Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for Stanley Cox

Gov. Nixon signs bill to restrict protests at funerals

By

Legislation has been signed into law by Governor Jay Nixon (D) that is meant to protect families of fallen Missouri soldiers from protests at funeral services.

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox carried HB 1372 in the state House.  (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 1372 makes it a class “B” misdemeanor to protest within 300 feet of the site of a funeral within an hour before or after a funeral or burial service. A class “B” misdemeanor carries up to six months in jail. The offense increases to a class “A” misdemeanor for repeat offenders, and could face up to a year in jail.

The restrictions do not apply to a funeral procession outside the 300 foot buffer zone.

The law is based on one that was passed by the City of Manchester and was upheld by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis when a court challenge was brought by Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. It is that organization’s protests that prompted the law’s restrictions.

The bill was passed unanimously by both the House and the Senate.

Missouri House committee will not vote on attempt to impeach Governor Nixon

By

Efforts to impeach Governor Jay Nixon (D) will not be brought up for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee, its chairman told Missourinet Monday afternoon.

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox’s (R-Sedalia) committee held two hearings in the last two weeks on three resolutions seeking to impeach Nixon on three different lines of reasoning. After a hearing last week he went to the members of that committee and asked them whether they wanted to vote on the resolutions.

“The majority has expressed that they believe that the allegations contained within the impeachment resolutions are serious, and that the resolutions at least show substantial circumstantial evidence of willful misconduct,” says Cox. “However in their opinion, collectively, this willful misconduct is not sufficient to warrant forwarding the impeachment resolution to the floor of the House.”

Cox says he agrees with the decision of the committee members.

“This decision does not absolve the Governor of wrongdoing,” says Cox. “It’s simply a conclusion that the facts of this case do not justify forwarding the resolution,” to the full House of Representatives.”

Cox says he believes there is strong circumstantial evidence that Nixon violated the laws of the state, but says he and the other Judiciary Committee members did not think the evidence and arguments met the standard for impeachment.

“In making this decision the committee looked at not only what the allegations are, the facts that we were aware of to proceed,” says Cox, “I’m sure the committee members individually and I certainly did as an individual, look at the prospects of anything ever coming of this action.”

The articles of impeachment filed against Nixon accused him of violating the state’s Constitution in three areas.

Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville) in February filed two articles of impeachment regarding Nixon’s executive order issued in November instructing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples married in other states. Marshall says that order violates the Missouri Constitution’s definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman and accuses Nixon of misleading Missourians.

Cox says believes the committee collectively believes there are other resolutions of that issue.

“I believe there will be court cases, and I believe ultimately [Nixon] will be proven to be wrong in his decision,” says Cox.

A week later, Representative Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) filed one article of impeachment accusing Nixon of taking too long to set special election dates to fill vacant seats in the House and the Senate. Some critics say this has left a quarter-of-a-million Missourians under-represented in the State Capitol.

Cox says this was the “strongest” of the allegations, but he says the committee again did not believe it was appropriate to move forward with impeachment.

Cox tells Missourinet, “The circumstances of the impeachment process or the prospects of any governor being impeached is very minimal at the most, and those factors certainly come into play.”

In March Representative Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville) filed two articles of impeachment alleging Nixon should have disciplined or fired members of the executive branch for their roles in the scanning and retaining of concealed carry endorsement source documents that were twice released to federal authorities.

Cox says Nixon did eventually take some actions to end that document scanning and retention process impacts the weight of the resolution’s allegation.

Some have questioned whether the Republican majority in the House was opposed to moving forward with the impeachment effort. Cox says he was not given any instrucutions from his caucus’ leadership on how to proceed.

Lawmakers must decide whether to proceed with impeachment of Gov. Nixon

By

The House Judiciary Committee has held its final hearing on 3 impeachment filings against Governor Jay Nixon (D).

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Committee Chairman, Representative Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) says he will now poll his members to see whether they think those filings should come to a committee vote.

Cox says he hasn’t decided for himself whether they should be voted on, but when asked whether the articles raise legitimate complaints, Cox says “Absolutely.”

“The allegations are serious, are matters that certainly concern failure of the governor to fulfill his responsibility and certainly raise that idea that they could rise to the level of further action,” says Cox.

