(Radio Iowa) - A former southeast Iowa middle school teacher is facing time in prison after sending improper messages to a student six years ago. 

Forty-two-year-old Zachary Barr of Ottumwa will serve a pair of five-year concurrent prison sentences after pleading guilty to enticing a minor and sexual exploitation by a school employee. In 2018, Barr, then a sixth-grade teacher at Evans Middle School, sent illicit messages to a 13-year-old girl. 

As part of the investigation, officers took control of the girl’s social media accounts. Their conversations with Barr became overtly sexual, prompting his arrest. Barr will also have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

(Radio Iowa) - A former southeast Iowa middle school teacher is facing time in prison after sending improper messages to a student six years ago. Forty-two-year-old Zachary Barr of Ottumwa will serve a pair of five-year concurrent prison sentences after pleading guilty to enticing a minor and sexual exploitation by a school employee. In 2018, Barr, then a sixth-grade teacher at Evans Middle School, sent illicit messages to a 13-year-old girl. As part of the investigation, officers took control of the girl’s social media accounts. Their conversations with Barr became overtly sexual, prompting his arrest. Barr will also have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Former Ottumwa Teacher Sentenced For Sexual Exploitation

The court ordered Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to tell local election authorities to put Amendment 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

Missourians will have the opportunity to vote to enshrine abortion in the state constitution this November, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.&nbsp;

In a decision published less than three hours before the constitutional deadline to remove a question from the ballot, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that recommended the measure be stripped from the Nov. 5 ballot.&nbsp;

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft “shall certify to local election authorities that Amendment 3 be placed on the Nov. 5, 2024, general election ballot and shall take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot,” the judgment read.

In a lawsuit filed late last month, a number of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists sued Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft for certifying Amendment 3 for the ballot.&nbsp;

On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing, Ashcroft announced he was decertifying the measure, a potentially unprecedented attempt to rescind his previous decision in an attempt to block the measure from the ballot.

The Supreme Court judges said Ashcroft missed his statutory deadline to change his mind.

“Respondent Ashcroft certified the petition as sufficient prior to that deadline, and any action taken to change that decision weeks after the statutory deadline expired is a nullity and of no effect,” the judges wrote.&nbsp;

In order to get a citizen-led Amendment on the ballot, the campaign behind the measure must first collect enough signatures from six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. When asked for signatures, state law requires that the amendment be attached in full.&nbsp;

The initiative petition circulated by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom did not include any current law that would be repealed, the issue at the crux of the lower court’s ruling.&nbsp;

There is also a section of state law that requires initiative petitions “include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”

Attorneys for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom have&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/06/judge-decides-abortion-amendment-3-missouri-ballot/">said&nbsp;</a>the amendment would not repeal the state’s current abortion law or take it off the books. Instead, they said, it would create a new law that would supersede much of the existing one because not every element of the current law would be rendered moot, including laws protecting women who get abortions from prosecution.&nbsp;

And, they added, anything that falls under the scope of the amendment would be left to the judicial system to interpret.&nbsp;

Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh did not agree. On Friday he ruled that the campaign did not meet the sufficiency requirement through a “failure to include any statute or provision that will be repealed, especially when many of these statutes are apparent.”&nbsp;

While Limbaugh recommended the amendment be taken off the ballot, he ultimately left the decision up to a higher court.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Amendment 3 would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability and protect other reproductive rights, including birth control. Abortion is illegal in Missouri with limited exceptions for medical emergencies.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725997401102.png" alt=" The Missouri Supreme Court takes the bench on Tuesday in Jefferson City to hear a case questioning whether an amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban will remain on the state’s November ballot. From left are Judges Kelly C. Broniec, Robin Ransom, W. Brent Powell, Chief Justice Mary R. Russell, Zel. M. Fischer, Paul C. Wilson and Ginger K. Gooch (Pool photo by Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch)." />
 <figcaption> The Missouri Supreme Court takes the bench on Tuesday in Jefferson City to hear a case questioning whether an amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban will remain on the state’s November ballot. From left are Judges Kelly C. Broniec, Robin Ransom, W. Brent Powell, Chief Justice Mary R. Russell, Zel. M. Fischer, Paul C. Wilson and Ginger K. Gooch (Pool photo by Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The court ordered Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to tell local election authorities to put Amendment 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>Missourians will have the opportunity to vote to enshrine abortion in the state constitution this November, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.&nbsp;In a decision published less than three hours before the constitutional deadline to remove a question from the ballot, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that recommended the measure be stripped from the Nov. 5 ballot.&nbsp;Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft “shall certify to local election authorities that Amendment 3 be placed on the Nov. 5, 2024, general election ballot and shall take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot,” the judgment read.In a lawsuit filed late last month, a number of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists sued Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft for certifying Amendment 3 for the ballot.&nbsp;On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing, Ashcroft announced he was decertifying the measure, a potentially unprecedented attempt to rescind his previous decision in an attempt to block the measure from the ballot.The Supreme Court judges said Ashcroft missed his statutory deadline to change his mind.“Respondent Ashcroft certified the petition as sufficient prior to that deadline, and any action taken to change that decision weeks after the statutory deadline expired is a nullity and of no effect,” the judges wrote.&nbsp;In order to get a citizen-led Amendment on the ballot, the campaign behind the measure must first collect enough signatures from six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. When asked for signatures, state law requires that the amendment be attached in full.&nbsp;The initiative petition circulated by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom did not include any current law that would be repealed, the issue at the crux of the lower court’s ruling.&nbsp;There is also a section of state law that requires initiative petitions “include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”Attorneys for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom have&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/06/judge-decides-abortion-amendment-3-missouri-ballot/">said&nbsp;</a>the amendment would not repeal the state’s current abortion law or take it off the books. Instead, they said, it would create a new law that would supersede much of the existing one because not every element of the current law would be rendered moot, including laws protecting women who get abortions from prosecution.&nbsp;And, they added, anything that falls under the scope of the amendment would be left to the judicial system to interpret.&nbsp;Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh did not agree. On Friday he ruled that the campaign did not meet the sufficiency requirement through a “failure to include any statute or provision that will be repealed, especially when many of these statutes are apparent.”&nbsp;While Limbaugh recommended the amendment be taken off the ballot, he ultimately left the decision up to a higher court.&nbsp;&nbsp;Amendment 3 would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability and protect other reproductive rights, including birth control. Abortion is illegal in Missouri with limited exceptions for medical emergencies.

Missouri Supreme Court rules amendment legalizing abortion will remain on ballot

Though
drought conditions have eased in the Midwest, drought persists in the upper
Missouri River basin, prompting the Army Corps of Engineers to keep water releases
from the Gavins Point Dam at a minimum.

Chief
of the Missouri River Basin Water Management Division, John
Remus, says there is a big difference between conditions in the lower Missouri
River basin and the upper basin. 

“Primarily Nebraska, parts of Kansas, and of
course here in Missouri, they’ve kind of come out of drought,” Remus tells
KFEQ/St. Joseph Post. “The upper basin, however, is kind of, we thought we were
going to have some improvements, but it went back into drought.”

The Corps of Engineers reports 73% of the
Missouri River Basin is experiencing dry or drought conditions with little reason
for optimism that that will turn around anytime soon.

“Based on the soil conditions and the long-term
outlook from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I think we’re
probably going to have another dry spring unless we get a lot of snow in the
mountains and a lot of snow in the plains,” Remus says. “But they’re not
calling for that. I believe we’re going to be in a very similar situation to begin
2025 as we were this year in 2024.”

Remus understands minimum water releases puts
pressure on cities, businesses, and utilities that rely on the Missouri River.

“Right now, we’re looking at a winter release of 12,000
cubic feet per second out of Gavins Point, which is very similar to what we had
in the winter of 2022, ’23,” says Remus. “So there are going to be some
municipal intakes in the lower river here that are going to be right at the
margin of having some issues with getting water in.”

Remus says though conditions in the upper
Missouri River basin improved earlier this year, dry conditions up north sent much
of the upper basin back into abnormally dry or drought conditions. Remus says
the Corps of Engineers will keep those relying on the Missouri River abreast of
what releases to expect from Gavins Point.

