Second Ruling Clears Way for 2022 Congressional Map

By Jae Jepsen, Jordan Davis and Anika Austvold, Missouri News Network

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the existing 2022 state congressional map to be used in the November election.

The action came in response to a federal district court judge’s ruling Tuesday that ordered Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to use a gerrymandered map passed a year ago.

Hoskins followed up by ordering county clerks to use the 2025 map, acting against a Missouri Supreme Court ruling issued a week ago that the map had never been valid.

Hoskins was summoned to the state Supreme Court on Thursday morning to explain why he should not be held in contempt for ordering the 2025 map be used. But Hoskins announced during a recess that he was directing local election authorities to use Missouri’s 2022 congressional map in November.

The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately held Hoskins in contempt Thursday for violating its previous order but announced it was satisfied with his move to use the 2022 map and withheld punishment.

Hoskins maintains that his decision to change was not motivated by the threat of repercussions, but a response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier in the morning. The state high court placed a stay on the federal judge’s order, taking the federal judiciary out of the matter for now.

“The only law and directive that we have right now is from the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Missouri Supreme Court says that the 2022 map is in effect,” Hoskins said.

Prosecuting Attorney Chuck Hatfield represented Richard Von Glahn of People Not Politicians, the group that opposed the 2025 map and sought a public referendum before it could be used in an election. Hatfield said he sees the state high court’s decision as a victory.

“It’s really important today that the judiciary sort of held tight against, what I consider, an attempt by Secretary of State Hoskins to alter what is the law and has always been the law,” Hatfield said.

However, Attorney General Catharine Hanaway stipulated that, while the current situation strongly suggests the 2022 map will be used, there is still room for further litigation. Namely, she says the 2025 map could be used if the U.S. Supreme Court makes an order directing it.

The federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is remaining active in the case, ordering an emergency hearing on the issue for Sept. 17.

“It’s very confusing, almost unprecedented, even in very complicated election law history,” Hanaway said.

Before Hoskins ever appeared in court, the dispute prompted a response from 14 Republican members of the Missouri General Assembly.

The lawmakers sent a letter to the Missouri Supreme Court threatening to seek impeachment proceedings against justices if Hoskins were held in contempt. They argued the court would be disregarding federal law by enforcing its order while a conflicting federal court order was in place.

“Should Secretary Hoskins be held in contempt, we will petition the Speaker of the House and legislative leadership to begin impeachment proceedings against the responsible members of this Court for willful neglect of duty, incompetency, and misconduct under Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Missouri Constitution,” the lawmakers wrote.

The letter was signed by Republican Sens. Joe Nicola, Brad Hudson, Ben Brown, Jamie Burger, Curtis Trent, Rick Brattin, Adam Schnelting, Jason Bean and Jill Carter, along with Republican Reps. Jeff Myers, Chad Perkins, Mike McGirl, Bob Titus and Hardy Billington. None offered additional comment.

Notably absent from the letter’s list of supporters was Republican Rep. Bob Onder, a fierce proponent of the 2025 map. Onder’s district went through dramatic changes as a result of the change in map, losing 11 counties and gaining five. He said the map debate, at its core, is about voting rights.

“It’s not about me,” Onder said. “It’s about the voters, that 1.2 million voters, including hundreds of thousands, in my district, who are disenfranchised by what the Missouri Supreme Court has done.”

Brattin, the Republican nominee for Missouri’s 5th Congressional District, won the August primary under the 2025 map, which significantly reshaped the Kansas City-based district currently represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, extending it into more Republican-leaning areas.

In a Facebook post on Thursday, Cleaver expressed his support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s action in favor of the 2022 map.

“A win for justice. A win for democracy. A win for the people of Missouri,” Cleaver said. “It is my hope that state officials will start following court orders and end this shameful attempt to break Missouri law and silence Missouri voters.”

