Dear Neighbors,
Tomorrow is our second town hall event, hosted in District 22 at the Bruce R. Watkins Cultural Center at 1pm on June 26. We will have a virtual option, but will also be able to accommodate limited in-person attendance and it's not too late to attend in person! To reserve your seat in-person email my assistant at kaylee.bauer@house.mo.gov.
We will be reflecting on the 2021 legislative session and discussing bills that will likely impact you the most. We have also invited Major Kari Thompson of the KCPD to discuss policing in our city and how to address crime in our communities
To join the webinar via Zoom use this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82888625922?pwd=ajU4a2xzQUE5WjZxK1lsUW5XaVc3Zz09
Passcode: 569361
To join listen to the webinar on a phone, dial 1(301) 715-8592.
Webinar ID: 828 8862 5922
Passcode: 569361 |
|
Remember, we are always here to help you with anything you may need. For assistance, call my office at (573) 751-3129 or email me at yolanda.young@house.mo.gov.
Yours in Service,
Yolanda Young |
|
Circuit Judge Rules Medicaid
Expansion Unconstitutional
|
|
|
|
Judge Jon Beetem is shown at the bench during Monday's hearing in his Cole County courtroom. Litigants representing both sides in the hearing made their presentations regarding Medicaid funding before Beetem in an afternoon hearing that was rescheduled from Friday (Julie Smith/News Tribune).
|
|
Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem on June 23 ruled a state constitutional provision expanding Medicaid eligibility is unconstitutional because it attempts to appropriate through the initiative petition process. However, Beetem’s conclusion appears to contradict an earlier appellate court decision finding the amendment does no such thing.
Regardless of which party prevailed at the trial level, the case had always been expected to be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which likely will happen soon. The parties are hoping to get a final ruling by July 1, when the new eligibility requirements are slated to take effect. The lawsuit seeking enforcement of those rules was filed May 20 after Governor Parson went back on an earlier promise to implement them.
Under the federal Affordable Care Act, states can raise their Medicaid eligibility threshold to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, and the federal government will pay for 90 percent of the cost. After some lawmakers refused to do so for several years, supporters used the initiative petition process to take the case directly to Missouri voters, who ratified the expansion measure, Amendment 2, in November 2020.
Despite Medicaid expansion being enshrined in the Missouri Constitution, the General Assembly refused to provide full funding for the expanded population in the state budget for the 2022 fiscal year, which also begins July 1. The lawsuit argues Amendment 2 doesn’t force the legislature to increase appropriations for Medicaid, known in Missouri as MO HealthNet, but does require the state to expand eligibility and provide services to the expanded population, as well as prohibit the state from discriminating between the previous and expanded populations.
In his opinion, Beetem said the end result is that the legislature would have to appropriate more money for Medicaid to serve the expanded population or the whole program would run out of funding. As a result, Beetem said, Amendment 2 violates a provision of Article III, Section 51 of the state constitution prohibiting appropriations via initiative petition.
“As Plaintiffs readily admitted at argument, under existing law, the choice of the General Assembly is either to fund the expansion or not have a Medicaid program at all,” Beetem wrote. “Without addressing the multiple and serious consequences of terminating the Medicaid program as a whole, given the choices above, Amendment 2 does direct or restrict the General Assembly’s ability to change the appropriation. This result cannot be harmonized to avoid striking down the initiative.”
However, the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District said last year in Cady v. Ashcroft that Amendment 2 absolutely can be harmonized with Article III, Section 51 and ruled the amendment didn’t attempt appropriate through the initiative process. That case, brought by Republican operatives, unsuccessfully sought to block Amendment 2 from the ballot.
“The Proposed Measure does not direct or restrict the General Assembly’s ability to change the amount of appropriations for the MO HealthNet program or to increase or decrease funding for the program based on health-care-related costs,” Judge Mark Pfeiffer wrote for the court in Cady. “This interpretation harmonizes the provisions of the Proposed Measure and Article III, Section 51 of the state Constitution rather than creating an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’”
If Beetem’s ruling is overturned and Medicaid expansion implemented, an estimated 275,000 more people would be eligible for the program. Expansion would bring about $1.4 billion in additional federal Medicaid spending into the state for FY 2022, plus secure Missouri another $1.5 billion under the latest federal COVID-19 relief package. The case is Doyle v. Tidball.
|
|
|
Parson Calls Special Session to Renew Health Care Tax
|
|
|
|
A special legislative session to renew a health care provider tax that’s essential to funding Missouri’s Medicaid program got underway in the Senate on June 23 amid uncertainty about its probability for success, with conservative lawmakers insisting on attaching unrelated restrictions on birth control access.
Missouri health care providers voluntarily pay the tax, known as the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, because it allows the state to leverage substantially more federal Medicaid funding. Lawmakers typically renew the FRA without controversy, but Senate conservatives blocked this year’s effort. If the tax, currently set to expire on Sept. 30, isn’t renewed, the funding loss would blow a massive hole in the state budget for the 2022 fiscal year, which begins July 1.
On June 21, Governor Parson threatened to unilaterally cut $722 million in spending authority from the FY 2022 budget if majority Republicans didn’t agree on a compromise renewal bill. The next day, Parson called the special session – giving lawmakers just 24 hours’ notice to get to Jefferson City – even though it didn’t appear a deal had been struck.