You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725991603264.jpeg" alt="Gavins Point Dam/file photo" />
 <figcaption>Gavins Point Dam/file photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostThough
drought conditions have eased in the Midwest, drought persists in the upper
Missouri River basin, prompting the Army Corps of Engineers to keep water releases
from the Gavins Point Dam at a minimum.Chief
of the Missouri River Basin Water Management Division, John
Remus, says there is a big difference between conditions in the lower Missouri
River basin and the upper basin. “Primarily Nebraska, parts of Kansas, and of
course here in Missouri, they’ve kind of come out of drought,” Remus tells
KFEQ/St. Joseph Post. “The upper basin, however, is kind of, we thought we were
going to have some improvements, but it went back into drought.”The Corps of Engineers reports 73% of the
Missouri River Basin is experiencing dry or drought conditions with little reason
for optimism that that will turn around anytime soon.“Based on the soil conditions and the long-term
outlook from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I think we’re
probably going to have another dry spring unless we get a lot of snow in the
mountains and a lot of snow in the plains,” Remus says. “But they’re not
calling for that. I believe we’re going to be in a very similar situation to begin
2025 as we were this year in 2024.”Remus understands minimum water releases puts
pressure on cities, businesses, and utilities that rely on the Missouri River.“Right now, we’re looking at a winter release of 12,000
cubic feet per second out of Gavins Point, which is very similar to what we had
in the winter of 2022, ’23,” says Remus. “So there are going to be some
municipal intakes in the lower river here that are going to be right at the
margin of having some issues with getting water in.”Remus says though conditions in the upper
Missouri River basin improved earlier this year, dry conditions up north sent much
of the upper basin back into abnormally dry or drought conditions. Remus says
the Corps of Engineers will keep those relying on the Missouri River abreast of
what releases to expect from Gavins Point.You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Upper Missouri River basin drought keeps downstream flows as minimum

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>

WASHINGTON — As Congress returns from a five-week recess Monday, House Republicans have attached a provision to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections — which is already unlawful — to a stopgap funding bill that is already teeing up a battle with the Senate and White House.

The GOP drive in Congress echoes state lawmakers’ push for&nbsp;<a href="https://scdailygazette.com/2024/05/06/though-noncitizens-can-vote-in-few-local-elections-gop-goes-big-to-make-it-illegal/" target="_blank">ballot measures</a>&nbsp;this November that would bar noncitizens from voting in&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/06/21/idaho-legislators-approve-ballot-info-for-noncitizen-voting-constitutional-amendment/" target="_blank">Idaho</a>, Iowa,&nbsp;<a href="https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/06/18/kentucky-elections-officials-say-noncitizens-arent-voting-in-the-state/" target="_blank">Kentucky</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/judge-upholds-ballot-language-to-ban-noncitizen-voting-already-illegal-in-missouri/" target="_blank">Missouri</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/nc-house-republicans-advance-a-proposed-constitutional-amendment-to-prohibit-non-citizen-voting/" target="_blank">North Carolina</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://oklahomavoice.com/2024/06/04/republicans-want-oklahomans-to-reword-constitution-to-make-crystal-clear-noncitizens-cant-vote/" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://scdailygazette.com/2024/08/12/panel-decides-citizenship-question-on-sc-ballots-needs-no-explanation/" target="_blank">South Carolina</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://wisconsinexaminer.com/briefs/legislators-hold-hearing-on-non-citizen-voting/" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a>.

It also comes in the heat of the presidential campaign, as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump<a href="https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/09/03/trump-promises-mass-deportations-of-undocumented-people-how-would-that-work/" target="_blank">&nbsp;repeatedly calls for mass deportations&nbsp;</a>of undocumented immigrants and faces the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, in a crucial Tuesday night debate.

Current federal government spending will expire Oct. 1, so Congress must pass a continuing resolution, or CR, to approve temporary spending beyond that date or risk a shutdown.

The measure that requires proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, which U.S. House Republicans and some vulnerable Democrats passed in July, has been added by the House GOP to a CR that would extend spending until March 28. A vote by the House is expected this week.

The White House on Monday vowed President Joe Biden would issue a veto if Congress passed the measure in that form.

“Instead of meeting the security and disaster needs of the Nation, this bill includes unrelated cynical legislation that would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls,” the White House<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/H.R.-9494%E2%80%94-Continuing-Appropriations-and-Other-Matters-Act-2025-Final.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;said in a statement&nbsp;</a>Monday. “It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections — it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and fines.”

The voting language is a nonstarter among Senate Democrats, who hold a slim majority in the chamber.

“As we have said repeatedly, avoiding a government shutdown requires bipartisanship, not a bill drawn up by one party,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray of Washington said in a joint statement Friday.

“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path, the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans’ hands,” they continued.

Democrats have argued that the bill is an attempt to sow distrust in U.S. elections ahead of November elections.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has stressed that noncitizen voting in federal elections is an issue, although research has found&nbsp;<a href="https://campaignlegal.org/update/false-claims-noncitizen-voting-harm-our-democracy" target="_blank">it rarely happens.&nbsp;</a>

“As the 2024 election nears, it is imperative that Congress does everything within our power to protect the integrity of our nation’s election system,” he said in a statement.

In April, Johnson while at Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, Florida,&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/12/trump-supports-u-s-house-speaker-johnson-elections-agenda-in-joint-appearance/" target="_blank">announced the House would pass a bill relating to noncitizen voting</a>. The former president has often falsely blamed voting by large numbers of undocumented people for his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton as the reason he lost the popular vote.

Other Democrats objected to passing a CR that would last until next year.

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, criticized the six-month measure because it is “shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing their care by kicking the can down the road until March.”

“A continuing resolution to the end of March provides Republicans with more leverage to attempt to force their unpopular cuts to services that American families depend on to make ends meet,” she said in a statement.

The original noncitizen voting bill,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr8281rh/pdf/BILLS-118hr8281rh.pdf" target="_blank">H.R.8281,</a>&nbsp;was first introduced by Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. It&nbsp;<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024345?Page=2" target="_blank">passed 221-198</a>, with five Democrats voting with Republicans, but stalled in the Senate.

Those five Democrats who voted in support of the measure are: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

Under current U.S. law, only citizens can vote in federal elections, but the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2" target="_blank">National Voter Registration Act</a>&nbsp;of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status.

Along with the ballot measures, hundreds of Republican state legislators have also signed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.onlycitizensvotecoalition.com/state-leaders-pledge" target="_blank">on to a letter</a>&nbsp;by the Only Citizens Vote Coalition urging Congress to pass a bill to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The Only Citizens Vote Coalition includes election denier activists, organizations headed by former Trump aides and anti-immigrant groups. It was founded by Cleta Mitchell,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trumps-pick-rnc-chief-worked-top-election-deniers-group" target="_blank">a key figure who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election&nbsp;</a>and is now running a grassroots organization to aggressively monitor elections in November.

