Weekly Capitol Update

WEEKLY CAPITOL UPDATE 5/2/25

Supreme Court upholds minimum wage (sick leave law)

Without dissent, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected an election contest brought on behalf of business groups seeking to invalidate voters’ recent approval of Proposition A raising the statewide minimum wage and guaranteeing earned sick leave for most workers. Missouri voters enacted the measure last year with 57.6 percent in support.

In their election challenge, the business groups alleged the ballot language and accompanying fiscal estimate on Proposition A misled voters as to the measure’s true purpose and cost. Those groups opposed the passage of Proposition A and have been lobbying the Republican-controlled General Assembly to repeal its earned sick leave provisions.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Mary Russell and joined by five other judges, the court found no merit to the allegations.

“This case addresses the concerns brought by (Contestants) as to whether the summary statement and fiscal note summary for Proposition A were so misleading that they constituted an irregularity of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the fairness of the election and validity of its results” Russell wrote. “Because Contestants’ claims fall well short of this high standard, this Court finds there was no election irregularity and the election results are valid.”

The court further ruled contestants’ additional claims that Proposition A ran afoul of certain technical requirements for drafting legislation could not be considered in this case because they raised substantive constitutional issues that are unrelated to the validity of the election.

In a separate opinion, Judge Robin Ransom argued the court lacks the legal jurisdiction to consider post-election ballot measure challenges and should have simply dismissed the case, Raymond McCarty, et al., v. Missouri Secretary of State, et al. Setting the jurisdictional issue aside, however, Ransom agreed with the principal opinion’s conclusions on the merits.

Proposition A increased Missouri’s standard minimum wage from $12.30 an hour to $13.75 an hour in January, with a second increase to $15 an hour set to take effect in 2026. And as of May 1, Proposition A also requires private sector employers to provide workers with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours work.

In March, the House of Representatives approved House Bill 567 to repeal the earned sick leave requirement, but Senate Democrats so far have blocked it from winning final passage. Even though the sick leave law is now in effect, Senate Republicans are expected to continue to push for its repeal during the final days of the 2025 legislative session, which ends May 16.

Senate approves $49.5 billion state budget for FY 2026

The Missouri Senate passed a $49.5 billion state operating budget for the upcoming 2026 fiscal year that differs significantly from the $47.9 billion spending plan the House of Representatives approved in early April, setting up final negotiations over the final budget with just a week to go before the May 9 constitutional deadline for sending the various appropriations bills to the governor.

Education funding is a major area of disagreement, with the Senate including an additional $300 million for local public school districts to provide the minimum amount of basic K-12 funding called for under state law. The House budget plan excludes that funding, which was not included in Governor Kehoe’s proposed FY 2026 budget.

The Senate also eliminated $50 million in direct taxpayer funding for private school vouchers, which is included in the House version at Kehoe’s request. The state’s voucher program currently is funded by private donations subsidized by state tax credits and is structured this way to circumvent a constitutional prohibition against providing direct public funding to private individuals or organizations. Governor’s plan for direct state funding of the program likely runs into constitutional issues.

On higher education funding, the Senate endorsed a 3-percent funding increase for public colleges and universities, double the 1.5 percent bump sought by Kehoe and approved by the House. However, the Senate did side with Kehoe’s request for $107 million for child care subsidies, funding the House omitted.

In addition, the Senate cut funding for 25 vacant staff positions from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ office. While a state senator, Hoskins routinely sought to eliminate vacant jobs at state agencies, claiming they weren’t needed. His former colleagues decided to hold Hoskins, who strongly lobbied against reducing his own budget, to the same standard he set for others.

The Senate also added numerous earmarks for local projects sought by lawmakers, while deleting some of the earmarks included by House members. If lawmakers are unable to agree on a final budget by the deadline, they would have to return in a special legislative session to finish the job before the new fiscal year begins on July 1.

Lawsuit challenges new law as Bailey tries to invoke it

On the same day Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey moved to take advantage of a new state law allowing his office to skip normal procedures to immediately appeal court-issued injunctions, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that legislation was filed in Cole County Circuit Court.

