Carl Junction teacher cries foul on Proposition A ad

The gambling interests pushing for the passage of Proposition A continue to try to mislead voters into thinking the measure is primarily designed to benefit education. It has falsely claimed there is a wide network of educators who favor the proposition. One of those it claims backs the proposition, Carl Junction R-1 teacher Doug Campbell, says he is against Proposition A. The following release was issued by the Vote No on Proposition A group:

A southwest Missouri school teacher's name has falsely appeared on promotional materials for Proposition A, and he said it was done unethically.

Doug Campbell, Vocal Music Instructor at Carl Junction Junior High School was astonished to receive mail from the Yes on A collation that said he was one of many teachers in support of the measure.

"I was very embarrassed to see my name supporting a proposition that expands gambling," Campbell said.

"I understand first hand the dangers of gambling, as I've seen people who have suffered the terrible consequences of gambling addiction. I don't support removing the $500 loss limit or anything else that will benefit casinos."

The Yes on A coalition has claimed that hundreds of school teachers around the state are supporting the measure but Campbell has his doubts. He believes the method the casinos used to obtain such support was completely unethical and seriously misleading.

"I received a survey asking if I thought more funding for education was needed. The survey had the appearance of an official letter from a state educational organization with several educators and their schools listed, so I filled it out. The only question concerning casinos asked how important it was to prohibit the legislature from using revenue from casinos for these funds," Campbell said.

Evelio Silvera, Executive Director of Casino Watch Committee was shocked to learn that the survey did not ask teachers if they supported proposition A or opposed it.

"There is no telling how many other educators around the state have been used by the casino industry. Mr. Campbell's bravery to step forward has exposed this unethical practice and I hope more teachers will come forward to tell their story," Silvera said.

In 1994, during the Amendment 6 campaign, the casinos published a list of people in the Kansas City Star claiming they were in support of the gambling measure. Rep. Don Lograsso, and at least 15 others, were listed as its supporters even though they were clearly against the measure. The Yes on Amendment 6 Committee issued an apology letter but as Rep. Lograsso said, the severe, irreparable harm had already placed people's reputations and careers in jeopardy.

Doug Campbell hopes people will understand that he is not supporting Proposition A and hopes his reputation can weather the storm. He has made many apologies to friends, colleagues and church members who have questioned why he would support such a proposition.

These unethical and harmful practices call into question all of the teacher endorsements for Proposition A. All the money in support of Proposition A has come from the Las Vegas-based Ameristar & Pinnacle casino companies and from the Missouri casino lobby. No money has come from educators and it's no wonder all three Missouri teachers unions have refused to endorse Proposition A.

The battle over Missouri’s minimum wage didn’t end with November vote

By Rudi Keller

Missouri Independent

BOONVILLE — In 2022, Heather Overstreet moved her growing dog grooming, training and boarding business into a converted garage.

(Photo- Heather Overstreet, owner of Top Dog Training in Boonville, explains the impact of a higher minimum wage on her small business. Her business includes a 10,000 square foot outdoor area to exercise dogs.- Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)

It was a milestone for a business she started at age 16 by training dogs for friends of her mother. She innovated on the furnishings, refurbishing a bathtub left behind by the previous owner to use for dog washing. She built indoor kennels with room for 12 dogs and fenced 10,000 square feet outdoors to exercise dogs in daycare and overnight boarding.

But future expansion is on hold, Overstreet said, until she understands the impact of voter-approved Proposition A, which increases the state minimum wage, on her payroll and customers.

“It not only throws off my math, but it just is an entirely new challenge,” Overstreet said.

Under the provisions of Proposition A, Missouri’s minimum wage rose to $13.75 an hour on Jan. 1, up from $12.30 an hour. It will increase again to $15 an hour on Jan. 1, 2026, with future adjustments tied to inflation.

Along with increasing the minimum wage, Proposition A requires some employers to provide paid sick and family leave starting May 1. Businesses with revenue of $500,000 or more must provide one hour for every 30 hours worked, up to five days per year for businesses with fewer than 15 employees and seven days per year for larger businesses.

Overstreet, who is also a member of the City Council in Boonville, with a population of about 8,000, admits she didn’t pay close attention to the details of Proposition A. She expected a more modest increase and had hoped to hold prices steady in 2025. Instead, she will notify customers of a rate hike, she said.

She needs three employees to cover the hours she is open.

Overstreet hires young people, often for their first job, to care for boarded dogs, and starts them at minimum wage. Over the course of a year, the increase will add $3,247 to employer payroll costs for every full-time minimum wage employee — $3,016 for additional wages and $231 for additional Social Security and Medicare taxes

“With minimum wage rising, that’s at least one extra dog that I need per day, which I guess you could say, is no big deal,” Ovestreet said. “But this is a small town, and I’ve only had that shop for two years.”

Proposition A, placed on the ballot via initiative petition, passed in November with 58% of the vote with support from unions, workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights organizations, and a coalition of more than 500 business owners.

There was no large-scale opposition campaign prior to the election. But a court challenge filed in early December by major business advocacy groups asks the Missouri Supreme Court to invalidate the vote. And legislation filed in advance of this year’s session seeks to exempt 96% of private employers from the higher minimum wage.

Randy Vines, co-owner of a St. Louis business that also began as a home-based operation and a backer of Proposition A, said he’s sympathetic to Overstreet’s dilemma but argues that more money in the hands of workers helps the economy.

Other costs can squeeze profits as well, said Vines, who founded STL-Style, which makes merchandise themed to St. Louis for retail and wholesale markets, with his brother..

If the price of T-shirts goes up, for example, that has to be part of his pricing, he said.

“We’re kind of at the mercy of what the markets are doing and what the industry is doing in general,” Vines said. “So when costs go up for manufacturers, we have to, you know, pass that on.”

Minimum wage history

For most of the time since a federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour was established in 1938, there was no Missouri law mandating a separate state rate. In 1990, lawmakers extended the minimum wage to all businesses, including those exempt under federal law.

The first ballot measure setting the Missouri rate above the federal requirement passed in 2006. It boosted the state wage to $6.50 an hour and required future adjustments based on inflation. The federal rate at the time was $5.15 an hour and had not been changed since 1997.

In 2018, when adjustments had increased Missouri’s wage to $7.85 an hour, voters passed a proposal boosting the rate in yearly increments until it reached $12 an hour at the start of 2023.

An inflation adjustment set it at $12.30 an hour for 2024. If Proposition A had failed, the inflation-adjusted wage for 2025 would have been $12.65 an hour, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations stated in a news release.

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, a rate that has been unchanged since 2009. The highest inflation-adjusted minimum wage was the Feb. 1, 1968, increase to $1.60 an hour, which is equal to $14.76 an hour.

Prior to November, opponents argued that increasing the minimum wage would cause inflation, job losses and slow the state’s economy. Supporters point to research that calls those assumptions into question, noting that the state’s unemployment rate has fallen faster since the start of 2019 than adjoining states that did not boost their minimum wage.

“Working families are the drivers of the economy,” Caitlyn Adams, executive director of Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter Action, said in a news release issued Dec. 30. “We are proud to take another step forward in building an economy that works for all.”

As he is leaving office, Gov. Mike Parson made job gains and low unemployment the top two bullet points in a news release listing the accomplishments of his administration, which began in June 2018.

Missouri added nearly 190,000 new jobs, saw more than $17 billion in new business investment and enjoyed unemployment that was as low as 2.1%, the lowest ever recorded, the release stated.

