislation that includes ballot candy provisions. And it’s not known if there will be enough Republicans willing to use the rare “previous question” motion to end debate, considering some GOP senators voted to strip out the other provisions in Coleman’s bill earlier this year.But especially after abortion rights proponents submitted more than 380,000 signatures for a November ballot initiative to legalize the procedure, some groups opposed to abortion rights may put pressure on lawmakers to act. They are hoping the amendment threshold change passes in August and a court decides the new rules to approve amendments apply to the abortion ballot item. However, some Republicans like Senate President Pro Tem Calen Rowden have expressed doubts about this happening.

Eric Lee

St. Louis Public RadioSen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, and Senate Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, debate during session on Jan. 25 in Jefferson City. Senate Republican leadership has clashed with members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus holding up business.

Can Senate Republicans stick together, or will their schism emerge again?Missouri’s 2024 legislative session didn’t have the highest expectations, especially since it’s an election year. And hopes of accomplishing lots of policy priorities seemed to be dashed at the beginning of session thanks to eye-popping clashes between Senate GOP leadership and the newly formed Freedom Caucus.Ultimately, the tensions between those two factions have waxed and waned throughout the year. And despite drama and an extremely long filibuster over whether the Senate would pass a budget or the extension of the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, the chamber did end up completing work on both of those items on Thursday.But infighting may sink priorities that are unrelated to initiative petitions,including a bipartisan push to create tax credits to help child care facilities.

Brian Munoz

St. Louis Public RadioHouse Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, listens into media questions in 2023. This week will mark the final days of Plocher’s speakership before lawmakers head into the 2024 election cycle.

Will the House finish work on major issues without any drama?The Senate featured much more drama and intrigue and infighting than the House this year. And while the House didn’t completely escape infighting, members are likely expecting a relatively quiet end to the year.The House needs to pass the FRA — a tax on hospitals that funds much of the state’s Medicaid program. Other priorities include a multipart crime bill, legislation that curbs eviction moratoriums and a measure tweaking a senior property tax freeze program that’s raised alarm in the state’s counties.Considering none of these bills is particularly controversial within the House GOP caucus, it’s unlikely that the chamber will have much trouble passing them.Will there be any surprises?The last week of the General Assembly’s session usually focuses on obvious unfinished business. And this year is no exception, with the lingering drama over the measure making it harder to amend the constitution.Still, the legislature is known to raise unexpected issues during the waning hours of session. Three years ago, lawmakers attempted, but failed, to get a measure passed instituting runoffs for statewide and congressional races. And last year, a dispute over cutting property taxes caused tensions within the Senate to combust.But since the only must-pass item this week is completing work on the FRA, there may not be as much of a drive to approve contentious items like reinstating state control of the St. Louis Police Department. Those issues may be left for the next governor and legislature to figure out in 2025.

Source link