Jim Hoft, founder of The Gateway Pundit, talks with Stephen K. Bannon while appearing on an episode of Brietbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot at Quicken Loans Arena on July 21, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio (Ben Jackson/Getty Images for SiriusXM).

A settlement has been reached between the Gateway Pundit and two Georgia poll workers who accused the St. Louis-based far-right website of defamation in a civil suit in St. Louis Circuit Court.

Notice of the settlement was filed Monday afternoon. The parties to the dispute “provide notice to the court that the parties have reached agreement to settle all claims and counterclaims asserted in the … action, which settlement shall be satisfied on March 29, 2025,” the notice reads.

“The parties respectfully request that this court vacate the trial date set in this matter,” the notice continues, “and stay this matter until March 29, 2025, at which point the parties will dismiss this matter pending satisfaction of the terms of the Parties’ settlement agreement.”

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

As Fox News case heads to trial, far right St. Louis site faces its own defamation suit

A representative of the legal team working for the two poll workers wrote in an email that the settlement offers “mutual satisfaction” and is “fair and reasonable.” The poll workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, could not be reached.

Jonathan Burns, the St. Louis-based lawyer for Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit’s owner, did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.

In June, 2022, the two women provided emotional testimony to the House Select Committee Investigating the January 6^th Attack on the Capitol about the harassment, including death threats, that had resulted from false allegations they had committed voter fraud on behalf of Joe Biden during the counting of votes on election night in 2020.

Among those spreading the lies was the Gateway Pundit, which repeatedly bragged that it was the first to identify the two women as the culprits in the alleged fraud. Georgia election officials immediately debunked the allegations, but the Gateway Pundit continued to make them for years in dozens of articles.

The preliminary settlement appears to mean the Gateway Pundit will face little or no public reckoning in court for its repeated falsehoods.

The case, first filed in St. Louis Circuit Court in December, 2021, had appeared to be emerging as a high-profile test of the limits of the First Amendment, not unlike the defamation cases filed by parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook against Alex Jones and Dominion Voting Systems’ suit against Fox News.

Both of those cases ended up in huge judgments against the defendants.

A jury in Washington, D.C., awarded the two women more than $148 million in a defamation suit they had filed against former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for telling the same lies about them that they accused the Gateway Pundit of spreading.

Some legal observers saw the prospect for a similar judgment by a St. Louis jury against the defendants in the suit here – TGP Communications, which does business as Gateway Pundit; Jim Hoft, the company’s sole owner; and his identical twin brother Joe, who is a contributor to the site.

The trial in St. Louis had been scheduled to start next March 10.

False fraud claims a focus of Rudy Giuliani’s 2020 Missouri testimony, St. Louis defamation suit

But it appears that the two women have yet to collect a dime from Giuliani, so the prospect of a settlement in the St. Louis case may have appeared to be worth taking. And the apparent settlement in the St. Louis case has a precedent – in April 2022 the two women settled their similar claims with One America News Network. The terms of that agreement were not disclosed. OANN did, however, later broadcast a statement that an investigation by Georgia officials had shown that the women “did not engage in ballot fraud or criminal misconduct while working at State Farm Arena on election night.”

What may have driven the Hofts to settle, one attorney familiar with these kinds of cases said, was the failure last July of their filing for bankruptcy in Florida. Had they been allowed bankruptcy protection, the St. Louis defamation case would have been stayed indefinitely.

But instead the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach dismissed the case as a bad faith filing, “reflect(ing) the use of bankruptcy as a pure litigation tactic.”

During the bankruptcy proceedings, it was revealed that Gateway Pundit had a media insurance policy that carried $2 million in gross benefits, of which $700,000 had already been spent on legal fees in defending the St. Louis case. The attorney who is familiar with similar cases said it was possible the Hofts wanted to use the remaining insurance money to settle or help settle the case and put it behind them, rather than deplete it further by continuing to fight.

The settlement may mean escape for the Hofts from the potentially knockout punch that many observers thought a St. Louis jury might deal their website, one of the most influential on the far right. It also appears to mean that whatever information had been turned up by the two women’s lawyers in pre-trial discovery will never become public.

It was known, for example, that the lawyers were seeking the company’s financial records and searching for an understanding of how precisely the Gateway Pundit turned clicks on the site’s website into cash, and therefore the extent of their financial motive for repeating their lies.

It was also known that the lawyers were scheduled to depose the Hoft brothers — or perhaps even had by the time of the agreement to settle. Now whatever the Hofts may have said in those depositions, if they occurred, will remain under protective order.

This story was originally published by the Gateway Journalism Review. 

From left, the secretaries of state for Nebraska, Bob Evnen; Iowa, Paul Pate; Missouri, Jay Ashcroft; and South Dakota, Monae Johnson. Tuesday (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner).

OMAHA, Neb. — Four secretaries of state and a federal agency director in cybersecurity described their work Wednesday as a line of defense in upholding election integrity and security ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen, in explaining the reason for Wednesday’s summit, asked simply, “Why not?” He said the Midwest states of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and South Dakota have demonstrated that elections can be safe, smooth and secure.

“Election security is not static. Election security is not a one-and-done deal. Election security is dynamic,” Evnen said at the news conference. “If you’re going to continue to address these dynamic challenges to elections, then you do so in a dynamic fashion.”

The ‘imperative’ of election confidence

The National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology and Education Center, or NCITE, headquartered at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, hosted the event.

Evnen’s three counterparts from Iowa (Paul Pate), Missouri (Jay Ashcroft) and South Dakota (Monae Johnson) joined the event, which Evnen said he expects to be repeated in future years. Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab participated in other summit events, including briefings on NCITE research, but was unable to attend the news conference, officials said.

Pate, who is in his fourth term as Iowa’s secretary of state, said he has seen elections evolve and become “more aggressive” in the past two decades, particularly through technology.

Yet election confidence remains essential, Pate said, and secretaries of state are doing everything they can to uphold integrity and security.

“It’s imperative that Americans, and Iowans, have confidence in those election results because the day after the election, if they don’t believe that that’s their governor or their senator or their president, our Republic has fallen without a single bullet being fired,” Pate said. “That’s not acceptable, so we’re going to continue to be vigilant and do what we can on our front.”

Director Jen Easterly of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said CISA stands “shoulder to shoulder” with election officials nationwide. She said she has “tremendous confidence” in U.S. elections.

Easterly said CISA was established in 2018 from a previous U.S. Department of Homeland Security agency in part due to foreign attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election and after election infrastructure was designated as “critical” infrastructure.

Security protocols and training

The agency helps state and local election officials to prepare for any threats, including ransomware, physical threats and threats from foreign adversaries (such as Russia, Iran and China). Some of the support the agency provides, Easterly said, are security assessments, hypothetical scenario training and training for de-escalation and anti-active shooter incidents.

“At the end of the day, we know that elections will be safe. They will be secure. They will be free. They will be fair. But there will be things that go wrong,” Easterly said. “The good news is these disruptions, while problematic, will not affect how votes are counted and how votes are cast.”

Evnen said some of the ways that Nebraska has partnered with CISA in the past two years have included weekly scans of all 93 Nebraska county election websites for vulnerabilities, giving local officials “.gov” emails and website addresses and setting up internal protocols for day-to-day security.

“These are important steps we’re taking across Nebraska to ensure that our cyberinfrastructure is protected,” Evnen said.

Pate said those steps are national standards as officials “plan for the worst and hope for the best.”

Elections for ‘we the people’

All five secretaries of state who partnered with NCITE this week are elected Republicans, and Ashcroft said the officials don’t serve just Republicans or Democrats or  Libertarians or any other third parties in their respective states.

He said if officials do their job well, they are the basketball ref or linesman of a football game who “no one notices.”

The secretaries of state and Easterly invited more people to get involved in the election process, such as serving as poll workers or watchers, and for anyone who has questions to ask.

“We run elections for the people of the states,” Ashcroft explained. “We run elections for our government because it is how ‘we the people’ decide that our Republic will move forward.”

Ashcroft added that no matter who wins or loses, or which issues pass or fail, “at the end of the day, the American people can drink their beverage of choice and either celebrate or commiserate, but know that they were a part of the decision, that their votes counted and that the votes made a difference.”

The election officials noted that it is typical for “official” results not to be finalized for up to a week after Election Day, but they said that’s due in part due to the need to process provisional ballots, as well as conducting the “checks and balances” needed to ensure accurate results, particularly in close races, or possibly hand-count some ballots.

But for the most part, the secretaries of state said of their jurisdictions, most election results are typically available within a few hours of polls closing on Election Day.

“I believe in getting quick results out, my colleagues do, but we all believe in getting it right, and we believe in making sure that every American, no matter where Uncle Sam has sent them, has the right to participate in our elections,” Ashcroft said, indicating overseas voters.

Johnson, from South Dakota, said the “greatest unease” about the general election is the period between when polls close and when results are finalized. She said officials are workshopping scenarios with public safety teams to ensure that post-election events proceed smoothly and on time.

“Protecting the voting process and its facilitators is a collaborative process, and we have full faith in our state’s ability to overcome any disruptions,” Johnson said.

NCITE research

Gina Ligon, director of NCITE at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said the center, which includes 38 partner universities, is working on four projects, such as tracking threats to election workers through federal charges and possible threats from emerging technologies.

Ligon said the federal charges are the “tip of the iceberg” as federal charges are a “really high bar,” while other NCITE research includes threats or violence specifically against election officials in swing states, including Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia.

Those states have seen the largest spikes in data in recent years, Ligon said.

That project is extending to Nebraska, partially with the competitiveness of Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District for president. There are currently no federal charges, according to Ligon.

Other research, out of the University of Arkansas, includes interviews of election workers who have faced threats of violence. Initial research has indicated women don’t always report when they are victims of violence, Ligon said, and that people don’t understand when they cross First Amendment protections from anger to prohibited threats.

