Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for Hancock Amendment

Kehoe: “We’ll see what Missourians think is the appropriate response” on transportation (AUDIO)

By

The state’s lieutenant governor says Missourians will have to decide whether a gasoline tax increase is needed.

Missouri Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe (left) and Governor Mike Parson wave to supporters at Jefferson City’s Memorial Park on September 23, 2019 (photo courtesy of Kehoe campaign)

Missouri’s 17-cent gasoline tax has remained the same since 1996. Last November, voters rejected a proposed ten-cent gas tax increase.

At his campaign announcement last week at Jefferson City’s Memorial Park, Lieutenant Governor Mike Kehoe (R) told the audience that a long-term solution is needed for transportation. Missourinet asked him that night if a gas tax increase is on the table. Kehoe says Missourians will have to decide that.

“As you know, our Hancock Amendment prohibits the Legislature from coming up with that solution, that’s probably a good thing most days,” Kehoe says. “So we’ll see what Missourians think is the appropriate response.”

Missourians approved the Hancock Amendment in 1980. It’s named after the late Springfield businessman Mel Hancock, who was elected to Congress several years later. The Hancock Amendment essentially requires voter approval before taxes can be increased by lawmakers, beyond a certain annual limit.

Kehoe says a long-term solution is needed, for the safety of Missouri families and for the reliability of our businesses.

“When you have the (nation’s) seventh-largest infrastructure system and you’re 49th in funding, it doesn’t take long to figure out you need a long-term solution. We’re all willing to listen to what Missourians think is the most reasonable approach to that, and then we’ll figure it out,” says Kehoe.

Lieutenant Governor Kehoe campaigned for Proposition D, the proposed gas tax increase, last fall. He spoke in September 2018 at the 84th annual Missouri Municipal League (MML) conference in Branson.

“What the mayors here (at the Branson conference) understand is they couldn’t run their city budgets and Missourians couldn’t run their household budgets if they didn’t have any extra income for 22 years straight,” Kehoe said that day.

The state Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has said that if voters had approved Proposition D, it would have generated about $288 million annually in new road and bridge funding.

Click here to listen to the full interview between Missourinet’s Brian Hauswirth and Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe, which was recorded on September 23, 2019 at Jefferson City’s Memorial Park:

Copyright © 2019 · Missourinet

Senator Introduces Legislation to Expand Access to Health Insurance

By Leave a Comment

A Senate committee hears a proposal aimed at increasing the number of Missourians covered by health insurance.

Senator John Loudon of Chesterfield sponsors SB 556 , legislation to expand health care access through what would be called the Missouri Health Insurance Exchange. Under Loudon’s legislation, small companies with under 25 employees would be required to join this Exchange. Loudon says the Exchange or connector would benefit both employers and employees by bringing together different health company plans, having the employer offer a monthly allowance to each employee to purchase insurance, and giving the employee the choice of plan that would best suit his or her needs.

While there is no mandate requiring an employee to purchase affordable health care coverage, that employee would be held accountable if there is a need for medical services. A person with the finanancial wherewithal to buy insurance, but who chooses not to buy, could see the Revenue Department demanding that the state be reimbursed for the costs incurred.

Download/Listen: Steve Walsh report (:60 MP3)

