A 28-year-old St. Joseph man has been taken into custody after
allegedly firing a round from a handgun in a southside St. Joseph bar.

St. Joseph police say they received a call just before 11
o’clock Tuesday night from the Missourian at 3701 King Hill Avenue. Police
report two men got into a disturbance and one shot was fired inside the bar. No
one was harmed. There was slight property damage, according to police.

Charges are pending. The investigation continues.

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

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostA 28-year-old St. Joseph man has been taken into custody after
allegedly firing a round from a handgun in a southside St. Joseph bar.St. Joseph police say they received a call just before 11
o’clock Tuesday night from the Missourian at 3701 King Hill Avenue. Police
report two men got into a disturbance and one shot was fired inside the bar. No
one was harmed. There was slight property damage, according to police.Charges are pending. The investigation continues.You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

No one harmed in southside St. Joseph shooting

Missouri ranks 50th in average starting teacher pay, but legislators have a plan to boost salaries statewide

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

Legislation boosting teacher recruitment and retention in Missouri is once again a priority of the Missouri House, with a hearing Wednesday morning on a pair of Republican-backed bills.

Rep. Ed Lewis, a Republican from Moberly, is sponsoring&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1447&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">legislation</a>&nbsp;based on the findings of the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s blue ribbon commission. It is the third year he has sponsored legislation on teacher recruitment and retention.

“The problem is obvious to all of us at this point,” he told the committee. “We don’t have enough teachers for our public schools and, to some extent, for the private and parochial schools as well.”

After three years in a Missouri school district, an average 43.3% of teachers leave,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://apps.dese.mo.gov/MCDS/Visualizations.aspx?id=22">according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education</a>.

According to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.mnea.org/research">Missouri National Education Association</a>, a teachers’ union, the state ranks 50th in average starting teacher pay and 47th in average teacher pay.

Lewis’s bill seeks to raise the base teacher pay, allow differentiated salary schedules for hard-to-staff areas and increase scholarships to recruit teachers, among other provisions.

Rep. Ann Kelley, a Republican from Lamar, asked whether support staff could be added to the bill.

“The schools cannot be successful without the support staff, and the salaries of the support staff and retention and retaining those support staff is vital,” Kelley said.

Lewis was hesitant to increase the potential fiscal impact.

“We’re gonna have a hard time getting anything across the finish line on the other side,” he said, referring to the Senate.

Last year, he filed the teacher pay-raise proposals as separate bills before the committee combined them into one bill. The House overwhelmingly&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-house-approves-legislation-seeking-to-boost-minimum-teacher-salaries/">approved the legislation</a>&nbsp;on a 145-5 vote, but filibusters in the Senate&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/06/06/lawmakers-lament-failure-of-bills-aimed-at-addressing-missouri-teacher-shortage/">ran out the clock before it</a>&nbsp;could be debated in that chamber.

Rep. Willard Haley, a Republican from Eldon, is also&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1431&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">sponsoring a bill</a>&nbsp;to raise teachers’ minimum salary — though his ask is a bit different. He hopes to raise the base to $46,000 by the 2027-28 school year. Fully implemented, the bill is estimated to cost up to $17.5 million.

“I just insist that it’s time that we start paying our teachers what they deserve,” Haley said.

He said teenagers with a high-school diploma can make more working at a local factory than some teachers do.

Currently, state statute allows schools to pay teachers as little as $25,000 or $33,000 for those with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience.

The state has a grant program, which is up for renewal annually, to raise teacher base salaries to $38,000. In the current school year, 310 school districts are using the grant for a total of 4,806 teachers, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education told The Independent.

Gov. Mike Parson has requested an increase to this program to raise the base to $40,000 for the next fiscal year.

Lewis doesn’t like relying on the annual appropriations for teacher salaries. He said he worries, with an upcoming gubernatorial election, the next governor may not fully fund the base-salary grant.&nbsp;

“I don’t think we should legislate through the budget. I think that the policy should go first and the budget should follow,” he told the committee.

Haley’s bill prescribes a fund that would match district’s contributions 70/30 to get salaries to his preferred base.

Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, a Columbia Democrat, said she wanted a “broader” change.

“I look at our large school districts… 52% of our districts will see no impact from state dollars towards teacher salaries,” she said. “I feel pretty confident if we ask those districts ‘Are you having a retention problem?’ They would probably all say yes.”

Rep. Dan Stacy, a Republican from Blue Springs, asked if a base-pay increase could be tied to a decrease to another part of the budget. Haley said his bill is “top priority.”

“This is such a priority item that we must handle this,” he said. “We must fulfill this funding even at a cost to some other things. But education is that important to me.”

No one testified in opposition to the legislation Wednesday.

Perry Gorrell, interim legislative liaison for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, said raising the base teacher pay is the Commissioner of Education’s top priority.

“We know that the greatest impact on student achievement is having highly qualified teachers for students. These two bills helped to ensure that,” he said.

Otto Fajen, lobbyist for the Missouri branch of the National Education Association, said the teachers’ union would like lawmakers to consider small schools with under 100 kids when looking at funding.

“While not that many of our members are going to benefit directly from the increase here, it sends a message that the legislature believes that entry pay and, overall, the earnings for teachers should resemble similar professions to make it a more viable choice going forward,” Fajen said.

Steve Carroll, a lobbyist representing the Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City and St. Louis Public Schools, said he woke up at nearly 4 a.m. thinking about these bills.

He felt like his anxiety was pointless because the bills “probably won’t even make it across the finish line because of what’s going on in the Senate.”

But he saw the salary of a baseball player in a news article and marveled at society’s “priorities.” He believes teachers are the ones more deserving of higher pay.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707322562335.png" alt=" Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, speaks in a House Elementary and Secondary Education hearing in April 2023 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, speaks in a House Elementary and Secondary Education hearing in April 2023 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Missouri ranks 50th in average starting teacher pay, but legislators have a plan to boost salaries statewide</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ahanshaw/">ANNELISE HANSHAW</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>Legislation boosting teacher recruitment and retention in Missouri is once again a priority of the Missouri House, with a hearing Wednesday morning on a pair of Republican-backed bills.Rep. Ed Lewis, a Republican from Moberly, is sponsoring&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1447&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">legislation</a>&nbsp;based on the findings of the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s blue ribbon commission. It is the third year he has sponsored legislation on teacher recruitment and retention.“The problem is obvious to all of us at this point,” he told the committee. “We don’t have enough teachers for our public schools and, to some extent, for the private and parochial schools as well.”After three years in a Missouri school district, an average 43.3% of teachers leave,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://apps.dese.mo.gov/MCDS/Visualizations.aspx?id=22">according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education</a>.According to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.mnea.org/research">Missouri National Education Association</a>, a teachers’ union, the state ranks 50th in average starting teacher pay and 47th in average teacher pay.Lewis’s bill seeks to raise the base teacher pay, allow differentiated salary schedules for hard-to-staff areas and increase scholarships to recruit teachers, among other provisions.Rep. Ann Kelley, a Republican from Lamar, asked whether support staff could be added to the bill.“The schools cannot be successful without the support staff, and the salaries of the support staff and retention and retaining those support staff is vital,” Kelley said.Lewis was hesitant to increase the potential fiscal impact.“We’re gonna have a hard time getting anything across the finish line on the other side,” he said, referring to the Senate.Last year, he filed the teacher pay-raise proposals as separate bills before the committee combined them into one bill. The House overwhelmingly&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-house-approves-legislation-seeking-to-boost-minimum-teacher-salaries/">approved the legislation</a>&nbsp;on a 145-5 vote, but filibusters in the Senate&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/06/06/lawmakers-lament-failure-of-bills-aimed-at-addressing-missouri-teacher-shortage/">ran out the clock before it</a>&nbsp;could be debated in that chamber.Rep. Willard Haley, a Republican from Eldon, is also&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1431&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">sponsoring a bill</a>&nbsp;to raise teachers’ minimum salary — though his ask is a bit different. He hopes to raise the base to $46,000 by the 2027-28 school year. Fully implemented, the bill is estimated to cost up to $17.5 million.“I just insist that it’s time that we start paying our teachers what they deserve,” Haley said.He said teenagers with a high-school diploma can make more working at a local factory than some teachers do.Currently, state statute allows schools to pay teachers as little as $25,000 or $33,000 for those with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience.The state has a grant program, which is up for renewal annually, to raise teacher base salaries to $38,000. In the current school year, 310 school districts are using the grant for a total of 4,806 teachers, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education told The Independent.Gov. Mike Parson has requested an increase to this program to raise the base to $40,000 for the next fiscal year.Lewis doesn’t like relying on the annual appropriations for teacher salaries. He said he worries, with an upcoming gubernatorial election, the next governor may not fully fund the base-salary grant.&nbsp;“I don’t think we should legislate through the budget. I think that the policy should go first and the budget should follow,” he told the committee.Haley’s bill prescribes a fund that would match district’s contributions 70/30 to get salaries to his preferred base.Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, a Columbia Democrat, said she wanted a “broader” change.“I look at our large school districts… 52% of our districts will see no impact from state dollars towards teacher salaries,” she said. “I feel pretty confident if we ask those districts ‘Are you having a retention problem?’ They would probably all say yes.”Rep. Dan Stacy, a Republican from Blue Springs, asked if a base-pay increase could be tied to a decrease to another part of the budget. Haley said his bill is “top priority.”“This is such a priority item that we must handle this,” he said. “We must fulfill this funding even at a cost to some other things. But education is that important to me.”No one testified in opposition to the legislation Wednesday.Perry Gorrell, interim legislative liaison for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, said raising the base teacher pay is the Commissioner of Education’s top priority.“We know that the greatest impact on student achievement is having highly qualified teachers for students. These two bills helped to ensure that,” he said.Otto Fajen, lobbyist for the Missouri branch of the National Education Association, said the teachers’ union would like lawmakers to consider small schools with under 100 kids when looking at funding.“While not that many of our members are going to benefit directly from the increase here, it sends a message that the legislature believes that entry pay and, overall, the earnings for teachers should resemble similar professions to make it a more viable choice going forward,” Fajen said.Steve Carroll, a lobbyist representing the Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City and St. Louis Public Schools, said he woke up at nearly 4 a.m. thinking about these bills.He felt like his anxiety was pointless because the bills “probably won’t even make it across the finish line because of what’s going on in the Senate.”But he saw the salary of a baseball player in a news article and marveled at society’s “priorities.” He believes teachers are the ones more deserving of higher pay.