The impact of the increase will be significant for the economy, proponents estimated in filings used by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick to write the fiscal summary of the proposal. Based on 2022 data, backers said 330,000 Missourians making minimum wage will get a pay raise, and almost 200,000 earning more than the minimum would likely receive raises because their pay is tied to the minimum. Wage costs in 2026 will be about $850 million more than 2022.

Rollback efforts

Business groups opposed to Proposition A didn’t mount a campaign to defeat it at the polls. Instead, they are asking the Missouri Supreme Court to declare the election invalid, alleging the ballot language was misleading and incomplete.

And instead of ordering a second vote, the challenge seeks to have the initiative proposal tossed completely for combining the minimum wage increase with the requirement for businesses to provide paid sick and family time.

The court refused to hear the case before the increase took effect. Instead, the court appointed Cole County Circuit Judge Josh Devine as a commissioner to take evidence in the election challenge and report his findings by Feb. 10.

That could make it possible for the court to rule by the time the sick and family leave provision takes effect May 1.

By that time, there should be clear signals from lawmakers on whether they intend to step in.

A bill filed by State Rep.-elect Jeff Vernetti, a Republican from Camdenton, would exempt businesses employing almost half of all Missouri workers from the higher minimum wage.

The bill would exempt seasonal businesses or those employing 50 or fewer workers. The bill would freeze the minimum wage for those businesses at $12.30 an hour.

Vernetti represents the tourist regions around the Lake of the Ozarks, where he owns a small Italian grocery and is a partner in a baseball/softball complex that hosts tournaments and other events.

Under his bill, the grocery would qualify for an exemption as a small business and the ballpark business would be exempt as a seasonal operation.

“I want to pay employees the most that they can possibly make,” Vernetti said. “I just think the market should dictate it.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Missouri had 231,753 private businesses in the first quarter of 2024. Of that number, 96% had fewer than 50 workers, employing 46% of the private workforce.

The state minimum wage law does not apply to government jobs. But it would have no effect on state government if it did — in 2022, lawmakers agreed to set $15 an hour as the base wage for all state government jobs.

As a freshman, Vernetti said he knows he will have difficulty getting action on his bill. But he said he’s encouraged by the reaction from other new lawmakers he met on the freshman tour and hopes to get a committee seat that will allow him to push for it.

Proposition A passed overwhelmingly in high-population counties and failed in 79 of 94 counties where fewer than 25,000 votes were cast. That highlights the cultural and economic differences between urban and rural areas, Vernetti said.

“You couldn’t get a person in, say, St Louis city, to look for a job that’s even close to the minimum wage,” Vernetti said. “But in a lot of rural Missouri, those are important jobs. If it continues to increase, businesses are going to have no choice but to cut lower paying jobs altogether.”

A bill with a smaller impact, filed by State Rep.-elect Carolyn Caton, a Republican from Blue Springs, would rollback the minimum for workers younger than 20. The minimum for those workers would be $12.30 per hour.

No bills changing the provisions of Proposition A have been filed in the state Senate.

Attempting to rollback the increase is short-sighted, Vines said. His business pays above minimum wage and has low job turnover even though most workers are part-time employees.

“If you’re at the point where you either have to pay everyone minimum wage and survive barely, or go under paying a little more than minimum wage, your business probably isn’t on stable footing anyway,” he said.

Overstreet, however, said she’s worried that customers will look for other options if she raises prices.

“Dogs are a luxury. They’re not a necessity,” Overstreet said. “I’ve had people leave already because they think I’m expensive.”

Boarding a dog overnight with Overstreet at Top Dog Training costs $40. Daycare costs $30. In much larger Columbia, about 25 miles east of Boonville, overnight boarding can be found starting at $55 and doggy daycare starts at about $40 per day.

“It’s good for them, the people receiving the minimum wage increase,” she said. “But like everything else you do, the rest of us are going to have to raise our prices on services or goods, essential or non-essential, luxury or not.”

Proposition A is not about education

(The following is my column for this week's Newton County News.)

Proposition A is not about education.

Of course, you would not be able to tell that by the advertisements that have bombarded us over the past couple of weeks.

We have grandparents saluting Proposition A, extolling the virtues of this wondrous device through which all financial problems for Missouri elementary and secondary schools will be solved forever.

This past week, it has been a former teacher of the year telling us how wonderful the measure is. At this point, however, not one single educational group has announced support for Proposition A and there is a good reason for that.

The advertisements are all about education, but Proposition A was written by the casino interests, and is designed solely to benefit the casino interests.

Proposition A does call for a one percent increase in casino taxes, with that money earmarked for education. That is the sweetener designed to entice voters to overlook the remainder of the measure.

It would also remove Missouri’s innovative loss limit law which prohibits gamblers from losing more than $500 during a two-hour period. The casino owners want to be able to take as much money as possible from problem gamblers and their families. They complain that the loss limits are driving gamblers to Illinois, Oklahoma, and Kansas, where they can lose as much as they want, but Missouri casinos have still been extremely profitable.

The measure would also eliminate the requirement that gamblers carry identification with them, something which has aided law enforcement in numerous investigations.

Proposition A also eliminates any future competition for existing casinos, effectively allowing them to establish a monopoly.

In the 1976 movie, “All the President’s Men,” the character “Deep Throat,” played by Hal Holbrook, told Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, to “follow the money.”

Following the money on Proposition A does not lead us to education, only to the deep pockets of casino owners who are willing to do anything they can to get this measure approved in November.

Missouri Ethics Commission documents show casino interests, primarily Ameristar Casinos and Pinnacle Entertainment, have contributed more than $12 million this year to the Yes on A Committee,

The contributions include a quarter of a million from Pinnacle Entertainment posted Saturday on the Ethics Commission website. Both Ameristar Casinos and Pinnacle made $2,613,001 contributions earlier this month, following $1,787,500 contributions in September.

The only contributions the committee has received that did not come from Ameristar or Pinnacle were two donations totaling $38,482.02 listed as "in-kind" from the Missouri Gaming Association, the lobbying group for the casino industry.

Not one contribution to the committee has come from anyone connected with education.

Proposition A is a shell game by casino owners who are brazenly betting on Missourians to put their concern for educational funding ahead of what to all intents and purposes appears to be one of the slimiest proposals to appear on a Missouri ballot in decades.

New paid sick leave requirement targeted by Missouri Republicans

By Clara Bates

Missouri Independent

Worries that “slackers” may take advantage of Missouri’s new law requiring most employers to give workers paid sick leave isn’t a good enough reason to repeal it, a Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday.

(Photo- State Rep. Sherri Gallick, a Republican from Belton, speaks in April during Missouri House debate.- Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications)

In November, voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative petition called Proposition A that requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 workers must allow workers to use at least 40 hours per year, with larger employers mandated to allow at least 56 hours.

During a House committee hearing Wednesday, Democratic state Rep. Steve Butz of St. Louis challenged Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick to back up her argument that employees can’t be trusted to use paid sick leave only for the reasons allowed by the law.

“Under the mandated sick leave, potential abuse is nearly impossible to address,” Gallick, a Republican from Belton, told the House Commerce Committee. “Employers cannot ask an employee why they were absent, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits for merely inquiring.”

Only workers employed under a fixed-term contract are exempt from Missouri’s at-will employment rules.

While the mandate created in Proposition A prohibits employers from firing workers who use the leave, Missouri law doesn’t require employers to give any reason for discharging a worker.