“As much as people say this is nothing new — ‘we’ve experienced this for a long time’ — our data just doesn’t support that,” Ligon said.

‘It’s up to all of us’

As of this time, Easterly said, there have been no specific election threats from terrorists, though she noted federal authorities thwarted the apparent plans of an Oklahoma City man on Tuesday and charged him with allegedly plotting a terrorist attack on Election Day in support of ISIS.

“If there are other things that we are seeing from the terrorist landscape, we will ensure that election officials are apprised of that immediately,” Easterly said.

Easterly said the period between Election Day on Nov. 5 and the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20 will be critical. She said foreign adversaries will try to create a “wedge” and attempt to “shred our institutions” or sow discord as each milestone of certification and validation passes.

“That’s why it’s up to all of us as Americans — as the secretary [Ashcroft] said, ‘We the people’ — these elections are for us,” Easterly said. “It’s up to all of us to do our part in protecting and preserving our democracy.”

This story was originally published by the Nebraska Examiner, a States Newsroom affiliate.

(Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Republicans are struggling to recruit and elect women to Congress, lagging behind Democrats in ensuring women, who make up half the population, have a strong voice in the halls of power, experts on women in politics said Tuesday.

“This year’s data shows clearly that Republican women are falling behind in candidacies, nominations and even primary contest success,” Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said on a call with reporters.

Democratic women, on the other hand, “are not only outperforming their male counterparts, but are also reaching near parity with Democratic men in nominations and office holding.”

The 435-member U.S. House currently has 126 women, 34 of whom are Republicans. The 100-member Senate has 25 female lawmakers, with nine belonging to the GOP.

CAWP Director of Data Chelsea Hill explained on the call that while women overall account for just 31.1% of general election nominees for the House, the breakdown shows a stark difference for Democratic and Republican politicians.

“Women continue to be significantly underrepresented as a percentage of all U.S. House and Senate candidates and nominees,” Hill said. “But Republican women are a significantly smaller percentage of their party’s candidates and nominees than are Democratic women.”

Democratic women running for the House represent 45.9% of candidates within their party, coming close to parity with their male colleagues and increasing female candidate percentages over 2022, she said.

Republican women, however, make up 16.2% of GOP House candidates this election cycle, a lower share than during 2020 and 2022, Hill said.

In the Senate, female candidates account for 30.9% of general election nominees, with a similar split between Democrats and Republicans.

Democratic women account for 46.9% of the party’s candidates for that chamber of Congress, also near parity, though women make up 17.6% of Republican Senate nominees, “a smaller share than in the three previous cycles,” according to Hill.

Why are fewer Republican women running?

CAWP experts said the difference in female candidates is predominantly due to structural differences as well as differing beliefs about the importance of women holding office among leadership and voters.

CAWP Director of Research Kelly Dittmar said if party leadership doesn’t believe women’s underrepresentation in government is a problem in need of a solution, that will make “it hard to build the type of support infrastructure — whether it be for women’s PACs, trainings, recruitment programs — that would ensure that those numbers stay high.”

Dittmar said one example of this was House Republican leaders’ decision to roll a program called “Project Grow” that was aimed at recruiting female GOP lawmakers into the “Young Guns” program, which is focused more on general recruitment.

“Young Guns” is also the title of a book published in 2010 by former House Republican leaders Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy, all of whom are men.

Dittmar said the evolution of the Republican Party under former President Donald Trump and the change in abortion access stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 are not significant factors accounting for the lower numbers of female Republican candidates.

“I would suggest that when we get to the candidate level, there are enough conservative Republican women in the country that could be recruited and supported as candidates,” Dittmar said.

Walsh said one of the reasons GOP leaders don’t focus on recruiting and encouraging women in public office is that there is a “reluctance” within the Republican Party to engage in identity politics.

“The Democratic Party places value on that, versus the Republican Party, which says the best candidate will rise to the top and let the best person win,” Walsh said. “So it is a deeply philosophical difference that plays out in candidate recruitment, candidate support.”

Dittmar added that Democrats aren’t necessarily recruiting and advancing female candidates “out of the goodness of their hearts,” but are doing so because it’s expected by their voters.

“There’s an electoral incentive, partly due to the gender gap in voting, as well as racial and ethnic differences in terms of the Democratic base, where there is more demand on the Democratic Party to say, ‘Look, we’re bringing you votes, you need to prioritize and value this level of representation.’”

(Getty Images)

Until they get in touch with him, organizer TJ James says, many people with a felony conviction have no idea that they have the right to vote.

And it’s not for a lack of interest, said James, an organizer with the Metro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity, or MORE2.

“I’ve had people that I work with where they’ve been told specifically at the polls that they cannot vote,” James said. “They’re being told while in prison, ‘You can never vote again.’ And people, unfortunately, just don’t do the research.”

When a Kansas or Missouri resident is convicted of a felony, the state automatically deletes their voter registration. But once they complete their parole or probation, most people with felony convictions regain the right to vote.

The Sentencing Project noted in October 2023 that nationwide, more than 2 million people with felony convictions have regained the right to vote since 1997.

Can felons vote in Missouri?

Generally speaking, a felony conviction only temporarily suspends a person’s right to vote in Missouri. The only exception is if the felony is related to elections or voting — such as tampering with ballots or threatening voters. Election crimes convictions, both felonies and misdemeanors, cost a person the right to vote in Missouri.

Missouri automatically wipes the voter registration upon conviction of a felony, and the person convicted must reregister once they have completed their sentence, parole or probation.

If a voter has any issues at the polling site — for example, if the poll worker incorrectly tells them that they aren’t allowed to vote because of their felony conviction — James encourages them to call a local election office.

However, if the problem is that the person has not registered, there is no recourse after the voter registration deadline on Oct. 9. Voters must register before that deadline because Missouri does not allow same-day voter registration.

Can felons vote in Kansas?

Like in Missouri, a felony conviction in Kansas results in a temporary loss of the right to vote. Once a person has completed their sentence, parole or probation, they will have to reregister. The Kansas voter registration deadline is Oct. 15.

However, it gets fuzzier when a person owes fines and fees for restitution.

“There are tens of thousands of people in Kansas who are still on probation solely for financial reasons,” said Micah Kubic, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Kansas affiliate.

That is relatively distinct to Kansas, he said.

Legally, probation could be indefinitely extended until those fines are paid. Some judges may choose to end a person’s probation before they’ve fully paid their debt, but it’s ultimately up to the judge’s discretion.

Kubic said that judges in Sedgwick County are less likely to restore voting rights before fines are paid.

Right to vote in jail

Some detainees at county jails in Kansas and Missouri may still be eligible to vote.

In 2022, MORE2 estimated that there may be upward of 400 eligible voters jailed in Jackson County. Kubic estimated that the number of eligible voters in Kansas jails is in the thousands.

“If you are in jail and not been convicted,” James said, “then your voting rights have not been taken away.”

To cast a ballot from jail, voters will need to make sure they are registered to vote and submit an absentee ballot request before the deadline.

In Kansas, the absentee ballot request form must be received by Oct. 29. In Missouri, it must be received by Oct. 23.

Jails may allow voter registration groups to enter, but it varies from county to county.

Kubic said that most counties in Kansas do not have vote-from-jail programs, but the Kansas ACLU is working to make those programs more common.

“(It) can be as simple as allowing the local election commission or county clerk to bring a stack of absentee ballot request forms,” he said. “They don’t have to be complicated to work.”

This article first appeared on Beacon: Kansas City and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Voters in Grand Rapids, Mich., cast their ballots during the state’s August primary. LEFT: Michigan was one of the swing states that has greatly expanded voter access since 2020. (Matt Vasilogambros/Stateline)

Editor’s note: This five-day series explores the priorities of voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as they consider the upcoming presidential election. With the outcome expected to be close, these “swing states” may decide the future of the country.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Some voters are already casting early ballots in the first presidential election since the global pandemic ended and former President Donald Trump refused to accept his defeat.

This year’s presidential election won’t be decided by a margin of millions of votes, but likely by thousands in the seven tightly contested states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

How legislatures, courts and election boards have reshaped ballot access in those states in the past four years could make a difference. Some of those states, especially Michigan, cemented the temporary pandemic-era measures that allowed for more mail-in and early voting. But other battleground states have passed laws that may keep some registered voters from casting ballots.

Trump and his allies have continued to spread lies about the 2020 results, claiming without evidence that widespread voter fraud stole the election from him. That has spurred many Republican lawmakers in states such as Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina to reel back access to early and mail-in voting and add new identification requirements to vote. And in Pennsylvania, statewide appellate courts are toggling between rulings.

“The last four years have been a long, strange trip,” said Hannah Fried, co-founder and executive director of All Voting is Local, a multistate voting rights organization.

“Rollbacks were almost to an instance tied to the ‘big lie,’” she added, referring to Trump’s election conspiracy theories. “And there have been many, many positive reforms for voters in the last few years that have gone beyond what we saw in the COVID era.”

The volume of election-related legislation and court cases that emerged over the past four years has been staggering.

Nationally, the Voting Rights Lab, a nonpartisan group that researches election law changes, tracked 6,450 bills across the country that were introduced since 2021 that sought to alter the voting process. Hundreds of those bills were enacted.

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, cautioned that incremental tweaks to election law — especially last-minute changes made by the courts — not only confuse voters, but also put a strain on local election officials who must comply with changes to statute as they prepare for another highly scrutinized voting process.

“Any voter that is affected unnecessarily is too many in my book,” he said.

New restrictions

In many ways, the 2020 presidential election is still being litigated four years later.

Swing states have been the focus of legal challenges and new laws spun from a false narrative that questioned election integrity. The 2021 state legislative sessions, many begun in the days following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, brought myriad legislative changes that have made it more difficult to vote and altered how ballots are counted and rejected.

The highest profile measure over the past four years came out of Georgia.