Five of the eight states — Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin — with votes set on ballot measures have state legislators who sponsored bills to put the question on the ballot and are signed on to the letter by Only Citizens Vote.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725930223008.png" alt=" The U.S. House as it returns from a five-week recess is preparing to vote on a stopgap spending bill that also includes a provision to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)" />
 <figcaption> The U.S. House as it returns from a five-week recess is preparing to vote on a stopgap spending bill that also includes a provision to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>WASHINGTON — As Congress returns from a five-week recess Monday, House Republicans have attached a provision to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections — which is already unlawful — to a stopgap funding bill that is already teeing up a battle with the Senate and White House.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerJohnson</a>: &quot;I believe we can fund the government responsibly and I believe that we can do right by the American people and ensure the security of our elections. I defy anybody to give me any logical argument why we shouldn&#39;t do that. That&#39;s why I&#39;m so resolute about this.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/SHvLqS0QPj">pic.twitter.com/SHvLqS0QPj</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1833521566954475819?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The GOP drive in Congress echoes state lawmakers’ push for&nbsp;<a href="https://scdailygazette.com/2024/05/06/though-noncitizens-can-vote-in-few-local-elections-gop-goes-big-to-make-it-illegal/" target="_blank">ballot measures</a>&nbsp;this November that would bar noncitizens from voting in&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/06/21/idaho-legislators-approve-ballot-info-for-noncitizen-voting-constitutional-amendment/" target="_blank">Idaho</a>, Iowa,&nbsp;<a href="https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/06/18/kentucky-elections-officials-say-noncitizens-arent-voting-in-the-state/" target="_blank">Kentucky</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/judge-upholds-ballot-language-to-ban-noncitizen-voting-already-illegal-in-missouri/" target="_blank">Missouri</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/nc-house-republicans-advance-a-proposed-constitutional-amendment-to-prohibit-non-citizen-voting/" target="_blank">North Carolina</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://oklahomavoice.com/2024/06/04/republicans-want-oklahomans-to-reword-constitution-to-make-crystal-clear-noncitizens-cant-vote/" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://scdailygazette.com/2024/08/12/panel-decides-citizenship-question-on-sc-ballots-needs-no-explanation/" target="_blank">South Carolina</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://wisconsinexaminer.com/briefs/legislators-hold-hearing-on-non-citizen-voting/" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a>.It also comes in the heat of the presidential campaign, as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump<a href="https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/09/03/trump-promises-mass-deportations-of-undocumented-people-how-would-that-work/" target="_blank">&nbsp;repeatedly calls for mass deportations&nbsp;</a>of undocumented immigrants and faces the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, in a crucial Tuesday night debate.Current federal government spending will expire Oct. 1, so Congress must pass a continuing resolution, or CR, to approve temporary spending beyond that date or risk a shutdown.The measure that requires proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, which U.S. House Republicans and some vulnerable Democrats passed in July, has been added by the House GOP to a CR that would extend spending until March 28. A vote by the House is expected this week.The White House on Monday vowed President Joe Biden would issue a veto if Congress passed the measure in that form.“Instead of meeting the security and disaster needs of the Nation, this bill includes unrelated cynical legislation that would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls,” the White House<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/H.R.-9494%E2%80%94-Continuing-Appropriations-and-Other-Matters-Act-2025-Final.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;said in a statement&nbsp;</a>Monday. “It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections — it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and fines.”<h2>Senate opposition</h2>The voting language is a nonstarter among Senate Democrats, who hold a slim majority in the chamber.“As we have said repeatedly, avoiding a government shutdown requires bipartisanship, not a bill drawn up by one party,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray of Washington said in a joint statement Friday.“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path, the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans’ hands,” they continued.Democrats have argued that the bill is an attempt to sow distrust in U.S. elections ahead of November elections.House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has stressed that noncitizen voting in federal elections is an issue, although research has found&nbsp;<a href="https://campaignlegal.org/update/false-claims-noncitizen-voting-harm-our-democracy" target="_blank">it rarely happens.&nbsp;</a>“As the 2024 election nears, it is imperative that Congress does everything within our power to protect the integrity of our nation’s election system,” he said in a statement.The bill is also supported by Trump.In April, Johnson while at Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, Florida,&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/12/trump-supports-u-s-house-speaker-johnson-elections-agenda-in-joint-appearance/" target="_blank">announced the House would pass a bill relating to noncitizen voting</a>. The former president has often falsely blamed voting by large numbers of undocumented people for his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton as the reason he lost the popular vote.Other Democrats objected to passing a CR that would last until next year.The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, criticized the six-month measure because it is “shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing their care by kicking the can down the road until March.”“A continuing resolution to the end of March provides Republicans with more leverage to attempt to force their unpopular cuts to services that American families depend on to make ends meet,” she said in a statement.<h2>Texas congressman spearheads bill</h2>The original noncitizen voting bill,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr8281rh/pdf/BILLS-118hr8281rh.pdf" target="_blank">H.R.8281,</a>&nbsp;was first introduced by Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. It&nbsp;<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024345?Page=2" target="_blank">passed 221-198</a>, with five Democrats voting with Republicans, but stalled in the Senate.Those five Democrats who voted in support of the measure are: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.Under current U.S. law, only citizens can vote in federal elections, but the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2" target="_blank">National Voter Registration Act</a>&nbsp;of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status.Along with the ballot measures, hundreds of Republican state legislators have also signed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.onlycitizensvotecoalition.com/state-leaders-pledge" target="_blank">on to a letter</a>&nbsp;by the Only Citizens Vote Coalition urging Congress to pass a bill to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections.The Only Citizens Vote Coalition includes election denier activists, organizations headed by former Trump aides and anti-immigrant groups. It was founded by Cleta Mitchell,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trumps-pick-rnc-chief-worked-top-election-deniers-group" target="_blank">a key figure who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election&nbsp;</a>and is now running a grassroots organization to aggressively monitor elections in November.Five of the eight states — Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin — with votes set on ballot measures have state legislators who sponsored bills to put the question on the ballot and are signed on to the letter by Only Citizens Vote.

🎥U.S. House GOP sets up fight over noncitizen voting in bill averting government shutdown

(Radio Iowa) - A central Iowa English professor's debut collection of short stories is being released today (Tuesday) and it's an atypical collection since it reads more like a novel. 

Marc Dickinson, who teaches creative writing at Des Moines Area Community College, says each of the 12 stories is linked with multiple recurring characters. "Replacement Parts" centers on a series of people struggling with personal demons and societal expectations in small-town Iowa. If you read it from beginning to end, Dickinson says it has "a novelistic feel" as the stories are "talking to each other." His collection is set in a fictional Iowa town of Dexton, which is loosely based on an amalgamation of many small, struggling towns. 

Dickinson's first appearance with the book is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday), and he says the association with the Nine Eleven attacks isn't entirely coincidental, as one of his characters is a veteran who served in Afghanistan.

(Radio Iowa) - A central Iowa English professor's debut collection of short stories is being released today (Tuesday) and it's an atypical collection since it reads more like a novel. Marc Dickinson, who teaches creative writing at Des Moines Area Community College, says each of the 12 stories is linked with multiple recurring characters. "Replacement Parts" centers on a series of people struggling with personal demons and societal expectations in small-town Iowa. If you read it from beginning to end, Dickinson says it has "a novelistic feel" as the stories are "talking to each other." His collection is set in a fictional Iowa town of Dexton, which is loosely based on an amalgamation of many small, struggling towns. Dickinson's first appearance with the book is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday), and he says the association with the Nine Eleven attacks isn't entirely coincidental, as one of his characters is a veteran who served in Afghanistan.

Small-town Iowa is setting for 'novelistic' short story collection

Schwab urges U.S. Postal Service to guarantee timely delivery of postmarked ballots

TOPEKA — The Kansas secretary of state said in a letter to the U.S. postmaster general that approximately 1,000 August primary voters in Kansas were disenfranchised because ballots mailed before Election Day in August arrived in county offices more than three days after the deadline or without an essential postmark.

Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican who serves as the state’s chief elections officer, told Postmaster General Louis DeJoy there was cause to be “extremely concerned” about “a troubling pattern that persists in the U.S. Postal Service’s processing and handling of ballots.” He send the same letter to the six members of the Kansas congressional delegation.

During the August primary, Schwab said, 18% of Kansans exercised the constitutional right to vote by sending ballots through the mail. Nearly 1,000 of those individuals, or 2% of ballots transmitted by mail in Kansas, weren’t counted “due to USPS administrative failures,” he said.

In correspondence released Monday, Schwab sought assurances that the USPS would guarantee every mail ballot in the November general election received a postmark so it could be counted. Schwab also asked that ballots placed in USPS custody before Election Day would be delivered to county offices before the three-day, post-election window closed.

“The USPS’ proper and timely handling of mail ballots is a key aspect to maintaining trust in our election system by assuring the public that utmost care is taken to preserve the safety and security of their ballot,” Schwab said. “Kansas has had mail voting in some form since the Civil War, but never has a lack of confidence in the delivery of our ballot been questioned as it has in the 21st century.”

Kansas law requires advance mail-in ballots to be postmarked by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Only ballots received in county election offices within three days of a primary or general election could be counted in Kansas.

Schwab said a post-election survey showed county election offices in the state received ballots from the postal service days or weeks after they were mailed. He said some ballots placed in the mail ahead of Election Day didn’t get a postmark.

Approximately half the state’s county clerks reported receiving mail-in ballots without a postmark or after the three-day grace period permitted under statute, he said.

“It is unacceptable that voters, who follow the rules for requesting, voting and returning their mail ballot, are disenfranchised by the USPS because ballots that were properly and timely mailed were delivered without a postmark or not at all,” Schwab said.