Judge Weighing Constitutionality of Voter Photo ID Law

By Leave a Comment

A Jefferson City judge will weigh the evidence and the arguments made in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s new requirement that voters display photo identification in order to cast a ballot. Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan combined two lawsuits. One claims the Voter Photo ID violates the Hancock Amendment’s prohibition against the state imposing unfunded mandates. The other claims the law disenfranchises thousands of Missourians who don’t have photo identification.During a court hearing Wednesday in the Cole County Courthouse, Attorney Burton Newman of St. Louis argued that the law imposes new costs to local election authorities without providing additional state revenue to pay for them. He claimed that St. Louis County alone will incur an estimated $250,000 in extra costs, because of the law. Judge Callahan questioned his reasoning, asking if any change in state law that requires additional costs to local officials violates Hancock. Newman answered that the law created new requirements with fixed costs assessed to them. Assistant Attorney General Robert Presson countered the argument by claiming the new law imposes no mandate. He argued that the only mandate is on voters. They must obtain an identification with their photograph.St. Louis Attorney Don Downing claimed that the law targets the poor, the uneducated and minorities. He charged that the new law imposes a burdensome hindrance that will keep some Missourians from voting. Downing told the judge the law makes payment of a fee a requirement to vote. He said that while the legislature included a provision to provide those without driver’s licenses a free photo ID, it didn’t waive the fee for the underlying documents needed to get an ID. Attorney Thor Hearne, who represents the legislative sponsor of the law, countered that under Downing’s argument, virtually all regulation of voting would be eliminated. Hearne argued that courts reviewing similar photo ID voting requirements in Georgia and Indiana found no merit in the argument that the state didn’t pay for the underlying documentation needed to acquire a photo ID. Judge Callahan responded to Hearne’s assertion by stating that he wasn’t sure Missouri’s law is the same as those passed in the other two states. Downing has insisted that the state hasn’t experienced voter fraud the past few elections and that there is no compelling need for the photo ID requirement. Hearne claimed the compelling interest is to run a fraud-free election.Judge Callahan told the attorneys he hopes to issue a ruling in about a week. The case is expected to eventually come before the State Supreme Court.

Related web sites:
SB 1014

Voter Photo ID Law Back In Court

By Leave a Comment

Missouri’s new Voter Photo ID law is back in court today, with a twist. Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan has granted a request by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Delbert Scott (R-Lowry City), to officially become a part of the team defending the law. Scott points out the Secretary of State’s attorney isn’t defending the law and has told Callahan she agrees with those bringing suit against it. Scott says the Attorney General’s office doesn’t have the election expertise to mount a strong defense. Scott says his lawyer, Thor Hearne of St. Louis, will emphasize the legislative process taken to arrive at the final product that was signed into law by Governor Blunt. He says Hearne also has expertise in election law that the assistant Attorneys General lack. During the first court hearing the Attorney General’s office had no objection to Scott entering the case. The plaintiffs in the case did object. Two lawsuits have been filed against the law that requires voters present identification with a photograph to vote. One lawsuit claims the law violates the Hancock Amendment to the state constitution which prohibits the state from enacting an unfunded mandate. That suit charges that the law imposes significant costs on local election authorities and, therefore, should be declared unconstitutional. The other lawsuit claims that the new law disenfranchises thousands of Missourians. The State Department of Revenue estimates there are 170,000 Missourians who do not have driver’s licenses, one form of photo identification that would meet the law’s requirements. The Secretary of State’s office has issued its own number, which is considerably higher at 240,000. The law instructs the Department of Revenue to offer free identifications to those without them. The department reports it has 25 mobile units available to visit nursing homes, senior centers, sheltered workshops and centers for independent living. Democrats, who strongly oppose the law, have been very critical of the Revenue Department’s efforts and claim there isn’t enough time for the department to make the free identification cards available to everyone who needs one. This is the second day of testimony in the two lawsuits filed against Voter Photo ID. Another court date is set for Wednesday.

Related web sites:
SB 1014
Mobile Unit Schedule
Secretary of State news release

Voter Photo ID Law challenged

By Leave a Comment

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit saying the new Voter Photo-ID law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit says the law will disenfranchise thousands of Missourians who cannot afford to obey its requirements to provide proper documents to get their I-D cards. It also says the legislature has violated the Hancock amendment, which prohibits the legislature requiring local governments to spend money without providing state funds to pay those costs. The lawsuit filed in Jefferson City asks a judge to block implementation of the law, which will apply for the first time to the November election. The legislature passed the bill during the regular session that ended in May. However, it did not approve any state appropriations to pay various costs of the program.