Articles filed against Nixon accused him of violating the State Constitution’s definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman with his Executive Order directing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples married in other states, by not disciplining anyone in his administration in relation to the scanning, retention, and sharing with the federal government of personal documents from Missouri drivers’ license and concealed carry permit applicants, and by not acting quickly enough in setting special election dates to fill vacant seats in the House and the Senate.

Cox says he will talk to his committee members right away because less than three weeks remain in the legislative session.

Missouri legislature passes proposed rewrite of criminal code

By

The state legislature has sent to Governor Jay Nixon (D) a roughly 600-page proposal to update Missouri’s criminal code. The proposal was passed out of both chambers Thursday with wide majorities favoring it.

Representative Stanley Cox prepares for debate before final passage of the roughly 600-page criminal code bill, on his desk. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox prepares for debate before final passage of the roughly 600-page criminal code bill, on his desk. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The bill, whose development began five years ago with a subcommittee put together by the Missouri Bar, could face a challenge with Nixon. He has said the proposal is too big, creating too much room for error in Missouri’s system of criminal laws and punishments. He wanted it broken into smaller sections to be considered individually.

That idea was dismissed by some who have worked on the plan for years, including Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia).  He and other backers of the bill say there are multiple opportunities for review even after it is enacted, including by the Missouri Supreme Court’s Standing Committee on Criminal Procedure.  The effective date of the legislation was also pushed back to January 1, 2017 to allow further time for review.

“As much as I can see,” Kelly told the bill’s House sponsor, Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia), “this is delay for delay’s sake rather than for any policy reason.”

A fellow Columbia lawmaker and attorney, Senator Kurt Schaefer (R), agrees with Nixon.

“Public safety is the most important thing the State of Missouri does,” says Schaefer, “and the impact on victims and victims’ families if something does not go right is terrible.”

“I can tell you as a prosecutor who has personally dealt with changes in statute in the field when you’re prosecuting a case,” says Schaefer, “a lot of times you don’t know what those things are until you are presented with a fact pattern that nobody thought of and suddenly that statute has to apply to it and then you find something that may have been an unintended consequence.”

Schaefer says he would like to have seen the code addressed chapter-by-chapter.  He voted against the bill in the Senate.

Cox and Senator Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City), the sponsors of the bill in their respective chambers, both told Missourinet previously that they believe they could overturn a veto of the bill if that’s what Nixon decides to do. It cleared both chambers Thursday with margins that could overturn a veto if no large number of lawmakers switches sides.

Senator Bob Dixon (R-Springfield) hopes the strong votes send a strong enough message that a veto override attempt won’t need to be made.

“It reflects the diligence with which everyone working on this bill, from staff all the way to agencies that answered questions for us, worked on it,” says Dixon.  “It was probably the most fully vetted bill that’s ever gone through the General Assembly.”

See the House vote on the criminal code bill

See how thirteen of the people who worked on the criminal code bill were honored

Criminal code crafters honored with superhero artwork

By

Some of the lawmakers and others who worked on the proposed update of the criminal code sent to Governor Jay Nixon (D) Thursday have been honored in a piece of art to mark its passage out of the legislature.

CCAvengers

The poster depicts superhero charicatures of 13 people who worked on the proposed revision of Missouri’s criminal code, sent Thursday to Governor Nixon.

The poster features Senators Jolie Justus and Bob Dixon, Representatives Stanley Cox and Chris Kelly, Eric Jennings who works in Senator Dixon’s office, Executive Director of the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services Jason Lamb, Deputy Director of Missouri Kids First Emily Van Schenkhof, Chief Executive Officer with the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Colleen Coble, lobbyists for the Missouri Bar Woody Cozad and Catherine Barrie, lobbyist for the Missouri Supreme Court Betsy Aubuchon, and lobbyist Ward Cook.

Missouri Bar legislative counsel Eric Wilson, who is also featured on the poster, asked his friend Ronald Barba draw the poster.

See our story on passage of the criminal code bill and on the last round of changes

Legislature will try to get criminal code rewrite to Gov. Nixon next week

By

State lawmakers who have spent years crafting an update to Missouri’s system of criminal laws and punishments hope to send Governor Jay Nixon (D) a bill next week.

Representative Stanley Cox (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

House and Senate versions of that rewrite were passed last week, and lawmakers in both chambers met this week to discuss differences between those versions and reach a compromise. They plan to attempt to make those changes to the Senate bill (SB 491) in a House committee, and get it through both chambers and to the Governor next week.