A day earlier, Governor Kehoe, signed Senate Bill 22 into law. The bill’s main provisions severely weakens the authority of Missouri courts to rewrite deceptive or misleading ballot language drafted by the General Assembly or the Secretary of State’s Office, thus making it harder to challenge such ballot language.

However, another provision of SB 22 authorizes the attorney general to immediately appeal preliminary injunctions that block enforcement of state laws or constitutional provisions. Typically, injunctions cannot be appealed until the trial court makes a final ruling on all issues in a given case in order to avoid unnecessary delays in the judicial process.

That provision was added to the bill to enable Bailey to appeal a preliminary injunction a Jackson County judge issued earlier this year blocking enforcement of several anti-abortion state laws that were rendered unconstitutional after Missouri voters added protections for reproductive rights to the state constitution late last year. Bailey filed that appeal on April 25.

But a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Democratic activist could torpedo SB 22 and quash Bailey’s appeal in the abortion rights case. The lawsuit claims SB 22’s ballot language and appeals provisions bear no relation to each other, thus violating constitutional requirements that bills be limited to a single subject that is clearly reflected in a bill’s title and not changed from its original purpose. It further argues the bill violates equal protection requirements by giving the attorney general – but not other parties in a case – the authority to appeal adverse ruling on injunctions.

The lawsuit, Sean Soendker Nicholson v. State of Missouri, also contends an emergency clause that allowed the injunction-appeal provision to take effect immediately upon being signed into law is invalid since the Missouri Constitution allows such clauses only on legislation “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety” and none of those circumstances apply to SB 22.

Senate laid over open enrollment following extended debate

After five hours of debate, the Missouri Seante shelved legislation that sought to authorize a so-called “open enrollment” system under which students could attend a public school in a district other than the one in which they reside. The measure had previously cleared the House of Representatives by a vote of 88-69.

House Bill 711 would create a voluntary system under which public school districts could opt-in to accept transfer students from other districts. To minimize the impact on districts losing students, the House version of the bill set a 3-percent cap on how many students could transfer out of any given district. However, the Senate version bumped that cap to 5 percent.

Before setting the bill aside, senators amended it to require suspension of the open enrollment program in years in which the state failed to meet statutory funding minimums for K-12

schools, their transportation costs and teacher salary grants. Senators also added a variety of other provisions pertaining to public education.

Open enrollment supporters say it would create a school choice option within the context of traditional public schools. Opponents argue it could further weaken financially struggling school districts by siphoning off students – and the state revenue that would follow them to their new districts.

WEEKLY CAPITOL UPDATE 4/25/25

Senate deletes education funding requests

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to defy the governor’s wishes on key education funding issues by allocating an additional $300 million in spending for K-12 public school districts and refusing to support a constitutionally dubious plan to provide $50 million in direct taxpayer funding for private school tuition vouchers.

If the full Senate accepts the committee’s position on these points, it would set up a showdown with the House of Representatives during final negotiations over Fiscal Year 2026 state operating budget. The House version of the budget follows Governor Kehoe’s recommendation on both the K-12 funding level and state funding for private schools.

Basic state funding for local K-12 school districts is distributed in accordance with a complex statutory formula. The central feature of the formula is the “state adequacy target” – the amount of per-pupil funding deemed necessary under the law for students to achieve performance goals. Despite calling for increases to certain parts of the formula, Governor Kehoe opted against funding the adequacy target for FY 2026, which means state K-12 funding would fall $300 million short of the minimum amount called for by state law.

The Senate committee’s move to eliminate taxpayer funding for private school vouchers came after House Democrats unsuccessfully sought to do so when the budget process was in the lower chamber. The program currently is exclusively funded by private donations. In exchange, donors receive a credit against their state income tax liability equal to the amount of their contribution.

The voucher law is structured this way to circumvent a state constitutional prohibition against the legislature providing direct public funding to private individuals or organizations. Because of this prohibition, the proposed direct appropriation of taxpayer money for the voucher program likely is unconstitutional and vulnerable to being blocked by a court if challenged.

In terms of overall spending authority, the Senate committee version of the FY 2026 operating budget is closer to $50.1 billion plan the Governor presented in January than the $47.9 billion proposal the House approved in early April. The full Senate could make additional changes when it debates the appropriations bills in the coming days.