House Democrats sharply criticized the letter, with House Minority Leader Ashley Aune calling it an attempt to intimidate the judicial branch and said the lawmakers could have violated state judicial tampering laws. Missouri law makes it a felony to attempt to harass, intimidate or influence a judicial officer in the performance of official duties.

However, Gov. Mike Kehoe continued to support Hoskins following Thursday’s hearing while suggesting that the legal fight over the map is not yet finished.

“While the reasoning behind today’s Missouri Supreme Court contempt hearings remain questionable, I am proud to stand behind Secretary Hoskins as he continues to serve as Missouri’s top elections authority,” Kehoe said in a statement on X.

“I look forward to the Eighth Circuit’s consideration of the merits of the Missouri First Map and remain confident in the legal process moving forward. Voters deserve certainty and clarity,” Kehoe said.

Hanaway also expressed her support for Hoskins, arguing that he was never in contempt of court.

“He wasn’t held in contempt, and he’s followed the law at every step of the way, and we’ve been proud to defend him at every step of the way, because he’s doing what he swore to do,” she told reporters.

n,” Lennon said.

Opinion -- Missouri Supreme Court Decision Victory for Life

By the Missouri Right to Life

The following statement is from Steve Rupp, President of Missouri Right to Life:

Missouri Right to Life welcomes the Missouri Supreme Court Decision on Tuesday, ordering a Jackson County judge to vacate the preliminary injunctions that she had entered earlier this year in which she declared the Missouri abortion ban and all of Missouri's health and safety regulations unconstitutional under Amendment 3.

This decision will save lives of preborn babies and the health and safety of Missouri Women.  

Among the regulations that the judge had declared unconstitutional included requirements that:

—Only doctors perform abortions. 

—Surgical instruments be sterilized before use.

—Doctors examine the mother to determine the gestational age of the unborn child and to identify any medical risk before performing an abortion.

—Ultrasounds only be performed by licensed medical professionals.

—Abortion clinics have emergency trays and emergency supplies.

Doctors obtain informed consent prior to performing an abortion.

The Missouri Supreme Court's ruling came as a result of an appeal filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, utilizing the authority granted by the Missouri Right to Life backed Senate Bill 22, in which the Attorney General challenged the Jackson County preliminary injunctions.

The Missouri Supreme Court sent the case back to the Jackson County court with instructions to reevaluate Planned Parenthood's request for preliminary injunction based on several criteria, including if Planned Parenthood would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and also to balance that harm with any injury that an injunction would inflict on other interested parties.

Planned Parenthood had previously stated in court filings that they could not comply with the health and safety standards listed above and after the ruling stated they were cancelling abortion appointments and would cease abortions, the killing of innocent unborn children, until further order of the court.

This is a great victory for life!

 