Under a 2021 law, Georgia residents now have less time to ask for mail-in ballots and must put their driver’s license or state ID information on those requests. The number of drop boxes has been limited. And neither election officials nor nonprofits may send unsolicited mail-in ballot applications to voters.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp said when signing the measure that it would ensure free and fair elections in the state, but voting rights groups lambasted the law as voter suppression.

That law also gave Georgia’s State Election Board more authority to interfere in the makeup of local election boards. The state board[AS1]  has made recent headlines for paving the way for counties to potentially refuse to certify the upcoming election. This comes on top of a wave of voter registration challenges from conservative activists.

In North Carolina, the Republican-led legislature last year overrode Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto to enact measures that shortened the time to turn in mail-in ballots; required local election officials to reject ballots if voters who register to vote on Election Day do not later verify their home address; and required identification to vote by mail.

This will also be the first general election that North Carolinians will have to comply with a 2018 voter ID measure that was caught up in the court system until the state Supreme Court reinstated the law last year.

And in Arizona, the Republican-led legislature pushed through a measure[AS2]  that shortened the time voters have to correct missing or mismatched signatures on their absentee ballot envelopes. Then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the measure.

“Look, sometimes the complexity is the point,” said Fried, of All Voting is Local. “If you are passing a law that makes it this complicated for somebody to vote or to register to vote, what’s your endgame here? What are you trying to do?”

Laws avoided major overhauls

But the restrictions could have gone much further.

That’s partly because Democratic governors, such as Arizona’s Katie Hobbs, who took office in 2023, have vetoed many of the Republican-backed bills. But it’s also because of how popular early voting methods have become.

Arizonans, for example, have been able to vote by mail for more than three decades. More than 75% of Arizonan voters requested mail-in ballots in 2022, and 90% of voters in 2020 cast their ballots by mail.

This year, a bill that would have scrapped no-excuse absentee voting passed the state House but failed to clear a Republican-controlled Senate committee.

Bridget Augustine, a high school English teacher in Glendale, Arizona, and a registered independent, has been a consistent early voter since 2020. She said the first time she voted in Arizona was by absentee ballot while she was a college student in New Jersey, and she has no concerns “whatsoever” about the safety of early voting in Arizona.

“I just feel like so much of this rhetoric was drummed up as a way to make it easier to lie about the election and undermine people’s confidence,” she said.

Vanessa Jiminez, the security manager for a Phoenix high school district, a registered independent and an early voter, said she is confident in the safety of her ballot.

“I track my ballot every step of the way,” she said.

Ben Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election lawyer and Volker Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the think tank Hoover Institution, said that while these laws may add new hurdles, he doesn’t expect them to change vote totals.

“The bottom line is I don’t think that the final result in any election is going to be impacted by a law that’s been passed,” he said on a recent call with reporters organized by the Knight Foundation, a Miami-based nonprofit that provides grants to support democracy and journalism.

Major expansions

No state has seen a bigger expansion to ballot access over the past four years than Michigan.

Republicans tried to curtail access to absentee voting, introducing 39 bills in 2021, when the party still was in charge of both legislative chambers.

Two GOP bills passed, but Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed them.

The next year, Michigan voters approved ballot measures that added nine days of early voting. The measures also allowed voters to request mail-in ballots online; created a permanent vote-by-mail list; provided prepaid postage on absentee ballot applications and ballots; increased ballot drop boxes; and allowed voters to correct missing or mismatched signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes.

“When you take it to the people and actually ask them about it, it turns out most people want more voting access,” said Melinda Billingsley, communications manager for Voters Not Politicians, a Lansing, Michigan-based voting rights advocacy group.

“The ballot access expansions happened in spite of an anti-democratic, Republican-led push to restrict ballot access,” she said.

In 2021, then-Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, signed into law a measure that transitioned the state into a universal vote-by-mail system. Every registered voter would be sent a ballot in the mail before an election, unless they opt out. The bill made permanent a temporary expansion of mail-in voting that the state put in place during the pandemic.

Nevada voters have embraced the system, data shows.

In February’s presidential preference primary, 78% of ballots cast were ballots by mail or in a ballot drop box, according to the Nevada secretary of state’s office. In June’s nonpresidential primary, 65% of ballots were mail-in ballots. And in the 2022 general election, 51% of ballots cast were mail ballots.

Last-minute court decisions

Drop boxes weren’t controversial in Wisconsin until Trump became fixated on them as an avenue for alleged voter fraud, said Jeff Mandell, general counsel and co-founder of Law Forward, a Madison-based nonprofit legal organization.

For half of a century, Wisconsinites could return their absentee ballots in the same drop boxes that counties and municipalities used for water bills and property taxes, he said. But when the pandemic hit and local election officials expected higher volumes of absentee ballots, they installed larger boxes.

After Trump lost the state by fewer than 21,000 votes in 2020, drop boxes became a flashpoint. Republican leaders claimed drop boxes were not secure, and that nefarious people could tamper with the ballots. In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then led by a conservative majority, banned drop boxes.

But that ruling would only last two years. In July, the new liberal majority in the state’s high court reversed the ruling and said localities could determine whether to use drop boxes. It was a victory for voters, Mandell said.

With U.S. Postal Service delays stemming from the agency’s restructuring, drop boxes provide a faster method of returning a ballot without having to worry about it showing up late, he said. Ballots must get in by 8 p.m. on Election Day. The boxes are especially convenient for rural voters, who may have a clerk’s office or post office with shorter hours, he added.

“Every way that you make it easy for people to vote safely and securely is good,” Mandell said.

After the high court’s ruling, local officials had to make a swift decision about whether to reinstall drop boxes.

Milwaukee city employees were quickly dispatched throughout the city to remove the leather bags that covered the drop boxes for two years, cleaned them all and repaired several, said Paulina Gutierrez, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission.

“There’s an all-hands-on-deck mentality here at the city,” she said, adding that there are cameras pointed at each drop box.

Although it used a drop box in 2020, Marinette, a community on the western shore of Green Bay, opted not to use them for the August primary and asked voters to hand the ballots to clerk staff. Lana Bero, the city clerk, said the city may revisit that decision before November.

New Berlin Clerk Rubina Medina said her community, a city of about 40,000 on the outskirts of Milwaukee, had some security concerns about potentially tampering or destruction of ballots within drop boxes, and therefore decided not to use the boxes this year.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, who serves the state capital of Madison and its surrounding area, has been encouraging local clerks in his county to have a camera on their drop boxes and save the videos in case residents have fraud concerns.

A risk of confusing voters

Many local election officials in Wisconsin say they worry that court decisions, made mere months before the November election, could create confusion for voters and more work for clerks.

“These decisions are last-second, over and over again,” McDonell said. “You’re killing us when you do that.”

Arizonans and Pennsylvanians now know that late-in-the-game scramble too.

In August, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated part of a 2022 Arizona law that requires documented proof of citizenship to register on state forms, potentially impacting tens of thousands of voters, disproportionately affecting young and Native voters.

Whether Pennsylvania election officials should count mail ballots returned with errors has been a subject of litigation in every election since 2020. State courts continue to grapple with the question, and neither voting rights groups nor national Republicans show signs of giving up.

Former Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, who is now president of Athena Strategies and working on voting rights and election security issues across the country, said voters simply need to ignore the noise of litigation and closely follow the instructions with their mail ballots.

“Litigation is confusing,” Boockvar said. “The legislature won’t fix it by legislation. Voter education is the key thing here, and the instructions on the envelopes need to be as clear and simple as possible.”

To avoid confusion, voters can make a plan for how and when they will vote by going to vote.gov, a federally run site where voters can check to make sure they are properly registered and to answer questions in more than a dozen languages about methods for casting a ballot.

Arizona Mirror’s Caitlin Sievers and Jim Small, Nevada Current’s April Corbin Girnus and Pennsylvania Capital-Star’s Peter Hall contributed reporting.

House Speaker Dean Plocher sits with his attorney, Lowell Pearson, during a March 12 hearing of the Missouri House Ethics Committee (Jason Hancock/Missouri Independent).

A political action committee created to support outgoing Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher’s political career paid attorneys defending him against allegations of misconduct almost $75,000 in late August. 

According to campaign disclosure forms filed earlier this month, a PAC called Missouri United paid David Steelman and his law firm $21,000 on Aug. 23. The PAC paid Lowell Pearson’s law firm $52,000 on Aug. 28.

Missouri United is not required to file another disclosure report detailing its spending until Oct. 15. 

Steelman and Pearson defended Plocher while he was under investigation by the Missouri House Ethics Committee earlier this year. Pearson is Plocher’s attorney in a whistleblower lawsuit filed against him, his chief of staff Rod Jetton and the Missouri House. 

A Cole County judge on Tuesday set Oct. 23 for a hearing in that lawsuit, which accuses Plocher and Jetton of retaliating against the chief clerk of the House after she raised concerns about alleged mistreatment of women and misuse of state funds.

Missouri House chief clerk sues Dean Plocher, Rod Jetton alleging whistleblower retaliation

Plocher was set to run for lieutenant governor this year until shortly before the candidate filing deadline, when he switched and ran for secretary of state instead. 

He ended up finishing fourth in the Republican primary. 

After his loss, Plocher’s candidate committee — Plocher for Missouri — spent the remainder of the $295,000 it had left on hand paying his campaign advisers and settling debt from the campaign. On Sept. 5, the committee was permanently shut down. 

Missouri United, however, remains active and had $56,000 cash on hand as of Sept. 1. 

Plocher’s troubles became public late last year when he was accused of engaging in “unethical and perhaps unlawful conduct” as part of his months-long push to get the House to award an $800,000 contract to a private company to manage constituent information.

A month later, The Independent reported Plocher had on numerous occasions over the last five years illegally sought taxpayer reimbursement from the legislature for airfare, hotels and other travel costs already paid for by his campaign.

A complaint against Plocher was eventually filed with the Missouri House Ethics Committee, kicking off a four-month investigation that ended with no formal reprimand. However, the Republican and Democratic lawmakers who led the inquiry said Plocher obstructed the committee’s work through pressure on potential witnesses and refusing to issue subpoenas.