“My hunch is, if you’re a slacker, you’ve been calling in sick already, and this is an at-will state, and I’ve already fired you,” said Butz, who owns an insurance agency.

Proposition A also increased the state minimum wage. It was set at $13.75 on Jan. 1 and will increase to $15 an hour on Jan. 1, 2026. After that, it will be adjusted for inflation, as it has been since 2007.

Gallick is sponsoring a bill to repeal the paid leave law, delay the $15 minimum wage to 2028 and repeal the provision indexing it to inflation.

Gallick’s bill, as proposed, would have delayed implementation of the paid leave provisions from May 1 to Jan. 1. During the hearing, she presented a substitute with all the provisions she wants to enact.

That change brought some questioning from fellow Republicans who wanted to know why she didn’t include all the things she wanted in the bill when it was filed.

“Was this House committee substitute your original intent?” asked Rep. Don Mayhew, a Republican from Crocker.

“Yes,” Gallick replied.

“Then why didn’t you just do that bill instead of this bill that changes a few dates?” Mayhew asked.

Gallick said she filed it to get it in line for a hearing, then listened to businesses in her district to determine what was most important to them.

“That is why I kind of had a kind of a vague bill in the beginning,” Gallick said.

Mayhew said he doesn’t oppose some of the changes but wasn’t pleased with the way it was delivered.

“I’ve never seen one to be this big of a difference between the filed bill and the House committee substitute,” Mayhew said.

Gallick’s bill is one of several being considered in the commerce committee that would alter the terms of Proposition A. There are bills to exempt employers with 50 or fewer workers from the new minimum wage, to limit application of the new minimum wage to workers 21 and older and to repeal the inflation adjustment.

The campaign to pass Proposition A drew no large-scale opposition prior to the vote. But a court challenge filed in early December by major business advocacy groups asks the Missouri Supreme Court to invalidate the vote. The court has set the case for arguments on March 12.

Many of the same groups involved with the lawsuit — Associated Industries of Missouri, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Missouri Grocers Association and others — are backing the bills to change Proposition A.

Ron Berry, a lobbyist for Jobs with Justice, said the challenges should have come earlier.

“When the petition is first certified for circulation, there’s an opportunity to challenge that ballot summary. That didn’t happen,” Berry said Wednesday. “When the petition signatures are turned in and the initiative is certified for the ballot, there’s an opportunity to challenge the signatures. That didn’t happen. None of these challenges started coming until after the voters approved this by 57%.”

Kara Corches, executive director of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said businesses are worried about language barring employers from attempting “to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right” to paid leave.

The language creates a potential liability that has employers worried about “trial attorneys getting rich off of their backs.”

The paid leave mandate opens the door for other requirements, she said.

“This is a very slippery slope,” Corches said. “Once we start on this, it’s minimum wages, it’s paid sick leave, what’s next? Is it the dress code in your workplace? Is it the days that you’re allowed to be closed?”

Committee Chairman David Casteel, a Republican from High Ridge, said he intends to work through the week to develop a bill that both businesses and advocates defending Proposition A can accept.

“It has never been my intent to overturn the will of the people,” Casteel said. “I just want to create a product that will be agreeable and compromised by both the employee and the employer.”

Reiboldt discusses state tobacco tax proposals

(From Rep. Bill Reiboldt, R-Seneca)

The focus of my Capitol Report this week is Constitutional Amendment 3 and Proposition A. Separately, both are seeking to increase Missouri’s tobacco tax, but each is in conflict with the other.

Currently, Missouri has a 17-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes, the lowest in the nation. The national average for state tax is $1.65 per pack, with an additional $1.01 for federal excise tax. Perhaps this is the reason why there have been efforts to increase the tax in order to create more money for state government. At this time, money received from the 17 cent tax on a pack of twenty cigarettes is deposited into three different funds: the State School Money Fund receives 9 cents per pack; the Health Initiative Fund receives 4 cents per pack; the Fair Share Fund also receives 4 cents per pack.

Constitutional Amendment 3 is a proposal that will amend the Missouri Constitution to yearly increase taxes on cigarettes through 2020, at which time the tax increase will total 60 cents per pack. The amendment also creates a fee to be paid by cigarette wholesalers of 67 cents per pack on certain products. Furthermore, it provides that the funds generated by these taxes and fees will be deposited into a newly established Early Childhood Health and Education Trust Fund.

Proposition A would change Missouri law to increase cigarette taxes in 2017, 2019, and 2021 for an additional tax increase totaling 23 cents per pack of twenty cigarettes. The proposition would also increase the tax paid on other tobacco products by 5% of the manufacturer’s invoice price. Proposition A further provides that the funds generated by these taxes shall be used exclusively to fund transportation infrastructure projects.

What is unusual about both of these proposals is that they are being largely financed by cigarette manufacturers. Mega corporation Reynolds American Incorporated has given upward to $3 million in support of Amendment 3—titled “Raise Your Hand for Kids”—while Proposition A is funded primarily by the smaller tobacco manufacturers and retailers. This has resulted in a renewal of “open warfare” between these two groups: big tobacco vs little tobacco. Not only has each side written a huge check, they have hired professional political operatives and lobbyists to push their proposals.

In 1998, the Tobacco Settlement Agreement, in which large tobacco companies agreed to make settlement payments to 46 states, resulted in years of lawsuits by states in efforts to offset the Medicaid costs attributed to smoking. Manufacturers didn’t participate in the settlement, because they didn’t exist then or they were small and didn’t have the marketplace advantage that larger companies did. Smaller tobacco companies enjoyed a loophole that existed in the 1998 settlement agreement. Those that concentrated their sales in a few states, rather than nationally, were able to get back their escrow payments, while still complying with the law. Missouri is the only state who has not fixed this loophole and, because of that, the door is open for Constitutional Amendment 3 and Proposition A. Future litigation relating to this settlement is unclear, but if Amendment 3 passes, I predict we will see multiple court cases.

The campaign behind both of the competing tobacco increase measures pits the large tobacco companies supporting Constitutional Amendment 3 against smaller tobacco companies who put Proposition A on the ballot via petition initiatives. Large tobacco companies are attempting to get back at the smaller companies by trying to close the loophole that allowed the smaller companies not to make payments in the 46 state settlement of 1998.

The tobacco industry and its companies are much different than other corporations. They are willing to accept minor compromises and setbacks in the short run in order to protect their future interests. As one person stated: ”They always play the long game.” Their goal is to keep users hooked on their products.

Opponents of the two proposals include the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Healthcare Foundation of Greater Kansas City, and Tobacco-Free Missouri, plus all major education groups in the state, as well as a bi-partisan group of 112 state legislators who have signed on in opposition to both Amendment 3 and Proposition A. Personally, I signed on early in opposition to both, because there is more to these proposals than meets the eye.

Constitutional Amendment 3 and Proposition A are very dangerous schemes that contain numerous complicated issues and add other troubling provisions in the initiatives, such as an attempt to include the terms “abortion” and “abortion services” to be placed in Missouri’s Constitution (for the very first time). Consequently, it is much more than just a tobacco tax increase. These proposals are extremely alarming to those of us who have studied them in depth.

Now some may ask the question, “What happens if both of these measures are approved?” In Missouri, if there are two conflicting ballot measures that are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other. However, this only applies when two constitutional amendments are in competition to each other. If a constitutional amendment competes with a proposed state statute, such as what we have this cycle, the amendment will take precedence over the proposed statute, no matter the vote count. The bottom line is that voters must be aware of what they are voting on.