Mo. Republican pushes to allow more evidence in child sex abuse cases

By: Wes Duplantier
State Capitol Bureau
Links: HJR16

(MDN News) -- Republicans in the state Capitol said Thursday that they want to change the state constitution to make it easier for local authorities to prosecute sex crimes committed against children. State Rep. John McCaherty, R-High Ridge, told members of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee on Thursday prosecutors should be able to tell juries about crimes that defendants have committed or been accused of in the past.
Lawmakers have tried to authorize the admission of such evidence before through state law. But the the Missouri Supreme Court has struck down the law, throwing out that kind of evidence, called propensity evidence.
The court said the evidence is inadmissible because it violates a defendant's constitutional right to face their accuser and the constitutional right that someone be indicted by a grand jury before facing trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on whether such evidence should be admissible in criminal trials.
McCaherty acknowledged that his amendment would contradict provisions of the state and federal Constitutions that allow someone to face their accuser when they are accused of a crime.
But he said prosecutors need that kind of evidence to get convictions in such abuse cases because physical evidence often not available, as children sometimes report sexual abuse months or years after it occurs.
"The problem in this case is that the victim is six years old," he said. "You have the word of a six-year-old, who is sitting on the standing, being questioned by attorneys and reliving everything that has happened in her life, against a member of the community."
Jason Lamb, the Executive Director of the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, told committee members that the constitutional change is needed because young victims can be intimidated during a criminal trial .
"Children are children," he said. "They know what happened to them. They don't always know how to tell what happened to them."
Lamb called the proposed constitutional amendment "the single most powerful piece of legislation" that lawmakers could pass to protect children.
But the proposed amendment is getting some push back from people who say it could put defendants in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. The proposed amendment would let judges decide what evidence ultimately comes in and what doesn't.
But Rep. Mike Colona said he thinks elected judges would be reluctant to turn down any evidence in child sex cases.
"Don't get me wrong, of course we want to put these people away," said Colona, D-St. Louis. "But I don't want to create a scenario where a defendant is, kind of de facto, guilty before proven innocent."
Colona said he thinks juries are already inclined to believe children who are recounting something a traumatic as alleged sexual abuse. And he said defense lawyers already face many difficulties in cross-examining children and getting juries to remember their client's right to due process.
The proposed amendment would let judges decide what evidence comes in and what doesn't. But Colona said judges in the state who face elections would to turn down any evidence in child sex cases, for fear of being labeled as sympathetic to such crimes.
The measure is still pending before the crime prevention committee. If it passes both the House and Senate, it would go to a statewide vote in 2014.

A Moment with Mike -- Bills Moving Through Committees

      As we enter the second month of session the natural progression of the governmental process will bring more and more issues to light as the hundreds of bills filed begin to move through the committee process and on to the House Chamber  for discussion.

      Last week the Missouri House gave approval to a bill I mentioned in a previous report that is designed to reinstate several tax credit programs that encourage donations to charitable organizations.  Commonly referred to as benevolent tax credits, these programs offer a tax break to individuals who donate money to organizations like food pantries and pregnancy resource centers.  Unfortunately, some of the credits expired last year and the result has been a potential funding crisis for these non-profits.  Putting the benevolent credits back in place will rectify this and allow them to continue to serve where there is a need.  The total cost to our state will be approximately $2.9 million each year in forgone tax revenue, but the benefits this investment will produce for countless Missourians will be priceless.

      The House Elections Committee met last week to approve two pieces of legislation meant to ensure voter fraud doesn’t occur in Missouri.  One piece of legislation is a constitutional amendment that would allow Missourians to decide whether voters should have to show a form of photo identification at the polling place.  The second bill would put a voter ID system in place in the event voters approve the change to our state constitution.

      This is an issue the legislature has considered numerous times in recent years.  The legislature and the governor actually put a voter identification requirement into law in 2006, but it was ultimately struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court.  In 2011, the General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment to let voters decide on the issue, but it was kept off the ballot by a court decision last year.  This year, we hope to allow Missourians to decide once and for all if they should have to prove that they are who they say they are when they vote.  The goal of this legislation is not in any way to disenfranchise voters, but instead to make sure every vote counts and that every vote is cast by the person who is registered to cast it.  If passed, this legislation will bring about a change which will protect the integrity of the voting process.

      Also last week, the Joint Committee on Education unveiled the plan for a new funding model that determines the amount of state support for all of our public higher education institutions.  Last year the General Assembly passed a bill that would require the Joint Committee on Education to develop a model for funding public higher education institutions by December 31, 2013.  The way our funding process currently operates is by allocating money to schools based largely on what they’ve received in the past and what the state has available.  There is a continual argument about equity funding for our schools and the percentage raises or cuts that we have seen for years simply increases the disparity.

      The goal of the Joint Committee on Education was to develop a plan that was fair and equitable for all schools.  We can now move forward as we consider legislation that will possibly put this plan in place.

     If you have questions, you may reach me at my Capitol number 573-751-9465, at the local district number, 660-582-4014, by email at mike.thomson@house.mo.gov or by mail at Room 401B State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, MO 65101.