Speaker Dean Plocher accused of ‘absolute obstruction’ in House ethics investigation

In May, a lawsuit was filed in Cole County by Dana Miller, the chief clerk of the House. She claims in the litigation that problems with Plocher began before he was speaker, when she confronted him in May 2022 over several complaints about his treatment of female Republican lawmakers, including a woman who said she considered filing an ethics complaint against him.

When she raised those concerns with Plocher, Miller said he responded by saying: “stupid Republican women…they are an invasive species.”

Tensions escalated, Miller said, during Plocher’s efforts to replace the House’s constituent management contract in 2023. When Miller pushed back, she said another lawmaker working with Plocher told her the speaker had repeatedly threatened to fire her.

Miller alleges Plocher pushed to privatize constituent management because it would mean large donations for his statewide campaign and access to communications to the House for campaign use.

In retaliation for her resistance Hernandez wrote, Plocher threatened MIller that he “would take it to a vote” to remove her as chief clerk,  “a warning of possible dismissal.”

Plocher has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and sought to get himself dismissed from the case, arguing that any allegations of wrongdoing amount to “little more than internal political disputes.”

He also argued Miller was not a whistleblower and that any alleged threats against her job were relayed to her by a third party and are therefore hearsay. And he cited a provision in Missouri’s constitution saying members of the General Assembly “shall not be questioned for any speech or debate in either House.”

The U.S. House as it returns from a five-week recess is preparing to vote on a stopgap spending bill that also includes a provision to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

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

The GOP drive in Congress echoes state lawmakers’ push for ballot measures this November that would bar noncitizens from voting in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

It also comes in the heat of the presidential campaign, as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump repeatedly calls for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and faces the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, in a crucial Tuesday night debate.

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

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

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

“Instead of meeting the security and disaster needs of the Nation, this bill includes unrelated cynical legislation that would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls,” the White House said in a statement Monday. “It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections—it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and fines.”

Senate opposition

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

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

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

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

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has stressed that noncitizen voting in federal elections is an issue, although research has found it rarely happens. 

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

The bill is also supported by Trump.

In April, Johnson while at Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, Florida,  announced the House would pass a bill relating to noncitizen voting. The former president has often falsely blamed voting by large numbers of undocumented people for his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton as the reason he lost the popular vote.

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

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

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

Texas congressman spearheads bill

The original noncitizen voting bill, H.R.8281, was first introduced by Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. It passed 221-198, with five Democrats voting with Republicans, but stalled in the Senate.

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

Under current U.S. law, only citizens can vote in federal elections, but the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status.

Along with the ballot measures, hundreds of Republican state legislators have also signed on to a letter by the Only Citizens Vote Coalition urging Congress to pass a bill to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The Only Citizens Vote Coalition includes election denier activists, organizations headed by former Trump aides and anti-immigrant groups. It was founded by Cleta Mitchell, a key figure who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election and is now running a grassroots organization to aggressively monitor elections in November.

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

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey speaks on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives in 2023. Bailey was granted a motion to dismiss in his lawsuit against Jackson County before he was expected to sit for a scheduled deposition in the case. (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey narrowly avoided being questioned under oath about his contact with a Jackson County official when he was granted a motion to dismiss his lawsuit against the county on Thursday. 

Bailey, who filed suit against the county late last year over its property tax assessment process, was ordered by the judge in the case to sit for a deposition regarding communication with Jackson County Legislator Sean Smith which appeared to violate legal ethics rules. 

According to court filings, the deposition was set for Thursday morning. 

But after a series of legal maneuvers to avoid the deposition failed, Bailey asked the judge to dismiss the entire case. In the filing, he said it was no longer necessary because the State Tax Commission issued an order instructing Jackson County to roll back the property assessments.

Jackson County officials cried foul Thursday, arguing in a press release that the tax commission “is being used as a shield for Attorney General Bailey, who is trying to escape accountability after lying and realizing he was losing the case.”

Jackson County noted Bailey less than a month ago called the case “one of the most important pieces of litigation to reach a Missouri courtroom in decades.”

“Yet after only three days of trial, he chose to drop the case entirely,” the county said. “This abrupt reversal exposes the lawsuit for what it truly was: a politically motivated tactic that has cost Missouri taxpayers countless dollars and eroded public trust.”

Missouri attorney general asks to dismiss lawsuit a day before scheduled deposition

Bailey’s spokeswoman, Madeline Sieren, said were it not for the commission’s order, the attorney general “would have pushed the lawsuit forward…and we would have won.” 

“Pushing the lawsuit forward could have jeopardized the much needed relief offered in the Tax Commission’s order and would be counterproductive for Jackson County taxpayers,” Sieren said in an email. 

At issue in the case was Jackson County’s 2023 property assessment process, which, according to Bailey’s original lawsuit, resulted in an average 30% increase in values across hundreds of thousands of properties. The higher property values mean some homeowners will see their property tax bill increase.

Bailey’s lawsuit accused the county of violating a law requiring it to offer physical inspections before increasing a property’s value by more than 15%.

The county argued Bailey waited too long to file the lawsuit as property tax bills had been paid and money distributed to government departments. And, the county said, the attorney general couldn’t file a case unless the State Tax Commission had first attempted to resolve the issue. 

Bailey and a deputy then came under scrutiny for meeting with Smith. Under Missouri Supreme Court rules, attorneys are not to communicate about a lawsuit with individuals represented in the case by another lawyer without the consent of the other lawyer.

Bailey maintained that his meeting with Smith amounted to nothing more than a campaign meeting with little discussion of the lawsuit. On Tuesday, Bailey won the GOP primary for attorney general. Smith ran unopposed in the Republican primary for 5th District Congressional seat and will face incumbent U.S. Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, II in the general election in November. 

Jackson County attorneys sought sanctions against Bailey, and Clay County Circuit Judge Karen Krauser granted them permission to take his deposition.

Bailey’s office tried several times in July to get out of the deposition. Then on Tuesday, Bailey appealed the judge’s decision. A Missouri Court of Appeals judge denied that on Wednesday.

Later on Wednesday, Bailey filed a motion to dismiss the case outright, citing the Missouri State Tax Commission order.

Krauser granted that motion Thursday morning and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Bailey can’t refile it.

Bailey said the State Tax Commission used information his office gathered in the discovery process for the lawsuit.

Jackson County’s press release called officials’ estimate of what rolling back the property assessments would cost “devastating.” The county said schools and libraries would lose $86.3 million in funds they’ve already “received, budgeted and spent.” Cities and fire districts, the county said, would lose almost $20 million. 

“Jackson County firmly believes that fairness will prevail once again,” the county said, “and we will not allow our community to be sacrificed for political gain.”  

This story was updated at 2:45 p.m. with reaction from Jackson County officials and a response from Bailey’s office. 

Attorney General Andrew Bailey speaks at a press conference in the Missouri House Lounge, flanked by House Speaker Dean Plocher, left, and state Rep. Justin Sparks (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wants to dismiss his lawsuit against Jackson County a day before he was set to answer questions under oath about a potential ethical breach in the case. 

Bailey, who is suing the county over its property assessment process, on Tuesday asked the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District to overturn a circuit court order in the case allowing Jackson County attorneys to take his deposition. 

The appeal was denied Wednesday morning. 

Hours later, Bailey filed a motion in Jackson County Circuit Court to dismiss the entire case.

In the motion, Bailey says the litigation is no longer needed after the Missouri State Tax Commission issued an order on Wednesday rolling back most property value increases. In a press release, Bailey said the order relied on information obtained through the discovery process in his lawsuits against the county.

“This is a huge win for every property owner in Missouri, but especially in Jackson County,” said Bailey, who on Tuesday won the GOP primary for a full term as attorney general.

Bailey was scheduled to sit for a deposition Thursday to be questioned by Jackson County’s attorneys about his meetings with a county official that they argued violated ethical rules for lawyers. The trial over the property assessment process was expected to resume Friday.

At issue were meetings that both Bailey and a deputy had with Jackson County Legislator Sean Smith. Under Missouri Supreme Court rules, attorneys are not to communicate about a lawsuit with individuals represented in the case by another lawyer without the consent of the other lawyer.

Judge orders Missouri AG Andrew Bailey to sit for deposition over possible ethics breach

Bailey’s office maintained his meeting with Smith amounted to nothing more than a campaign meeting with little discussion of the lawsuit. But Jackson County attorneys filed a motion for sanctions, and Clay County Circuit Judge Karen Krauser gave the county permission to question Bailey as a form of sanction.

“Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and his office have exhibited a blatant disregard for the Rules of Professional Conduct in this case,” the motion filed by Jackson County says, “and their actions are sanctionable. Based on what we know so far, their actions were not innocent mistakes.” 

Bailey’s office tried to persuade Krauser to reconsider, but she declined.

The ethics dispute comes in Bailey’s case accusing Jackson County of failing to comply with the law when it assessed properties in 2023, resulting in an average 30% increase in value across hundreds of thousands of properties. The lawsuit says more than 90% of residential properties saw an increase in property value, and values increased by at least 15% for three-quarters of properties in the county. 

The increase in property value means some owners will have to pay more in property taxes each year.

In defending the case, Jackson County said Bailey had waited too long to file the lawsuit since tax bills have already been paid and money distributed. Beyond that, the county argued, the attorney general can’t file a case unless the State Tax Commission attempted to first resolve the issue.

The State Tax Commission weighed in Wednesday, saying the county had failed to follow proper procedures, including performing physical inspections, before increasing property values more than 15%.

The commission issued an order claiming “widespread and systemic” failures by Jackson County and ordered officials to roll back the assessments on 75% of properties.  

In a statement, Jackson County called the State Tax Commission’s order “inaccurate and dangerously politicized,” arguing that it was a “desperate, last-minute maneuver” before Bailey’s litigation concludes. 