In July, the USPS’ office of inspector general recommended the postal service make changes to allow postmarking of ballots that erroneously didn’t receive one. The operational shift could help voters feel more confident their ballot would move efficiently through USPS, the inspector general said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720316487639.png" alt="Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican, send a letter to the U.S. postmaster general and the Kansas congressional delegation complaining that nearly 1,000 advance ballots dropped in the mail before Election Day in the August primary weren't counted because envelopes lacked the required postmark or arrived after the three-day grace period&nbsp;authorized under state law.-Post file photo" />
 <figcaption>Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican, send a letter to the U.S. postmaster general and the Kansas congressional delegation complaining that nearly 1,000 advance ballots dropped in the mail before Election Day in the August primary weren't counted because envelopes lacked the required postmark or arrived after the three-day grace period&nbsp;authorized under state law.-Post file photo</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Schwab urges U.S. Postal Service to guarantee timely delivery of postmarked ballots</h2>TOPEKA — The Kansas secretary of state said in a letter to the U.S. postmaster general that approximately 1,000 August primary voters in Kansas were disenfranchised because ballots mailed before Election Day in August arrived in county offices more than three days after the deadline or without an essential postmark.Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican who serves as the state’s chief elections officer, told Postmaster General Louis DeJoy there was cause to be “extremely concerned” about “a troubling pattern that persists in the U.S. Postal Service’s processing and handling of ballots.” He send the same letter to the six members of the Kansas congressional delegation.During the August primary, Schwab said, 18% of Kansans exercised the constitutional right to vote by sending ballots through the mail. Nearly 1,000 of those individuals, or 2% of ballots transmitted by mail in Kansas, weren’t counted “due to USPS administrative failures,” he said.In correspondence released Monday, Schwab sought assurances that the USPS would guarantee every mail ballot in the November general election received a postmark so it could be counted. Schwab also asked that ballots placed in USPS custody before Election Day would be delivered to county offices before the three-day, post-election window closed.“The USPS’ proper and timely handling of mail ballots is a key aspect to maintaining trust in our election system by assuring the public that utmost care is taken to preserve the safety and security of their ballot,” Schwab said. “Kansas has had mail voting in some form since the Civil War, but never has a lack of confidence in the delivery of our ballot been questioned as it has in the 21st century.”Kansas law requires advance mail-in ballots to be postmarked by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Only ballots received in county election offices within three days of a primary or general election could be counted in Kansas.Schwab said a post-election survey showed county election offices in the state received ballots from the postal service days or weeks after they were mailed. He said some ballots placed in the mail ahead of Election Day didn’t get a postmark.Approximately half the state’s county clerks reported receiving mail-in ballots without a postmark or after the three-day grace period permitted under statute, he said.“It is unacceptable that voters, who follow the rules for requesting, voting and returning their mail ballot, are disenfranchised by the USPS because ballots that were properly and timely mailed were delivered without a postmark or not at all,” Schwab said.In July, the USPS’ office of inspector general recommended the postal service make changes to allow postmarking of ballots that erroneously didn’t receive one. The operational shift could help voters feel more confident their ballot would move efficiently through USPS, the inspector general said.

Kansas election official says nearly 1,000 primary ballots tossed due to mail processing issues

A Savannah Police Lieutenant has been charged in the death of Savannah
K-9 officer Horus.

The Missouri Attorney General’s office filed the class A
charge of misdemeanor animal abuse against Police Lt. Daniel Zeigler after an
investigation by the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

A probable cause statement filed by the patrol states Zeigler
and his K-9 partner Horus had completed their overnight shift on June 20th
when Horus was left in the Savannah Police K-9 vehicle and died of heat exposure.
The patrol reports a safety feature designed to roll down windows and sound the
horn when temperatures reach 90 degrees had been turned off.

The misdemeanor charge carries a punishment of up to one year
in jail and a fine of $2,000.

This article has been updated since first published.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720202220440.png" alt="K-9 Horus/ File photo" />
 <figcaption>K-9 Horus/ File photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By MATT PIKESt. Joseph PostA Savannah Police Lieutenant has been charged in the death of Savannah
K-9 officer Horus.The Missouri Attorney General’s office filed the class A
charge of misdemeanor animal abuse against Police Lt. Daniel Zeigler after an
investigation by the Missouri State Highway Patrol.A probable cause statement filed by the patrol states Zeigler
and his K-9 partner Horus had completed their overnight shift on June 20th
when Horus was left in the Savannah Police K-9 vehicle and died of heat exposure.
The patrol reports a safety feature designed to roll down windows and sound the
horn when temperatures reach 90 degrees had been turned off.The misdemeanor charge carries a punishment of up to one year
in jail and a fine of $2,000.This article has been updated since first published.

Savannah officer charged in death of K9 Horus

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">SHAUNEEN MIRANDA</a>

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will take the stage next week in the only planned debate between the respective Democratic and GOP presidential candidates between now and November.

It’s the first presidential debate since President Joe Biden bowed out of the race following his own disastrous debate performance in late June against Trump. Biden, who faced mounting calls to resign,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/pass-torch-biden-addresses-nation-why-he-wont-seek-second-term" target="_blank">passed the torch</a>&nbsp;to Harris back in July.

The veep has embarked on an unprecedented and expedited campaign as she and Trump vie for the Oval Office. The election is just two months away.

Though the Harris and Trump campaigns clashed over debate procedures in recent weeks, both candidates have agreed to the finalized rules. ABC News, host of the debate, released the rules Wednesday.

The debate will be Tuesday, Sept. 10, at 9 p.m. Eastern time at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The debate will be 90 minutes long and include two commercial breaks,&nbsp;<a href="https://abc.com/news/5e38600c-4732-4cd2-a99c-3dedfa81beb0/category/1138628" target="_blank">according to ABC</a>.

The Keystone State — where both Harris and Trump have spent a lot of time campaigning — could determine the outcome of the presidential election. The battleground state has narrowly flip-flopped in recent elections, with Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/" target="_blank">turning Pennsylvania blue</a>&nbsp;in 2020 after Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/pennsylvania/" target="_blank">secured a red win</a>&nbsp;in 2016.

The debate will air live on ABC News and will also be streaming on ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu.

ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis will moderate the debate.

Harris and Trump will each have two minutes to answer questions and two minutes to give rebuttals. They will also be granted one additional minute to clarify or follow up on anything.

Microphones will be muted when it’s not a candidate’s turn to speak, just like the previous debate between Biden and Trump in June.

The candidates will not give opening statements. Trump won a coin flip to determine the order of closing statements and podium placement. Trump, who selected the statement order, will give the final closing statement.

Each closing statement will be two minutes long.

Harris and Trump are not allowed to bring any props or prewritten notes to the debate stage. They will each receive a pen, a pad of paper and a water bottle.

There will be no live audience at the National Constitution Center, as was the case in the last presidential debate.

Harris and Trump are not permitted to interact with their campaign staff during the two commercial breaks.

Trump went on the attack over the details of the debate, telling&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/town-hall-no-questions-trump-grouses-about-polls-attacks-debate-host" target="_blank">Fox News’ Sean Hannity</a>&nbsp;during an interview Wednesday in Pennsylvania that “ABC is the worst network in terms of fairness” and “the most dishonest network, the meanest, the nastiest.”

He accused the network of releasing poor polls on purpose ahead of a previous election to drive down voter turnout.

Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Harris would get the questions in advance of the debate. ABC’s debate rules state that no candidates or campaigns will receive any topics or questions ahead of the event.

Meanwhile, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance will battle it out at the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mark-your-calendar-vp-candidates-walz-and-vance-debate-oct-1" target="_blank">vice presidential debate</a>&nbsp;hosted by CBS News on Oct. 1 in New York City.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724867447394.png" alt="Photo Associated Press" />
 <figcaption>Photo Associated Press</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">SHAUNEEN MIRANDA</a>Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will take the stage next week in the only planned debate between the respective Democratic and GOP presidential candidates between now and November.It’s the first presidential debate since President Joe Biden bowed out of the race following his own disastrous debate performance in late June against Trump. Biden, who faced mounting calls to resign,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/pass-torch-biden-addresses-nation-why-he-wont-seek-second-term" target="_blank">passed the torch</a>&nbsp;to Harris back in July.The veep has embarked on an unprecedented and expedited campaign as she and Trump vie for the Oval Office. The election is just two months away.Though the Harris and Trump campaigns clashed over debate procedures in recent weeks, both candidates have agreed to the finalized rules. ABC News, host of the debate, released the rules Wednesday.<h2>When and where is the debate?</h2>The debate will be Tuesday, Sept. 10, at 9 p.m. Eastern time at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The debate will be 90 minutes long and include two commercial breaks,&nbsp;<a href="https://abc.com/news/5e38600c-4732-4cd2-a99c-3dedfa81beb0/category/1138628" target="_blank">according to ABC</a>.The Keystone State — where both Harris and Trump have spent a lot of time campaigning — could determine the outcome of the presidential election. The battleground state has narrowly flip-flopped in recent elections, with Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/" target="_blank">turning Pennsylvania blue</a>&nbsp;in 2020 after Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/pennsylvania/" target="_blank">secured a red win</a>&nbsp;in 2016.<h2>How can I watch the debate?</h2>The debate will air live on ABC News and will also be streaming on ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu.ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis will moderate the debate.Harris and Trump will each have two minutes to answer questions and two minutes to give rebuttals. They will also be granted one additional minute to clarify or follow up on anything.<h2>Will the mics be muted?</h2>Microphones will be muted when it’s not a candidate’s turn to speak, just like the previous debate between Biden and Trump in June.The candidates will not give opening statements. Trump won a coin flip to determine the order of closing statements and podium placement. Trump, who selected the statement order, will give the final closing statement.Each closing statement will be two minutes long.Harris and Trump are not allowed to bring any props or prewritten notes to the debate stage. They will each receive a pen, a pad of paper and a water bottle.<h2>Will there be a live audience?</h2>There will be no live audience at the National Constitution Center, as was the case in the last presidential debate.Harris and Trump are not permitted to interact with their campaign staff during the two commercial breaks.<h2>Trump slams ABC ahead of debate</h2>Trump went on the attack over the details of the debate, telling&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/town-hall-no-questions-trump-grouses-about-polls-attacks-debate-host" target="_blank">Fox News’ Sean Hannity</a>&nbsp;during an interview Wednesday in Pennsylvania that “ABC is the worst network in terms of fairness” and “the most dishonest network, the meanest, the nastiest.”He accused the network of releasing poor polls on purpose ahead of a previous election to drive down voter turnout.Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Harris would get the questions in advance of the debate. ABC’s debate rules state that no candidates or campaigns will receive any topics or questions ahead of the event.Meanwhile, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance will battle it out at the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/mark-your-calendar-vp-candidates-walz-and-vance-debate-oct-1" target="_blank">vice presidential debate</a>&nbsp;hosted by CBS News on Oct. 1 in New York City.