“We have a bill which is satisfactory to the sponsors in both houses,” says Representative Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia), the sponsor of the House legislation.

One of the major differences between the two versions dealt with penalties for first-time possession of small amounts of marijuana. The Senate version would eliminate jail time for possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana, while the House version would maintain the current penalty of up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Senator Jolie Justus (courtesy; Missouri Senate Communications)

Senator Jolie Justus (courtesy; Missouri Senate Communications)

Senator Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City) says the two sides struck a “tentative” compromise.

“We kept it so that if you have 35 or less grams of marijuana and it’s a first-time offense it’ll be a Class-A misdemeanor which is what it is now, but if you have 10 grams or less of marijuana and it’s a first-time offense then it will be moved to a Class-D misdemeanor, which is not going to be subject to jail time. It will be fine only.”

In response to concerns about the size of the legislation expressed by Governor Nixon, Senate lawmakers had removed some 400 pages that reclassified certain felonies and added a fifth level of felony offense. Justus says that will be restored.

“When we sat down and worked it out with the House members, frankly, we realized that cutting that out was kind of defeating the purpose of what we’d set out to do in the first place without really addressing the Governor’s issues,” says Justus.

The proposal will still come out smaller than the House’s more than 1000-page bill, though. Cox says that’s because those from his chamber agreed to remove language dealing with weapons penalties.

“There were lots of issues with that,” Cox says. “We thought it best not to try to address that. Some of it had to do with other legislation passing through the legislature this year.”

The bill still won’t be broken down into smaller pieces based on subject matter, which is what Nixon had indicated he wanted. Justus says lawmakers don’t feel that can be done.

Nixon says the size of the bill leaves too much room for error, and he dismisses legislators’ position that the bill will be vetted after passage by the Missouri Supreme Court and its effective date has been pushed back to 2017, to allow time for changes if necessary.

Justus and Cox both say if necessary, they think the legislature could overturn the Governor if he were to veto the bill.

“Obviously we’ll take a look at the veto message if there is one,” Justus says.

If the bill is sent to Nixon it would be the culmination of years of work for both lawmakers.

“The closer we get the more nervous I get,” Justus tells Missourinet, but adds she is confident the bill has been thoroughly vetted starting with its drafting by a Missouri Bar committee, followed by five years of committee work leading up to full chamber consideration.

Cox agrees. “I feel confident that we’ll get it done this year.”

Criminal Code path forward could hinge on federal transportation money concern

By

Whose version of criminal code legislation will advance could depend on how each might impact federal transportation money.

House and Senate lawmakers who have spent years working on an update of Missouri’s system of criminal laws and punishments must now decide which chambers’ version of that rewrite to go with.

Representative Judy Morgan (D-Kansas City) says one issue that must be considered was raised by the Transportation Department.

“What we found out in fiscal review,” says Morgan, “with the House bill we may be out of compliance with that mandatory minimum sentencing and it may cause us to lose $18-million in funds as a result of that.”

The sponsor of the House criminal code bill, Representative Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia), says he thought the issue had been resolved.

“We have distributed this and encouraged various state agencies,” he tells Morgan, “and really I thought that we had made MODOT happy, but we’ll certainly continue working on it.”

The sponsor of the Senate legislation, Senator Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City) says that issue has been dealt with in her chamber’s version.

“They brought that concern to us months ago. We fixed it months ago on the Senate side. It is not a problem.”

The Senate version of the bill is also smaller, having been reduced to about 700 pages while the House version is still around the 1000-mark.

Chairman: impeachment efforts will get a hearing

By

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he will give a hearing to the three filings of impeachment articles against Governor Jay Nixon (D) if their sponsors want one.

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The filings were assigned to that committee last week; the first movement for each since they were filed between February 6 and March 11.

Committee Chairman Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) says he will next talk to the sponsors of those three filings.

“Whether and when they are desirous of having a hearing,” Cox says he will ask those representatives. “Obviously we’re not going to have a hearing if they don’t want one … so I will talk to them first of all.”

The first articles of impeachment were filed by Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville), over Governor Nixon’s executive order instructing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples who are legally married in other states. Marshall says that violates Missouri’s Constitution, which voters amended in 2004 to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Representative Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) filed one article of impeachment saying Nixon didn’t act quickly enough to set special election dates for vacant seats in the House and Senate. Representative Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville) filed an article this month saying Nixon’s failure to discipline or fire members of the executive branch for their involvement in the scanning of personal documents from Missouri license applicants and the release of those documents to the federal government violates the Constitution.