OPINION SUBMISSION: Court Decision Could Increase Costs, Reduce Access To Health Services

Herb B. Kuhn
President and CEO
Missouri Hospital Association

On Tuesday, July 31, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a decision in Watts v. Cox that could have implications for every Missourian. The ruling was ostensibly about juries and their responsibilities in determining damages in cases of medical liability. However, the decision could have much broader consequences, including the already difficult ability to find a physician and an increase in health care costs.

In 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a decision essentially eliminating the state’s cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. The Scott decision left Missouri’s medical liability insurers without a way to reliably gauge price and risk when issuing liability policies to medical providers. And, without a clear understanding of their exposure, liability insurers had two choices — get out of the marketplace or significantly increase premiums to insulate themselves against the unknown. They did both. As a result, insurance rates skyrocketed, medical practices closed, access to emergency and trauma care suffered, and physicians left the state. 

In response to the ongoing crisis, the Missouri General Assembly crafted a legislative solution in 2005. The linchpin of that effort was a restoration of the environment prior to the Scott decision — single cap for noneconomic damages. As expected, the fix brought stability and clarity to the marketplace, and the cost of medical liability insurance fell precipitously. In fact, Missouri physicians experienced a $27 million decrease in the cost of liability insurance between 2005 and 2010, with a total reduction of $44.5 million for all health care providers combined. Now, in the aftermath of the Watts decision, Missouri has returned to a marketplace without cues for risk or pricing. 

The timing of the Watts decision couldn’t be worse. In 2014, as many as 500,000 Missourians could gain access to health insurance through a health insurance exchange or Medicaid. However, we can’t generate or attract physicians fast enough to meet the demand for care anticipated in 2014 and beyond. The absence of liability caps has, in the past, discouraged physicians from practicing in Missouri — we know that from the state’s experience between 2002 and 2005. This unfortunate new barrier will hurt hospitals’ efforts to recruit and retain physicians and discourage physicians from choosing Missouri as a location to establish their practices. 

What does this mean for the average Missourian? First, it will likely be more difficult for Missourians to find a physician when they need one, especially in the future as many older physicians prepare to retire. Second, the costs associated with uncertainty will result in increased premiums for physicians, and these costs will be passed along to patients. 

On August 2, a coalition of health care, insurance, business and legal organizations sent a letter to Gov. Jay Nixon asking for his help in crafting an appropriate response to the decision. It is our hope that together with the state’s leadership, the coalition can find a resolution that ensures Missourians can continue to access the care they need.

State Supreme Court Upholds Missouri Adult Business Law

Missouri families won a major victory today in our state courts. The Missouri Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, upheld the state's new law regulating sexually oriented businesses. That law was adopted by the Missouri Legislature last year to limit the negative secondary effects from businesses such as strip clubs, "adult" video stores and video arcades, and so-called "gentlemen's clubs."

The law prohibits totally nude dancing and any contact between dancers and patrons. It prohibits the sale of alcohol at such businesses and requires that they close at midnight. It restricts enclosed booths to discourage promiscuous sexual activity. It requires that any such businesses be located at least 1000 feet from any school, church, day care center, public park, any residence, or any other sexually oriented business.

The law was challenged by operators of sexually oriented businesses around the state, who claimed that it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. They also alleged that the law has resulted in economic harm to their establishments and had forced many of them to close.

The State Supreme Court ruled, consistent with numerous federal court decisions, that the provisions in Missouri's sexually oriented business law were constitutional. The Court found that the Missouri Legislature "relied on evidence reasonably believed to be relevant to establishing a connection between the act and the reduction of negative secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses."

"The voluminous evidentiary record on which the Legislature relied to establish a connection between sexually oriented businesses and negative secondary effects--consisting of judicial opinions, studies, crime and health reports, expert testimony and anecdotal evidence--was more than sufficient to meet the government's burden."

Countless studies from across the country have demonstrated that sexually oriented businesses are a breeding ground for sex crimes, prostitution, drug trafficking and drug use, property damage and loss of property values, and urban blight.