Even though Missouri voters rejected tobacco tax increases in 2001, 2006, and 2012, it looks like the tobacco fight isn’t over. In the tobacco world today, the struggle is heating up again between the big guys and the little guys. The battle continues.

Missouri Republicans consider delaying voter-approved minimum wage hike, paid sick leave

By Rudi Keller

Missouri Independent

A bill changing the terms of the Missouri minimum wage law approved by voters four months ago will leave all the promised benefits in place but may delay their implementation, the chairman of a House committee looking at the law said Wednesday.

State Rep. David Casteel, a High Ridge Republican, told members of the House Commerce Committee during a hearing that they will rewrite the several bills seeking to change Proposition A. That process will take time, he said, telling them not to expect a vote at the panel’s regular meeting next week.

(Photo- Buddy Lahl, chief executive officer of the Missouri Restaurant Association, testifies in favor of a bill to limit the impact of the minimum wage law that took effect Jan. 1. (Rudi Keller/Missouri Indepenfent)

“No one in this body is trying to overturn the choice of the people,” Casteel said.

In an interview, Casteel said he’s considering ideas that would delay a minimum wage increase set for Jan. 1, 2026, or the provision requiring most employers to offer paid sick and family leave.

“We’re going to get into the nitty gritty of everything within the bill,” Casteel said. “There’s a lot we don’t like, and there’s a lot we do like, about all the bills that have been and will be presented.”

Republicans who control the legislature must find a sweet spot between the 58% majority who approved Proposition A and the major business groups who opposed the measure and are among the GOP’s most reliable supporters.

Proposition A increased the minimum wage in Missouri to $13.75 an hour on Jan. 1 and $15 an hour next year. In future years, the wage would be adjusted for changes in prices, a provision that has been in state law since 2006. It also requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide one hour of paid sick and family time for every 30 hours worked.

The paid leave provisions take effect May 1.

On Wednesday, the Commerce Committee held public hearings on two of the five bills on its agenda that would alter aspects of Proposition A.

One of the bills, filed by state Rep. Carolyn Caton, a Republican from Blue Springs, would repeal the inflation adjustment. It would also allow employers to pay workers younger than 20 the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and exempt all employers with business receipts less than $10 million annually.

“It isn’t that we don’t want to pay people,” Caton said. “We want to pay people well, but we need to do so in a manner that is going to protect our small businesses.”

The other bill, filed by state Rep. Scott Miller, a Republican from St. Charles, would exempt workers under 21 from the state minimum wage and businesses with fewer than 50 employees. It would also allow employers to reduce the final paycheck of anyone who doesn’t give at least two weeks notice before quitting, or any employee who violates the provisions of the employer’s worker handbook.

“If a business is going to be obligated by law to pay a minimum wage, which is, frankly, the government is price-fixing labor, then the government ought to performance-fix the employees,” Miller said.

The campaign to pass Proposition A drew no large-scale opposition prior to the vote. But a court challenge filed in early December by major business advocacy groups asks the Missouri Supreme Court to invalidate the vote. The court has set the case for arguments on March 12.

At the same time, those business groups — Associated Industries of Missouri, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry and industry groups representing retailers, restaurants and grocers — are urging lawmakers to repeal portions or delay their implementation.

“In an ideal world, we would love to roll it all back,” Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in a recent webinar. “But part of the legislative process, or the sausage making process as we say sometimes, you don’t always get, in the end, what you started with.”

Ron Berry, lobbyist for one of Proposition A’s biggest backers, Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter Action, said during Wednesday’s hearing that the proposals to exempt businesses with fewer than 50 employees would cover 96% of all private businesses.

Responding to a question about the difficulty employers will have covering the additional cost, Berry said labor isn’t the only thing driving up prices.

“Whether it’s wages or it’s the cost of energy, all of you know inflation is higher, and we’re all having to tighten our belts,” Berry said.

Buddy Lahl, CEO of the Missouri Restaurant Association, told the committee that his members want the exemption threshold raised to 100 employees as well as implementing the $10 million revenue floor.

He also said the sick leave provisions should not allow hours to be carried over from one year to the other.

“It should be a use it or lose it thing,” Lahl said.

Business lobbyists also warned of job losses, or even businesses that won’t survive, if the increased minimum wage stands.

State Rep. Steve Butz, a Democrat from St. Louis, said he didn’t believe that argument, noting that Missouri voters increased the minimum wage twice before without sinking the state’s economy.

“We’ve had other increases in minimum wage,” Butz said. “We always have been told that it’s going to kill jobs and jobs continue to grow in the state.”

Lawmakers and business groups push rollback of Missouri minimum wage hike, sick leave law

By Clara Bates

Missouri Independent

Months after Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a minimum wage increase and paid sick leave requirements, the new laws face challenges this week in court and the state legislature.

On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court Court heard arguments in a lawsuit seeking to strike down Proposition A, which guarantees sick leave for hundreds of thousands of workers and gradually hikes the minimum wage to $15.

 

A day earlier, the Missouri House gave initial approval to a bill repealing the sick leave law and modifying the minimum wage.

“This is a one-two punch to businesses, and it creates a one size fits all approach,” said Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, who is sponsoring the legislation targeting the paid sick leave law.

A coalition of business groups and individuals argued Wednesday morning to the Missouri Supreme Court that the minimum wage and paid sick leave laws should be thrown out for violating constitutional rules on ballot initiatives.

“Both on the statutory side and the constitutional side, voters were misled,” Marc Ellinger, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told the court. “The constitution was not complied with.”

The lawsuit, filed late last year, argues the election results should be overturned because of several alleged constitutional violations, including violations of the state constitution’s single-subject requirement and a lack of a clear title.

It also contends that sick time and minimum wage are distinct issues that violate the single-subject rule, which should result in the election outcome being invalidated. It requests a new election be held, alleging the ballot title, which includes a summary of the proposition and its potential cost to the state, was misleading.

“This case is an example of where all of those procedures have been ignored,” Ellinger said.

A lawyer for Missouri Jobs with Justice, which led the campaign in support of Proposition A, said the court should uphold the law if at all possible, since voters approved it.

“The challengers ask you to overturn the will of the voters who exercised their fundamental right of the initiative,” said attorney Loretta Haggard, “based on technical issues that were not raised before the election.”

The measure won by a margin of over 400,000 votes. Haggard and other attorneys representing the responding parties wrote in a recent filing that the plaintiffs are asking the court “to tell these voters that their votes do not matter, and the court, not the people, will decide whether Proposition A should stay in effect,” calling it an “extraordinary request.”

Andrew Crane, an assistant attorney general representing the Secretary of State on Wednesday, defended the single subject of employee compensation, saying sick leave and pay “logically relate together… these are the kind things that employees and lawyers consider in any hiring decision.”

 

Robert Tillman, representing the auditor’s office, defended the fiscal note summary and said the plaintiffs didn’t prove any alleged irregularities that would have impacted the election.

“Even if contestants could establish election irregularities, they must then demonstrate that such irregularity sufficiently cast doubt for the entire election, to justify a new election.” Tillman said. “…As you can see from the record, contestants have offered no such evidence.”

The judges asked a few questions about whether they have jurisdiction to review the case, or whether a lower court would be the more appropriate venue.

Prop A passed with 58% of the vote and had the support of numerous unions, workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights organizations, as well as over 500 business owners. A group of businesses filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case defending the proposition.