Mo. lawmakers want to raise teacher pay but anticipate Senate resistance

ATCHISON COUNTY, Mo. —One person was injured in an accident just before 9p.m. Tuesday in Atchison County.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 2014 Ford F150 driven by Amanda L. Wallenkamp, 45, Montrose, South Dakota, was southbound on Interstate 29 two miles north of Watson.

The driver experienced a medical issue. The pickup crossed the center median, crossed both northbound lanes, traveled off the east side of the road and struck an embankment,

Atchison-Holt ambulance transported Wallenkamp to Fairfax Community Hospital. She was properly restrained, according to the MSHP.

ATCHISON COUNTY, Mo. —One person was injured in an accident just before 9p.m. Tuesday in Atchison County.The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 2014 Ford F150 driven by Amanda L. Wallenkamp, 45, Montrose, South Dakota, was southbound on Interstate 29 two miles north of Watson.The driver experienced a medical issue. The pickup crossed the center median, crossed both northbound lanes, traveled off the east side of the road and struck an embankment,Atchison-Holt ambulance transported Wallenkamp to Fairfax Community Hospital. She was properly restrained, according to the MSHP.

Driver hospitalized after pickup strikes embankment

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

A bill that would create tax credits&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/29/missouri-child-care-crisis-a-top-priority-for-governor-bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers/">designed to make child care more affordable and accessible</a>&nbsp;won initial approval Tuesday from the Missouri House.

The bill will need to be approved one more time by the House before it heads to the Missouri Senate.

The state continues to<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/05/critical-infrastructure-missouri-child-care-shortage-called-a-crisis-for-employers/">&nbsp;grapple with a child care crisis</a>,with about 200,000 children living in parts of Missouri considered<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04/26/missouri-child-care-deserts-now-include-nearly-half-of-kids-5-and-under/">&nbsp;“child care deserts”</a>&nbsp;because there are one or fewer child care slots available for every three children.

The bill, refiled this year&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1488&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">by Republican state Rep. Brenda Shields</a>&nbsp;of St. Joseph, would offer three types of credits: for taxpayers who donate to support child care centers, for employers who make investments in child care needs for their employees and for child care providers.&nbsp;

The same legislation was also filed by Democratic state Sen.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=816">Lauren Arthur</a>&nbsp;of Kansas City, and was approved by a committee last month.

During Tuesday’s debate, Shields cited a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/EarlyEd_MISSOURI_2021_DIGITAL.pdf">2021 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation&nbsp;</a>study that found lack of accessible and quality child care forced many Missouri parents to change or leave their workplace. The foundation determined this workforce disruption cost the state more than $1.3 billion annually.&nbsp;

“Affordable, reliable, safe, child care is an important infrastructure in our state,” Shields said. “Just as important as roads, rails and the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.”

Shields called on the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/bill.aspx?bill=HB1488&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">legislation’s</a>&nbsp;“innovative solution” as a means to bring together communities and businesses through the following tax programs:

“We want people working, we want people to come here and expand their businesses, and this is one of the main things that needs to get done,” state Rep. Bridget Walsh Moore, a Democrat from St. Louis, said in support of the bill. “Times are desperate.”

The average cost of full-time center-based care for an infant in Missouri was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://info.childcareaware.org/hubfs/2022_CC_Afford_Analysis.pdf">$11,059</a>&nbsp;as of 2022, according to Child Care Aware. Meanwhile, it can be difficult to hire and retain staff, who often make barely&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://meric.mo.gov/data/occupation/occupational-employment-wages">over</a>&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04/26/missouri-child-care-deserts-now-include-nearly-half-of-kids-5-and-under/">minimum wage</a>.

Gov. Mike Parson has also been a champion of the tax credits, saying the issue transcends party lines.&nbsp;

In his State of the State address last month, Parson highlighted a $51.7 million budget increase to the child care subsidy program for low-income children. Last year he supported a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/07/24/a-78-million-boost-to-missouris-child-care-subsidy-will-reach-providers-next-month/">$78 million boost</a>&nbsp;to child care subsidies to encourage child care providers to offer services to low-income and foster families and another&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/05/critical-infrastructure-missouri-child-care-shortage-called-a-crisis-for-employers/">$81 million</a>&nbsp;for state-funded pre-kindergarten targeted at low-income four-year-olds.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707267506104.png" alt="A bill filed by state Rep. Brenda Shields that would create tax credits designed to make child care more affordable and accessible in Missouri won initial approval Tuesday from the state House. (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications)." />
 <figcaption>A bill filed by state Rep. Brenda Shields that would create tax credits designed to make child care more affordable and accessible in Missouri won initial approval Tuesday from the state House. (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>A bill that would create tax credits&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/29/missouri-child-care-crisis-a-top-priority-for-governor-bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers/">designed to make child care more affordable and accessible</a>&nbsp;won initial approval Tuesday from the Missouri House.The bill will need to be approved one more time by the House before it heads to the Missouri Senate.The state continues to<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/05/critical-infrastructure-missouri-child-care-shortage-called-a-crisis-for-employers/">&nbsp;grapple with a child care crisis</a>,with about 200,000 children living in parts of Missouri considered<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04/26/missouri-child-care-deserts-now-include-nearly-half-of-kids-5-and-under/">&nbsp;“child care deserts”</a>&nbsp;because there are one or fewer child care slots available for every three children.The bill, refiled this year&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1488&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">by Republican state Rep. Brenda Shields</a>&nbsp;of St. Joseph, would offer three types of credits: for taxpayers who donate to support child care centers, for employers who make investments in child care needs for their employees and for child care providers.&nbsp;The same legislation was also filed by Democratic state Sen.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=816">Lauren Arthur</a>&nbsp;of Kansas City, and was approved by a committee last month.During Tuesday’s debate, Shields cited a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/EarlyEd_MISSOURI_2021_DIGITAL.pdf">2021 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation&nbsp;</a>study that found lack of accessible and quality child care forced many Missouri parents to change or leave their workplace. The foundation determined this workforce disruption cost the state more than $1.3 billion annually.&nbsp;“Affordable, reliable, safe, child care is an important infrastructure in our state,” Shields said. “Just as important as roads, rails and the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.”Shields called on the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/bill.aspx?bill=HB1488&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R">legislation’s</a>&nbsp;“innovative solution” as a means to bring together communities and businesses through the following tax programs:<ul>
 <li>The “Child Care Contribution” tax credit would allow donors to child care providers to receive a credit equal to 75% of a qualifying donation, up to a $200,000 tax credit. The provider must use the donation to “promote child care” including by improving facilities, staff salaries or training.&nbsp;</li><li>The “Employer Provided Child Care Assistance” is aimed at creating partnerships between businesses whose employees need child care and providers. It would allow employers to receive tax credits equivalent to 30% of qualifying child care expenditures.</li><li>The “Child Care Providers Tax Credit” would allow child care providers to claim a tax credit equal to the provider’s employer withholding tax and up to 30% of a provider’s capital expenditures on costs like expanding or renovating their facilities.&nbsp;</li>
 </ul>“We want people working, we want people to come here and expand their businesses, and this is one of the main things that needs to get done,” state Rep. Bridget Walsh Moore, a Democrat from St. Louis, said in support of the bill. “Times are desperate.”The average cost of full-time center-based care for an infant in Missouri was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://info.childcareaware.org/hubfs/2022_CC_Afford_Analysis.pdf">$11,059</a>&nbsp;as of 2022, according to Child Care Aware. Meanwhile, it can be difficult to hire and retain staff, who often make barely&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://meric.mo.gov/data/occupation/occupational-employment-wages">over</a>&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04/26/missouri-child-care-deserts-now-include-nearly-half-of-kids-5-and-under/">minimum wage</a>.Gov. Mike Parson has also been a champion of the tax credits, saying the issue transcends party lines.&nbsp;In his State of the State address last month, Parson highlighted a $51.7 million budget increase to the child care subsidy program for low-income children. Last year he supported a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/07/24/a-78-million-boost-to-missouris-child-care-subsidy-will-reach-providers-next-month/">$78 million boost</a>&nbsp;to child care subsidies to encourage child care providers to offer services to low-income and foster families and another&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/05/critical-infrastructure-missouri-child-care-shortage-called-a-crisis-for-employers/">$81 million</a>&nbsp;for state-funded pre-kindergarten targeted at low-income four-year-olds.&nbsp;

‘Times are desperate’: Missouri House gives initial approval to child care tax credits

A 78-year-old inmate at the women’s prison in Chillicothe has
died.