“This reckless order is harmful to not only taxing jurisdictions, but also taxpayers,” said Jackson County Executive Frank White, Jr. “While fixing decades of mismanagement hasn’t been easy, we are committed to fairness and will continue working every day to achieve it. Actions like this do immense harm to our communities.”

The three major-party candidates for Missouri attorney general, from left, Will Scharf, Andrew Bailey and Elad Gross (campaign photos).

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey insists his office is working to hold the federal government accountable for the decades-old radioactive waste contamination that plagues the St. Louis area.

“We are fighting to ensure that the federal government protects Missourians from the poison that the federal government injected into the streams and creeks there in eastern Missouri,” he told The Independent. 

But the two candidates vying to oust him from the office say Bailey is just the latest in a long line of Missouri officials who have failed the victims who have suffered from the effects of radioactive contamination left in the area since World War II.

Activists tried for months last summer to get Bailey’s help, and “they were met with a closed door,” Will Scharf, who is challenging Bailey in the Aug. 6 GOP primary, told The Independent. 

Both Scharf and Elad Gross, the Democrat running for attorney general, say Bailey could be doing much more.

The St. Louis region was pivotal to the development of the world’s first atomic bomb in the 1940s. Uranium refined downtown was used in experiments in Chicago as part of the Manhattan Project.

After the war, dangerous radioactive waste was dumped at the St. Louis airport right next to Coldwater Creek and contaminated the creek water and banks for miles. Generations of families moved into new suburban homes springing up along the creek without knowing the dangers it posed. A federal study shows children who played in its waters face a higher risk of cancer.

The waste sat at the airport for years before it was sold and moved to a property in Hazelwood also adjacent to the creek. A company bought it to extract valuable metals and trucked the remaining waste to the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton and dumped it illegally. It remains there today.

Officials with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working to clean up the creek, and the Environment Protection Agency is overseeing the cleanup of the landfill. 

But after an investigation by The Independent, MuckRock and The Associated Press revealed last summer that the federal government knew the waste posed a threat to St. Louis residents years before revealing that to the public, Missouri officials and activists have said the federal government should be held accountable for the damage.

Gross argued Bailey, as the state’s chief attorney, wasn’t doing enough to ensure that happens. 

“Our attorney general can sue Joe Biden for everything under the sun,” Gross said during a candidate forum last month, “but he can’t figure out how to sue him to protect Missouri families when we need him the most.”

Gross, who previously worked in the attorney general’s office, said the state should reinstate the environmental division, which was dissolved when Josh Hawley was attorney general in 2017. Bailey should have more attorneys dedicated to investigating nuclear waste and pushing the federal government for better management of the cleanup, Gross said.

If that’s not enough, Gross said, the state should sue the federal government. He pointed to Washington, where the attorney general’s office sued over the slow cleanup at the Hanford nuclear production facility and inadequate protections for workers.

The state previously sued Republic Services, which owns the West Lake Landfill, under former Attorney General Chris Koster over a subsurface smolder in the adjacent Bridgeton Landfill that emitted a foul odor and risked coming into contact with the radioactive waste. It was settled under Hawley. 

Bailey said his office has reviewed documents the news organizations used in the investigation last summer and found that they “paint a picture of the federal government poisoning Missourians.” But he thinks there are documents missing. 

His office filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of Energy in March seeking further information. Madeline Sieren, a spokeswoman for Bailey, said the attorney general’s office hasn’t received a response from the Department of Energy.

Those documents, Bailey said, will help determine whether the state should sue the federal government.

Bailey said he’s also supporting Hawley, who now serves in the U.S. Senate, as he seeks compensation for St. Louis residents who have developed cancer following exposure to the radioactive contamination. Hawley sought to add Missouri — along with southwestern states exposed to bomb testing — to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The 35-year-old federal program, however, expired before the U.S. House of Representatives took a vote on extending and expanding it. 

Last month, Bailey wrote to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, demanding that the agency put up signs along Coldwater Creek, where there is currently no warning that radioactive contamination may be present. 

Gross’ criticism, Bailey said, was “an oversimplification and a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the attorney general’s office.” 

“I’m not withholding any tool at our disposal to ensure transparency, accountability and justice for the victims,” Bailey said. 

Gross said “writing letters is one thing.“Getting results is something entirely different.” 

Scharf called Bailey’s Freedom of Information Act request “a good start” but said he’d like to see if the state could sue the federal government or the private company that dumped waste in the West Lake Landfill.

“My strong suspicion,” Scharf said, “is that there is much more that can be done, from a legal perspective, to vindicate the rights of Missourians…who have been grievously injured by the federal action, federal inaction and the federal cover up here.”

The Independent’s Jason Hancock and Anna Spoerre contributed to this story.

Voters walk into cast their ballots at the Center Point Church on Nov. 8, 2022 in Orem, Utah (George Frey/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON – The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would require individuals registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship to participate in federal elections.

The legislation, passed 221-198, would also require states to check their voter rolls for registered noncitizens.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE, is intended to prevent noncitizens from voting. That act is already illegal, since under current U.S. law, only citizens can vote in federal elections, but the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status.

Voting laws vary by state, with some states like Georgia and Wisconsin requiring photo identification and others, such as Pennsylvania and New Mexico, requiring no documentation at all.

States that do mandate photo identification or other documents use driver’s licenses, military ID cards, student ID cards, birth certificates, tribal ID cards, or even a recent utility bill.

The SAVE Act, introduced by GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas in May, would require most individuals to have a passport to register to vote.

Only about 48% of U.S. citizens have a passport, according to State Department data. Driver’s license and tribal ID cards typically do not prove a person’s citizenship and couldn’t be used to register under the SAVE Act.

Data also indicates that noncitizen voting is not a prevalent issue, as many House Republicans have said.

According to The Associated Press, states such as North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, California, and Texas reviewed their voter rolls between 2016 and 2022. These audits found that fewer than 50 noncitizens in each state had voted in recent elections, out of upwards of 23 million total votes per state.

The measure is unlikely to advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Partisan divide

House Republicans have stood staunchly in favor of Roy’s bill, H.R.8281.

On the House floor Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, urged his colleagues to pass the bill, saying it was “one of the most important votes that members of this chamber will ever take in their entire careers.”

Last month, Johnson’s office released a 22-page report asserting the SAVE Act was critical for American election integrity.

Johnson blamed the Democratic Party for keeping American “borders wide open to every country on the planet,” and claimed Democrats “want illegal aliens voting in our elections.”

On Monday, the Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy against the legislation, saying there is no cause for concern about noncitizen voting and that it would only hinder the voting rights of eligible Americans.

Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, urged his House colleagues during Wednesday floor debate to vote no on the bill, saying it would be devastating for all American voters.

“This bill is about scaring Americans, this bill is about silencing Americans, this bill is about disenfranchising Americans,” he said. “This bill is about further damaging the foundations of our democracy.”

But House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil backed the legislation during a Rules Committee hearing.

“In the past few decades, Americans’ faith in the integrity of our elections has eroded and it is Congress’ responsibility to restore confidence in our election system,” said Steil, a Wisconsin Republican. “The SAVE Act would do just that.”

Republican Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana in a Monday press conference called the bill “a safeguard to ensure that only American citizens vote in America’s elections.”

Election implications

Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York during Wednesday floor debate alluded to the broader implications of the SAVE Act, looking towards the November election and the possibility of a second term for President Joe Biden.

He said Republicans could use the bill “as a cover, already trying to set up an excuse for what may happen in November.”

Voting rights advocates have expressed concern over the SAVE Act, saying it contains many falsehoods and conspiracy theories that perpetuate extreme views.

At a Tuesday press conference hosted by America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy nonprofit, Sean Morales-Doyle from the Brennan Center for Justice said the bill plays into greater themes of racism and xenophobia.

“It’s also a very damaging lie with an ulterior motive: to lay the groundwork for challenging legitimate election results down the road,” he said.

One House member equated the bill to a “Jim Crow poll tax” during floor debate. Jennifer McClellan, a Virginia Democrat, said she “is not aware of any single proof of citizenship document that doesn’t cost an individual money to get it.”

Wesley Hunt, a Republican from Texas, responded that “Jim Crow is over.”

Jim Hoft, founder of The Gateway Pundit, talks with Stephen K. Bannon while appearing on an episode of Brietbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot at Quicken Loans Arena on July 21, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio (Ben Jackson/Getty Images for SiriusXM).

The right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit is accused of abusing the bankruptcy process to escape accountability in defamation lawsuits stemming from its false claims about the 2020 election. 

Gateway Pundit, founded in St. Louis by brothers Jim and Joe Hoft, filed for bankruptcy in April as it was facing defamation lawsuits in Missouri and Colorado.

In 2021, Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss sued Gateway Pundit in St. Louis after the site published debunked stories accusing them of election fraud that resulted in threats of violence, many tinged with racial slurs. Former Dominion Voting Systems employee Eric Coomer sued the site in Colorado in 2020 after it falsely accused him of being part of an effort to overturn the presidential election.

Lawyers for Freeman, Moss and Coomer this week asked a Florida judge to dismiss the bankruptcy filing, calling it a “pure litigation tactic” designed to derail their lawsuits. 

Hoft has previously been accused of purposely delaying discovery in the Missouri case to impede a jury trial. That, Freeman and Moss’ attorney contends, is the true purpose of the bankruptcy.

“To date, the defendants’ strategy in the Missouri litigation has had one goal: delay,” wrote David Blanksy, Freeman and Moss’ attorney. “This chapter 11 filing is just the newest effort — in a long line of failed tactics — to prevent (plaintiffs) from proving their claims in a court of law.”

Rudy Giuliani lawyer shifts blame to St. Louis-based Gateway Pundit in defamation case

Vincent Alexander, Coomer’s attorney, wrote that the bankruptcy filing came just as the Hoft brothers were served with deposition notices in Missouri and soon after their motion to dismiss the Colorado lawsuit was denied. 