Under the law, beginning May 1, the law requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 workers must allow workers to earn at least 40 hours per year, with larger employers mandated to allow at least 56 hours.

Legislature

On Tuesday, a bill in Missouri’s House to overturn the sick leave provisions and modify the minimum wage provisions was given initial approval. It needs to be approved one more time in the House before heading to the Senate for consideration.

Because the measure changed state law and not the constitution, the legislature can modify or overturn it without returning for a new vote of the people.

Gallick’s bill would repeal the paid sick leave provisions approved by voters.

It would also modify the minimum wage increase by no longer indexing it to inflation, a policy that has been in place since 2007. The minimum wage would still increase to $15 per hour in 2026, as voters approved, but it would not be adjusted for inflation thereafter.

Gallick has argued employees will “abuse” the sick leave.

In states that have adopted sick leave mandates, employees take, on average, two more sick days a year than prior to the law going into effect, a National Bureau of Economic Research report found.

Studies have found that offering paid sick time can increase workers’ productivity and reduce illness, and generally adds little or nothing to business expenses.

Republican state Rep. Scott Miller from St. Charles (pictured) said “just because 57% of the people that voted that day, voted in favor of something, that doesn’t make it right. “They’re taking away the choice of businesses to engage in free market.”

Businesses are not equipped to handle the additional expenses from the proposition, said Republican state Rep. Jeff Vernetti of from Camdenton.

“I know that the will of the people will be brought up several times in this and I think that we’ve also got to represent the 87 counties that did not vote for this,” Vernetti said. “I think it’s our duty to respect the will of the people, but also at the same time, safeguard the long term prosperity of Missouri.”

Rep. Eric Woods, a Democrat from Kansas City, pointed out that Prop A passed in rural counties as well, including Clark, Adair, Mississippi and Henry.








“This isn’t a situation where Proposition A just passed in the cities,” he said, “this was a broad acceptance percentage wise.”

Lawmakers are wrong to treat voters as having been oblivious to what they were voting on, said state Rep. Keri Ingle, a Democrat from Lee’s Summit.

“The part that irks me is that you guys repeatedly call your constituents dumb,” Ingle said. “You say that they’re too stupid to understand what they voted for. I mean, you don’t use those words, but they hear you loud and clear, and they continue to vote for these policies.”

Representative makes case against Proposition A

In her weekly capital report, Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O"Fallon, makes a strong case against Proposition A, the measure that proponents claim would be a major boon for education, but is actually designed to boost profits of existing casinos and keep any new competitors from entering the field:

When you vote on November 4, you will help decide if we should unravel the last remaining stipulation from when the gambling “boats” were first allowed in 1994. The ballot issue is called Proposition A, put there by the gambling industry through the initiative petition process, and it calls for removal of the loss limit.

Proposition A would allow people to lose more than the current maximum of $500 every two hours. The biggest winner will be the casinos. In return, they are offering to share a portion of their additional profits with the public schools. This is only a facade
Their goal is to make a greater profit by enabling others to take a greater loss. Most of my constituents who gamble tell me they only gamble for fun and entertainment. If that is true, don’t you think a person can have enough fun by losing $500 every two hours? The real goal is to extract an additional $500 million, for a total of over $2 billion, dollars out of our economy. The proposal says it will generate more money for schools and local governments. However, to be mathematically honest, the calculation must also subtract the money that will not go to schools and local governments because of resulting losses elsewhere in the economy.

For example, if a family cannot afford a bigger house because they are trying to pay off gambling debts, local governments lose real estate taxes, which support schools. Home builders will not be building new homes, local retailers will not be selling as many goods, and much of the gambler’s discretionary money that was used to support our local economy will be funneled to large out-of-state corporate offices where the parent company for the casino is located.

This proposal does not create additional money. The extra money will come out of our citizens’ pockets. We all get on the boat with a finite amount of money. Most people lose. The amount of money stays the same; the proposal only shifts who walks off with it. The winner is always the casino.

This proposal also prohibits the state of Missouri from requiring identification when gamblers enter the casino for any purpose other than proving their age. If Proposition A passes, the casinos will lose their ability to deny criminals access to their establishments. This includes criminals from other states seeking to launder money that was obtained from theft, embezzlement schemes or illegal drug sales.

This scenario is further complicated by alcoholic beverages that are consumed while gambling. People under the influence may make bad decisions they regret when they sober up later. The current loss limit is extremely beneficial in these circumstances.

Meanwhile, while the guilty party is squandering away child support money, a custodial parent may be suffering, trying to survive without rightfully deserved sustenance. To help counteract this problem, I plan on filing a bill in the next session that will prohibit people from entrance to a casino in Missouri if they are at the felony level of non-payment of child support.

Some people think the loss limits are not very effective, but the facts show they are. Here is a quote from Casino Watch:

"It has been argued that the loss limit is not effective at reducing or helping compulsive gamblers and as such it should be removed. However, the loss limit helps to enforce the Missouri Disassociated Persons List, reduce the speed at which gamblers play the games, and limit the amount of financial loss that families experience as a result of gambling addiction. There are currently over 12,000 people on the Missouri Disassociated Persons List (DAP). These people voluntarily chose to exclude themselves from casinos because in most cases they are compulsive and addicted gamblers. It’s obvious these people are unable to simply stop gambling at the casino or they would not have gone through the lengthy and exhaustive process of putting themselves on this self-exclusion list. This list is enforceable because each patron must show identification and obtain a boarding pass to enter a Missouri casino. If a person is on the DAP, then the computer systems the casinos use to monitor boarding and chip buy-ins will alert casino employees. This system keeps over 12,000 people from entering the casino and gambling."

You will see that the casinos always come out as the big winners and the vast majority of their patrons leave as losers. This is okay if you really have a surplus of money to burn. However, the casinos have no screening process to determine ability to pay for big losses. Our Congress just bailed out Wall Street, but there is no bailout for gamblers.

Finally, you may hear that the casinos will give more money to the schools if this passes. Don’t fall for that again. Since getting elected, the most common question I still get is, “Why isn’t the gambling money going to the schools?” That was never their intent. They didn’t open up in Missouri for the purpose of funding our schools, so don’t expect that to be their end result. This proposal is designed to extract additional money from our citizens. While it is all voluntary, there is a point where government can function to protect its citizens from mistakes that are harmful to us as a whole. More children will be hurt than will benefit if we remove the loss limits. When the casinos tell us they will spend the surplus on schools, veterans and early childhood education, it is little more than an attempt to sweeten the pot with whatever will move the voters to release the last restriction left.

Lastly, when I asked my state Senator why he sponsored legislation to remove the loss limits, he said it was because people can get around them. That kind of logic would be the same as saying, “We shouldn’t have any speed limits because people can exceed the posted speed anyway.” Non-compliance has never been a good reason to get rid of a law. You may remember a story that happened here in St. Charles County a few years ago. A woman who was not supposed to be on the boat was gambling. While she was losing, the casino allowed her to continue playing (and contributing to their profits). When she won, the casino kept her winnings and required her to leave without paying out the money that she won. The casino didn’t notice her false identity when she entered, but they took note of it when it was time to part with some of their profits.

The loss limit will not keep you from eventually losing your house, but it will assure that it doesn’t happen all in one night. Missouri is the envy of many other states because we are the only one who has this provision. Let’s keep it!

Missouri bill to overturn voter-approved paid sick leave clears Senate committee

By Clara Bates

Missouri Independent

A Republican-led push to overturn the paid sick leave law adopted by Missouri voters last year was debated and approved Wednesday by a state Senate committee.

