Representative Yolanda Young's Newsletter

Dear Neighbors,

The House of Representatives was hard at work this week. After weeks of waiting, we finally voted (114-11-25) to pass the nearly $4.6 billion emergency supplemental spending bill that would distribute billions of dollars in federal pandemic relief funds to local public school districts, and to fully fund Missouri’s Medicaid program for the rest of the FY 2022 fiscal year. Governor Parson wanted us to finalize the bill by February 1, but House Budget Committee delayed it for nearly a month.
 
The House version of the bill authorizes significantly less than the $5.27 billion Governor Parson requested. One key difference that sparked significant debate was that the House plan provides a less generous pay increase to the lowest paid state employees. While Governor Parson requested a $15-an-hour minimum wage for state workers, the House budget only included a $12-an-hour wage for for most departments. Both plans include a 5.5% pay increase for all state workers, but under the House plan some state workers will continue to live below the poverty line.  While I am disappointed that many state workers will be left behind, I ultimately decided to vote 'yes' on the bill to help as many state workers as possible. I am hopeful the Senate will be able to reach an agreement to increase the minimum wage to $15-an-hour. 

This week we also passed (93-53) a proposed constitutional amendment that would likely make it impossible for citizens to use the initiative petition process to propose and enact laws and constitutional amendments independently of the General Assembly. All but a handful of Republicans supported the measure, which myself and my Democratic colleagues unanimously opposed.
 
This measure, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 79, would drastically increase the number of signatures from registered voters required for an initiative petition to qualify for the ballot. For example, the minimum signatures needed for a proposed constitutional amendment would skyrocket from about 172,000 under current law to roughly 434,000.  Also, proposals that did manage to make the ballot would need approval from at least two-thirds of voters to pass instead of the current simple majority. If HJR 79 passes through the Senate, it will automatically be placed on the November 8 ballot for voter approval. 

This week, I filed another bill for consideration. HB 2682 improves the Sexual Assault Survivors' Bill of Rights. During the interim, I had the opportunity to represent the House of Representatives on a task force to improve Missouri laws aimed at protecting sexual assault survivors. This bill was originally filed by Senator Jill Schupp, who also served on the interim task force. Her version of the bill has a Senate committee hearing on Monday, and I am excited to work with her to get the bill passed into law. I will keep you updated as the bill moves throughout the process. 

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. If you know of someone who could use some extra help this holiday season, please give them my contact information. 

Yours in Service,

Yolanda Young

A Senate committee considered legislation on February 1 that one rural prosecutor said essentially would legalize murder in Missouri by creating a presumption in state law that whenever one person kills another, the killer acted in self-defense.
 
Under the aptly numbered Senate Bill 666, someone who uses physical or deadly force is presumed to have acted in self-defense and would be “immune from criminal prosecution or civil action.” Not only could that person not be prosecuted, the bill would prohibit suspects from being arrested, detained or charged with a crime unless authorities can prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that suspect didn’t act in self-defense.
 
Existing law allows a defendant to claim self-defense at trial, but the defendant has the burden of proving use of force was justified. Prosecutors, though, still must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. By contrast, short of a confession of ill intent, SB 666 would set an extremely high bar for authorities to even bring charges by requiring them to prove a negative – that self-defense didn’t happen in a case.
 
Police and prosecutors from around Missouri testified against the bill, which is sponsored by state Senator Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield). Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver dubbed the bill the “Make Murder Legal Act” during testimony before the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In murder cases with no witnesses, Oliver said SB 666 would force authorities to accept the suspect’s version of events.
 
“So long as the person is dead ... you automatically have immunity because there’s not someone else to even say what had happened,” Oliver said, according to the paper.

On February 10 the committee voted 4-3 to defeat legislation. Two Republicans joined the panel’s two Democrats in opposing the bill. Three other Republicans supported it. 

A Cole County judge on February 2 largely upheld the ballot language Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote for a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit diverting taxpayer funding to private schools through vouchers or tax credits. However, the judge rewrote a portion of Ashcroft’s language pertaining to a provision requiring the state to implement a uniform process for evaluating and accrediting public schools.
 