Hoft announced in April that his company was filing for bankruptcy because of “the progressive liberal lawfare attacks against our media outlet.” His attorney, Bart Houston, argues in court filings that the benefit of bankruptcy is “to consolidate disparate claims into a single forum for equality of treatment and distribution.”

Gateway Pundit’s insurance policy, Houston wrote, isn’t large enough to cover all the expenses needed for two defamation cases.

“In this case, whichever one of the two pending litigations that reaches trial first will likely have depleted the policy and will get first shot at the remaining assets of the debtor,” Houston wrote. “The second place litigation will be left with nothing but a pyrrhic victory.”

If the plaintiffs in the defamation lawsuits are “dead set on depletion of the insurance policy, destruction of the debtors business operations and zero payment on account of their claims, then such a result will certainly occur in a dismissal or stay relief,” Houston wrote. 

The legal wrangling over bankruptcy echoes the fight between Infowars host Alex Jones and the families of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

A Texas judge ruled last year that Jones can’t use bankruptcy protection to avoid paying more than $1 billion to families who sued over his repeated lies that the school massacre was a hoax. But the bankruptcy filings continue to forestall efforts to get damages, with one family trying to collect assets from Jones’ company in a way that other families argue could leave them with next to nothing.

Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid OxyContin, cannot move forward because it shields members of the Sackler family, which principally owns the company, from liability for opioid-related claims.

‘Patient zero’

According to Business Insider, Jim Hoft admitted at a June 17 hearing in the bankruptcy case that he used the company to give himself an $800,000 loan to purchase a condo in 2021 in Jensen Beach, Florida. 

According to court filings, none of that loan has been repaid. 

Gateway Pundit, doing business as TGP Communications LLC, also owns a 2021 Porsche Cayenne worth about $54,000. Hoft said during the hearing he has used it as a “company car.” 

Hoft receives a salary from the company of $17,000 a month.

In the nearly two decades since its founding, Gateway Pundit has spread false conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Sandy Hook school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. 

After years of existing largely in the fringes of the right-wing media ecosphere, its profile exploded under Trump, who granted the site White House press credentials. 

Hoft was allowed in 2022 to join a lawsuit filed by the Missouri attorney general’s office that argued the federal government violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false, misleading and dangerous information online. Then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who now serves in the U.S. Senate, argued at the time that Hoft was “one of the most influential online voices in the country” who suffered “extensive government-induced censorship” over issues like COVID-19 and election security.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the lawsuit’s claims, concluding that neither Hoft nor any of the other plaintiffs were able to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion.  They also failed to demonstrate any harm, the court determined, or substantial risk that they will suffer an injury in the future.

In addition to their defamation lawsuit against Hoft, Freeman and Moss sued former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani over false allegations of fraud tied to the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani’s attorney tried to distance his client from the violent threats against the Georgia election workers by arguing Gateway Pundit was more responsible, calling the site “patient zero” in spreading the conspiracy theory.

In December, Giuliani was ordered to pay Freeman and Moss more than $148 million in damages.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington speaks during a press conference outside the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, June 5, 2024. Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, at right, stands waiting to approach the microphone. The lawmakers joined progressive groups to urge Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. Both Jayapal and Johnson have introduced bills related to Supreme Court ethics (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Progressive lawmakers and organizers on Wednesday urged U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and to testify before Congress about two flags sympathetic to insurrectionists that were displayed outside his two homes.

With the Supreme Court as their backdrop, a group of roughly 20 people held signs reading “Investigate Alito” and decried a “five-alarm fire consuming democracy,” as Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia put it.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said, “Chief Justice (John) Roberts and Justice Alito need to testify publicly and under oath about the flag-waving incidents and how the court handled it.”

Johnson and Jayapal have respectively introduced bills aimed at imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices and mandating an enforceable code of ethics for the nation’s highest bench.

Johnson also joined Democratic U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman of New York Tuesday in introducing a bill to establish an independent investigative body focused on Supreme Court ethics.

Two flags

An upside-down U.S. flag hung outside Alito’s Alexandria, Virginia, home just days after former President Donald Trump’s supporters breached the Capitol, according to photos obtained by the New York Times.

An upside-down American flag is generally considered a sign of distress or protest across the political spectrum.

The Times also broke the story that an “Appeal to Heaven” flag waved above the justice’s Long Island Beach, New Jersey, home during the summer of 2023. The white flag featuring a pine tree can be seen in photos of the Jan. 6 riot, when Trump supporters overwhelmed the Capitol, attacking and injuring police officers with flagpoles, bear spray and other improvised weapons.

In a May 29 letter to lawmakers, Alito said the flags were flown by his wife and that he would refuse calls to recuse himself from cases related to Jan. 6.

“My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not,” he wrote to Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts.

Both senators, who requested a meeting with Chief Justice Roberts about Alito, have championed an ethics bill titled the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which advanced out of committee along party lines in July 2023 but has not received a floor vote.

Supreme Court rulings on the way

Supreme Court opinions are expected this month in two Jan. 6, cases — one involving a former police officer who breached the Capitol and is seeking to have an obstruction charge dropped. The decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 defendant cases, and the 2020 election interference case against Trump, who faces the same obstruction charge.

The court is also set to decide whether Trump is immune from four federal criminal counts alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and knowingly spread false information that whipped his supporters into rioting on Jan. 6.

Trump appointed three of the current sitting Supreme Court justices: conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

At Wednesday’s demonstration, one of the leaders, Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said, “I don’t know about you, but I prefer Supreme Court justices who fly their American flags right side up.”

Harvey’s group was one of several outside the Supreme Court, including Alliance for Justice, whose program director for justice Jake Faleschini also called for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. An investigation by ProPublica revealed the justice received gifts from and traveled with major Republican donors.

“Even Justice Roberts has abandoned his duties. He doesn’t appear either willing or capable of addressing his colleagues’ corruption and abuses of power,” Faleschini said.

More flag displays

The upside-down U.S. flag and “Appeal to Heaven” flag have been displayed in other locations as well.

On Friday, the conservative Heritage Foundation flew an upside-down U.S. flag outside its Washington, D.C., office following Trump’s guilty verdict in New York on hush money charges, according to reporting from NPR and photos from The Associated Press.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, one of the leading voices in the legal movement to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, displays the “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his congressional office, according to reporting by The Associated Press.

The flag has also been spotted outside the office of GOP Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin.

In Missouri, Feeding America estimates that about 15% of the population faced food insecurity in 2022, compared with 11.6% the previous year (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Summer may be half over by the time Kansas families get extra food aid meant to see them through long hot days when school breakfasts and lunches disappear.

For Missouri families, the aid may not arrive until a new school year is well underway.

But that still beats the 13 states where families won’t be getting any help with summer groceries because state leaders skipped the federal government’s new $2.5 billion summer food assistance program known as Sun Bucks.

Public health advocates, pointing to growing food insecurity among low-income Kansans and Missourians, said they are pleased — and somewhat surprised — that this time conservative politicians in their states accepted federal aid.

“It was surprisingly pretty easy,” said Christine Woody, food security policy manager with Empower Missouri. “I thought there was going to be a lot of pushback.”

Missouri and Kansas, both controlled by Republican-dominated legislatures, could have done as they did with Medicaid expansion and opted not to accept federal dollars, advocates said. Missouri voters later passed a ballot measure that expanded the low-income health insurance program anyway. But Kansas still hasn’t opted in.

Missouri opts into summer EBT federal food benefits program

The states also could have followed the lead of Iowa, where Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds rejected the summer food aid, saying the program didn’t do enough to ensure that kids got nutritional food. Or Texas, which turned down the federal program because state bureaucrats said it came with too many technical hurdles and required too many matching state tax dollars.

Instead, Kansas agreed to take part almost as soon as Congress passed funding for the summer food assistance program in December 2022. And Missouri made its participation official earlier this year, just before a deadline.

The program will provide an additional $120 per child for summer groceries to an estimated 266,000 Kansas children and 429,000 Missouri children. Even if the dollars won’t reach families at the start of the summer, and possibly not before summer is over, the money will still help.

“I personally know kids whose only meal for the day is what they have in school,” said Ruchi Favreau, director of nutritional services for the Kansas City, Kansas, public schools.

The extra dollars this summer will extend a lifeline for them and thousands of other kids around the state.

“It can make a huge difference,” said Karen Siebert, public policy and advocacy adviser for Harvesters Community Food Network, which works with food banks in Missouri and Kansas. “Especially now with food inflation where it is, even if it’s not here for the summer, hopefully in arrears, (the extra money) can help.”

The climbing cost of food, combined with the end of pandemic-era government aid programs, contributed to a sharp rise in the number of Americans considered to be living with food insecurity. The term describes people who don’t have enough to eat and don’t know where their next meal will come from.

The national anti-hunger advocacy group Feeding America’s May report says 13.5% of Americans met the criteria for food insecurity in 2022, the most recent year data is available, compared with 10.4% in 2021.

That amounts to 44 million Americans, or one in every seven people, and includes 13 million children. That is a major jump. In 2021, the report said, about 34 million Americans were considered food insecure.

Feeding America estimates that 13% of Kansans faced food insecurity in 2022, compared with just under 10% in 2021. That included about 131,430 children or 19%, up from 94,000 or about 13% in 2021.

In Missouri, the group estimates that about 15% of the population faced food insecurity in 2022, compared with 11.6% the previous year. In 2022, that number included almost 255,000 children, close to 19%, compared with 177,000 children or almost 13% in 2021.

Dr. Heidi Sallee, a St. Louis pediatrician who is the incoming president of the Missouri chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said she sees the consequences of food insecurity every day when patients come in with iron deficiency anemia. The condition, often caused by an unhealthy diet, means kids don’t have enough red blood cells carrying oxygen to their organs and brain.