The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, was passed by the House earlier this month and would gut Proposition A, a voter-approved law requiring most employers starting May 1 to provide paid sick time off for hundreds of thousands of qualifying workers.

State Rep. Sherri Gallick, a Republican from Belton, speaks in March during Missouri House debate.- Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications)

Gallick called the law, which also increased the state’s minimum wage, a “one-two punch for Missouri businesses” that will increase the cost of goods and services and have an adverse impact on small businesses in rural parts of the state.

 

She has said workers will “abuse” the leave.

Gallick’s bill would also modify the minimum wage law by removing the requirement that it be indexed to inflation.

The bill was passed out of committee Wednesday on a 5 to 2 vote party-line immediately following a contentious public hearing, with Democrats opposing.

The committee chair, state Sen. Curtis Trent of Springfield, said that although usually there is at least one week between the public hearing and committee vote, it’s “extremely clear…there is not really an opportunity for further deliberation by the committee” and that pushing the bill forward immediately would allow “robust debate and consideration” by the full Senate.

If approved by the Senate without changes, the bill would go to Gov. Mike Kehoe, who has voiced support for the proposal. There is no emergency clause, so it wouldn’t go into effect until Aug. 28 — months after the sick leave law goes into effect.

Richard Von Glahn, policy director for Missouri Jobs with Justice, the organization that helped lead the campaign for Proposition A, said it was modeled on paid sick leave policies in 18 other states. The initiative petition passed in rural, suburban and urban counties across the state and received 58% of the vote statewide.

“Opponents made their argument, we made our argument and the voters spoke,” Von Glahn said.

Gallick’s bill is “refutation of the public will,” he added. “It will make Missouri workers more likely to have to go to work while sick, jeopardizing their own health, the health of their coworkers and of Missouri workplaces.”

Many of the same industry groups who are challenging Proposition A in the state Supreme Court testified in support of the bill Wednesday.

Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, called the law, especially paid sick leave, a “job killer.”

“We believe that this one size fits all approach to paid sick leave is unworkable,” Corches said.

Buddy Lahl, from the Missouri Restaurant Association, called the requirements on businesses “extremely cumbersome” and said the law is a “slippery slope” for what businesses will be required to provide.

“Fixing Proposition A is not even an option, fixing the sick pay. It just needs to be eliminated. It’s just too erroneous. And I only listed some of the bigger issues. Every line in there is a problem for a small business,” Lahl said.

When Lahl said the only fix is to eliminate the law, state Sen. Stephen Webber, a Columbia Democrat, responded: “That’s not happening, The only path you have is to maybe make some small changes.”

State Sen. Tracy McCreery, an Olivette Democrat, said restaurant workers without sick time who go to work because they need a paycheck for public health.

Proposition A passed with the support of numerous unions, workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights organizations, as well as over 500 business owners. It guarantees sick leave for hundreds of thousands of workers and gradually hikes the minimum wage to $15. The measure won by a margin of over 400,000 votes.

Under the law, beginning May 1, the law requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 workers must allow workers to earn at least 40 hours per year, with larger employers mandated to allow at least 56 hours. The law also gradually increases the minimum wage.

Under Gallick’s bill, the minimum wage would still increase to $15 per hour in 2026, as voters approved, but it would not be adjusted for inflation thereafter — a policy that has been in place since 2007. The sick leave provisions would be repealed entirely.

Because the measure changed state law and not the constitution, the legislature can modify or overturn it without returning for a new vote of the people.

The bill passed out of the House on a vote of 96 to 51 earlier this month.

Missouri Republicans shut down Senate debate to pass abortion ban, repeal sick leave law

By Rudi Keller and Clara Bates

Missouri Independent

Missouri Senate Republicans invoked a rarely used rule Wednesday to shut down a Democratic filibuster blocking a vote on a measure overturning the abortion rights amendment passed by voters in November.

(Photo- Jaeda Roth and other protestors from Abortion Action Missouri unfurl “Stop the Ban” banners as the Missouri Senate passes a proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortion- Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

That action was immediately followed by another use of the rule, this time to get a bill passed repealing the paid sick leave law that was also approved by voters.

The use of the rule — a procedural maneuver known as “calling the previous question,” or PQ — requires a signed motion from 10 members and forces an immediate vote on the bill under debate.

Sen. Adam Schnelting, a Republican from St. Charles, made the motion for a PQ on the abortion amendment shortly after 5 p.m. By 5:30 p.m., that bill, which must be approved by voters on a statewide ballot, had passed.

The sick leave repeal followed, and by 6 p.m. both bills were finished.

In the hour leading up to the vote, Democrats warned that Republicans were destroying months of good will and could expect no more cooperation this year and well into the future.

“Nothing will happen, nothing,” said Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck. “The banner year that everybody had in this place? That is over with.”

Wednesday’s use of the previous question rule is the first time since 2020 when it was invoked and the first time since 2017 when it was used during a regular session. Used regularly in the Missouri House, it is used rarely in the Senate because the chamber has a tradition of unlimited debate and negotiations over difficult issues.

“What we’re doing today is a failure of the Senate,” said state Sen. Stephen Webber, a Democrat from Columbia. “And when there’s a failure in the Senate, there needs to be a response, and that response can’t last forever, but that response has to happen, and it has to be painful, and has to make us all understand that when the Senate doesn’t function as a body, we all lose.”

Just as Republicans were moving to put an abortion ban on the ballot, protests erupted in the Senate gallery, with abortion-rights activists shouting down lawmakers. The gallery was briefly cleared, including the press, and the Senate continued with its work until it adjourned for the year a few hours later.

State Sen. Nick Schroer, a Defiance Republican, said using the PQ is always a last resort. But it was his understanding that “goal posts were being moved” in negotiations by Democrats.

“I don’t know what transpired, but I do know that we hit a log jam,” he said, leaving the PQ as the only way forward to pass the sick leave repeal and abortion ban.

Abortion ban

The proposed ban seeks to repeal the constitutional right to an abortion but allow exceptions for medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies and for survivors of rape and incest in the first 12 weeks of gestation.

Missourians could see the question on the November 2026 ballot, or as soon as this year if the governor chose to call a special election on the issue.

The proposed ban, if approved by a simple majority of voters, would reinstate several targeted regulations on abortion providers, or TRAP laws, that were recently struck down as unconstitutional by a Missouri judge.

It would also ban gender transition surgeries and prescribing medications for gender transition, including puberty blockers, for children younger than 18.

The amendment also includes a severability clause. This could allow the rape and incest exceptions in the amendment to be challenged in federal court as being discriminatory and in violation of the 14th Amendment.

If approved, the amendment would also require any legal challenges to the state law around reproductive health care be heard in Cole County. The Missouri Attorney General’s Office was recently unsuccessful in convincing the courts to move an ongoing legal battle between the state and Planned Parenthood from Jackson County to Cole County.

The language that could appear on each ballot does not mention the amendment would ban abortions, a detail that’s been highly-criticized by Democrats as deceiving.

Democrats have also accused Republicans of including the ban on gender-affirming care for minors, which is already illegal in Missouri, as a form of “ballot candy” — a ruse aimed at tricking voters to support a measure they might otherwise vote against.

 

Schroer said removal of the transgender health care provisions was a deal breaker for conservative senators.

“We talked to a lot of our members,” he said, “and they said that issue needs to be included.”

