Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman Archives

State House committee quickly passes measure meant to change legislative redistricting efforts

May 1, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

A Missouri House committee has voted 9-4 along party lines in favor of a proposed resolution designed to change the controversial Clean Missouri ballot measure. Voters passed Clean Missouri in 2018.

Missouri House General Laws Committee hearing

A main point of contention when it comes to Clean Missouri is the legislative redistricting process. Many Republicans have contended that redrawing of the districts will work in favor of Democrats. Democrats have dismissed that assertion.

The plan would let a bipartisan commission redraw legislative districts, instead of a nonpartisan demographer. It would also ban lobbyist gifts, instead of Clean Missouri’s $5 limit, and put a $2,000 cap on Senate candidate political donations, instead of the current $2,500.

The House General Laws Committee held a public hearing Thursday about the proposal. Representative Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, pointed out the hearing had few people in attendance.

“Why would that be? Well because they are under a stay-at-home order where they are advised not to be here taking part in a process ironically for a bill that is to undue a voter-driven initiative about transparency,” said Merideth.

Committee Chairman Dean Plocher, R-St. Louis, fired back by saying the building is still open during the statewide shutdown.

Jon Carpenter questioned why the legislation is a priority during a worldwide pandemic that has cost many lives and many people their jobs.

“Republicans and Democrats vehemently disagree on it,” he said. “I just feel like we could spend our time on things we can agree on to address the crisis and this is going to divide us at a time where we need to be united.”

Bill sponsor, State Senator Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, said he’s concerned Clean Missouri’s redistricting process would hurt communities.

“My biggest concern is that we will break up those voices and then Gladstone may be represented by three people and therefore represented by nobody,” said Hegeman.

Representative Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, says Hegeman’s resolution would use citizenship instead of total population in the redistricting process – leaving out some voices.

Another point of contention is whether Hegeman’s proposal would undo the will of voters.

“It is the will of the people. This is a constitutional amendment that has to go to a vote of the people,” said Hegeman. “That is equally respecting the vote of the people. I really think that people ought to have a chance to look at it once again.”

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, agreed with Hegeman.

“I don’t think that asking them to make a change, if they are interested in doing so, or to not make a change from what they just enacted, is in any way disrespectful,” said Coleman.

Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said Clean Missouri has not been given a chance to see how the redistricting process will unfold.

“They already told us what they wanted – 57% of your people did,” said Quade. “Why do we not see if they were right? Why do we not trust them and what they asked us to do and see if it works before we come back and say ‘No you were wrong.’ What I’m really struggling with is the fact that we’re asking them again ‘Are you sure?’ when we haven’t even seen it. So my question for you, Senator – 57% of your people said yes. Have 57% of your people contacted you and said oops?”

Hegeman said Clean Missouri would lead to “greater gerrymandering” and he calls it a “partisan train wreck”.

Legislative committees will often wait a week before making a decision on a proposal but lawmakers are up against the clock. With two weeks left to go in the regular session, the measure heads to another House committee for consideration. The Missouri Republican Party has made passage of SJR38 a top priority this session.

Missouri GOP legislator wants to reduce federal safety net program paperwork

March 2, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The state Legislature is being asked to reduce the amount of paperwork that Missourians must fill out to enroll or renew in federal safety net programs. Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from the St. Louis suburb of Arnold, has filed a bipartisan bill in response to challenging herself to see what it was like to fill out the application.

Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

“I gave up. It was repetitive. It was frustrating,” she says. “There was a lot of legalese. I decided that if as a lawyer and as a state Representative I had a hard time navigating to receive these benefits, then how much more would a family who’s facing a crisis and is really needing to be a recipient of these services, how would they be able to navigate them.”

Depending on which program you’re trying to sign up for, including food stamps, WIC, Medicaid or temporary assistance, the state’s current application is as long as 63 pages. She doesn’t have a magic number of pages she thinks the application should be. Her goal is ultimately to be more user friendly.

“All of those applications should be concise and non-duplicative and all of the legalese should be put onto a separate piece of paper so that’s it’s just really easy to navigate and found online,” says Coleman. “So the idea is that, you know, it’s just a good government kind of clean up thing. It’s not changing who is eligible. It’s not changing should we have these programs. But we do have them and so we need to make it accessible to people.”

Coleman says the paperwork is not as cohesive as it could be. Every time there’s a new federal regulation, the paperwork gets longer.

“The questions aren’t even really complicated,” says Coleman. “It’s just that the directions can be complicated. And so it can be stated more simply. I mean this is one of those things that it’s easier for everybody if we do it this way. It’s going to make it easier for state employees to get the necessary information.”

The Missouri House General Laws Committee voted unanimously in favor of her bipartisan. The legislation, House Bill 1960, is awaiting consideration by the House Rules Committee.

State urges Missouri parents who lost Medicaid to re-apply kids for coverage

February 21, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The state wants Missouri parents who have had their Medicaid coverage cancelled to fill out an application and see if their kids still qualify. The request applies to those who have lost coverage since August 2018.

Representative David Wood (courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

State Representative David Wood, R-Versailles, says about 120,000 Missourians are no longer getting Medicaid due to a federal healthcare law change and an improving economy. But he says about 90,000 of those are children who are probably still eligible for coverage through the Children’s Health Insurance Program commonly called CHIP.

“Now did the Department (of Social Services) do a very good job of explaining that when they gave the cancellation of their coverage? Probably not. We could’ve done better,” says Wood, who heads a House budget committee involving social services. “Our enrollment processes could be easier. Our phone center could do a better job of answering calls, but we’re not in the business of taking off people that are covered just trying to save money. We want to cover everybody that qualifies.”