The Missouri Department of Corrections reports Barbara Banning
died early Sunday evening at the Chillicothe Correctional Center. Banning was
serving a 25-year sentence for second-degree murder and first-degree arson from
Lawrence County.

Banning began serving her prison sentence in 2006.

The Department of Corrections reports the Banning died of
apparent natural causes.

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostA 78-year-old inmate at the women’s prison in Chillicothe has
died.The Missouri Department of Corrections reports Barbara Banning
died early Sunday evening at the Chillicothe Correctional Center. Banning was
serving a 25-year sentence for second-degree murder and first-degree arson from
Lawrence County.Banning began serving her prison sentence in 2006.The Department of Corrections reports the Banning died of
apparent natural causes.You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Inmate dies at Chillicothe women's prison

Missouri roadway fatalities were slightly down throughout 2023. 

Preliminary data shows the state of Missouri saw 989 traffic fatalities last year, a six percent decrease from 2022.  

Missouri State Highway Patrol spokesman Seargent Shane Hux with Troop H says locally there was a drop, but it didn't quite mirror the statewide numbers 

"In 23' we ended the year with 41 fatalities in northwest Missouri here in the Troop H area compared to 42 back in 2022," Hux tells KFEQ/St. Joseph Post.  

While overall traffic fatalities were down, the number of motorcycle fatalities has never been higher.  

Hux says though Missouri repealed its helmet law, it's still important to encourage motorcyclists to wear a helmet. 

"Because that is your number one safety device when you're on a motorcycle, just like riding in a vehicle you know your number one safety device is your seatbelt," Hux explains. "So that's all we can do is encourage them and tell them your chance of surviving if your involved in a motor vehicle crash when you're on your motorcycle, your chances of surviving that increase if you're wearing a helmet." 

Across Missouri there were 175 motorcyclists killed, a 14 percent increase from 2022, making it the highest number of motorcycle fatalities reported in Missouri.  

Hux says to keep the numbers going down this year, the goal of the highway patrol is enforcement and education of four key areas. 

"Always obey the traffic laws, they're there for a reason, they're there for your safety they're there for the safety of the motoring public, that's huge to obey those traffic laws," Hux says. "Always make sure that you and everybody inside the vehicle buckles up each and every time they get inside their vehicle, never operate while impaired, and always devote 100% of your attention to driving at all times." 

You can follow Matt on X @KfeqMatt and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

By MATT PIKE St. Joseph Post Missouri roadway fatalities were slightly down throughout 2023. Preliminary data shows the state of Missouri saw 989 traffic fatalities last year, a six percent decrease from 2022. Missouri State Highway Patrol spokesman Seargent Shane Hux with Troop H says locally there was a drop, but it didn't quite mirror the statewide numbers "In 23' we ended the year with 41 fatalities in northwest Missouri here in the Troop H area compared to 42 back in 2022," Hux tells KFEQ/St. Joseph Post. While overall traffic fatalities were down, the number of motorcycle fatalities has never been higher. Hux says though Missouri repealed its helmet law, it's still important to encourage motorcyclists to wear a helmet. "Because that is your number one safety device when you're on a motorcycle, just like riding in a vehicle you know your number one safety device is your seatbelt," Hux explains. "So that's all we can do is encourage them and tell them your chance of surviving if your involved in a motor vehicle crash when you're on your motorcycle, your chances of surviving that increase if you're wearing a helmet." Across Missouri there were 175 motorcyclists killed, a 14 percent increase from 2022, making it the highest number of motorcycle fatalities reported in Missouri. Hux says to keep the numbers going down this year, the goal of the highway patrol is enforcement and education of four key areas. "Always obey the traffic laws, they're there for a reason, they're there for your safety they're there for the safety of the motoring public, that's huge to obey those traffic laws," Hux says. "Always make sure that you and everybody inside the vehicle buckles up each and every time they get inside their vehicle, never operate while impaired, and always devote 100% of your attention to driving at all times." You can follow Matt on X @KfeqMatt and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Missouri roadway deaths were  slightly down in 2023

Buchanan and Andrew County Republicans prepare for their
respective caucuses as Missouri switches from a presidential preference primary
back to the caucus format.

Andrew County Republican Central Committee chair, Mark
Schneider, says by the time the March 2nd Caucus rolls around, there
likely will be only former President Donald Trump standing in the Republican
presidential field. But he does expect backers of former UN Ambassador and
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to show up.

“Certainly, there are Haley supporters in each of our
counties,” Schneider tells host Barry Birr on the KFEQ Hotline. “You just have
some people that are anti-Trump regardless and they may be Haley supporters.”

Schneider also serves as chair of the Republican 6th
Congressional District.

Buchanan County Republican Central Committee chair, Steven
Greiert, says county Republicans will gather at the Buchanan County Courthouse,
with no oath required.

“If you check the blank, we’re going to hope that you’re
telling the truth. No one registers by party anymore,” Greiert tells Birr. “So,
therefore, we only know which people are residing in our respective counties and
which people are registered voters. So, we’re hoping that the people will tell
the truth.”

Schneider says Missouri had always held caucuses until 1988,
when Democrats wanted a primary to help the presidential aspirations of St.
Louis Congressman Richard Gephardt. Both Schneider and Greiert call the past
primaries beauty contests. Even though the state had a presidential primary,
delegates to the state and national convention were chosen by caucus.

Schneider says a caucus, as opposed to a primary, brings out
committed party members.

“It motivates the people who are truly informed and truly want
to participate in the political process,” according to Schneider. “This is the
basic, grass roots political activity.&nbsp;
It all starts right here at the county level, and then moves up to the
district level, and then on to the state convention.”

All Missouri Republican Caucus meetings will begin at 10am on
Saturday, March 2nd. The meetings must wrap up by two that afternoon
so results can be sent to state party officials to be reported by 5pm.

Buchanan County Republicans will caucus in the courtroom of
Judge Patrick Robb at the Buchanan County Courthouse in St. Joseph. Andrew
County Republicans will caucus at the Andrew County Courthouse in Savannah.

For more information from Buchanan County Republicans click
<a href="https://www.buchanangop.com/">HERE</a>.

For more information from Andrew County Republicans click
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/AndrewCountyRepublicans/">HERE</a>.

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostBuchanan and Andrew County Republicans prepare for their
respective caucuses as Missouri switches from a presidential preference primary
back to the caucus format.Andrew County Republican Central Committee chair, Mark
Schneider, says by the time the March 2nd Caucus rolls around, there
likely will be only former President Donald Trump standing in the Republican
presidential field. But he does expect backers of former UN Ambassador and
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to show up.“Certainly, there are Haley supporters in each of our
counties,” Schneider tells host Barry Birr on the KFEQ Hotline. “You just have
some people that are anti-Trump regardless and they may be Haley supporters.”Schneider also serves as chair of the Republican 6th
Congressional District.Buchanan County Republican Central Committee chair, Steven
Greiert, says county Republicans will gather at the Buchanan County Courthouse,
with no oath required.“If you check the blank, we’re going to hope that you’re
telling the truth. No one registers by party anymore,” Greiert tells Birr. “So,
therefore, we only know which people are residing in our respective counties and
which people are registered voters. So, we’re hoping that the people will tell
the truth.”Schneider says Missouri had always held caucuses until 1988,
when Democrats wanted a primary to help the presidential aspirations of St.
Louis Congressman Richard Gephardt. Both Schneider and Greiert call the past
primaries beauty contests. Even though the state had a presidential primary,
delegates to the state and national convention were chosen by caucus.Schneider says a caucus, as opposed to a primary, brings out
committed party members.“It motivates the people who are truly informed and truly want
to participate in the political process,” according to Schneider. “This is the
basic, grass roots political activity.&nbsp;
It all starts right here at the county level, and then moves up to the
district level, and then on to the state convention.”All Missouri Republican Caucus meetings will begin at 10am on
Saturday, March 2nd. The meetings must wrap up by two that afternoon
so results can be sent to state party officials to be reported by 5pm.Buchanan County Republicans will caucus in the courtroom of
Judge Patrick Robb at the Buchanan County Courthouse in St. Joseph. Andrew
County Republicans will caucus at the Andrew County Courthouse in Savannah.For more information from Buchanan County Republicans click
<a href="https://www.buchanangop.com/">HERE</a>.For more information from Andrew County Republicans click
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/AndrewCountyRepublicans/">HERE</a>.<div><iframe src="https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kfeq-news/embed/episodes/The-Caucuses-are-coming-e2felna" height="102px" width="400px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div>You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Local Republicans prepare for upcoming caucuses

The legislation set for debate in the Senate would require a majority vote in 82 state House districts and a statewide majority to approve constitutional amendments

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

Every vote cast on a constitutional amendment would be counted two ways&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=209">under a proposal</a>&nbsp;Missouri Republicans are trying to push to an August vote.

