Representative Tracy McCreery 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 House committee could vote this week on measure targeting trans athletes

February 24, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The Missouri House General Laws Committee could vote this week on a proposed public vote targeting transgender high school athletes. If approved by voters, transgender students would have to participate in sports according to the sex on their birth certificate. The resolution aims to change the Missouri Constitution.

State Rep. Robert Ross, R-Yukon, speaks during an August 22, 2019 hearing of the Missouri House Special Interim Committee on Gaming (file photo courtesy of Tim Bommel at House Communications)

During a public hearing, State Representative Robert Ross, R-Yukon, says the proposed ballot measure would also mean females could no longer play football with their male teammates, for instance. He says his measure, HJR 82, is meant to be fair to all high school athletes.

“Some of the female athletes who are stars in their own right were knocked out of competition or the ability to proceed on then ultimately scholarships based on some males being allowed to compete against them,” he says.

On the flip side, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, points to a famous Connecticut lawsuit arguing trans athletes have deprived heterosexual females of titles and scholarships.

“The young cisgender woman who was suing based on a transgender youth that she was competing against actually beat that transgender youth in track just not long ago,” she says.

Representative Tracy McCreery, D- Olivette, says playing sports teaches kids cooperation, team spirit and can keep them out of trouble. She says competition is competition.

“I feel like maybe I’ve done some harm to the guys cross country team from the mid 1980s because I beat every single one of them in cross country,” she says. “And so I feel really bad about that now. I didn’t realize that – wow, I didn’t realize that.”

Rep. Tracy McCreery (D-Olivette
Photo courtesy; Tim Bommel)

“It’s a lot more than just whatever the sport that these kids are learning,” Ross fires back. “They’re learning life lessons, frankly by competing within these sports.”

Alissa Johnson of public policy group Concerned Women For America spoke in favor of the proposed ballot measure.

“This isn’t about whether or not people are compassionate,” she says. “I believe this is like Representative Ross said – this is an issue of fairness in sports.”

Brandon Boulware of Kansas City says the resolution would squash his 10-year-old transgender daughter’s spirit.

“All those kids who I feared would tease her – they have embraced her. This is a nonissue for them. This is an issue for adults. It’s not an issue for kids. It will mean my daughter cannot play on her girls volleyball team anymore,” he says. “It will mean my daughter will not have the opportunity that all of us had – to play on a team, to belong to something bigger, greater than ourselves.”

The Missouri Senate Education Committee will hold a public hearing on Tuesday about a similar measure, SJR 50, sponsored by Shelbina Republican Cindy O’Laughlin. She chairs the committee.

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.