Amendment 3 narrowly passed in November following a multi-million dollar campaign by abortion-rights advocates. A day later, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Missouri sued the state, challenging several of Missouri’s laws focused on abortion facilities and providers.

An amendment to alter the language so it directly states that it is repealing Amendment 3 was defeated just before the motion to cut off debate.

While many sitting Republicans have previously opposed abortion exceptions outside of those to save the mother’s life, many said the November election showed Missourians’ desire for a less stringent law.

Missourians overwhelmingly support abortion exceptions for survivors, an August 2022 SLU/YouGov poll found. The polling was done several weeks after Missouri became the first state to enact a full abortion ban following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Since Amendment 3 took effect, surgical abortions are being performed but medication abortions have not.

Three of the state’s several Planned Parenthood clinics have restarted surgical abortions for those up to 12 weeks gestation at clinics in Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis.

The clinics were authorized to begin the procedure again for the first time in nearly three years after a judge struck down many of the state’s abortion regulations, citing them as discriminatory.

Medication abortion — the most common means of ending a pregnancy — remains inaccessible in Missouri after the state health department rejected complication plans submitted by the clinics outlining continued care for patients in the case they had any adverse effects from the medication.

Sick leave law

If the bill is signed by the governor, the paid-sick leave benefits approved by voters that went into effect on May 1 will be stripped away on Aug. 28.

The bill also removes the requirement that the minimum wage be indexed to inflation, which has been in place since 2007

The paid sick leave and minimum wage provisions passed with 58% of the vote in November as Proposition A, garnering support from unions, workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights groups, as well as over 500 business owners.

“Workers are earning paid sick leave right now,” said state Sen. Patty Lewis, a Democrat from Kansas City, “and then it’s going to get taken away and they’re going to be fired up about it.”

GOP critics have portrayed paid sick leave as a “job killer” that would hurt small businesses. The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, a Republican from Jefferson City, and Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton.

Senate Democrats have been in negotiations with Republicans over the last month to modify the bill, in what they’ve said is an effort to maintain the will of the voters in expanding paid sick leave rather than gut it entirely, as well as make it easier for businesses to comply.

State Sen. Tracy McCreery, an Olivette Democrat, said senators have “worked tirelessly to figure out some kind of compromise.”

The Democrats spent two nights blocking a vote on the paid sick leave repeal earlier in the session.

Under Proposition A, employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year must provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 workers must allow workers to earn at least 40 hours per year, with larger employers mandated to allow at least 56 hours.

The measure made sick leave guaranteed for 728,000 workers who lacked it statewide, or over 1 in 3 Missouri workers, according to an analysis from the progressive nonprofit the Missouri Budget Project.

Richard Von Glahn, policy director for Missouri Jobs with Justice, the organization that helped lead the campaign for Proposition A, said it’s a slap in the face to voters that will create “disgruntled employees” and cause “chaos” for businesses.

“Proposition A was passed so overwhelmingly, with so much support from Republican voters, it seemed that it would be so controversial in the legislature that Republican politicians would be more hesitant than they apparently are,” he said, “to overturn the will of their own voters, and cause them economic pain.”

The message lawmakers are sending is: “They don’t believe that you deserve economic security,” he added.

It could also cause backlash for the lawmakers from districts who supported the measure, he said.

“We’re going to make sure that workers don’t experience this as something that just happens to us without understanding these are decisions made by people, and workers have the ability to hold people accountable for those decisions,” he said.

Von Glahn said it’s not the end of the fight for paid sick leave, and advocates will consider putting it on the ballot again as a constitutional amendment, a move that would make it much harder for lawmakers to repeal.

“I’m confident,” he said, “this is a policy that Missourians want and we’re going to continue to fight for that through every means necessary.”

Republican fractures

The debate Wednesday afternoon began about 12:30 p.m. and Democrats held the floor for much of the time. But near the start of the debate, state Sen. Mike Cierpiot, a Lee’s Summit Republican, aired his grievances with the leadership of Missouri Right to LIfe.

Cierpiot accused the organization, one of the most visible anti-abortion groups in the state, of focusing more on enforcing purity of thought and maintaining its influence within the GOP than writing laws acceptable to most Missourians.

Amendment 3 reinstated abortion rights lost in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. If Missouri Right to Life’s leaders had not demanded a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, he said, Amendment 3 might have been defeated.

“Their leadership, Ms. (Susan) Klein, and Mr. (Dave) Plemmons and Mr. (Steve) Rupp have been much more interested in causing Republican brush fires over issues with much smaller or no impact on the huge effort for life,” Cierpiot said.

The problems with Missouri Right to Life was evident in the 2024 elections when it made single-candidate endorsements, freezing out candidates who had been ardent anti-abortion legislators. The organization endorsed then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in the Republican primary for governor, then refused to endorse Republican nominee Mike Kehoe for the general election.

Other Republicans who won without the endorsement of Missouri Right to Life joined in the criticism. State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, said the law triggered by the 2022 abortion decision was negotiated in spite of Missouri Right to Life, not with its help.

“I don’t know that I really care, frankly, that they didn’t endorse me,” Coleman said. “What I do care about is that they didn’t endorse Gov. Kehoe in the primary, and they didn’t endorse him in the general.”

Anna Spoerre of the Independent staff contributed to this report.

Editorial takes a closer look at Proposition A

An editorial in today's Cape Girardeau Southeast Missourian urges voters to examine Proposition A carefully, but takes the easy way out by urging voters to make up their own minds.

That is exactly what the voters will do. Editorial writers, however, are supposed to make a convincing case one way or the other. The editorial begins with this assertion:

Proponents of Proposition A are focusing mainly on what they say will be additional funding for public schools if the measure passes — a part of the proposal that will likely attract widespread support. But there are a lot of unknowns in the plan that are being touted as givens.

For example, Proposition A backers say increasing the casino tax to 21 percent — 1 percentage point — will generate more than $100 million of new funding for education. But that would occur only if Missouri's casinos experience a nearly $500 million increase in gambling proceeds. The supporters say that's a fair assumption that would result from eliminating the loss limits and limiting gambling to existing casinos.

It might help if the Southeast Missourian had added that these "proponents of Proposition A" are almost exclusively the major casinos, primarily Ameristar Casinos and Pinnacle Entertainment, which have poured millions of dollars into this effort to limit their competition and increase their revenues by removing loss limits.

Those in education, while they would certainly be happy to see the amount of money promised from this proposition, are not jumping on the bandwagon for A because they are fully aware that the increases are not likely to be anywhere near that much, and legislators will likely move to reduce general fund spending on education because of the new revenues, leaving it a wash and making education dependent on the success of the gambling industry.

The tone of the editorial indicates the Southeast Missourian does not like the measure. If that is the case, a strong stance against it would have been a much better approach than "Missourians can make up their own minds."

Ed Emery pushes Proposition A in latest column

(From Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar)

On August 7th, those of you who understand the gravity of your citizenship will go to the polls and cast an informed vote for the primary election candidates of your choice. You will also be confronted with Proposition A on the ballot. There are two things to remember when considering Prop A. The first is freedom, and the second is accountability. I believe a yes vote on Prop A is a vote for freedom and accountability.

Much of the information you may have seen on TV is at best misleading and often completely disingenuous. We needn’t rely on TV or social media advertisements to understand Prop A because 27 states have passed similar measures. In those states, union bosses have lost their power over individual workers, and the avalanche of ads opposing Prop A is because those union bosses are fighting back.

