Representatives Jeff Grisamore (R-Lee's Summit, left) and Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City, right). Picture courtesy, Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.

Republicans fired back against those comments in debate on Thursday. Lee’s Summit representative Jeff Grisamore said, “I frankly find it abhorrent and offensive that there has been such gross misrepresentations of this issue that members of the minority would imply that anybody on this floor, in this chamber, supports bigotry and discrimination.”

Minority Floor Leader Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City) re-iterated his party’s stance that the bill makes it easier to discriminate against the disabled, cancer patients, minorities and other groups. He told Grisamore, “You can own that. I’m not calling you a racist, I’m not calling you a bigot, I have never done that, nor will I … if you’re upset about it then you have some introspection to do on your own. Don’t blame me.”

AUDIO: Hear the exchange between Representatives Mike Talboy and Jeff Grisamore.

Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (R-Eureka) defended the bill, saying it is a return to fairness and justice. He says it returns Missouri law to what it was for nearly 50 years before the current standard was enacted. “During that time, when the Missouri law was identical to the federal law and the minority party controlled this chamber for nearly that entire time, I don’t believe I heard anyone say that we needed to change the law … that Missouri law was racist, that it was unfair to employees, that we were being mistreated in the courts, that people were not having their due process rights shown and were not being protected fairly and equally under the law.”

Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis, at the microphone). Picture courtesy, Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.

Jones spoke for 11 minutes before calling the previous question, cutting off debate and forcing a vote on the bill.

Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis) called on her fellow Democrats to relax and just let measure pass, saying she was confident it would be vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon. She said, “What really makes me happy, Mister Speaker, is to know that those who are pushing House Bill 1219 will not have the override votes that they need to enact this horrible piece of legislation.”

The measure passed 89-68, with 13 Republicans voting with Democrats against it. Such a margin would fall short of a veto override, which requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

The Governor vetoed the measure last year. When asked if he will indeed do so again, he said he has not yet seen this year’s language, but added, “My position on those measures hasn’t shifted.”

AUDIO: Mike Lear reports (1:01)

Represntative Doug Funderburk (back, second from left) presides over a meeting of the House Tax Reform Committee.

Representatives Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peters) and Margo McNeil (D-Florissant) have both presented bills to the House Committee on Tax Reform that would enter Missouri into the multi-state Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Twenty-four states are a part of that agreement so far, and the legislatures in others are considering bills to join.

Read more about the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

Funderburk and McNeil agree the collection of taxes on internet sales would level the playing field for Missouri businesses. McNeil says they are, “being undermined by the antiquated tax system we have that was written in the 1930s and hasn’t taken into consideration the internet.”

The two differ over whether to make the change revenue-neutral to the state. Funderburk says it should be. “The people that I’m working with in trying to get this to the floor, and to a vote, and hopefully one day to the Governor’s desk, we want to make sure, especially in this down economy, that we’re not asking Missourians to pay more taxes than they’re currently paying today.”

Funderburk does not know how he might accomplish his goal yet, however. He explains one idea that has been floated, “taking each year’s collected revenue via the Streamlined Use and Sales Tax and applying it to a lowering of the overall sales tax of the next year.” He says if that idea does not seem feasible, “we’re going to have to look for other avenues.”

McNeil says to not bring in additional state revenue would be to miss an opportunity. “Local cities and counties have a big hole in their revenue bucket, but also the state of Missouri has a large hole in our revenue bucket that is only going to get wider as more people decide to use the internet.”

Take a look at the two pieces of legislation, HB 1356 and HB 1215.

The disagreement mirrors the philosophical difference in opinion that has been stated and re-stated this session between the Republicans in the House, who have said they do not want to increase taxes, and Democrats who say a new revenue source is necessary to balance the budget.

McNeil says, “I think I’m relatively safe in saying my Democratic colleagues are in favor of it staying as a source of revenue in the state of Missouri.