“They’re more tired,” she said. “They don’t have as much energy. And it can affect their development and learning.”

She hopes the extra food aid coming to families through the summer EBT program will help parents buy meat and green leafy vegetables, foods they need to reverse iron deficiency anemia.

“Our bodies absorb nutrients through fresh food,” she said.

But fresh food can be difficult, if not impossible, for many families to afford during the summer. Families increasingly rely on public schools to feed their children breakfast and lunch. When summer comes and those meals go away, many families run into trouble. Sun Bucks is supposed to help cover the gap.

Similar to food aid offered to poor families during the COVID pandemic, the summer EBT program gives families extra money through an electronic benefit transfer card. The benefit comes to $40 per month for each eligible child.

Children 7 to 17 years old are eligible if they received food assistance through SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, sometimes called food stamps), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and/or foster care benefits at any point during the school year. Children who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch at school also qualify.

Funds will be loaded on existing food assistance accounts or issued as separate EBT cards, which families can spend at grocery stores or markets. Children already enrolled in food assistance programs will automatically get the summer bump, so cumbersome paperwork won’t be necessary.

Federally subsidized summer meals will continue to be offered through some schools and organizations like the Boys and Girls Clubs. And free meals-to-go are available in some areas. But those established programs were leaving behind thousands of kids whose families lacked easy access to transportation, advocates said. Summer EBT cards, which will be mailed directly to qualifying families, give parents more flexibility to buy groceries so their children can eat at home.

While the federal government bears the bulk of the cost associated with the summer EBT program, which is administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service agency, states pay half the cost to administer it. That comes to $1.9 million in Kansas. In Missouri, the state will spend $1.3 million this summer and has budgeted $6.6 million, which still needs approval, for next year.

Kansas families will begin seeing payments from the summer EBT program at the end of July. And families with children who qualify who don’t receive payments automatically can put in an application after Aug. 12.

Missouri waited longer to opt into the summer program. Funding wasn’t approved until May and approval from the USDA is still pending. That’s why Missouri families probably won’t be getting their summer payments until sometime in the fall.

Next, anti-hunger advocates said they will be watching debate around the $1.5 trillion federal farm bill that funds the SNAP program. Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee want to effectively cut the program by limiting changes to the formula used to determine benefits.

In an editorial published May 27 in The Kansas City Star, U.S. Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri’s 4th District, a Republican who sits on the House committee, said SNAP had become too large. The program, he wrote, “was never intended to become a lifestyle but rather a life vest.”

Meanwhile, Missouri will have to revamp how it administers its SNAP program after a federal judge ruled in May that the Department of Social Services’ long wait times, denial of benefits and other issues had violated federal laws.

This article first appeared on Beacon: Kansas City and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson speaks to the media from his office in the state Capitol (photo courtesy of Missouri Governor's Office).

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has given no indication his name will ever appear on a ballot again after he leaves office at the end of this year. 

But the political action committee set up by his supporters to bankroll his political career continues raising and spending money. 

During the first three months of 2024, the PAC — called Uniting Missouri — reported raising $307,000. The biggest chunk of that money came in a $250,000 check from a St. Louis-based law firm.

The law firm’s founding partner, Eric Holland, also gave the PAC $50,000 in December. 

Uniting Missouri also received $25,000 this year from a committee connected to his longtime friend and adviser, lobbyist Steve Tilley. 

The PAC spent $73,000 during the first quarter. Of that, around $64,000 went to credit card payments. The charges appear to be for an early February “fundraising event,” which includes a $56,000 payment to the Kansas City Chiefs; $8,400 to Ticketmaster; and $650 to the NFL Experience. 

The governor attended this year’s Super Bowl in Las Vegas, where the Chiefs defeated the San Francisco 49ers. 

Uniting Missouri reported having roughly $320,000 cash on hand. 

During that same period, Parson’s campaign committee — Parson for Missouri — reported only raising $304. But it has $241,000 cash on hand. 

The spending by Uniting Missouri around a Chiefs Super Bowl is similar to last year’s game, which Parson also attended. The PAC paid $56,000 in February 2023 to the Chiefs for a “fundraising event.” It also paid more than $110,000 during the first three months of 2023 to an aviation company connected to Tilley.

The Missouri House approved a non-citizen voting provision as part of a Senate bill which will put a question before Missouri voters seeking to ban ranked-choice voting and non-citizen voting (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

Arguments over the validity of banning non-citizen voting in Missouri, which is already illegal, were part of what ultimately killed an initiative petition bill prioritized by Republicans this session.

But in the final hours of the legislative session on Friday, the House approved a non-citizen voting provision as part of a Senate bill which will put a question before Missouri voters seeking to ban ranked-choice voting, or ranking candidates in order of preference.

“Missourians don’t want more voter confusion and exhaustion when they go to the ballot box than they already have,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Ben Baker, a Neosho Republican.

If approved by voters later this year, Missouri will officially ban ranked-choice voting and non-citizen voting. It would also confirm that elections only be carried out by paper ballot or “any mechanical method prescribed by law.”

The ranked-choice voting language has a carve-out for any “nonpartisan municipal election” that already has a ranked-choice ordinance in place. This applies to St. Louis. 

An initiative petition campaign in 2022 sought to amend Missouri’s Constitution to change the voting process for the general elections for state offices. In the primary, voters would have still only been able to cast one vote, but in the general election, they could list their preferences. The candidate to win the majority of first-choice votes would win. But if no candidate received a majority, the candidate with the fewest top-choice votes would be eliminated; the remaining votes would be distributed among the candidates left based on preferences. Whoever received a majority of those votes would win.

That proposal failed to gather enough signatures to go to the voters. 

The bill passed on Friday down party lines 97 to 43, with state Rep. Raychel Proudie, a Democrat from Ferguson, and state. Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, a Democrat from St. Louis, voting present. 

Missouri initiative petition bill, a top GOP priority, dies on final day of session

“This is wholly unnecessary,” state Rep. Eric Woods, a Democrat from Kansas City, said Friday of the bill.

That was the resounding cry from Senate Democrats earlier this week, as they filibustered for 50 hours in a successful attempt to stop a plan by Republicans to put a ballot measure before voters in the fall that would raise the threshold for amending the constitution by citizen-led initiative petitions. 

Democrats refused to let the initiative petition bill pass through the Senate as long as it included “ballot candy.” These provisions meant to entice voters into supporting the measure included a question about non-citizen voting and foreign interference.

Despite the hours spent this session debating the merits of the non-citizen language in the initiative petition bill, the topic didn’t immediately come up on the House floor Friday. 

Toward the end of debate, state Rep. Brad Banderman, a Republican from St. Clair, noted the “robust conversation” in both chambers over non-citizen voting the past couple of years, escalating in the final weeks of session. 

“It seems like we’ve been wringing our hands for about a week or two on this particular issue, but on this day,” Banderman said. “ … The other side of the aisle doesn’t seem to be standing at mics complaining 

Republicans want to ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote, but the Missouri Constitution and voting requirements from the secretary of state’s office already outline that requirement (Getty Images).

There’s been a steady push by Republicans this legislative session to regulate voting laws in Missouri.

It isn’t new, but it’s been gaining steam.

The bills seek to regulate — or restrict — provisions around who can vote and how, the way votes are counted and other matters related to election security.

Almost all aim to address concerns that either don’t exist or to prevent changes from ever happening.

Republicans want to ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote, but the Missouri Constitution and voting requirements from the secretary of state’s office already outline that requirement.

Republicans want to ban foreign governments from funding constitutional amendments, but the Missouri Constitution addresses foreign influence in elections as well.

Republicans want to ramp up election security by creating a new division that would investigate claims of election fraud, but such division already exists and has been active for more than 10 years.

Republicans want to ban ranked-choice voting, but the voting practice is not established in state law. St. Louis practices a version of it for local elections.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is often cited by Republicans, has ranked Missouri sixth nationally in its Election Integrity Scorecard.

What is driving Republicans to pursue these voting measures?

For one lawmaker, it’s about election integrity. For another, it’s about being proactive.

Opponents say these efforts are driven by “anti-immigrant bigotry” and a desire for “consolidation of power.”

Justifying causes

Sen. Denny Hoskins, a Warrensburg Republican, has been vocal all session about amending the Missouri Constitution to clarify that only U.S. citizens can vote in Missouri. He takes issue with language in the state constitution that he believes isn’t clear enough on who can and cannot vote in the state.

Article 8 Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution states that “All citizens of the United States … over the age of eighteen who are residents of this state … are entitled to vote.” Hoskins wants “All” changed to “Only” to tame the possibility of noncitizens voting in elections.

But opponents say the constitution is unambiguous on the issue and point to what they believe is behind this rhetoric.

“That just taps into this whole anti-immigrant bigotry fueled by (former President Donald) Trump and is kind of the norm in our American society today,” said Rep. David Tyson Smith, a Democrat from Columbia.

“You keep pushing this envelope, like, ‘How far can I push this?’ and that leads to other things,” Smith added. “And that’s dangerous.”

Hoskins might get his wish later this year if a proposal aiming to increase the threshold needed to approve constitutional amendments gets one more affirmative vote in the Senate.

In addition to the threshold requirement, the proposal, sponsored by Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, would ask voters whether the constitution should be changed to reflect that only U.S. citizens can vote on constitutional amendments and to ban constitutional amendments sponsored by foreign governments.

The proposal has been a focus of Democrats who claim the intention of the two latter provisions is to mislead voters and act as a distraction.

“It takes away from the conversation — and that’s the point of it,” said Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, a Democrat from Independence.

Rizzo, now in his 14th and final year in the legislature, said the push behind Coleman’s proposed changes to the threshold for approving constitutional amendments is driven in part by a desire for Republicans to consolidate power.

“They have had the supermajority for so long now that the only thing left for them to take away is the ability for people to go around them,” he said. “It just drives them crazy that there is an ability for people to have a voice in government that doesn’t go through them.”