Missouri’s Medicaid budget is about $10 billion, accounting for more than one-third of the state’s $30 billion operating budget.

Wood says the Department of Social Services’ issues should not be viewed as a big conspiracy.

“It’s not that the Governor Nixon administration put on a whole bunch of kids because they could or the Governor Parson administration has taken them off just to try and save money. The reality is we had a lot of applications come in. We didn’t do a good job of verifying the incomes. We are now verifying the incomes and doing a better job so those people are dropping off the rolls. But if they’d re-apply under a different category, some of them would still be covered.”

Missourians can re-apply online, by calling the state Department of Social Services, or by going to an office in your county.

During a press conference this week, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, says she wants Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, to freeze cancellations of Medicaid coverage until she says the matter is cleared up.

“After a year of work on this issue and with a bipartisan desire for action, we have the chance during the coming weeks to do right by Missouri’s children and I hope the Republican leadership will make this a priority,” says Quade. “Pausing this disenrollment is vital to making sure that we can figure out exactly what is going on. We need to be doing everything in our power to make sure that those kids who qualify have healthcare coverage.”

Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood, says the state should automatically re-enroll the kids affected.

“Why we are asking the parents to pick up for our mistake doesn’t make sense to me. We know that 300 kids were put back on without any hesitation and yet the overall number is still down,” she says. “If we know children who’ve been kick off are being put on almost automatically once there’s a process, then why are the numbers still going down? I think more children have been kicked off of healthcare than we realize.”

Missourinet asked Parson’s office for a response yesterday, but one was not given by deadline time.

Wood says Missouri’s process to enroll should be simplified. The state’s public assistance application is 63 pages – making it the second longest in the country.

A company is reviewing Missouri’s enrollment measures and releasing its results to the state this month. Wood says then the work will begin to make changes.

Meanwhile, State Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, is proposing to reduce the enrollment paperwork to one page. A House committee unanimously passed her bill this week. House Bill 1960 heads to another committee for consideration.

View state data about the number of Missourians receiving public assistance.

Domestic union instead of marriage? Missouri bill would reduce the nuptial definition

February 17, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

State Representative Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles, wants to change the legal definition of marriage to civil unions. During a Missouri House General Laws Committee hearing today about Schnelting’s bill, he says he wants to replace marriage licenses with contracts of domestic unions – sparking opposition by some traditional marriage supporters and the gay rights community.

Capitol Rotunda (Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications)

The interpretation and intent of House Bill 2173 varies greatly from person to person and lawmaker to lawmaker. Arguments ranged from what the bill would do to marriages involving children and adoption rights, gay couples, immigration status, federal benefits, and how a civil union would be recognized in other states for married couples moving to and from Missouri.

Schnelting, a licensed minister and former pastor, says marriage is not the government’s business and his goal is to treat everyone equally.

“Whether you’re religious, whether you’re nonreligious,” he says. “Whether you’re straight, whether you’re a member of the LGBT community, this is about restoring the government to its proper role. If I don’t need a license for my Second Amendment rights, I certainly do not need the government’s permission or a license to marry.”

Schnelting says under his nearly 400-page bill, he thinks society would still call a marriage a marriage.

“First and foremost, this bill does not abolish marriage,” he says. “Our law states that marriage law is considered in law as a civil contract – from the standpoint of the state nothing more nothing less. That’s still in place. It doesn’t make it any less of a marriage. It’s just reducing it, stripping it down to it’s most basic legal definition.”

He says when government is allowed to intrude into private matters, it is usually contentious.

“Because then you have one section of America pitting itself against another,” he says.

Representative Wes Rogers, D-Kansas City, says the bill would reduce marriage to a couple being “civically in love” and indicates the intent of the measure has to do with gay marriage.

“Our marriage certificate says marriage and it doesn’t matter what you think and it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. If I was gay and wanted to marry a man, and I have a certificate that says marriage, I’m having a hard time understanding why it’s your business,” he says.

Schnelting agrees that it’s not the government’s business.

“This 382-pages, this is what happens when we allow government to get out of control,” he says.

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, says she opposes the legislation out of potential unintended consequences of children’s rights.

Representative Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette, calls the legislation divisive, hurtful to LGBT individuals, and would be going backwards.

“I want to make sure that love can be love and marriage can be marriage and that we’re not trying to undue something that the U.S. Supreme Court said is the right thing to do,” says McCreery. “Since gay marriage became the law of the land, my marriage has not been impacted at all. I don’t think anybody in this room can raise their hand and honestly say that since gay marriage was made legal that their marriages have deteriorated. I feel like this bill is kind of a solution looking for a problem.”

According to Schnelting, the proposal would not attack government benefits for couples with a marriage license or a civil union contract. If so, he says he would change the bill to ensure those benefits would work the same way as they do now. Speaking on behalf of LGBT organization PROMO, Washington University Law Professor Denise Lieberman disagrees with Schnelting’s statement and says more than 1,000 federal benefits are attached to the institution of legal marriage.

“Really important stuff right, like social security, like Veterans benefits, like surviving spousal benefits, immigration status, Medicare,” she says.

Lieberman goes on to say she thinks the legislation is unconstitutional and federal law, which recognizes a marriage as a marriage, will trump state law.

Karl and Lisa Weslin of southwest Missouri’s Springfield oppose the bill and fear it would put their retirement years in jeopardy, including their social security, insurances, and medical and survivor benefits. Lisa Weslin says marriage is the bedrock of society.

“If the state of Missouri were to undermine our marriage, we have five daughters who are married and thirteen grandchildren, for those we hope to set an example of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage itself represents a spiritual and mystical union that is imbued with meaning much deeper and more profound than a domestic union,” she says.

The committee has not yet voted on the bill.