The first way would be the traditional method, where all the votes are tallied to determine if the ballot measure has a statewide majority.&nbsp;

The second way would be to determine whether the proposal has a majority in 82 Missouri House districts, the same number it takes to pass a bill in the 163-member chamber.

Called a concurrent majority, proponents argue it will require measures to have broad support to win at the polls instead of concentrated support in the most populated parts of the state.&nbsp;An analysis of voting patterns by The Independent shows that the change would make it mathematically possible for as few as 20% of voters to determine the outcome of statewide ballot measures.

&nbsp;“This will change the way we actually campaign on these issues,” said Tim Jones, state director of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, the group of GOP senators who have demanded initiative petition changes in order to allow the chamber to function. “This to me is a very similar concept to the electoral college.”

The proposal is taking on new urgency for GOP leaders because a proposal to overturn Missouri’s abortion ban&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/19/missouri-abortion-ballot-viabilty-effort-fundraises-1-million/">could be on the ballot in November</a>. Republicans see changing the rules as the only way to defeat it.

Opponents claim the idea undermines majority rule, which has determined the outcome of constitutional questions in Missouri&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/housej/id/34400/rec/12">since 1846</a>.

“Their goal is to make sure that if an overwhelming majority in urban areas supports a measure, the rural voters can defeat it nevertheless,” said Chuck Hatfield, an attorney representing Protect Majority Rule, which is raising money for a possible campaign against the amendment.

The proposal represents a shift in tactics from last year, when the favored proposal would have&nbsp; simply&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/14/republicans-fast-track-bill-to-make-it-harder-to-amend-missouri-constitution-by-initiative-petition/">increased the majority needed</a>&nbsp;to pass constitutional amendments from half the vote plus one to as much as two-thirds. Voters in&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_Issue_2,_60%25_Supermajority_Vote_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_and_Ballot_Initiatives_Measure_(2022)">Arkansas in 2022</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/briefs/ohio-voters-reject-issue-1-constitutional-amendment-changes-the-associated-press-projects/">Ohio in 2023</a>&nbsp;soundly rejected increasing the majority needed in those states.

“Raising the threshold is a loser and various states have proven that’s a loser,” Jones said.

The Missouri Senate is expected this week to debate the proposed constitutional amendment after a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/25/missouri-senate-gop-warfare-escalates-with-suggestion-of-expelling-freedom-caucus-leader/">month of factional warfare</a>&nbsp;over when it would reach the floor and which lawmaker’s proposal will be debated.

The Freedom Caucus originally demanded not only for the proposed changes to be fast tracked to the full Senate, but according to emails obtained by The Independent through Missouri’s Sunshine Law, also wanted one of its members to carry the bill.

Instead, the measure to be debated is sponsored by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a candidate for Congress who has sided with leadership in the factional disputes.

Democrats in the Senate, who have been content to let the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/23/missouri-freedom-caucus-leaders-ousted-from-senate-chairmanships-over-stall-tactics/">GOP civil war</a>&nbsp;play out without interfering, are “vehemently” opposed to any effort to alter the use of a majority for ballot measures, Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, a Democrat from Independence, told reporters last week.&nbsp;

“We are not for taking away people’s voice at the ballot box,” Rizzo said. “And the fact that that is… the top priority of the Republican Party when all these other issues are on the table, shows you exactly what the Republican Party thinks of people voting.”

Determining what, if any, impact such a proposal would have had on the outcome of recent constitutional amendments is difficult. There are no compiled official records of the outcome of constitutional amendments by Missouri House district.

Voters have approved three constitutional amendments with majorities of 53% or less in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles — two proposed by initiative and one placed on the ballot by lawmakers..&nbsp;

A constitutional amendment legalizing adult use marijuana received 53.1% statewide in 2022. It passed in counties that have all or part of 95 House districts.

An expansion of Medicaid coverage to adults aged 18-64 received 53.3% in 2020, winning in counties with all or part of 86 House districts.&nbsp;

Revisions to the legislative redistricting process won with 51% statewide in 2020 and passed in counties with all or part of 89 House districts.

But because some districts are less than a full county, or cover multiple counties, no precise conclusions can be drawn.

One effort, by the person behind a social media account named Missouri Mapper, used precinct results, aligning those records with legislative district boundaries, for the&nbsp; marijuana initiative petition in 2022. The calculations concluded it&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://x.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1725997299283694060?s=20">would have passed</a>&nbsp;if concurrent majorities were based on state House or Senate districts and failed if it needed a majority of congressional districts.

The proposal set for Senate debate wouldn’t just change how constitutional amendments are approved. There are several other provisions,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/03/ballot-candy-missouri-gop-adds-citizen-only-voting-into-initiative-petition-changes/">added as “ballot candy,”</a>&nbsp;to entice voter support.

The extras in the Senate proposal include barring non-citizens from voting on constitutional amendments, something that hasn’t been allowed in Missouri since 1924, as well as banning foreign governments or political parties from sponsoring or spending in support of initiatives, a practice banned by federal law.

There is also a prohibition on initiatives to allow lobbyists to make gifts to lawmakers.&nbsp;

All three of those items will be listed ahead of changes to the majority requirements in the language voters would see if lawmakers send it to a statewide ballot.

“Concurrent majority ratification by itself will not carry this to victory,” Jones said. “It’ll have to be what the left usually does is have an initiative petition, but call it something else. So there will be proposals that this also include a prohibition on non-citizen voting, something of that sort.”

The first time Missourians voted on alterations to the state constitution was Aug. 3, 1846, when the white male electorate&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/housej/id/34400/rec/12">rejected an entirely new charter</a>&nbsp;to replace the state’s founding document.

A majority of 57% voted against the proposal of a state constitutional convention, leaving the original method of amending the constitution in place until 1865.

For 45 years, approval by voters was indirect. If two-thirds of state lawmakers agreed on an amendment, it was published in newspapers repeatedly across the state prior to the next general election. If two-thirds of the lawmakers then elected also approved the change, it was added to the constitution.

In 1865, voters approved a new constitution&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/2015/01/11/150-years-ago-missouri-state/21743565007/">abolishing slavery</a>. The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&amp;context=mo_constitutions_race">1865 “Drake Constitution,”</a>&nbsp;written by what were called Radical Republicans, took the vote away from former Confederates and extended it to immigrants who were not yet citizens but who had declared their intent to become one.

The provision rewarded the largest immigrant group in Missouri at the time, Germans, who were among the most anti-slavery, and therefore Radical Republican voters. The franchise was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://cdm16795.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16795coll26/id/23750/rec/34">taken away from non-citizens in 1924</a>, when newcomers were more likely to come from eastern and southern Europe, in an amendment proposed by a Constitutional Convention&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/bluebook/id/12864/rec/25">passed with 53.5%</a>&nbsp;of the vote.

Taking away the votes of immigrants who had declared their intent to become citizens was favored heavily in large population centers like St. Louis, where it received more than 75% in the city and county, but it did not have broad support statewide. The majority in the city of St. Louis alone exceeded the majority statewide by almost 5,000 votes. It failed in at least 84 of Missouri’s then-151 House districts, which would have defeated it under the proposed concurrent majority standard.

The 1865 Constitution also provided for a direct vote on constitutional amendments for the first time, with a majority needed for approval. That has remained unchanged.

Missouri voters in 1908 approved, by majority vote, a legislative proposal to allow&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://cdm16795.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16795coll26/id/23723/rec/34">use of the initiative petition process</a>&nbsp;to add amendments, enact statutes or subject legislative enactments to a referendum.&nbsp;

The method of securing a spot on the ballot and the majority needed for passage have remained essentially unchanged.