She adds, however, she will not rule out voting for a bill that is revenue-neutral. “There are good reasons to support this bill other than bringing in revenue to the State of Missouri because our local businesses are being undermined and they are going out of business.”

Funderburk, who chairs the Tax Reform Committee, hopes to have legislation ready for a vote in the next two weeks.

AUDIO: Mike Lear reports (1:00)

Legislative and congressional districts are in a state of flux. A new bipartisan citizens committee has been named to draw new state senate districts. Other maps are facing court challenges.

Senator Mike Parson of Bolivar is   pushing the filing deadline back from February 28th to March 27th. He hopes that gives any commissions time to draw new maps.

He says the date for filing to start will be only two weeks after the new senate redistricting commission holds its first meeting. And right now, candidates and potential candidates don’t know what to do  because they don’t know what their districts will be. Even if the commission files a new map on the 18th, the 15-day public comment period would run the calendar past the February 28th date. 

He knows there could be more challenges. Parson says filing could be pushed back into May if necessary although that would be pushing things to the limit. He says enough time has to be left to get candidates registered and to get ballots printed for the August primary.

 AUDIO: Parson interview 2:33

If Senator John Lamping’s proposed constitutional amendment already were in effect, this year’s debates would end on March 23rd, not May 18th.  And the veto session would be in June, not in September. Supporters say shortening the sessions would save a lot of money.

His proposed amendment would give several days to properly edit and print final versions of the bills with April 6th the new adjournment date. 

We’ve looked at the last decade of legislative session. Lawmakers had met for 41 working days, on average, by the date Lamping would have the session end.  Sessions have averaged 72 days under the present law. Today will be the 19th debate day of this session.

The proposal does not decrease lawmakers’ salaries while cutting their days in debate by 43 percent.

Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis)

Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis) says she has sponsored the bill for five years and this is the first time it has advanced out of a committee. She says her goal is, “To be able to not allow for employers to look at non-violent offenses as an obstacle to employment opportunities. I would also like to allow for law enforcement to continue to have access to those records.”

Under the proposal, non-violent offenders who have not committed additional crimes for five years after release can ask a judge to keep their criminal records from being accessible to potential employers.  The judge  can determine whether certain criteria have been met and then decide whether or not to grant the request.

Nasheed says right now, such individuals return to crime when they are turned away for employment because of their history. “They go out and they wreak havoc in our communities. They start selling drugs on our street corners. They start breaking into the homes and cars trying just to survive.”

She says without some way to break that cycle, the state will have to deal with such individuals at one point or another. “Either we’re going to deal with it on the front end or we’re going to deal with it on the back end. We’re going to house them in prison or we’re going to allow for them to have job opportunities after coming home from prison.

See the details of HB 1344

Nasheed is not discouraged that the bill has taken so long to advance. She notes, Illinois took seven years to pass similar language, which it is just now implementing.

The bill moves on to the House Rules Committee, and from there could advance to the House Calendar.

Speaker Pro Tem Shane Schoeller presents HB 1104 on the House Floor. Photos courtesy of Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.

Its sponsor, Speaker Pro Tem Shane Schoeller (R-Willard) presented the bill by citing media reports of instances of voter fraud in Missouri since 2006. He told lawmakers his bill will provide photo IDs to qualified Missourians for free, and offers provisional ballots to those who show up to vote without one.

He says there are many places photo identification is required today, including at banks. “The reason why is that you want to be able to protect people’s money. Well, the same thing when we go to vote.”

Assistant Minority Floor Leader Tishaura Jones (D-St. Louis) rejects that argument, noting that going to the bank is “not a constitutional right. Voting is a consitutional right.”

Jones added that the bill is unconstitutional under a 2006 ruling by the state Supreme Court that the legislature can not impose additional requirements on the right to vote. She says for the legislation to pass now would be for lawmakers to get ahead of themselves. “Last year we approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would grant lawmakers the authority to impose a photo voter ID requirement, but that amendment won’t go on the ballot until November. Until and unless voters ratify a constitutional change, it’s premature for us to pass legislation exercizing authority that we don’t posess. 