Senate Bill 19 gave workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union by forbidding employers from forcing union membership as a requirement for employment and forbidding that same employer from prohibiting an employee from joining a union. Through SB 19, I believe workers gained freedom and organized labor (unions) acquired accountability to their members. Nevertheless, the union power brokers contested the legislation and the courts issued a stay until after this August’s election. Whether or not you have learned about Prop A, the following information may be helpful.

What the Prop A Ballot Language Means:
A "yes" vote is to uphold SB 19, which would enact freedom-to-work so that no person can be required to pay dues to a labor union or join a labor union as a condition of employment.
A "no" vote is to overturn SB 19, and affected Missouri workers would continue to be forced to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment even if they objected.

Why Voting “Yes” on Prop A is Important:
Reforming union laws in Missouri is pro-worker, pro-transparency and pro-taxpayer.
Allowing businesses the opportunity to create better jobs with growing incomes will lead to stronger economic growth.
Studies show that Right to Work states:
Have higher levels of economic growth;
Attract more new businesses; and
Have increased job and wage growth.
Missouri is losing jobs and population to our Right to Work neighboring states.
All of the states surrounding Missouri, with the exception of Illinois, have freed their workers from forced union membership.
The 22 states that passed freedom-to-work laws before 2012 have experienced an economic boom.
Freedom-to-work states had more than 17 percent average growth between 2004 and 2014 while states without freedom-to-work over the same period had only 11.5 percent growth.
The top states for new manufacturing jobs are freedom-to-work states, which also have substantially more private-sector job growth than forced-union states.
Freedom-to-work is the single biggest policy that can help protect a worker’s freedom to choose whether a union works for them or they work for the union.

Do your own research and then be sure to vote on August 7th. Once you have researched the differences, I think you will vote yes on Prop A and implement what the Legislature passed in 2017. Except for the intervention of the judiciary, freedom-to-work would have already been in place for nearly a year, and I believe Missouri would have begun gaining on some of our freedom-to-work neighbors

Missouri business groups weigh challenge to voter-approved minimum wage hike, sick leave

By Clara Bates

Missouri Independent

A coalition of Missouri business advocacy groups says it is exploring multiple avenues to challenge the implementation of Proposition A — a measure that Missouri voters passed on Tuesday that will raise the state’s minimum wage and guarantee sick leave for some workers.

The measure passed with 58% of the vote and had the support of various unions and workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights organizations, over 500 state business owners and others.

 

The minimum wage will increase to $13.75 in January and then $15 in 2026. The paid sick leave provisions go into effect next May.

Hoping to block implementation of the changes is a coalition of business advocacy groups — Associated Industries of Missouri, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Missouri Grocers Association, the Missouri Restaurant Association, the Missouri Retailers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The coalition is “explor[ing] all available options, including possible legal action,” according to a statement released Wednesday.

“We are deeply disappointed by the passage of Proposition A,” the groups wrote, adding that the measure will increase costs for consumers and employers as well as “poses a legal risk for all employers,” by providing a cause of action for employees to sue.

The focus of concern among these business advocacy groups has been with the sick leave portion of the proposition, arguing it constrains business owner’s freedom to make their own decisions and opens them up to liability if they don’t follow the requirements.

Ray McCarty, CEO of Associated Industries of Missouri, said in an interview with The Independent that groups are exploring a lawsuit to challenge the law on the basis that it doesn’t meet the state constitution’s single-subject requirement, because benefits and wages are distinct issues. They are also looking into advocating for legislative changes when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

“We’ll look at the legal challenge first,” McCarty said. “If we’re not successful with that, or we’re not able to get that off the ground, or we don’t believe that we have that high chance of success, then yes, we will be looking at bills to try to mitigate some of the problems that we see with it.”

Supporters of the measure, including Richard Von Glahn, campaign manager for Missourians for Healthy Families and Fair Wages, say efforts to overturn or weaken it are unlikely to succeed. Von Glahn said wages and benefits are part of overall compensation, so fall under the single-subject requirement. He added there were several opportunities for the group to voice an opinion with concerns about the language earlier, and they didn’t.

“They waged a campaign to try to convince voters to reject this. They lost,” Von Glahn said. “And so the idea of a lawsuit now kind of feels a little frivolous to me, and is a waste of time and resources. They would be better off making sure that they are educating their community and businesses about the requirements of the law, and helping for smooth implementation.”

Because the measure changes state law but not the constitution, the legislature could modify or overturn it without returning for a new vote of the people.

In 2018, after the state passed a minimum wage increase, some business interest groups advocated unsuccessfully for lawmakers to change pieces of it, Von Glahn said, “and that might happen again.”

“If I’m a politician, I know I have a limited amount of time in Jefferson City. There’s a limited amount of bills that can be heard and voted on,” he said. “Overturning the will of Missouri voters should not be high on the list.”

McCarty said the wide margin of passage could make it challenging to convince legislators to tweak the law.

“For 58 to 42, that’s very difficult for any legislator, even experienced ones who have been around a long time, it’s very difficult for them to go against the will of the people, and we understand that,” he said. “Some legislators may look at this and go, we don’t want to goof with it at all because the percentage was so high in support of it.”

Business leaders “have good reasons why we would want to change it,” McCarty said. But while they could try to move a bill through the legislature, he said they’d prefer to “head it off at the pass and just do away with it” through litigation.

A predicted victory

Prop A’s victory didn’t come as a surprise to most: It follows a trend of progressive initiative petition campaigns finding success in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democrat for statewide office since 2018

Paid sick leave measures also passed in Alaska and Nebraska, bringing the number of states with such laws to 18.

The details of the law are similar to those in states that have already adopted policies to expand access to paid sick leave. Employees can begin accruing and using sick time on May 1, 2025, earning one hour for every 30 hours worked, up to five days per year for small businesses (those with fewer than 15 employees) and seven days per year for larger businesses. Certain workers are exempt, and are listed in the full text of the law, including those employed on a “casual basis” for babysitting, workers employed in a private residence who work occasionally for six or fewer hours, and those who work in retail or service in a business that annually makes less than $500,000 in annual gross volume sales.

Von Glahn said that while canvassing, workers found common ground in their identity with other workers — regardless of party affiliation — who also have the experience of needing to leave work to pick their sick children up from school.

“And immediately what I get is people nodding their heads, ‘yeah, I have that too,’ and saying, it doesn’t make sense that some workers get punished for having to do that. “

Alejandro Gallardo, a restaurant prep cook in Columbia who canvassed with the campaign, said people he spoke to were surprised to hear about “what it’s really like in the restaurant industry,” and some were surprised to hear the minimum wage isn’t already $15.

Coworkers come into work sick “all the time,” he said, in his experience in the restaurant industry. One coworker who had the stomach flu, he remembers, came into work, saying “my stomach tells me I need to stay home, but my wallet tells me I need to come to work.”

Gallardo will qualify for sick leave for the first time in his career come May. He’ll no longer have to choose between going without pay or coming into work sick, calling it a “huge improvement for a lot of workers in the state.”

The ballot measure will make sick leave guaranteed for 728,000 workers who currently lack it statewide, or over 1 in 3 Missouri workers, according to an analysis from the progressive nonprofit the Missouri Budget Project.

The minimum wage increase is slated to affect over 562,000 workers in the state, according to the Missouri Budget Project, or nearly one in every four workers.

“This is a vital part of the community that’s not being treated the way it should be treated,” Gallardo said. And I think this proposition will go a long way to fix that.”