What has changed is what is being put in the constitution. In 2010, with backing mainly from the Humane Society of the United States, voters&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Dog_Breeding_Regulation,_Proposition_B_(2010)">approved a new law regulating dog breeders</a>, with a key provision limiting the number of breeding dogs. Missouri lawmakers responded the next year by changing key provisions, including&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=4075538">removing the cap</a>&nbsp;on the number of dogs allowed.

Since then, the strategy for groups pushing initiatives has been to put their ideas in the state constitution, where only another statewide vote can change what has been enacted.

“It was the puppy mills that got everybody to wake up and say, ‘Oh, we better not do it by statute, we better do it by constitution,’” said Michael Wolff, a former Missouri Supreme Court chief justice and dean emeritus at St. Louis University School of Law.

As a result of the tactical switch, some very long amendments have been added to the constitution over the last decade in order to prevent legislators from rolling them back.

&nbsp;Critics argue most of those changes should properly be state statutes.

The state constitution approved by voters in February 1945 was just under 27,000 words long. The medical marijuana amendment, approved in 2018, was almost 8,000 words. Legalizing recreational marijuana in November 2022 added 14,000 words in a new section and 2,000 more for revisions to the medical marijuana section.

Not everyone who wants to raise the bar for approving constitutional amendments is sold on the idea of concurrent majorities.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a candidate for governor, said he’s got a simple standard that legislation must meet.

“It should be something that makes sure that if we’re amending our Constitution, it’s what the people of Missouri want and has broad agreement,” Ashcroft said. “If what they do supports making sure Missourians broadly are making that decision, I’m fine with that.”

The key to understanding how concurrent majorities work is to know that the votes in districts that support a measure can be overwhelming, even 100%. But if it fails by a single vote in enough districts, it would thwart the statewide majority.

“I have not done the math on that,” Jones said. “People that I trust have done the math on that and they assure me that if it is a concurrent majority by House districts, that is better for folks on the right side of the political spectrum.”

The Independent performed calculations using&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s_default">election results</a>&nbsp;available on the Missouri Secretary of State’s website.&nbsp;

Over 163 Missouri House districts, the total vote varies widely from election to election.&nbsp;

In November 2020, there were 2.76 million votes cast in state House races, with the fewest, 7,026, in the 19th District in Jackson County. The largest vote was 27,205, in the 16th District just across the Missouri River in Clay County.

To achieve a majority – 50% plus one vote – in the 82 districts with the fewest votes required just over 574,000 votes, or 20.7% of the total vote cast in all House districts.

In the November 2022 election, there were 1.87 million votes in state House races. The smallest vote in a House race was 3,671, in the 121st District in Pulaski County in south central Missouri. The largest was 18,150 votes, in the 90th District in St. Louis County.

To achieve a majority in the 82 districts with the fewest votes required just over 379,000 votes, or 20.2% of the total vote cast in all House districts.

A slightly larger percentage of the statewide vote, approximately 23%, could theoretically control the outcome if the concurrent majority requirement uses the state’s eight congressional districts. In that scheme, a vote against an amendment in four districts would be enough to defeat it statewide.

There is an instance in Missouri where a concurrent majority is already used, but it is not the final say on an issue. When a city seeks to annex an area and there is opposition in the region to be added, it goes to a vote, with the city and the area to be annexed voting separately.

If there is a disagreement between the results where the city approves annexation and the area to be annexed does not,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=71.015&amp;bid=35693&amp;hl=">a second vote is held</a>&nbsp;where the results are combined and a final decision, based on a two-thirds majority of the whole, is made.

But the question of whether the concurrent majority requirements under debate would be allowed by the courts presents problems that the annexation law doesn’t encounter. The most important, attorneys contacted by The Independent said, is the varying number of votes in each district.

Wolff, the former state Supreme Court judge, said he’s uncertain whether the courts would think it is more important that the districts are nearly equal in population or that the equality of people doesn’t result in similar numbers of votes.

The question will, he and others said, almost certainly be decided in federal court.

“I don't know where the U.S. Supreme Court's gonna go on this because the current court goes back and looks at well, what was the intent of the framers of the Constitution?” Wolff said.

In 1963, the Supreme Court&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/112">threw out a concurrent majority law</a>&nbsp;in Georgia that required statewide candidates to win in a majority of counties to be nominated in primaries. That case involved units that varied widely in population.

“The logic there is that you cannot allow some people's vote to count for more than others,” said Hatfield, the attorney for opponents of the proposed initiative petition changes.

That same logic would make a concurrent majority to approve constitutional amendments unconstitutional, Hatfield said.

“Those 20% of the people are essentially getting two votes each and they can defeat my one vote,” Hatfield said. “If you happen to live in your smallest House district, you get two votes and you can defeat my one vote. That's the problem.”

The other legal question is whether concurrent majorities would apply to constitutional amendments set for the November ballot if voters agree to it in August.

Unless they state otherwise, constitutional amendments go into force 30 days after voter approval.

That date, in early September, would be after the November ballot has been certified by Ashcroft. Signatures are already being gathered for several initiative petition campaigns and are due in May.

“Is this changing the rules of the game after it has begun?” Wolff said. “That's certainly going to be an interesting piece of litigation, isn’t it? I don't know. I would think that (the new majorities would apply), but the question as well is, when did the game begin?”

Hatfield said the question is a closer call for him than his expectation that concurrent majorities would ultimately be found unconstitutional.

“It's a close call, honestly,” Hatfield said. “So if you pass this in August, it's effective 30 days later. It is the law. And so if some initiative gets voted on in November, arguably that law applies.”

That is how Ashcroft, who will oversee both elections, views it. But he also is sure his opinion won’t be the final word.