5 things to know about the Harris-Trump presidential debate  

Newly reported campaign finance data shows that having the most money wasn’t an automatic ticket to success at the polls

By RUDI KELLER&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

The top three finishers combined to spend $27.5 million in the Republican primary for governor, with the winner,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/mike-kehoe-wins-republican-nomination-for-missouri-governor/">Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe</a>, accounting for almost two-thirds of the total, newly filed campaign disclosure reports show.

Overall, Republicans in statewide contests spent almost $65 million, compared to just $4.8 million in the Democratic Party, where the only significant primary spending was in the race for governor,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/crystal-quade-captures-democratic-nomination-for-missouri-governor/">won by state Rep. Crystal Quade</a>&nbsp;of Springfield.

The new reports, which cover the period from July 27 to Aug. 31, were due Thursday at the Missouri Ethics Commission. Federal candidates do not file post-primary reports.

Campaign finance tracking by The Independent shows that having the most money didn’t equal success in either party. It did for Kehoe and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/vivek-malek-wins-republican-nomination-for-missouri-treasurer/">State Treasurer Vivek Malek</a>, who spent $5.8 million from his campaign fund and joint fundraising PAC.

But David Wasinger of St. Louis, who won the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/07/dave-wasinger-wins-republican-primary-for-missouri-lieutenant-governor/">primary for lieutenant governor</a>, state Sen. Denny Hoskins, the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/denny-hoskins-wins-republican-nomination-for-missouri-secretary-of-state/">nominee for secretary of state</a>, and Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/andrew-bailey-defeats-will-scharf-to-capture-gop-nomination-for-attorney-general/">fended off a challenge from Will Scharf</a>, all won while being outspent.

In the Democratic Party, Quade defeated Springfield businessman Mike Hamra despite being outspent almost 3-1. Hamra gave his own campaign more than $2.1 million and spent $3.3 million overall, while Quade raised and spent $1.2 million through her campaign and joint fundraising PAC.

No other contested Democratic primary featured a candidate who spent more than $50,000 to win the nomination. And while some Democrats ended August with bank accounts comparable to their Republican counterparts, polls showing&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/29/poll-shows-missouri-voters-back-trump-hawley-abortion-rights-and-minimum-wage-hike/">double-digit leads for the GOP</a>&nbsp;in statewide races and the fundraising prowess shown by Republicans show the difficulties any Democrat must surmount to win in November.

The best-funded Democrats who file reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission are state Senate candidates. In five of the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/29/primaries-will-test-incumbents-in-year-of-historic-turnover-for-missouri-senate/">six districts being watched closely</a>, Democratic candidates had more in the bank on Aug. 31 than their Republican opponents and more than any statewide candidate from either party except Kehoe.

Almost every candidate running a full-scale campaign for statewide office or the Missouri Senate has both an official campaign committee and a joint fundraising PAC. Official campaign committees are subject to contribution limits – statewide candidates can accept donations up to $2,825 – while the joint fundraising PACs can accept donations of any size.

Campaigns must observe other restrictions on donations as well. Corporations and labor unions are&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=VIII++++23&amp;bid=36200&amp;constit=y" target="_blank">prohibited from contributing directly to candidate and political party committees</a>, but may set up PACs for voluntary contributions from employees or members to do so.

Corporations and labor unions may also contribute to joint fundraising PACs and independent PACs that are allowed to contribute to candidate committees.

The $17.1 million spent by Kehoe and his joint fundraising committee, American Dream PAC, was equal to $64 for each of the 275,139 votes he received in the primary for governor. His two main rivals, state Sen. Bill Eigel and secretary of state Jay Ashcroft, spent $5.8 million and $4.6 million, respectively, which equals $25.46 per vote for Eigel and $28.15 per vote for Ashcroft.

Legislative Democrats have set a goal of breaking the GOP supermajorities that have two-thirds of the seats in the Missouri House and state Senate in Republican hands. That would require at least 55 seats in the House– three more than they have now – and 12 in the Senate – two more than their current strength.

In state Senate races for the competitive seats, Democrats avoided primaries while the GOP winners in three seats drained their campaign treasuries to win the nomination.

In five districts — the 1st and 15th in the St. Louis metropolitan area, the 11th and 17th in the Kansas City region and the 19th in Boone County — Democrats have campaign funds ranging from $550,000 to almost $1 million. No Republican in those districts ended August with more than $70,000 on hand.

In the sixth district considered competitive, the 23rd District in St. Charles County, the candidates entered September with similar amounts on hand. State Rep. Adam Schnelting of St. Charles, who won a four-way primary, had $42,762 in his campaign account and $30,962 in the account of his joint fundraising committee, Protect Our Kids PAC.

Democratic candidate Matt Williams had $40,266 on hand. Williams does not have a joint fundraising PAC.