Supporters of the proposed amendment sued Ashcroft in October, claiming his ballot language provided a “distorted characterization” of what it would do and was “calculated to prejudice voters against the measure.” The backers are seeking to put the measure on the November 8 statewide ballot via the initiative petition process, which allows voters to propose and enact legislation independently of the General Assembly.
 
One section of the proposed amendment states its intent is to preserve revenue available for public schools by largely prohibiting efforts to subsidize private schools with public funds, subject to a list of five narrow exceptions. The General Assembly last year enacted a controversial law creating a voucher program for students to attend private K-12 schools. The proposed amendment would render that law unconstitutional.
 
The amendment’s second section would require the Missouri State Board of Education to establish uniform regulations on public schools and appears intended to ensure basic accountability for charter schools, which currently operate free of many regulations that apply to traditional public schools. At present, charter schools are only allowed to operate in St. Louis and Kansas City, but proponents have been lobbying lawmakers in recent years to expand them statewide.
 
Circuit Judge Jon Beetem upheld the part of Ashcroft’s language claiming the measure would “remove opportunities for disabled, special needs, and those students who are economically disadvantaged” by prohibiting private school vouchers. However, he deleted language stating the amendment would “limit the influence, power and authority of parents, community members and local school boards.”
 
The case, Talbot v. Ashcroft, is expected to be appealed. Supporters have until early May to collect the roughly 172,000 signatures from registered Missouri voters necessary to qualify for the ballot.

The Missouri Supreme Court on February 8 struck down two state laws Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft used to block Missouri voters from having the final say on legislation enacted in 2019 to criminalize most abortions after just eight weeks of pregnancy. The court’s 5-2 decision sided with a lower court’s holding that the statutes interfere with the state constitutional right to referendum.
 
On the last day of the 2019 legislative session, the Missouri General Assembly enacted House Bill 126, which sought tighter restrictions on abortion. Opponents of the bill quickly filed a referendum petition, which forces a statewide vote on legislation passed by lawmakers and signed by the governor. The petition’s backers faced a 90-day deadline to collect the roughly 100,000 signatures from registered voters needed to put HB 126 on the ballot.
 
Secretary Ashcroft initially delayed the effort by declaring the petition violated constitutional procedures. After the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District ruled Ashcroft overstepped his authority and ordered him to certify the petition, he then engaged in further delay by taking the full 51 days state law gave him to complete the job. By the time he finally did so, petition backers had just two weeks to collect the necessary signatures by the deadline, a likely impossible task by that point.
 
To prevent Secretary Ashcroft from pulling a similar move in the future, petition supporters then challenged the constitutionality of the law allowing the secretary of state to delay the certification process and a related statute prohibiting petitions from being circulated prior to that time. Although the referendum on HB 126 didn’t move forward, a federal court subsequently blocked the law from taking effect.
 
Writing for the majority, Judge Mary Russell noted that while the legislature can enact laws that assist with the implementation of the referendum, laws that interfere with it are unconstitutional.
 
“The Missouri Constitution guarantees the right of referendum to all Missouri citizens, not just those capable of raising the necessary funds to complete a signature-collection effort within the tightest of timeframes,” Judge Russell wrote.
 
In the dissenting opinion, Judge W. Brent Powell said he would have upheld the statutes since the plaintiffs didn’t prove the laws interfere with the right to referendum in all possible circumstances. The majority countered that the fact they interfere at all is constitutionally impermissible. The case is No Bans on Choice, et al., v. Ashcroft.

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments February 7 in a case challenging a 2021 law that purports to declare federal gun laws unenforceable in Missouri and punishes local police departments for assisting federal authorities in criminal investigations. The arguments primarily focused on procedural questions, with little discussion of the case’s merits.
 
The General Assembly enacted the law in question, House Bill 85, last May. The following month, St. Louis city, St. Louis County and Jackson County filed a lawsuit claiming HB 85 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which prohibits individual states from invalidating federal laws. In a highly unusual move, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice appeared before the state high court to argue in support of striking down the new law, saying it has chilled cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officials in criminal investigations.
 