“This sort of thing,” he said, “will eventually be decided by the courts.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707217899505.png" alt=" Conservative commentator Doug Billings speaks to a Jan. 30 in support of the Missouri Freedom Caucus (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> Conservative commentator Doug Billings speaks to a Jan. 30 in support of the Missouri Freedom Caucus (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The legislation set for debate in the Senate would require a majority vote in 82 state House districts and a statewide majority to approve constitutional amendments</h2>By RUDI KELLER,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>Every vote cast on a constitutional amendment would be counted two ways&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=209">under a proposal</a>&nbsp;Missouri Republicans are trying to push to an August vote.The first way would be the traditional method, where all the votes are tallied to determine if the ballot measure has a statewide majority.&nbsp;The second way would be to determine whether the proposal has a majority in 82 Missouri House districts, the same number it takes to pass a bill in the 163-member chamber.Called a concurrent majority, proponents argue it will require measures to have broad support to win at the polls instead of concentrated support in the most populated parts of the state.&nbsp;An analysis of voting patterns by The Independent shows that the change would make it mathematically possible for as few as 20% of voters to determine the outcome of statewide ballot measures.&nbsp;“This will change the way we actually campaign on these issues,” said Tim Jones, state director of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, the group of GOP senators who have demanded initiative petition changes in order to allow the chamber to function. “This to me is a very similar concept to the electoral college.”The proposal is taking on new urgency for GOP leaders because a proposal to overturn Missouri’s abortion ban&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/19/missouri-abortion-ballot-viabilty-effort-fundraises-1-million/">could be on the ballot in November</a>. Republicans see changing the rules as the only way to defeat it.Opponents claim the idea undermines majority rule, which has determined the outcome of constitutional questions in Missouri&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/housej/id/34400/rec/12">since 1846</a>.“Their goal is to make sure that if an overwhelming majority in urban areas supports a measure, the rural voters can defeat it nevertheless,” said Chuck Hatfield, an attorney representing Protect Majority Rule, which is raising money for a possible campaign against the amendment.The proposal represents a shift in tactics from last year, when the favored proposal would have&nbsp; simply&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/14/republicans-fast-track-bill-to-make-it-harder-to-amend-missouri-constitution-by-initiative-petition/">increased the majority needed</a>&nbsp;to pass constitutional amendments from half the vote plus one to as much as two-thirds. Voters in&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_Issue_2,_60%25_Supermajority_Vote_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_and_Ballot_Initiatives_Measure_(2022)">Arkansas in 2022</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/briefs/ohio-voters-reject-issue-1-constitutional-amendment-changes-the-associated-press-projects/">Ohio in 2023</a>&nbsp;soundly rejected increasing the majority needed in those states.“Raising the threshold is a loser and various states have proven that’s a loser,” Jones said.The Missouri Senate is expected this week to debate the proposed constitutional amendment after a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/25/missouri-senate-gop-warfare-escalates-with-suggestion-of-expelling-freedom-caucus-leader/">month of factional warfare</a>&nbsp;over when it would reach the floor and which lawmaker’s proposal will be debated.The Freedom Caucus originally demanded not only for the proposed changes to be fast tracked to the full Senate, but according to emails obtained by The Independent through Missouri’s Sunshine Law, also wanted one of its members to carry the bill.Instead, the measure to be debated is sponsored by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a candidate for Congress who has sided with leadership in the factional disputes.Democrats in the Senate, who have been content to let the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/23/missouri-freedom-caucus-leaders-ousted-from-senate-chairmanships-over-stall-tactics/">GOP civil war</a>&nbsp;play out without interfering, are “vehemently” opposed to any effort to alter the use of a majority for ballot measures, Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, a Democrat from Independence, told reporters last week.&nbsp;“We are not for taking away people’s voice at the ballot box,” Rizzo said. “And the fact that that is… the top priority of the Republican Party when all these other issues are on the table, shows you exactly what the Republican Party thinks of people voting.”Determining what, if any, impact such a proposal would have had on the outcome of recent constitutional amendments is difficult. There are no compiled official records of the outcome of constitutional amendments by Missouri House district.Voters have approved three constitutional amendments with majorities of 53% or less in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles — two proposed by initiative and one placed on the ballot by lawmakers..&nbsp;A constitutional amendment legalizing adult use marijuana received 53.1% statewide in 2022. It passed in counties that have all or part of 95 House districts.An expansion of Medicaid coverage to adults aged 18-64 received 53.3% in 2020, winning in counties with all or part of 86 House districts.&nbsp;Revisions to the legislative redistricting process won with 51% statewide in 2020 and passed in counties with all or part of 89 House districts.But because some districts are less than a full county, or cover multiple counties, no precise conclusions can be drawn.One effort, by the person behind a social media account named Missouri Mapper, used precinct results, aligning those records with legislative district boundaries, for the&nbsp; marijuana initiative petition in 2022. The calculations concluded it&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://x.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1725997299283694060?s=20">would have passed</a>&nbsp;if concurrent majorities were based on state House or Senate districts and failed if it needed a majority of congressional districts.The proposal set for Senate debate wouldn’t just change how constitutional amendments are approved. There are several other provisions,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/03/ballot-candy-missouri-gop-adds-citizen-only-voting-into-initiative-petition-changes/">added as “ballot candy,”</a>&nbsp;to entice voter support.The extras in the Senate proposal include barring non-citizens from voting on constitutional amendments, something that hasn’t been allowed in Missouri since 1924, as well as banning foreign governments or political parties from sponsoring or spending in support of initiatives, a practice banned by federal law.There is also a prohibition on initiatives to allow lobbyists to make gifts to lawmakers.&nbsp;All three of those items will be listed ahead of changes to the majority requirements in the language voters would see if lawmakers send it to a statewide ballot.“Concurrent majority ratification by itself will not carry this to victory,” Jones said. “It’ll have to be what the left usually does is have an initiative petition, but call it something else. So there will be proposals that this also include a prohibition on non-citizen voting, something of that sort.”<h2>Amendments history</h2>The first time Missourians voted on alterations to the state constitution was Aug. 3, 1846, when the white male electorate&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/housej/id/34400/rec/12">rejected an entirely new charter</a>&nbsp;to replace the state’s founding document.A majority of 57% voted against the proposal of a state constitutional convention, leaving the original method of amending the constitution in place until 1865.For 45 years, approval by voters was indirect. If two-thirds of state lawmakers agreed on an amendment, it was published in newspapers repeatedly across the state prior to the next general election. If two-thirds of the lawmakers then elected also approved the change, it was added to the constitution.In 1865, voters approved a new constitution&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/2015/01/11/150-years-ago-missouri-state/21743565007/">abolishing slavery</a>. The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&amp;context=mo_constitutions_race">1865 “Drake Constitution,”</a>&nbsp;written by what were called Radical Republicans, took the vote away from former Confederates and extended it to immigrants who were not yet citizens but who had declared their intent to become one.The provision rewarded the largest immigrant group in Missouri at the time, Germans, who were among the most anti-slavery, and therefore Radical Republican voters. The franchise was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://cdm16795.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16795coll26/id/23750/rec/34">taken away from non-citizens in 1924</a>, when newcomers were more likely to come from eastern and southern Europe, in an amendment proposed by a Constitutional Convention&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mdh.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/bluebook/id/12864/rec/25">passed with 53.5%</a>&nbsp;of the vote.Taking away the votes of immigrants who had declared their intent to become citizens was favored heavily in large population centers like St. Louis, where it received more than 75% in the city and county, but it did not have broad support statewide. The majority in the city of St. Louis alone exceeded the majority statewide by almost 5,000 votes. It failed in at least 84 of Missouri’s then-151 House districts, which would have defeated it under the proposed concurrent majority standard.The 1865 Constitution also provided for a direct vote on constitutional amendments for the first time, with a majority needed for approval. That has remained unchanged.Missouri voters in 1908 approved, by majority vote, a legislative proposal to allow&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://cdm16795.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16795coll26/id/23723/rec/34">use of the initiative petition process</a>&nbsp;to add amendments, enact statutes or subject legislative enactments to a referendum.&nbsp;The method of securing a spot on the ballot and the majority needed for passage have remained essentially unchanged.What has changed is what is being put in the constitution. In 2010, with backing mainly from the Humane Society of the United States, voters&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Dog_Breeding_Regulation,_Proposition_B_(2010)">approved a new law regulating dog breeders</a>, with a key provision limiting the number of breeding dogs. Missouri lawmakers responded the next year by changing key provisions, including&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=4075538">removing the cap</a>&nbsp;on the number of dogs allowed.Since then, the strategy for groups pushing initiatives has been to put their ideas in the state constitution, where only another statewide vote can change what has been enacted.“It was the puppy mills that got everybody to wake up and say, ‘Oh, we better not do it by statute, we better do it by constitution,’” said Michael Wolff, a former Missouri Supreme Court chief justice and dean emeritus at St. Louis University School of Law.As a result of the tactical switch, some very long amendments have been added to the constitution over the last decade in order to prevent legislators from rolling them back.&nbsp;Critics argue most of those changes should properly be state statutes.The state constitution approved by voters in February 1945 was just under 27,000 words long. The medical marijuana amendment, approved in 2018, was almost 8,000 words. Legalizing recreational marijuana in November 2022 added 14,000 words in a new section and 2,000 more for revisions to the medical marijuana section.<h2>Majority math</h2>Not everyone who wants to raise the bar for approving constitutional amendments is sold on the idea of concurrent majorities.Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a candidate for governor, said he’s got a simple standard that legislation must meet.“It should be something that makes sure that if we’re amending our Constitution, it’s what the people of Missouri want and has broad agreement,” Ashcroft said. “If what they do supports making sure Missourians broadly are making that decision, I’m fine with that.”The key to understanding how concurrent majorities work is to know that the votes in districts that support a measure can be overwhelming, even 100%. But if it fails by a single vote in enough districts, it would thwart the statewide majority.“I have not done the math on that,” Jones said. “People that I trust have done the math on that and they assure me that if it is a concurrent majority by House districts, that is better for folks on the right side of the political spectrum.”The Independent performed calculations using&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s_default">election results</a>&nbsp;available on the Missouri Secretary of State’s website.&nbsp;Over 163 Missouri House districts, the total vote varies widely from election to election.&nbsp;In November 2020, there were 2.76 million votes cast in state House races, with the fewest, 7,026, in the 19th District in Jackson County. The largest vote was 27,205, in the 16th District just across the Missouri River in Clay County.To achieve a majority – 50% plus one vote – in the 82 districts with the fewest votes required just over 574,000 votes, or 20.7% of the total vote cast in all House districts.In the November 2022 election, there were 1.87 million votes in state House races. The smallest vote in a House race was 3,671, in the 121st District in Pulaski County in south central Missouri. The largest was 18,150 votes, in the 90th District in St. Louis County.To achieve a majority in the 82 districts with the fewest votes required just over 379,000 votes, or 20.2% of the total vote cast in all House districts.A slightly larger percentage of the statewide vote, approximately 23%, could theoretically control the outcome if the concurrent majority requirement uses the state’s eight congressional districts. In that scheme, a vote against an amendment in four districts would be enough to defeat it statewide.<h2>Is it legal?</h2>There is an instance in Missouri where a concurrent majority is already used, but it is not the final say on an issue. When a city seeks to annex an area and there is opposition in the region to be added, it goes to a vote, with the city and the area to be annexed voting separately.If there is a disagreement between the results where the city approves annexation and the area to be annexed does not,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=71.015&amp;bid=35693&amp;hl=">a second vote is held</a>&nbsp;where the results are combined and a final decision, based on a two-thirds majority of the whole, is made.But the question of whether the concurrent majority requirements under debate would be allowed by the courts presents problems that the annexation law doesn’t encounter. The most important, attorneys contacted by The Independent said, is the varying number of votes in each district.Wolff, the former state Supreme Court judge, said he’s uncertain whether the courts would think it is more important that the districts are nearly equal in population or that the equality of people doesn’t result in similar numbers of votes.The question will, he and others said, almost certainly be decided in federal court.“I don't know where the U.S. Supreme Court's gonna go on this because the current court goes back and looks at well, what was the intent of the framers of the Constitution?” Wolff said.In 1963, the Supreme Court&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/112">threw out a concurrent majority law</a>&nbsp;in Georgia that required statewide candidates to win in a majority of counties to be nominated in primaries. That case involved units that varied widely in population.“The logic there is that you cannot allow some people's vote to count for more than others,” said Hatfield, the attorney for opponents of the proposed initiative petition changes.That same logic would make a concurrent majority to approve constitutional amendments unconstitutional, Hatfield said.“Those 20% of the people are essentially getting two votes each and they can defeat my one vote,” Hatfield said. “If you happen to live in your smallest House district, you get two votes and you can defeat my one vote. That's the problem.”The other legal question is whether concurrent majorities would apply to constitutional amendments set for the November ballot if voters agree to it in August.Unless they state otherwise, constitutional amendments go into force 30 days after voter approval.That date, in early September, would be after the November ballot has been certified by Ashcroft. Signatures are already being gathered for several initiative petition campaigns and are due in May.“Is this changing the rules of the game after it has begun?” Wolff said. “That's certainly going to be an interesting piece of litigation, isn’t it? I don't know. I would think that (the new majorities would apply), but the question as well is, when did the game begin?”Hatfield said the question is a closer call for him than his expectation that concurrent majorities would ultimately be found unconstitutional.“It's a close call, honestly,” Hatfield said. “So if you pass this in August, it's effective 30 days later. It is the law. And so if some initiative gets voted on in November, arguably that law applies.”That is how Ashcroft, who will oversee both elections, views it. But he also is sure his opinion won’t be the final word.“This sort of thing,” he said, “will eventually be decided by the courts.”