<h2>Newly reported campaign finance data shows that having the most money wasn’t an automatic ticket to success at the polls</h2>By RUDI KELLER&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>The top three finishers combined to spend $27.5 million in the Republican primary for governor, with the winner,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/mike-kehoe-wins-republican-nomination-for-missouri-governor/">Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe</a>, accounting for almost two-thirds of the total, newly filed campaign disclosure reports show.Overall, Republicans in statewide contests spent almost $65 million, compared to just $4.8 million in the Democratic Party, where the only significant primary spending was in the race for governor,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/crystal-quade-captures-democratic-nomination-for-missouri-governor/">won by state Rep. Crystal Quade</a>&nbsp;of Springfield.The new reports, which cover the period from July 27 to Aug. 31, were due Thursday at the Missouri Ethics Commission. Federal candidates do not file post-primary reports.The next reports are due Oct. 15.Campaign finance tracking by The Independent shows that having the most money didn’t equal success in either party. It did for Kehoe and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/vivek-malek-wins-republican-nomination-for-missouri-treasurer/">State Treasurer Vivek Malek</a>, who spent $5.8 million from his campaign fund and joint fundraising PAC.But David Wasinger of St. Louis, who won the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/07/dave-wasinger-wins-republican-primary-for-missouri-lieutenant-governor/">primary for lieutenant governor</a>, state Sen. Denny Hoskins, the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/denny-hoskins-wins-republican-nomination-for-missouri-secretary-of-state/">nominee for secretary of state</a>, and Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/06/andrew-bailey-defeats-will-scharf-to-capture-gop-nomination-for-attorney-general/">fended off a challenge from Will Scharf</a>, all won while being outspent.In the Democratic Party, Quade defeated Springfield businessman Mike Hamra despite being outspent almost 3-1. Hamra gave his own campaign more than $2.1 million and spent $3.3 million overall, while Quade raised and spent $1.2 million through her campaign and joint fundraising PAC.No other contested Democratic primary featured a candidate who spent more than $50,000 to win the nomination. And while some Democrats ended August with bank accounts comparable to their Republican counterparts, polls showing&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/29/poll-shows-missouri-voters-back-trump-hawley-abortion-rights-and-minimum-wage-hike/">double-digit leads for the GOP</a>&nbsp;in statewide races and the fundraising prowess shown by Republicans show the difficulties any Democrat must surmount to win in November.The best-funded Democrats who file reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission are state Senate candidates. In five of the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/29/primaries-will-test-incumbents-in-year-of-historic-turnover-for-missouri-senate/">six districts being watched closely</a>, Democratic candidates had more in the bank on Aug. 31 than their Republican opponents and more than any statewide candidate from either party except Kehoe.Almost every candidate running a full-scale campaign for statewide office or the Missouri Senate has both an official campaign committee and a joint fundraising PAC. Official campaign committees are subject to contribution limits – statewide candidates can accept donations up to $2,825 – while the joint fundraising PACs can accept donations of any size.Campaigns must observe other restrictions on donations as well. Corporations and labor unions are&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=VIII++++23&amp;bid=36200&amp;constit=y" target="_blank">prohibited from contributing directly to candidate and political party committees</a>, but may set up PACs for voluntary contributions from employees or members to do so.Corporations and labor unions may also contribute to joint fundraising PACs and independent PACs that are allowed to contribute to candidate committees.The $17.1 million spent by Kehoe and his joint fundraising committee, American Dream PAC, was equal to $64 for each of the 275,139 votes he received in the primary for governor. His two main rivals, state Sen. Bill Eigel and secretary of state Jay Ashcroft, spent $5.8 million and $4.6 million, respectively, which equals $25.46 per vote for Eigel and $28.15 per vote for Ashcroft.In other races:<ul>
 <li>Wasinger spent $2.7 million — $2.6 million of it personal funds – to defeat five other candidates. Hough spent $3.6 million. Wasinger spent just under $13 for each vote he received, while Hough’s spending equalled $18.14 per vote.</li><li>Hoskins spent $241,768 from his campaign fund and benefited from $247,262 spent by Old Drum Conservative PAC. The best-funded candidate in the eight-way race was Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher, who spent $640,000 in campaign funds and $934,000 from his joint fundraising committee, Missouri United PAC. Hoskins spent $3.11 per vote for his primary win, while Plocher spent $18.16 per vote and came in fourth.</li><li>Malek’s $5.8 million in spending included $1.35 million in personal funds and equaled $21.17 per vote. His best-funded opponent in the six-way primary was House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, who spent $737,266 from his campaign committee and $563,121 via the Ozark Gateway Leadership Fund. Smith spent the equivalent of $10.27&nbsp; per vote and finished fourth.</li><li>The attorney general’s race was second to the gubernatorial primary in total spending. Bailey spent $1.3 million through his campaign and his PAC, Liberty and Justice, spent $5.3 million. Scharf’s campaign spent $1.7 million, and his joint fundraising PAC, Defend Missouri, spent $7.6 million. Another PAC Scharf used for joint fundraising, Club for Growth Action, spent $1.6 million on his behalf. Bailey’s total equals $16 per vote, while Scharf’s costs equal&nbsp; $45 per vote.</li>
 </ul>Legislative Democrats have set a goal of breaking the GOP supermajorities that have two-thirds of the seats in the Missouri House and state Senate in Republican hands. That would require at least 55 seats in the House– three more than they have now – and 12 in the Senate – two more than their current strength.In state Senate races for the competitive seats, Democrats avoided primaries while the GOP winners in three seats drained their campaign treasuries to win the nomination.In five districts — the 1st and 15th in the St. Louis metropolitan area, the 11th and 17th in the Kansas City region and the 19th in Boone County — Democrats have campaign funds ranging from $550,000 to almost $1 million. No Republican in those districts ended August with more than $70,000 on hand.In the sixth district considered competitive, the 23rd District in St. Charles County, the candidates entered September with similar amounts on hand. State Rep. Adam Schnelting of St. Charles, who won a four-way primary, had $42,762 in his campaign account and $30,962 in the account of his joint fundraising committee, Protect Our Kids PAC.Democratic candidate Matt Williams had $40,266 on hand. Williams does not have a joint fundraising PAC.

Republicans combine to spend $65 million in Missouri primaries for statewide offices

As of Monday afternoon, Amendment 3 was no longer listed on the secretary of state’s website as appearing on the November ballot

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Brief%20of%20Respondent%20Secretary%20of%20State%20John%20R.%20Ashcroft.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=201733" target="_blank">Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft decertified</a>&nbsp;a ballot measure that would legalize abortion, a move aimed at blocking it from appearing on the November ballot, according to a brief filed Monday with the state Supreme Court.

<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">Last month, Ashcroft announced&nbsp;</a>the reproductive-rights proposal would appear on the ballot as&nbsp;<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3</a>. But a Cole County judge on Friday ruled the amendment violated state law and shouldn’t have been certified.&nbsp;

That ruling is now before the Missouri Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled Tuesday morning and a ruling expected quickly thereafter. The deadline to remove a question from the ballot is also Tuesday.&nbsp;

But before the Supreme Court had the chance to weigh in, Ashcroft said he had changed his mind.&nbsp;

“On further review in light of the circuit court’s judgment, the Secretary believes the amendment is deficient,” the secretary of state argues in a filing with the court.&nbsp;

As of Monday afternoon, Amendment 3 was no longer listed on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures" target="_blank">secretary of state’s website as appearing on the November ballot.</a>

“The amendment proponents cannot evade constitutional requirements that advocates of other amendments must and have satisfied simply because the proposed amendment concerns a highly charged moral topic,” the brief read. “This court should enforce the circuit court’s judgment.”

Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the campaign behind Amendment 3 — Missourians for Constitutional Freedom — said in a statement Monday that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at this point, not Ashcroft.

Sweet added the campaign is “confident the court will order the secretary of state to keep Amendment 3 on the ballot.”

<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/09/missouri-abortion-rights-amendment-state-supreme-court/">Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled last week that the measure should be taken off the ballot,</a>&nbsp;but deferred to a higher court for a final ruling. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom quickly appealed.

Missouri law requires that initiative petitions&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=116.050.,pages%20of%20a%20uniform%20size." target="_blank">“include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”&nbsp;</a>

During a circuit court hearing Friday, an attorney representing Ashcroft maintained the office believed that the measure met the minimum requirements to be certified.&nbsp;

The anti-abortion plaintiffs who challenged the legality of the amendment have argued that because the campaign behind the ballot measure didn’t list the exact statutes that would be repealed on the initiative petition, the measure is invalid. Attorneys representing Missourians for Constitutional Freedom continue to argue that the measure, if passed, would not truly repeal any part of Missouri’s constitution, but rather supersede most of the current ban on the books.&nbsp;

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom turned in signatures of more than<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">&nbsp;380,000 Missourians&nbsp;</a>across the state who supported the issue landing on the ballot. If Amendment 3 is ultimately on the Nov. 5 ballot and wins by a simple majority, Missouri could be the first state to overturn an abortion ban.

<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3&nbsp;</a>would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and grant constitutional protections to other reproductive health care, including birth control. It would also protect those who assist in an abortion from prosecution.&nbsp;

Nearly every abortion, with limited exceptions for the life and health of the mother, has remained illegal in Missouri since June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure. Missouri’s ban does not include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

The plaintiffs — state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly, anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck and shelter operator Marguerite Forrest — said in a statement Friday evening that the amendment’s scope is about more than just abortion and could be interpreted to also include gender-affirming care and human cloning.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724262530682.png" alt="-Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joined the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol. “I think regardless of what the legislature does, the people of this state – with hard work – can protect all life in this state,” Ashcroft said (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). " />
 <figcaption>-Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joined the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol. “I think regardless of what the legislature does, the people of this state – with hard work – can protect all life in this state,” Ashcroft said (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). </figcaption>
 </figure><h2>As of Monday afternoon, Amendment 3 was no longer listed on the secretary of state’s website as appearing on the November ballot</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a><a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Brief%20of%20Respondent%20Secretary%20of%20State%20John%20R.%20Ashcroft.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=201733" target="_blank">Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft decertified</a>&nbsp;a ballot measure that would legalize abortion, a move aimed at blocking it from appearing on the November ballot, according to a brief filed Monday with the state Supreme Court.<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">Last month, Ashcroft announced&nbsp;</a>the reproductive-rights proposal would appear on the ballot as&nbsp;<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3</a>. But a Cole County judge on Friday ruled the amendment violated state law and shouldn’t have been certified.&nbsp;That ruling is now before the Missouri Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled Tuesday morning and a ruling expected quickly thereafter. The deadline to remove a question from the ballot is also Tuesday.&nbsp;But before the Supreme Court had the chance to weigh in, Ashcroft said he had changed his mind.&nbsp;“On further review in light of the circuit court’s judgment, the Secretary believes the amendment is deficient,” the secretary of state argues in a filing with the court.&nbsp;As of Monday afternoon, Amendment 3 was no longer listed on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures" target="_blank">secretary of state’s website as appearing on the November ballot.</a>“The amendment proponents cannot evade constitutional requirements that advocates of other amendments must and have satisfied simply because the proposed amendment concerns a highly charged moral topic,” the brief read. “This court should enforce the circuit court’s judgment.”Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the campaign behind Amendment 3 — Missourians for Constitutional Freedom — said in a statement Monday that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at this point, not Ashcroft.Sweet added the campaign is “confident the court will order the secretary of state to keep Amendment 3 on the ballot.”<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/09/missouri-abortion-rights-amendment-state-supreme-court/">Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled last week that the measure should be taken off the ballot,</a>&nbsp;but deferred to a higher court for a final ruling. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom quickly appealed.Missouri law requires that initiative petitions&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=116.050.,pages%20of%20a%20uniform%20size." target="_blank">“include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”&nbsp;</a>During a circuit court hearing Friday, an attorney representing Ashcroft maintained the office believed that the measure met the minimum requirements to be certified.&nbsp;The anti-abortion plaintiffs who challenged the legality of the amendment have argued that because the campaign behind the ballot measure didn’t list the exact statutes that would be repealed on the initiative petition, the measure is invalid. Attorneys representing Missourians for Constitutional Freedom continue to argue that the measure, if passed, would not truly repeal any part of Missouri’s constitution, but rather supersede most of the current ban on the books.&nbsp;Missourians for Constitutional Freedom turned in signatures of more than<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">&nbsp;380,000 Missourians&nbsp;</a>across the state who supported the issue landing on the ballot. If Amendment 3 is ultimately on the Nov. 5 ballot and wins by a simple majority, Missouri could be the first state to overturn an abortion ban.<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3&nbsp;</a>would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and grant constitutional protections to other reproductive health care, including birth control. It would also protect those who assist in an abortion from prosecution.&nbsp;Nearly every abortion, with limited exceptions for the life and health of the mother, has remained illegal in Missouri since June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure. Missouri’s ban does not include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.The plaintiffs — state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly, anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck and shelter operator Marguerite Forrest — said in a statement Friday evening that the amendment’s scope is about more than just abortion and could be interpreted to also include gender-affirming care and human cloning.