Representative Jason Kander (D-Kansas City) opposes the voter photo ID bill on the House floor.

Representative Jason Kander (D-Kansas City) was questioned by two House Republicans during debate, who cited his candidacy for the Secretary of State’s Office and said he should support it. Kander opposes the bill, stating it would disenfranchise close to 230,000 Missourians.

AUDIO:  Representatives Todd Richardson and Jason Kander during floor debate of HB 1104 (:18)

Representative Caleb Jones (R-California) first asked Schoeller to explain the bill’s provisions and rather it would disenfranchise voters. Maintaining that it would not, Jones then turned his attention to Kander…

AUDIO:  Representatives Caleb Jones and Jason Kander during floor debate of HB 1104 (:15)

View details of HB 1104, the voter photo ID bill.

AUDIO:  Listen to the debate of HB 1104 on the House floor from Wednesday. (25:21)

According to the release, she’ll make her announcement official at Missouri State University inside the Plaster Student Union at 10 a.m.

Lampe says that as the ranking member on the crucial budget committee in the House, she has for years focused on crucial funding needs for seniors, public education, and healthcare.

“These are difficult times for working families and seniors,” Lampe says. “My experience in public education, running a small business and balancing the state budget have uniquely prepared me to take on this this new challenge.”

Lampe is a retired teacher and administrator. She says she devoted her career to “fighting for children with special needs,” and that as a state representative she has “fought for working people, for seniors, for fairness in employment practices and against public policies that harm our most vulnerable citizens.”

Judge Dan Green in his ruling states, “The court declines the plaintiff’s request to engage in a never-ending game of one-upsmanship in a constant search for the ultimate map.” The ruling also says the defendants’ reading of the phrase “as compact as may be” follows the Supreme Court’s instructin that ‘compactness’ is ‘mandatory,’ while allowing for the fact that perfection is unattainable.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys can appeal to the State Supreme Court — no word yet on whether they intend to do so.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan says its important to get a final decision on the process since the filing deadline is Feb. 28.

If the court or the legislature decides to push back the deadline, we’ll push that back, but if they don’t, filing will begin on the 28th of February.

Carnahan calls the legal melee surrounding the maps — Congressional, State Senate and State House — “a mess” and says it’s unfortunate it’s come to this.

The suit is being filed on behalf of six republicans and six democrats throughout the state, former lawmaker Joan Bray of St. Louis among them.

Attorney Harvey Tettlebaum filed to intervene today on behalf of three current lawmakers, all republicans.

Tettlebaum says he represents Representatives Jay Barnes of Jefferson City, Stanley Cox of Sedalia, and Don Gosen of Chesterfield.

Judge Joyce says she’ll decide on the case by Feb. 14.

Meanwhile, in a separate case challenging the constitutionality of Missouri’s Congressional district boundaries is in the court’s hands.

Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green has been ordered by the State Supreme Court to rule on that case by the end of today … we’re still waiting for that decision to to be handed down.

Attorneys Greiman (left) and Layton listen while Greim presents closing arguements to Judge Dan Green in Cole County Circuit Court, Jefferson City.

Cole County Circuit Court heard final arguments for and against the newly drawn Congressional district boundaries. Both sides agree it comes down to semantics. The constitution requires the discricts be drawn “as compact as may be.” What “may be” requires is up to the interpretation of the courts.

Attorney Gerry Greiman says the current map is a clear case of gerrymandering. Defendant Eddie Greim says the constitution requires districts to be as compact as may be, not as compact as can be. And he says political interests are not disallowed. He points to the process by which legislators are elected by constituents to make these decisions for them, not the courts.

Circuit Court Judge Dan Green has been ordered by the State Supreme Court to hand down a ruling by today. He could say the current map is constitutionally legal, or order it back to the legislature for a second rendition.

Either way, the opposing litigants can appeal to the Supreme Court.