As few as 1 in 5 voters could defeat initiative petitions under Missouri Senate proposal

ATCHISON COUNTY —A Kansas felon convicted of numerous crimes is back in custody.

On Feb. 2, police arrested 42-year-old Rebekah R. Green of Atchison, according to Police Chief Mike Wilson.

She is being held in connection with a Municipal Court warrant for failure to appear in court.&nbsp;

In May of 2021 police arrested her on requested charges of drug possession, according to online jail records. She has two previous convictions for battery of a state, county or city law enforcement officer, for battery,&nbsp;Interference with Parental Custody and disorderly conduct, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections.

In June of 2023 she was jailed on requested charges of aggravated failure to appear in court.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707146947049.png" alt="Green-photo Atchison Co." />
 <figcaption>Green-photo Atchison Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>ATCHISON COUNTY —A Kansas felon convicted of numerous crimes is back in custody.On Feb. 2, police arrested 42-year-old Rebekah R. Green of Atchison, according to Police Chief Mike Wilson.She is being held in connection with a Municipal Court warrant for failure to appear in court.&nbsp;In May of 2021 police arrested her on requested charges of drug possession, according to online jail records. She has two previous convictions for battery of a state, county or city law enforcement officer, for battery,&nbsp;Interference with Parental Custody and disorderly conduct, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections.In June of 2023 she was jailed on requested charges of aggravated failure to appear in court.

Kansas woman with a history of crime back in jail

United Way officials and volunteers have gathered for their
annual meeting, looking ahead to the needs of the community this year.

United Way of Greater St. Joseph President Kylee Strough says
the biggest need appears to be families on the verge of vulnerability and
fragility.

“It’s expensive to live right now,” Strough tells KFEQ/St.
Joseph Post. “A dollar is not going as far as it was and when you have really
cold temperatures and increasing grocery costs and the gas pump is a little
more expensive, it makes it hard for families and households to pay all their
bills.”

Strough says the local United Way staff is in discussion with
its volunteer agencies about how best to meet those needs. Strough says giving
was sluggish coming out of the pandemic, but has pick up in the past year.

Strough says the financial struggles facing many area families
cause a lot of stress.

“We see them as very connected and interdependent and we alone
will not solve anything,” Strough says. “But can we bring the right hands and
feet and minds around ideas to actually try to make life a little bit better for
people in our community?”

Strough says the economic woes facing many are not uncommon.

“A lot of us are one disruption of a paycheck away from really
struggling and the more we can come together as a caring community and take
care of one another the better things will be for each and every one of us who
lives here.”

The United Way campaign raises close to $2.5 million a year to
fund its 17 agencies.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707148046651.jpeg" alt="The United Way of Greater St. Joseph held its annual dinner at Restoration Church in downtown St. Joseph/Photo by Brent Martin" />
 <figcaption>The United Way of Greater St. Joseph held its annual dinner at Restoration Church in downtown St. Joseph/Photo by Brent Martin</figcaption>
 </figure>By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostUnited Way officials and volunteers have gathered for their
annual meeting, looking ahead to the needs of the community this year.United Way of Greater St. Joseph President Kylee Strough says
the biggest need appears to be families on the verge of vulnerability and
fragility.“It’s expensive to live right now,” Strough tells KFEQ/St.
Joseph Post. “A dollar is not going as far as it was and when you have really
cold temperatures and increasing grocery costs and the gas pump is a little
more expensive, it makes it hard for families and households to pay all their
bills.”Strough says the local United Way staff is in discussion with
its volunteer agencies about how best to meet those needs. Strough says giving
was sluggish coming out of the pandemic, but has pick up in the past year.Strough says the financial struggles facing many area families
cause a lot of stress.“We see them as very connected and interdependent and we alone
will not solve anything,” Strough says. “But can we bring the right hands and
feet and minds around ideas to actually try to make life a little bit better for
people in our community?”Strough says the economic woes facing many are not uncommon.“A lot of us are one disruption of a paycheck away from really
struggling and the more we can come together as a caring community and take
care of one another the better things will be for each and every one of us who
lives here.”The United Way campaign raises close to $2.5 million a year to
fund its 17 agencies.<div><iframe src="https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kfeq-news/embed/episodes/Greater-St--Joseph-United-Way-sees-more-families-struggling-financially-e2fd0bf" height="102px" width="400px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div>You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

St. Joseph United Way sees more families struggling financially

When the law passed last year, it was estimated to cost the state over $100 million annually because the transitional benefits program is outside the bounds of what the federal government funds

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

A law enacted last year aimed at helping individuals transition out of public assistance programs remains in limbo, with Missouri’s social services agency saying it can’t implement the change without a huge infusion of state funding.&nbsp;

The impasse is, in many ways, unsurprising. The legislation, which was approved with bipartisan support, came with a fiscal note that estimated it would cost the state over $100 million because the tweaks to the benefits programs wouldn’t be covered by the federal government.

“We continue to have conversations with our federal partners and the General Assembly to enable implementation of this legislation in the event that funding is appropriated and approved,” said Baylee Watts, a spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Social Services.

The law’s proponents, however, have questioned the accuracy of the fiscal note and say the state isn’t doing enough to implement the law, which was overwhelmingly approved by the legislature.&nbsp;

“I don’t think that the program would cost what they’re saying,” said state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold who&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=44573">co-sponsored</a>&nbsp;the legislation, in an interview with The Independent.

The strategy the legislation uses is different from a federal policy for the food stamp program adopted in 41 states,&nbsp;called broad-based categorical eligibility. Advocates are urging the Missouri to adopt that policy in lieu of the transitional benefits law passed last year, arguing it aligns with the intent of the legislation but wouldn’t require the state to bear the majority of the costs or require additional legislation.

“If there’s broad consensus that that’s the way that we should go, I would be open to having that conversation,” Coleman said, but later added that she could not support any policy “outside the scope of conservative welfare reform that was put forward and adopted by the legislature.”