Jay Ashcroft seeks to pull abortion amendment off Mo. ballot weeks after approving it

KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces multiple felony charges for a series of crimes on August 21, in the&nbsp; area of the 3300 block of Linwood Boulevard in Kansas City, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.

<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2414/LJohnsonRedacted">Click here to read t</a>he charging documents.

Lorenzo Johnson, 31, faces Murder in the 2nd Degree, Robbery in the 1st Degree, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Resisting Arrest and three Armed Criminal Action charges.

According to court records, on the evening of Aug. 21, Kansas City Police Department officers were dispatched to a shooting at the BP Gas Station in the 3300 block of Linwood Blvd. Officers found the victim at the gas pumps. He had been wounded by a gunshot and Johnson then backed the victim's car over him.

The Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. Hours earlier the suspect had committed robberies in the area. Johnson took the victim's vehicle after the shooting. Officers later forced the stolen vehicle off the road while the suspect was driving. He attempted to flee on foot and officers took him into custody. He had the victim's vehicle title in his pocket. Johnson remains in custody and is being held on no bond.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724866518643.png" alt="Johnson photo Jackson Co." />
 <figcaption>Johnson photo Jackson Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces multiple felony charges for a series of crimes on August 21, in the&nbsp; area of the 3300 block of Linwood Boulevard in Kansas City, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2414/LJohnsonRedacted">Click here to read t</a>he charging documents.Lorenzo Johnson, 31, faces Murder in the 2nd Degree, Robbery in the 1st Degree, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Resisting Arrest and three Armed Criminal Action charges.According to court records, on the evening of Aug. 21, Kansas City Police Department officers were dispatched to a shooting at the BP Gas Station in the 3300 block of Linwood Blvd. Officers found the victim at the gas pumps. He had been wounded by a gunshot and Johnson then backed the victim's car over him.The Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. Hours earlier the suspect had committed robberies in the area. Johnson took the victim's vehicle after the shooting. Officers later forced the stolen vehicle off the road while the suspect was driving. He attempted to flee on foot and officers took him into custody. He had the victim's vehicle title in his pocket. Johnson remains in custody and is being held on no bond.

KC robbery suspect shot and then backed car over victim at gas station

BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

A Cole County Circuit Court judge rejected an attempt to invalidate an initiative petition on sports betting Friday, allowing voters to decide whether to enshrine sports wagering in Missouri’s Constitution on the November ballot.

“Lawsuits seeking to remove an initiative petition from the ballot after it has been certified as sufficient by the secretary (of state) are highly disfavored,” Judge Daniel Green wrote&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Judgment.PDF?courtCode=19&amp;di=3287114" target="_blank">in his ruling</a>, quoting from another case that he must rule with “restraint, trepidation and a healthy suspicion of the partisan that would use the judiciary to prevent the initiative process from taking its course.”

Green reviewed lists of petition signatures plaintiffs submitted to allege that the amendment did not meet the minimum threshold in Missouri’s 1st congressional district. The evidence included 95 signatures that plaintiffs called “disqualified voters.”

Green, in his ruling, said the evidence did not show that the voters were ineligible when they signed the petition. Without these 95 signatures thrown out, the petition meets minimum qualifications.

Beyond that, plaintiffs’ argument failed to convince Green that the Missouri Secretary of State incorrectly certified the signatures.

In an argument led by Marc Ellinger — a seasoned Jefferson City attorney with experience representing Missouri gaming companies — plaintiffs took issue with the method the secretary used when calculating the number of votes needed in each district.

But, Green wrote, this calculation has been constant throughout all initiatives in 2022 and 2024 and was used by previous secretaries of state.&nbsp; The number was determined by multiplying the number of votes cast for governor in 2020 by 8%.

Ellinger said the number should be based on congressional district maps drawn after the 2020 election, but he “presented no evidence from which the court could determine what plaintiff’s target number should be,” Green wrote.

Should the threshold stand, Ellinger argued that there were a plethora of signatures that were improperly certified. For this, his expert witness was Kevin Oglesby, who manages National Political Consultants Inc and was hired to look at the signatures.

Oglesby received information from the secretary of state’s office to assess signatures, and his testimony was a large part of Thursday’s trial as he explained instances he deemed errors.

Local election authorities, which processed the petition for the secretary of state, had more information when reviewing signatures.

Green noted that plaintiffs “did not present evidence to qualify (Oglesby) as a handwriting expert.”

“Court did not find the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness to be credible or particularly helpful,” Green said in his judgment.

His ruling also dismissed a counter-claim by intervenors Winning for Missouri Education, the initiative’s campaign committee. The claim alleged that the committee, which has raised over $6.5 million to support the petition, is harmed by plaintiffs’ accusations

Green said there was no evidence presented on the matter, rendering it “moot.”

Winning for Missouri Education spokesman Jack Cardetti celebrated the victory Friday, focusing on the increased tax dollars that could go to public education if the initiative is approved.

“Today’s ruling, while expected, is nevertheless a big victory for Missourians, who overwhelmingly want to join the 38 other states that allow sports betting, so that we can provide tens of millions in permanent, dedicated funding each year to our public school,” he said. “For too many years, Missourians have watched as fans cross state lines to place sport bets, which deprives our Missouri public schools of much needed funding.”

Ellinger did not respond to a timely request for comment.

BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>A Cole County Circuit Court judge rejected an attempt to invalidate an initiative petition on sports betting Friday, allowing voters to decide whether to enshrine sports wagering in Missouri’s Constitution on the November ballot.“Lawsuits seeking to remove an initiative petition from the ballot after it has been certified as sufficient by the secretary (of state) are highly disfavored,” Judge Daniel Green wrote&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Judgment.PDF?courtCode=19&amp;di=3287114" target="_blank">in his ruling</a>, quoting from another case that he must rule with “restraint, trepidation and a healthy suspicion of the partisan that would use the judiciary to prevent the initiative process from taking its course.”Green reviewed lists of petition signatures plaintiffs submitted to allege that the amendment did not meet the minimum threshold in Missouri’s 1st congressional district. The evidence included 95 signatures that plaintiffs called “disqualified voters.”Green, in his ruling, said the evidence did not show that the voters were ineligible when they signed the petition. Without these 95 signatures thrown out, the petition meets minimum qualifications.Beyond that, plaintiffs’ argument failed to convince Green that the Missouri Secretary of State incorrectly certified the signatures.In an argument led by Marc Ellinger — a seasoned Jefferson City attorney with experience representing Missouri gaming companies — plaintiffs took issue with the method the secretary used when calculating the number of votes needed in each district.But, Green wrote, this calculation has been constant throughout all initiatives in 2022 and 2024 and was used by previous secretaries of state.&nbsp; The number was determined by multiplying the number of votes cast for governor in 2020 by 8%.Ellinger said the number should be based on congressional district maps drawn after the 2020 election, but he “presented no evidence from which the court could determine what plaintiff’s target number should be,” Green wrote.Should the threshold stand, Ellinger argued that there were a plethora of signatures that were improperly certified. For this, his expert witness was Kevin Oglesby, who manages National Political Consultants Inc and was hired to look at the signatures.Oglesby received information from the secretary of state’s office to assess signatures, and his testimony was a large part of Thursday’s trial as he explained instances he deemed errors.Local election authorities, which processed the petition for the secretary of state, had more information when reviewing signatures.Green noted that plaintiffs “did not present evidence to qualify (Oglesby) as a handwriting expert.”“Court did not find the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness to be credible or particularly helpful,” Green said in his judgment.His ruling also dismissed a counter-claim by intervenors Winning for Missouri Education, the initiative’s campaign committee. The claim alleged that the committee, which has raised over $6.5 million to support the petition, is harmed by plaintiffs’ accusationsGreen said there was no evidence presented on the matter, rendering it “moot.”Winning for Missouri Education spokesman Jack Cardetti celebrated the victory Friday, focusing on the increased tax dollars that could go to public education if the initiative is approved.“Today’s ruling, while expected, is nevertheless a big victory for Missourians, who overwhelmingly want to join the 38 other states that allow sports betting, so that we can provide tens of millions in permanent, dedicated funding each year to our public school,” he said. “For too many years, Missourians have watched as fans cross state lines to place sport bets, which deprives our Missouri public schools of much needed funding.”Ellinger did not respond to a timely request for comment.