Under the Missouri Constitution, lawmakers can only pass legislation explicitly authorized by the governor when convened in special session. In addition to renewing the FRA and various other health care funding mechanisms that are set to expire, Parson’s special session call authorizes lawmakers to include language prohibiting Medicaid from providing certain common forms of birth control and prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for providing women’s health services unrelated to abortion. Although federal law already prohibits Medicaid from funding abortions, it requires coverage of birth control and prohibits states from discriminating against willing providers of non-abortion services.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, filed three bills: a “clean” FRA renewal; one with the birth control and Planned Parenthood restrictions; and one combining the first two. The committee was to consider all three, but it was unclear if all would advance.
In an unusual move, the House of Representatives did not convene on the session’s first day. Instead, it is waiting to see if any of the bills clear the Senate. If so, the House will convene June 28, with final legislative votes tentatively planned for June 30 – one day before the new fiscal year begins.
|
|
St. Louis City and County Sue
State over Gun Nullification Law
|
|
|
|
St. Louis city and St. Louis County officials filed a joint lawsuit in Cole County on June 22 seeking to block a new state law purporting to declare federal gun laws invalid and unenforceable in Missouri and punishing local police who assist with investigations. Since the U.S. Supreme Court long ago established that states have no authority to nullify federal law, a lawsuit challenging the Missouri’s new statute had been expected.
“This new law is like the state holding out a sign that says ‘Come Commit Gun Violence Here,’” St. Louis County Executive Sam Page said in a joint news release with St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones announcing the lawsuit.
Governor Parson signed the measure, House Bill 85, into law on June 15. Three days later, the U.S. Department of Justice sent Parson a letter warning that the state had no authority to interfere in the enforcement of federal law and asking for a response concerning how Missouri planned to implement its new law or prevent federal officials from performing their duties. On June 17, Parson and Attorney General Eric Schmitt responded with seven-page defense of gun rights that failed to answer the department’s questions.
In addition to claiming to nullify federal gun laws, HB 85 authorizes federal gun offenders to sue local Missouri police for a minimum $50,000 per occurrence, plus attorney fees, for assisting federal authorities. The bill also subjects any local government to similar fines merely for hiring a former federal agent who previously enforced gun laws, regardless of whether that person is being hired in a law enforcement capacity.
The bill passed on party-line votes in both chambers with Republicans in support and Democrats opposed. The case, City of St. Louis, et al., v. State of Missouri, hasn’t yet been set for a hearing.
|
|
|
Attorney General Claims He Can’t Investigative Governor’s Office
|
|
|
|
In a highly questionable legal position with potential consequences for open government, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has declared he can’t investigate Governor Parson’s office for alleged violations of the state Sunshine Law since he sometimes represents the office in other cases. The Missouri Independent, an online news organization focusing on state government, first reported on Schmitt’s novel interpretation on June 11.
The attorney general is primarily responsible for enforcing the Sunshine Law, which requires most government meetings and records to be open to the public with limited exceptions. If the attorney general refuses to handle a case, those who believe a government official or agency has violated the law must pursue it at their own expense.
After Parson’s office broke with longstanding past practice and refused to make public the resignation letters of two high-ranking state officials who recently stepped down without explanation, the Missouri Independent filed a complaint with Schmitt, whose office claimed the attorney-client relationship with the governor’s office creates a conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating. This view likewise breaks with that of previous attorneys general who have pursued Sunshine Law investigations against previous governors.
If correct, Schmitt’s new interpretation raises the question of whether his office can bring any Sunshine cases involving state government since by default the attorney general represents all state agencies and officials in lawsuits. In addition, following Schmitt’s logic, the attorney general arguably could never investigate state agencies or officials for any reason – including criminal offenses – due to the attorney-client relationship. Such a position would severely weaken accountability in state government.
According to the Missouri Independent, Schmitt’s office didn’t respond to questions regarding the scope of his new policy and whether it applies to other state agencies and circumstances. Schmitt became attorney general in 2019 when Parson appointed him to the post to fill a vacancy.
|
|
Governor Signs Bill Limiting
Public Health Restrictions
|
|
|
|
Local officials will face new restrictions on their authority to respond to future public health emergencies under legislation Governor Parson signed into law on June 15. The restrictions are a product of a backlash from GOP lawmakers to local restrictions, most now lifted, imposed last year in an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19.
During the height of the pandemic, Parson imposed few statewide mandates and repeatedly said such decisions should be left local health officials, who were best positioned to determine the appropriate measures necessary based on local conditions. By signing House Bill 271 into law, Parson hampers the ability of local officials to respond to local circumstances.
Under the bill, local orders that fully or partially close businesses, churches or schools or place restrictions on any public or private gatherings can last for no more than 30 days during a 180-day period, although such orders can be extended by a vote of the local governing authority. HB 271 also prohibits local governments from requiring proof of a COVID-19 vaccination to use public transportation or access public accommodations. That prohibition does not apply to business or other private organizations.
Although the limits on the authority public health officials were highly controversial, because HB 271 is an omnibus bill containing numerous other topics relating to local government, it passed on near-unanimous votes of 147-2 in the House of Representatives and 29-3 in the Senate. However, since the wide-ranging, 49-page final legislation started as a three-page bill limited to creating a “local government expenditure database,” HB 271 is susceptible to a lawsuit for violating constitutional prohibitions against bills that are changed from their original purpose or contain multiple subjects.
|
|
Truman Medical Center is offering walk-in vaccinations at their two hospital campuses (2211 Charlotte and 7900 Lee’s Summit Road) 7am to 2pm Monday through Friday. In addition, you can schedule a vaccine at www.trumed.org or by calling 816-404-CARE.
ALL Missourians are eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. If you have not been vaccinated, I encourage you to visit the COVID-19 map to find a vaccination site near you. The following places are currently offering vaccines in Kansas City: |
|
|
|