Once the Senate completes its work, House and Senate negotiators must work out a compromise budget plan. Lawmakers must grant final approval to the budget bills by a constitutional deadline of 6 pm on May 9. FY 2026 begins July 1.

Senate Democrats continue to fight sick leave repeal effort

Senate Democrats continued to block Republican legislation that would repeal mandatory employee sick leave requirements Missouri voters just enacted into law in November, with a second marathon debate on the subject ending in the early hours of April 24.

The Senate has now spent a total of 18 hours discussing House Bill 567 and is expected to take it up again in the coming days as Republican lawmakers seek to repeal the sick leave law before it takes effect on May 1. The House of Representatives previously approved the bill in March on a largely party-line vote of 96-51, with just two majority Republicans joining unanimous Democrats in opposition.

With nearly 58 percent in support, voters enacted the new sick leave law as part of Proposition A, which also boosted the state’s minimum wage from $12.30 an hour to $13.75 an hour in January, with a second increase to $15 an hour coming next year. Proposition A’s sick leave provisions require most employers to offer their workers one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, while also establishing civil and criminal consequences for employers who fail to comply with the law.

As approved by the House, HB 567 would repeal all of Proposition A’s sick leave provisions. It would not affect the scheduled increase to a $15-an-hour minimum wage but would repeal a 2006 statutory requirement that the state’s minimum wage be adjusted annually based on inflation.

Senators had been negotiating a compromise over the sick leave requirement that would have exempted some smaller businesses from being subject to it. However, those negotiations collapsed after Republicans put forth a substitute version of the bill that Democrats said did not reflect the deal they had struck, prompting Senate leadership to again shelve the bill.

In order to prevent the sick leave requirement from taking effect on May 1, the legislature would need to both pass repeal legislation before then and include an emergency clause allowing the bill to take effect immediately upon being signed into law, instead of the usual

August 28 effective date for new laws.

An emergency clause requires the support of two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers. The House previously rejected the emergency clause, falling 25 votes short of the minimum 109 needed. But if the Senate approves it, the House would have a second shot at arm twisting the required supermajority.

WEEKLY CAPITOL UPDATE 4/18/25

Democrats attempt to stop public funding of private schools

Majority Republicans rejected an effort by House Democrats to block Governor Kehoe’s plan to provide $50 million in direct taxpayer funding for private schools, while providing local public school districts with $300 million less in state appropriations than the minimum funding amount called for by state law for the 2026 fiscal year.

During debate on the FY 2026 appropriations bills, state Rep Betsy Fogle, D-Springfield, offered amendment to eliminate the public funding for private schools, with the intent of redirecting that $50 million back to public schools. Fogle’s amendment failed on a vote of 48-90, with only one Republican joining unanimous Democrats in support.

The state’s private school voucher program currently is exclusively funded by private donations. In exchange, donors receive a credit against their state income tax liability equal to the amount of their contribution. The law is structured this way in an attempt to circumvent a state constitutional prohibition against the legislature providing direct public funding to private individuals or organizations. Because of this prohibition, the proposed direct appropriation of taxpayer money for the voucher program would appear to be unconstitutional and vulnerable to being blocked by a court if challenged.

Two days after the initial debate, House gave final approval to the 13 appropriation bills that make up the $47.9 billion state operating budget for FY 2026, which begins July 1. The House budget plan calls for about $2.1 billion less in overall spending than the Governor requested when he presented his proposed budget to lawmakers in January.

The budget process now moves to the Senate, which will pass its own versions of the appropriations bills to set up negotiations with the House over a final FY 2026 spending plan. Lawmakers must grant final approval to the bills by a constitutional deadline of 6 pm on May 9.

House to push measure to nullify reproductive rights

House Republicans appear committed to debating legislation in the coming days that attempts to nullify the reproductive rights protections Missouri voters added to the state constitution in November but remain sharply divided over how to do so.  Two different committees have completely rewritten the measure  with additional substantial changes expected.

Voters ratified Amendment 3 in November to restore reproductive rights in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority eliminated the federal right to abortion in 2022. The new state constitutional protections declare that “reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted” absent a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.