Attempt to block Missouri sports betting amendment lacks evidence, judge rules

The campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment plans to appeal the decision, and as part of the judge’s stipulations, Amendment 3 will not yet be taken off the ballot

A Missouri judge ruled Friday evening that a reproductive-rights amendment&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/06/judge-decides-abortion-amendment-3-missouri-ballot/">did not comply with state initiative petition requirements,</a>&nbsp;leaving the door open to potentially withhold it from the November ballot.&nbsp;

Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the coalition behind the citizen-led ballot measure failed to meet the sufficiency requirement through a “failure to include any statute or provision that will be repealed, especially when many of these statutes are apparent.”

A spokesperson for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment, said they plan to appeal.&nbsp;

Limbaugh also wrote that while he found a “blatant violation” of state law, he “recognizes the gravity of the unique issues involved in this case, and the lack of direct precedent on point.”&nbsp;

As a result, he won’t issue an injunction preventing the amendment from being printed on the ballot until Tuesday to allow time for “further guidance or rulings” from the appeals court.&nbsp;

The constitutional deadline for ballots to be printed is Tuesday.&nbsp;

<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3&nbsp;</a>would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and grant constitutional protections to other reproductive health care, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control. It would also protect those who assist in an abortion from prosecution.&nbsp;

“The court’s decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. “And undermines the rights of the<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">&nbsp;380,000 Missourians who signed our petition&nbsp;</a>demanding a voice on this critical issue.

The lawsuit was filed two weeks ago by a group of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists against Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">certified the citizen-led ballot initiative for the Nov. 5 ballot&nbsp;&nbsp;</a>nine days earlier. The group is arguing that the initiative should never have been allowed on the ballot.

The plaintiffs — state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly, anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck and shelter operator Marguerite Forrest — said in a statement Friday evening that the amendment’s scope is “staggering.”&nbsp;

“Missourians have a constitutional right to know what laws their votes would overturn before deciding to sign initiative petitions,” they said. “Amendment 3 isn’t just about abortion.”

The plaintiffs were represented in court by Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas More Society who&nbsp;argued during a brief bench trial Friday morning that the campaign behind the amendment fell short of the law by failing to list the specific laws or constitutional provisions which would be repealed if the amendment is approved by voters.&nbsp;

“No one disputes,” she said, “one of its primary purposes and effects is to repeal Missouri’s ban on abortion.”&nbsp;

Speculation isn’t necessary to come to this conclusion, Martin said, pointing to the ballot summary which reads, in part, that a yes vote would<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures" target="_blank">&nbsp;“remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.”</a>

Loretta Haggard, an attorney representing the campaign supporting the amendment, said that while the amendment would supersede existing law, it would not erase it from the current constitutional text, and therefore would not truly repeal the current statute.&nbsp;

She told the judge in court that this is because the two texts do have some overlapping similarities: both protect women who get abortions from prosecution and both restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability.&nbsp;

Fetal viability is an undefined period of time generally seen as the point in which the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own, generally around 24 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.&nbsp;&nbsp;

When it comes to everything else, Haggard said, the amendment would leave the current law to be interpreted through the lens of the new law, meaning any restrictions implemented by the government on abortion prior to fetal viability will have to withstand strict scrutiny in court to remain. She ventured that most of Missouir’s current restrictions would not survive for this reason.

Ultimately, Limbaugh sided with the plaintiffs, writing that the page attached to the initiative petition forms “included no disclaimer or any equivalent to a disclaimer.”&nbsp;

“In fact,” he concluded. “The full and correct text failed to identify any ‘sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.’”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725707612193.png" alt=" Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas Moore Society, represented a group of Missouri anti-abortion lawmakers and activists Friday, Sept. 6, 2024, during a trial at the Cole County Courthouse (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas Moore Society, represented a group of Missouri anti-abortion lawmakers and activists Friday, Sept. 6, 2024, during a trial at the Cole County Courthouse (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment plans to appeal the decision, and as part of the judge’s stipulations, Amendment 3 will not yet be taken off the ballot</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>A Missouri judge ruled Friday evening that a reproductive-rights amendment&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/06/judge-decides-abortion-amendment-3-missouri-ballot/">did not comply with state initiative petition requirements,</a>&nbsp;leaving the door open to potentially withhold it from the November ballot.&nbsp;Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the coalition behind the citizen-led ballot measure failed to meet the sufficiency requirement through a “failure to include any statute or provision that will be repealed, especially when many of these statutes are apparent.”A spokesperson for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment, said they plan to appeal.&nbsp;Limbaugh also wrote that while he found a “blatant violation” of state law, he “recognizes the gravity of the unique issues involved in this case, and the lack of direct precedent on point.”&nbsp;As a result, he won’t issue an injunction preventing the amendment from being printed on the ballot until Tuesday to allow time for “further guidance or rulings” from the appeals court.&nbsp;The constitutional deadline for ballots to be printed is Tuesday.&nbsp;<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3&nbsp;</a>would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and grant constitutional protections to other reproductive health care, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control. It would also protect those who assist in an abortion from prosecution.&nbsp;“The court’s decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. “And undermines the rights of the<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">&nbsp;380,000 Missourians who signed our petition&nbsp;</a>demanding a voice on this critical issue.The lawsuit was filed two weeks ago by a group of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists against Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">certified the citizen-led ballot initiative for the Nov. 5 ballot&nbsp;&nbsp;</a>nine days earlier. The group is arguing that the initiative should never have been allowed on the ballot.The plaintiffs — state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly, anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck and shelter operator Marguerite Forrest — said in a statement Friday evening that the amendment’s scope is “staggering.”&nbsp;“Missourians have a constitutional right to know what laws their votes would overturn before deciding to sign initiative petitions,” they said. “Amendment 3 isn’t just about abortion.”The plaintiffs were represented in court by Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas More Society who&nbsp;argued during a brief bench trial Friday morning that the campaign behind the amendment fell short of the law by failing to list the specific laws or constitutional provisions which would be repealed if the amendment is approved by voters.&nbsp;Missouri law requires that initiative petitions&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=116.050.,pages%20of%20a%20uniform%20size." target="_blank">“include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”&nbsp;</a>“No one disputes,” she said, “one of its primary purposes and effects is to repeal Missouri’s ban on abortion.”&nbsp;Speculation isn’t necessary to come to this conclusion, Martin said, pointing to the ballot summary which reads, in part, that a yes vote would<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures" target="_blank">&nbsp;“remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.”</a>Loretta Haggard, an attorney representing the campaign supporting the amendment, said that while the amendment would supersede existing law, it would not erase it from the current constitutional text, and therefore would not truly repeal the current statute.&nbsp;She told the judge in court that this is because the two texts do have some overlapping similarities: both protect women who get abortions from prosecution and both restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability.&nbsp;Fetal viability is an undefined period of time generally seen as the point in which the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own, generally around 24 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.&nbsp;&nbsp;When it comes to everything else, Haggard said, the amendment would leave the current law to be interpreted through the lens of the new law, meaning any restrictions implemented by the government on abortion prior to fetal viability will have to withstand strict scrutiny in court to remain. She ventured that most of Missouir’s current restrictions would not survive for this reason.Ultimately, Limbaugh sided with the plaintiffs, writing that the page attached to the initiative petition forms “included no disclaimer or any equivalent to a disclaimer.”&nbsp;“In fact,” he concluded. “The full and correct text failed to identify any ‘sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.’”

Kbct