Moon, Brattin and Marshall all confirm they do in fact want a hearing.

“Not only do I want a hearing,” says Marshall, “I think it’s important that it be a candid hearing, an open hearing and a hearing that is free from any interference.”

Those articles were filed between February 6 and March 11, and were assigned to the Judiciary Committee last week. Brattin said upon offering his article that he was “appalled” action had not been taken faster on the filings.

Cox says he can’t speak for House Republican leadership, but says trying to remove an executive from office is an extraordinary action.

“I think that in order to do that there would have to be some clear information and evidence to support the accusation that they have violated their oath to the Constitution or the law in some way,” says Cox. “That’s my position and I assume the leadership would share that.”

Moon says he’s satisfied that leadership in his party is supportive.

“It’s just been slow-moving,” says Moon.

Impeachment articles would move through the House like a bill. If adopted by the House, the Governor would be tried by a committee of seven jurists chosen by the Senate.

Criminal code rewrite drafters respond to Gov. Nixon’s size concerns

By

Lawmakers that have been working on the rewrite of Missouri’s criminal code for years say this is still the year to get it passed, despite the reservations expressed by Governor Jay Nixon (D) about its size.

Senator Jolie Justus (courtesy; Missouri Senate Communications)

Senator Jolie Justus (courtesy; Missouri Senate Communications)

Nixon has suggested that the rewrite – currently more than 1,000 pages in length in the House version and down to about 700 pages in a Senate version revamped during the legislative spring break – be broken into sections and passed rather than one bill.  The Governor is reportedly concerned that in a bill that size, mistakes could be made. 

Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles) has said he will not bring up the bill in that chamber until all parties decide how to proceed.

Senator Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City) says it’s frustrating for the Governor to raise this concern now.

“We’re always frustrated when we hear about any problem with a bill this late in,” says Justus. “I think that we have said for the last three years now that the biggest issue with this bill is its size. We are continuing to work with our fellow colleagues, we are continuing to have conversations with the Governor’s office about the nature of the bill, what’s in it, what’s not in it, and how we can get to a path to getting it passed because this is the year to get it done and we intend to do that.”

Representative Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) says separating the issue out into several smaller bills would kill the proposal.

Representative Stanley Cox (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

“There is no practical way of breaking it into sections,” says Cox. “It was essentially a five-year process … and three years actually it’s been filed in the Missouri General Assembly … and it was never designed to be broken into several pieces.”

Justus, however, doesn’t rule out taking the Governor’s suggestion.

“That is going to be a difficult row, but I never say, ‘never,’ on anything. We are looking at all options.”

The legislature could pass the rewrite legislation and if the Governor vetoes it, attempt to override the veto, but Cox doesn’t believe it would play out that way.

“It’s pretty hard to believe the Governor would veto legislation that not only has previously been vetted to such a high degree but also has built-in safety nets all over the place,” says Cox.

Senator Bob Dixon (courtesy; Missouri Senate Communications)

Senator Bob Dixon (courtesy; Missouri Senate Communications)

The “safety nets” Cox refers to include the effective date of the legislation, which lawmakers plan to push back to January 1, 2017. The Missouri Supreme Court’s Standing Committee on Criminal Procedure will review the bill after passage.

Cox notes Governor Nixon will also have time for the lawyers that work for him to review the bill after its passage. 

“He’s got what I would consider a rather large law firm,” says Cox.  “That’s what lawyers are paid to do, is look through complicated things and say if they’re good or bad, and the Governor is better capable of doing that than almost anybody I know.”

“I think we’ve addressed every concern that’s been raised substantively,” says Senator Bob Dixon (R-Springfield).

“What we are doing is saying that we are standing here ready, willing and able to negotiate, talk, do whatever we need to move this idea forward,” says Justus. “The time has come. In order for us to have an effective, responsible, safe criminal justice system, we need to get this done.”

“It’s great to accomodate the Governor if we can,” says Cox, “but my inclination is to take the code – what we have vetted in both legislative bodies – and try to pass it and deal with it that way.”

Another state lawmaker who has spent a great deal of time and effort on the criminal code is Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia), who offered an open letter to fellow legislators about the Governor’s position.  See the story on that letter for what he had to say.