The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=44414#:~:text=CCS%2FHCS%2FSS%2FSCS,)%20patient%20examinations%3B%20(7)">bill</a>&nbsp;passed last year and signed by Gov. Mike Parson created a transitional state benefits program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, and Temporary Aid for Needy Families, which provides&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/missouri-senate-advances-bill-to-prevent-loss-of-public-benefits-over-small-pay-bump/">limited</a>&nbsp;cash assistance. It also expanded existing transitional benefits for the child care subsidy program.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/5/1685114143831.png" alt="A bill signed into law last year created a transitional state benefits program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,&nbsp;previously known as food stamps, along with Temporary Aid for Needy Families and the child care subsidy program -Google image" />
 <figcaption>A bill signed into law last year created a transitional state benefits program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,&nbsp;previously known as food stamps, along with Temporary Aid for Needy Families and the child care subsidy program -Google image</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>When the law passed last year, it was estimated to cost the state over $100 million annually because the transitional benefits program is outside the bounds of what the federal government funds</h2>By CLARA BATES&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>A law enacted last year aimed at helping individuals transition out of public assistance programs remains in limbo, with Missouri’s social services agency saying it can’t implement the change without a huge infusion of state funding.&nbsp;The impasse is, in many ways, unsurprising. The legislation, which was approved with bipartisan support, came with a fiscal note that estimated it would cost the state over $100 million because the tweaks to the benefits programs wouldn’t be covered by the federal government.“We continue to have conversations with our federal partners and the General Assembly to enable implementation of this legislation in the event that funding is appropriated and approved,” said Baylee Watts, a spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Social Services.The law’s proponents, however, have questioned the accuracy of the fiscal note and say the state isn’t doing enough to implement the law, which was overwhelmingly approved by the legislature.&nbsp;“I don’t think that the program would cost what they’re saying,” said state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold who&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=44573">co-sponsored</a>&nbsp;the legislation, in an interview with The Independent.The strategy the legislation uses is different from a federal policy for the food stamp program adopted in 41 states,&nbsp;called broad-based categorical eligibility. Advocates are urging the Missouri to adopt that policy in lieu of the transitional benefits law passed last year, arguing it aligns with the intent of the legislation but wouldn’t require the state to bear the majority of the costs or require additional legislation.“If there’s broad consensus that that’s the way that we should go, I would be open to having that conversation,” Coleman said, but later added that she could not support any policy “outside the scope of conservative welfare reform that was put forward and adopted by the legislature.”<h2>‘Reforming our welfare system’</h2>The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=44414#:~:text=CCS%2FHCS%2FSS%2FSCS,)%20patient%20examinations%3B%20(7)">bill</a>&nbsp;passed last year and signed by Gov. Mike Parson created a transitional state benefits program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, and Temporary Aid for Needy Families, which provides&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/missouri-senate-advances-bill-to-prevent-loss-of-public-benefits-over-small-pay-bump/">limited</a>&nbsp;cash assistance. It also expanded existing transitional benefits for the child care subsidy program.&nbsp;SNAP is the largest program the law addresses.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://dss.mo.gov/re/pdf/fsd_mhdmr/fsd-mohealthnet-report-1223.pdf">Over 653,000 individuals in Missouri received SNAP benefits in December</a>. There were just under&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://dss.mo.gov/mis/clcounter/history.htm">13,000 people receiving TANF</a>&nbsp;direct assistance that month and&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://dss.mo.gov/mis/clcounter/history.htm">20,900 receiving the child care subsidy</a>&nbsp;in November.SNAP benefits are already federally designed to gradually decrease as income rises. The law, if implemented, would create a separate state program with a higher income maximum and its own benefit level calculations. The bill was designed to help mitigate the issue of participants being forced to choose between a small income bump and losing benefits.Current Missouri law allows people to receive SNAP while earning a gross income of up to 130% of the federal poverty line. For a family of three, that is a maximum of&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mydss.mo.gov/media/pdf/benefit-program-limit-chart">$32,328</a>&nbsp;per year. The new law, if implemented, would change that to transfer those with a gross income of between 130% and 200% of the federal poverty line to the transitional state program, with its own framework for how benefit amounts would be determined within that program.“Transitional benefits should be designed as a hand up, not a hand out trapping people in dependence,” Coleman&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-transition-benefits-snap-tanf/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CTransitional%20benefits%20should%20be%20designed,in%20reforming%20our%20welfare%20system.%E2%80%9D">said</a>&nbsp;after the law passed last year. “This is a great first step in reforming our welfare system.”The fiscal note attached to the legislation included the personnel and technology costs of creating it, along with the cost of paying for the benefits themselves, which the federal government wouldn’t cover.&nbsp;The estimated cost of the change annually was estimated to be&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/fiscal/fispdf/1455H.05P.ORG.pdf">at least&nbsp;</a><a target="_blank" href="https://senate.mo.gov/FiscalNotes/2023-1/0453S.10T.ORG.pdf">$140 million, in the fiscal note</a>&nbsp;published in June.State Rep. Alex Riley, a Republican of Springfield, said in an interview with The Independent that he’d need to speak to the social services department before he could offer any comment about the delayed implementation.&nbsp;But he noted that he and others have long doubted the accuracy of the fiscal note.&nbsp;&nbsp;“We were frustrated,” he said, “because we didn’t think that they took into account that there will be people going off of public assistance because of implementing this and because of the structure that we created with this bill.”At a budget hearing for the Department of Social Services in December, lawmakers expressed surprise at the price tag.Just to implement the system changes for the programs would cost $39.8 million, Patrick Luebbering, the agency’s chief financial officer, told the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for Health, Mental Health and Social Services. That’s because, he said, “we’ll have to build brand new systems.”&nbsp;“Not only will we not get federal funding,” he said, “the way it was laid out, we can’t even use our existing systems — they’re requiring us to build new systems.”&nbsp;The agency’s budget request for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, didn’t include the benefits themselves. Luebbering said that’s because it would take a year to build the system, so expenses for actual benefits wouldn’t be spent until the following budget year.<h2>A route to ‘accomplish the intent’ for SNAP</h2>Most states have taken another path&nbsp;to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snaps-broad-based-categorical-eligibility-supports-working-families-and">help SNAP participants take higher-paying work</a>&nbsp;while avoiding a steep drop-off in benefits.Under an existing federal policy option, states can increase the gross income limit from 130% of the federal poverty line up to 200%. States can also lift the restrictions on assets.Missouri is&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility#:~:text=Broad%2Dbased%20categorical%20eligibility%20(BBCE)%20is%20a%20policy%20in,effort%20(MOE)%20funded%20benefit.">one of nine states</a>&nbsp;that has not opted in to this umbrella policy, called broad-based categorical eligibility, which allows states to pursue either or both of those strategies.Under broad-based categorical eligibility, states can set a gross income limit up to 200% —&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility#:~:text=Broad%2Dbased%20categorical%20eligibility%20(BBCE)%20is%20a%20policy%20in,effort%20(MOE)%20funded%20benefit.">23 states and D.C.</a>&nbsp;set it to 200% and the remaining to somewhere between 130% and 200%.&nbsp;Two hundred percent of the federal poverty line is equivalent to an income limit of $49,720 for a family of three.&nbsp;The federal government pays the full cost of the additional benefits — the policy modifies a state’s existing SNAP program rather than requiring a state to set up its own, self-funded benefits program with its own rules.&nbsp;Thirty-seven states, plus Washington, D.C., have abandoned the SNAP asset tests through the categorical eligibility policy —&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snaps-broad-based-categorical-eligibility-supports-working-families-and">to encourage</a>&nbsp;saving and reduce the complexity of the application for individuals and state agencies processing them. But Missouri currently limits SNAP to those with&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://mydss.mo.gov/food-assistance/apply-for-snap">assets</a>&nbsp;of under $2,750 for most people, or $4,250 if at least one member of the household is over 60 or disabled.&nbsp;Christine Woody, food security policy manager for the nonprofit Empower Missouri, said she has been working with the department and urging them to adopt broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP as a way to carry out a goal of the bill without it costing the state money it doesn’t have.&nbsp;The social services agency can&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/best-practice-raising-snap-gross-income-threshold.pdf">apply on its own</a>&nbsp;— it doesn’t need a legislative mandate.Robert Knodell, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, said at the December budget hearing that the department would pursue an application for that policy to avoid the full costs of implementing the program as a state-funded one.“That would allow us to basically accomplish the intent of the transitional benefit,” Knodell said. “…We could use federal dollars for the program. And I do believe it would somewhat reduce systems and staffing needs around this program.”According to records obtained by The Independent through Missouri’s Sunshine Law, the department in December&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24403090-missouris-state-plan-amendment-for-transitional-snap-benefits-broad-based-categorically-eligibility-002">submitted</a>&nbsp;an application that relied on the language of the transitional benefits law instead of the standard language other states have used to raise the cutoff for SNAP eligibility.In January, the federal government&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24403089-records-bates-fw_-external-emailstate-plan-amendment">rejected</a>&nbsp;the state’s application but expressed readiness to keep providing guidance to help “streamline the administration of SNAP and help ensure all eligible households in Missouri receive the SNAP benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.”&nbsp;Watts, a department spokesperson said it is “important to note [the federal government] considers broad-based categorical eligibility to be a different program than the transitional benefits outlined in [the legislation] passed last year.”In an email to the department in December obtained by The Independent, Coleman expressed concern about whether the state’s application would be accepted. She attached a copy of the application to her email.&nbsp;“Our office has had discussion with DSS regarding a waiver, which we are supportive of, but had not seen a copy of the application,” she wrote. “The attached document doesn’t seem to match what we had discussed. I’m cc’ing DSS on this email.&nbsp; Hopefully they can provide clarification of the source and intent of the language used in the application.”She said in an interview last week that she never received a response to that email or to a follow-up.Watts told the Independent Friday that “since last September, DSS has had monthly teleconferences with Senator Coleman about the legislation, including one this week, and we are willing to do the same with other members of the General Assembly in the event that they reach out with questions.”The Department of Social Services has not clarified whether it plans to submit another version of the application to pursue broad-based categorical eligibility, but Woody said she’s “cautiously optimistic” it will.&nbsp;