The justices also ruled that the law was not unconstitutional "simply because it may make some sexually oriented businesses economically less viable." The court stated: "To the extent the businesses claim that the act led to reduced revenue at sexually oriented businesses, forcing many to close, this does not make the act unconstitutional. The Constitution protects speech, not the economic viability of adult businesses."

The state's High Court affirmed a previous decision upholding the law by Circuit Judge Jon Beetem. Judge Laura Denver Stith authored the opinion. Her opinion was joined by Judges Richard Teitelman, Mary Russell, Patricia Breckenridge, Zel Fischer, William Ray Price, and special judge William Francis.

We are grateful to former State Senator Matt Bartle, the sponsor of the legislation, and former Representative Ed Emery, who handled the bill in the Missouri House. We commend the many members of the General Assembly who fought for and voted for the bill. We appreciate the action of Governor Jay Nixon in signing the bill into law next year.

We appreciate the excellent work done by Attorney General Chris Koster and his staff in defending the work of the General Assembly. The Attorney General allowed attorney Scott Bergthold, who drafted most of the statute and is an expert in this area of the law, to argue the case before the Supreme Court. General Counsel Ron Holliger and attorneys Mark Long and Emily Dodge also provided valuable assistance in preparing the state's defense.

As a result of the Supreme Court's action today, Missouri now retaiins one of the toughest and most comprehensive laws regulating sex shops and strip clubs of any state in the nation. Missouri cities and towns will now have the tools to limit the damage done by such businesses to the health and safety of their communities.

Casey Guernsey -- Voter Protection Act Protects Right to Vote

In 2005, the Missouri General Assembly passed into law a requirement that individuals present photographic identification when they vote in person. This was in response to the public concern about something odd that had happened in St. Louis during the 2004 presidential election and in several other counties – there were more individuals on the registered voting lists than people who actually lived there.

An unfortunate reality of recent elections is that instances of voter fraud have continued. As recently as the last couple of years, an Illinois man was prosecuted for voting for President in both Missouri and Illinois and ACORN workers were charged with election fraud in Kansas City. Missouri has a long history of voter fraud especially in the urban center. For a people that cherish the right to vote as much as Americans, this practice is troubling.

When the 2005 Photo ID requirement was challenged in court, the Missouri Supreme Court said that this requirement was unconstitutional under state law because voting is a fundamental right under our state constitution, and one or two named individuals in the case may have a hard time getting the photographic identification required to vote. Voting is a fundamental right. It should be protected to the fullest extent of the law. One way to protect the right to vote is to make sure that everyone’s vote counts equally. When individuals vote illegally, it reduces the value of the legally cast ballots – as they literally have less power.

I am the co-sponsor in the House of a Proposed Constitutional Amendment known as the “Voter Protection Act”. This measure is designed to protect Missourians’ fundamental right to vote. This important legislation would require voters to produce a form of photo identification when voting to help reduce fraud and abuse in our elections. I believe that in this day and age, requiring photo identification to vote is a common sense requirement. We all need a photo ID to cash a check, rent a movie, buy Sudafed or get on an airplane. To ensure that this measure does not discourage voting, we have created exemptions for older Missourians (born before 1941) and the disabled.

I believe that requiring identification protects those of us who vote legally from those that don’t. The courts don’t agree. On this issue, you will get to decide - if the Senate finally passes this legislation prior to the May 13 adjournment. If they do, you will have an opportunity next year to protect our right to vote by amending our constitution to allow us to require photographic identification for voting.

Missouri Senate Committee discusses voter photo ID requirement

A law declared unconstitutional in 2006 reappeared in the state Capitol Monday (Jan. 24) as a Senate committee heard arguments about requiring government-issued photo identification at the voting booth.

Five years ago, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled a similar law unconstitutional because it "represents a substantial and heavy burden on Missourians' free exercise of their fundamental right to vote."

Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, one of the bill's sponsors, justified the renewal of the legislation with support from a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision about a case in Indiana. Stouffer said the Indiana statute was ruled to be "...amply justified by the valid interest and protecting the integrity and reliability of the election process."