In addition to purporting to nullify federal gun laws, HB 85 authorizes federal gun offenders to sue Missouri police departments for a minimum $50,000 per occurrence, plus attorney fees, for assisting federal authorities. The bill also subjects any local government agency to similar fines merely for hiring a former federal agent who previously enforced gun laws, regardless of whether that person is hired in a law enforcement capacity. The new law is dubiously referred to as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act.” The court will issue its ruling at a later date.

The House Budget Committee voted 22-9 along straight party lines on February 7 to advance a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at thwarting a voter-approved expansion of eligibility for Missouri’s Medicaid program. The proposed amendment now goes to the full House of Representatives for further debate.
 
After years of blocking Medicaid expansion from the General Assembly, supporters used the initiative petition process to put the issue directly to voters, who in 2020 ratified a constitutional amendment requiring the state to implement expansion. Lawmakers who oppose expansion continued their resistance in 2021 by refusing to provide spending authority for Medicaid expansion in the FY 2022 state budget. However, the state Supreme Court subsequently ruled the constitution still requires the state to provide services to the expanded population.
 
House Joint Resolution 117 would empower the legislature to block services to the expanded population by withholding funding – the exact maneuver the Supreme Court ruled isn’t currently allowed under the state constitution. If the proposal clears the legislature, it would go on the November 8 statewide ballot for voter ratification.

The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled the state Department of Health and Senior Services must disclose information submitted by successful applicants for medical marijuana licenses in an administrative challenge brought by an applicant who was denied a license.
 
The constitutional amendment Missouri voters ratified in 2018 legalizing medical marijuana also granted the health department regulatory authority over the industry, and the agency has faced fierce criticism over how it has performed the task. Accusations that an inconsistent scoring process allowed the department to grant licenses to favored recipients while denying them to similarly situated applicants resulted in hundreds of appeals to the Administrative Hearing Commissions, which handles administrative disputes involving state agencies.
 
One unsuccessful applicant, Kings Garden Midwest, sought other applicants’ information as part of its appeal, but the department argued it couldn’t be compelled to disclose it because of a constitutional provision requiring such information to be kept confidential. However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Judge George Draper III, said the constitution expressly allows such information to be disclosed during the license denial appeals process.
 
“Because applications are not judged solely on their own merits but are ranked competitively against other applications, the only way to determine whether Department denied King’s Garden’s application in an arbitrary or capricious manner is to compare its applications against information from those of successful applicants,” Judge Draper wrote. “Without all of the information that formed the basis of Department’s decision, no meaningful review is possible.”
 
Because of the court’s decision, the department must disclose the information in other pending appeals. The case is State ex rel. Department of Health and Senior Services v. Slusher.

Starting Seedlings Indoors and Under Lights
Tuesday, February 15th @ 5:30pm
Many gardeners have longed to start their own seedlings indoors and been frustrated. Come and learn the important secrets that will bring success. Discussion will include proper lighting and the process of transitioning plants to outdoors.

Fruit Tree Care and Maintenance
Friday, February 25th @ 12pm
Fruit trees can be incredibly rewarding, but it takes work to get that reward year after year. Learn pruning and pest management techniques and timing for fruit trees and berries to insure a bountiful harvest. 

These workshops are free and will be held virtually via Zoom. Register at https://www.tfaforms.com/409819  and you will receive a Zoom link the morning of the workshop.

You can also get the flu shot at the same time you receive the COVID-19 booster shot. Find a flu shot near you at MOStopsFlu.com. 

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 and many are eligible to receive a booster. 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: 

Anyone in need of a COVID-19 vaccine can receive one for FREE from KC CARE Health Center at the following Kansas City Public Library locations:

Tuesdays, 10 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Plaza Branch, 4801 Main St.

Wednesdays, 2 p.m. - 6 p.m.
Waldo Branch, 201 E. 75^th St.

Thursdays, Noon - 6 p.m.
North-East Branch, 6000 Wilson Ave.

Anyone hoping to get a vaccine can walk in to one of the Library clinic sessions as long as supplies last. No registration is required. Available for ages 12 and older. There is no cost to get the vaccine -- it is completely free.

The full schedule of vaccine clinics at Library locations can be found on the Library’s online calendar.