The House Children and Families Committee heard legislation to nullify Amendment 3 but the measure, House Joint Resolution 54, subsequently languished for nearly two months until March 31, when the committee voted 11-5 for a radically different version of it. However, in an unexpected move, HJR 54 was immediately sent to the House Legislative Review Committee, which on April 1 again completely rewrote the measure before approving it on a vote of 7-3. In both committees, Republicans voted for the legislation while Democrats opposed it.

As HJR 54 currently stands, it wouldn’t change a word of Amendment 3. However, it would add a new constitutional section that would nullify the existing protections and empower lawmakers to enact any restrictions they wish on abortion, access to contraception and any other reproductive health care services.

The full House of Representatives is expected to debate HJR 54 soon. If approved by both legislature chambers, it automatically would go on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval. The ballot language Republicans wrote for HJR 54 makes no mention that it would nullify Missouri’s existing constitutional protections for reproductive rights.

House advances bill on presidential primary, early voting

Missouri’s presidential preference primary would be restored under legislation that won first-round approval in the House of Representatives. The bill, which passed on a voice vote, also would expand the no-excuse absentee voting period from two weeks prior to an election to six weeks. A second, recorded vote is required to send the measure to the Senate.

Although Missouri historically had been a caucus state in the presidential nominating process, the state held presidential primaries from 2000 through 2020. Under omnibus elections legislation enacted in 2022, however, the state eliminated its state-run presidential primary for the 2024 election cycle.

While the Missouri Republican Party reverted to the caucus system, the state Democratic Party conducted a mail-in presidential primary. Neither method worked particularly well and the leaders of both state parties testified before the legislature this year in support of restoring the state-run primary.

The 2022 elections bill that did away with the presidential primary also for the first time authorized voters to cast absentee ballots without needing an excuse, such as they will be away from their home county on Election Day. The two-week, no-excuse absentee voting period has proven so popular that some county clerks who oversee local elections asked lawmakers to extend that period to six weeks.

In addition to the presidential primary and absentee voting provisions, House Bill 126 also would prohibit public pension systems from making contributions in support of or opposition to any ballot measure. That provision was prompted by $80,000 in combined donations the retirement systems for county sheriffs and prosecuting attorneys made last year to the campaign advocating for a proposed constitutional amendment that soughtto authorize a special fee to support those two pensions funds. Voters rejected the measure, Amendment 6, with 60.6 percent opposed.

Lawmakers reject reimbursing companies for expenses

By a vote of 69-77, with seven lawmakers voting “present,” the Missouri House of Representatives rejected legislation that sought to require municipalities and the state Department of Transportation to reimburse telecommunications, Internet and cable providers for the costs of relocating lines in a public right-of-way due to road construction or maintenance.

It is unusual for the House to vote down bills outright since if passage is in doubt the sponsor typically doesn’t bring it up for a final vote. The rejection of House Bill 661 was particularly pronounced since it didn’t come anywhere close to passage, falling 13 “yes” votes short of the minimum of 82 required to advance legislation to the Senate. The House had previously granted HB 661 preliminary approval on a voice vote.

Supporters of the bill said government should reimburse private businesses when it forces them to relocate equipment due to road projects. Opponents contend that those companies benefit from using the public right-of-way and that they – not taxpayers – should bear the costs when moving lines is necessary for public improvement projects.

Ethics panel admonishes lawmaker over conflict of interest

The Missouri House Ethics Committee unanimously issued a “letter of reproval” against state Rep Justin Sparks, finding that he “took one to three votes with an apparent conflict of interest.” A letter of reproval is the lowest level of sanction authorized against House members under the chamber’s procedural rules.

The committee found that on three occasions – once each in 2023, 2024 and 2025 – Sparks, R-Wildwood, voted for state budget bills that authorized grant funding for the National Law Enforcement Foundation, which employed Sparks at the time of his votes.

The House Ethics Committee, which consists of equal number of Democrats and Republicans, considers confidential complaints filed against House members by other members. The letter of reproval against Sparks was published in the House Journal, which is the official record of the chamber’s daily proceedings. The letter states that no further action will be taken in the matter.

Best,

Ashley Lawson

Phone: 314-705-6342