Senate Committee Mulls Over Conceal & Carry Funding Legislation

By Leave a Comment

A Senate committee is considering legislation allowing certain restricted funds given to County Sheriffs to be used for expenses related to issuing conceal & carry gun permits. The legislation does not re-open the conceal & carry debate. Senator Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau, the co-sponsor, points out that issue has already been settled. What he and other lawmakers are trying to do now is address the Hancock Amendment unfunded mandate concerns by allowing County Sheriffs to dip into what’s called the County Sheriff’s Revolving Fund to pay for costs associated with the issuing of the permits. Crowell doesn’t deny there’s a glitch in how the original legislation was crafted. The new legal language was arrived at following a good deal of consultation with the Attorney General’s office.

Legislation To Bolster Unemployment Benefits Fund In Trouble

By Leave a Comment

A piece of legislation passed by the General Assembly and signed by Governor Bob Holden could be in trouble. The Board of Unemployment Fund Financing has determined the plan to shore up the unemployment insurance fund through a tax on businesses would violate the Hancock Amendment. Attorney General Jay Nixon is a member of the Board. He says a tax hike like the one called for would require a vote of the people. Gary Marble, President of Associated Industries of Missouri, had claimed all along there was a Hancock violation, and had even considered legal action to deal with this situation. He says this would be an unfunded mandate. Several options are available to fix this problem. Nixon says one would be to have a special session of the Legislature, but he doesn’t expect that to happen in an election year.

Holden Vows To Veto Bill Solving Concealed Weapons Funding Problems

By Leave a Comment

Governor Bob Holden says it will not do any good for the Legislature to send him a bill solving the financial problems of the concealed weapons bill. He’ll veto it. The State Supreme Court says it’s legal to get a license for a concealed weapon. But the Court says there may be an unfunded mandate concern with the fees the state allows counties to charge for processing applications. Some counties complain their costs are not covered by those fees – and that’s unconstitutional. Holden vetoed the original concealed weapons bill. The Legislature enacted it over his veto.

AG To Work With Lawmakers To Address Hancock Concerns In Gun Law

By Leave a Comment

Attorney General Jay Nixon is ready to act to deal with the State Supreme Court ruling on the conceal-and-carry gun law. He’s vowing to work with the Legislature to quickly address the Court’s concerns. The Supreme Court’s 5-to-2 ruling upholds the constitutional right of eligible Missourians to carry concealed weapons. But the Court agrees with plaintiffs in four counties – Jackson, Greene, Camden, and Cape Girardeau – that the paperwork associated with conceal and carry might present an unfunded mandateand violate the Hancock Amendment. Nixon says sheriffs in all other counties could conceivably start issuing permits, but that’s probably not wise, because it would likely open the litigation floodgates. Nixon says he’ll work with the Legislature over the next few days to craft language that will address the funding concerns. Conceal and carry became law when the Legislature overrode Governor Bob Holden’s veto. Holden’s office has issued a statement saying the Governor remains opposed to conceal and carry.

Lawmakers Plan Strategy In Wake Of Concealed Weapons Ruling

By Leave a Comment

State lawmakers say they will evalutate the State Supreme Court ruling to decide what changes must be made to fully enact the conceal and carry law. The ruling questions whether the Legislature violated the Hancock Amendment’s prohibition against unfunded mandates. Under the law, county sheriffs would charge a $100 permit feeto be deposited in the sheriff’s revolving fund that pays for equipment and training. Four counties, in particular Kansas City’s Jackson County, asserted that wouldn’t allow the money to cover processing costs, creating an unfunded mandate. House sponsor Larry Crawford of California says he be will talking with colleagues about addressing the court’s concern. Senate Leader Peter Kinder of Cape Girardeau sponsored the legislation in that chamber. He says study will proceed action. Kinder though says he’s delighted with the ruling, noting that it found nothing in the state constitution to prohibit the legislature from enacting a conceal and carry law.