Hoskins has an opposite point of view.

“What we’ve seen is, since Missouri has become a more red Republican state, the minority and out-of-state special interests have come in and sponsored some ballot measures in order to try and get something passed,” Hoskins said.

“So it seems like the liberal special interests are, since they can’t get stuff through the legislature because we have supermajorities of all Republicans … they’re coming in and trying to bypass the legislature and put something on the ballot,” he said.

Out of all the proposals by Republicans this session aimed at regulating voting, Coleman’s has drawn the most opposition and scorn. But it isn’t the only one.

Preemptive or premature?

Ranked-choice voting does not occur in Missouri. It’s a practice where voters rank their preferred candidates on one ballot so their votes can be redistributed among top vote getters until a winner is declared after receiving a majority of the vote. Yet Republicans want it banned, saying it’s too confusing.

“I don’t see a good justification to insert a great deal of chaos into the ballot box,” said Rep. Alex Riley, a Springfield Republican.

Riley said he fears ranked-choice voting would create unnecessary turmoil for voters who might not follow the necessary steps needed to fill in a ballot.

The proposal to ban ranked-choice voting, sponsored by Sen. Ben Brown, a Republican Washington, is one vote away from being placed on the ballot and has received increased attention this session partly because, similar to Coleman’s bill, it would also ask voters whether the state constitution should be amended to allow only U.S. citizens to vote.

But whereas Coleman’s proposal only addresses constitutional amendments when referring to the citizenship requirement, Brown’s proposal includes all voting in the state.

Smith, who’s had a front-row seat to discussions regarding voting as a member of the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee, doesn’t see the point.

“We don’t have an epidemic of voting problems in America with undocumented people voting,” he said. “That’s not an epidemic, that’s not a problem, that’s not a crisis.”

Smith is correct as far as Missouri’s concerned.

“I’m not aware of that sort of activity on any kind of a large scale,” said JoDonn Chaney, director of communications for the secretary of state’s office, referring to non-U.S. citizens voting in Missouri.

Still, Republicans say they want to be proactive.

“Putting some additional protections within the constitution itself … whether we have massive numbers of illegal immigrants voting in Missouri, I can’t point to that and say, ‘Yeah, we do.’ I can’t say that we don’t. I think that’d be really hard to tell,” Riley said.

“But, to address that issue going forward … it makes sense to me to put some additional language, some additional safeguards in the state constitution itself,” he said.

Republicans take a similar approach of placing protective measures around foreign governments’ ability to make contributions to election campaigns or ballot initiatives.

Hoskins, a candidate for secretary of state, said he believes foreign interference in elections is occurring in Missouri. But when asked if he could provide an example, Hoskins said he couldn’t because of the complexity of the process.

“I believe that foreign governments would not just give directly to one PAC that is promoting or trying to kill an initiative or something that’s on the ballot,” he said.

“It’s probably funneled through a million different ways, four or five different LLCs or companies or PACs or non-for-profits before it actually got to the place where they bought the ads or radio, TV, social media, newspaper, whatever it is,” Hoskins said. “And that’s where it’s very tough to follow the money trail.”

Elizabeth Ziegler, executive director of the Missouri Ethics Commission, which is charged with overseeing campaign finance reports, said the agency doesn’t have “any final enforcement actions toward contributions (to) campaign finance committees from foreign nationals.”

Article 8 Section 23, paragraph (16) of the Missouri Constitution also provides protections against contributions made by foreign governments, whether they go toward a candidate committee, campaign committee or a ballot measure:

“(16) No campaign committee, candidate committee, continuing committee, exploratory committee, political party committee, and political party shall knowingly accept contributions from:

(a) Any natural person who is not a citizen of the United States;

(b) A foreign government; or

(c) Any foreign corporation that does not have the authority to transact business in this state pursuant to chapter 347, RSMo, as amended from time to time.”

‘People versus politicians’

Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, said there are two underlying reasons he believes are behind Republicans’ motivation to push measures intended to make it harder to vote.

“First, it is a way to appeal to GOP primary voters,” Squire said. “Republican incumbents want to make sure that they are not vulnerable to a challenge from their right. Second, there is a calculation that making voting harder will hurt Democratic voters more than Republican voters, though that may not prove to be the case.”

This is an election year for state offices and many Republican incumbents who are termed-out in the legislature are running for various statewide offices. As a result, rhetoric on the Senate floor this session has been filled with talk that sounded more and more like campaign speeches.

“Ultimately, this push, it’s more of the national narrative bleeding down into the state,” said Connor Luebbert, a lead advocate for the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition.

Or it just may be a fight between people and their politicians.

“In the baseball game of politics,” Rizzo said, “it’s people versus politicians and the politicians want their home runs to count for double.”

This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online. 

Daniel Tucker, a leader with the Missouri Workers Center, teaches chants customized to an initiative petition to raise the minimum wage and mandate paid sick leave outside of the Secretary of State's office building in Jefferson City Wednesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

An initiative petition campaign that seeks to raise Missouri’s minimum wage delivered over 210,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office Wednesday afternoon — nearly double the amount needed to make the statewide ballot. 

It is the first of five initiative petitions the Secretary of State’s office expects to deliver signatures this week.

Petitioners need at least 107,246 signatures to make the ballot. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State said the office expects to complete the verification process around Aug. 8.

If approved by voters, the petition would raise the state’s minimum wage to $13.75 beginning in January 2025 and $15 in 2026, with annual cost-of-living increases after that. It also seeks to set the minimum paid sick leave to one hour per 30 hours worked, and paid sick leave would extend to caring for family members.

Marieta Ortiz, a restaurant worker from Kansas City who helped gather signatures, said during a rally at  the Secretary of State’s office in Jefferson City that this petition would benefit her as a mom of three, with a fourth child due this summer.

“I’ve spent multiple hours in the hospital losing pay over my sick kid,” she said. “As an expecting mom again, I’m going to automatically choose my kids no matter what.”

The petition’s organizers, Missourians for Healthy Families and Fair Wages, rallied inside the Secretary of State’s office building after turning in boxes of signatures. Speakers said paid sick leave was just as important as a $15 minimum wage.

Alejandro Gallardo, a food-service worker from Columbia who gathered signatures, said he has to weigh the risks when he begins feeling sick. He needs to get paid, he said, but he doesn’t want to put himself and others at risk.

“It is a constant stress, a constant anxiety,” Gallardo said during the rally. “People come into work sick all the time because they have no choice.”

DeMarco Davidson, executive director of Metropolitan Congregations United, said Wednesday that the initiative is part of a historical movement to secure better wages.

“Today is the accumulation of years, years and years of people organizing and building power together to bring us here to this point,” he said.

The minimum wage is currently $12.30, a product of Proposition B in 2018 which raised the minimum wage from $7.85 to $12 in five years with cost-of-living adjustments thereafter. The 2018 initiative won over 62.3% of voters.

Before that, voters approved a minimum-wage hike in 2006, which raised the floor to $6.50 or the federal minimum wage, whichever is higher. It was passed with nearly 75% of the vote that year.

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election in Missouri (Getty Images).

Legislation seeking to make it harder to change Missouri’s constitution through the initiative petition process was approved by the Missouri House on Thursday, sending it back to the Senate for a possible showdown between Republicans and Democrats over “ballot candy.” 

The bill was initially approved earlier this year after Democrats ended their 21-hour filibuster in exchange for the removal of “ballot candy” provisions — referring to unrelated additions to a ballot measure designed to win voters who are skeptical of a proposal’s main focus. 

On Thursday, the House added language to the bill that would ask Missourians if they want to change the constitution to define legal voters as citizens of the United States as well as whether they want to prohibit foreign entities from sponsoring initiative petitions. 

Democrats called the additions “unnecessary” and “deceptive.”

“This feels to me like another situation where this body is being asked to bend to the will of the Senate,” said state Rep. Eric Woods, a Democrat from Kansas City. “We are putting this bad stuff back on to send it back over there and watch the Senate explode again as if we aren’t already in enough turmoil in this building.” 

After the Senate vote in February, state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Colemen, a Republican from Arnold and the bill’s sponsor, asked the House Committee on Elections and Elected Officials  to reinstate the “ballot candy.”

The committee complied. After an hour-long debate Thursday morning, the bill ultimately passed, with House Majority Leader Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit the lone “no” vote among his Republican colleagues.

State Rep. Alex Riley, a Republican from Springfield who sponsored the bill in the House, said the amendment, if adopted by the people, would create “a broader geographic consensus from across the state.”

Bill ending Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood heads to Missouri governor

Citizen-led initiative petitions currently require signatures from 8% of voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts. To pass once on the ballot, a statewide vote of 50% plus one is required — a simple majority vote.

The version of the legislation passed Thursday would require that constitutional amendments pass by both a simple majority of votes statewide and a majority of votes in at least a majority of the votes in Missouri’s congressional districts. It would also require the General Assembly have the approval of at least four-sevenths of the members in each chamber to make any modifications to a citizen-led constitutional amendment within two years of when it goes into effect.

An analysis by The Independent found that under the concurrent majority standard being proposed, as few as 23% of voters could defeat a ballot measure. This was done by looking at the majority in the four districts with the fewest number of voters in 2020 and 2022.

Republicans argued this is about engaging all voters, no matter if they live in an urban or rural area. 

“Surely the ratification of something as sacred as the framework to our governance as a state should require something greater than just simply a simple majority statewide,” said state Rep. Brad Banderman, a Republican from St. Clair.

State Rep. Jamie Gragg, a Republican from Ozark, said the legislation would give his constituents in Christian County more voice.

“I have a very out-in-the-country district. My people do not have a vote,” Gragg said. “This will make the people in my district count, because right now they don’t.”

State Rep. Peter Merideth, a Democrat from St. Louis, said under the current framework of one person one vote, Gragg was flat-out wrong.

“If he thinks that it was St. Louis and Kansas City that elected our governor or elected Josh Hawley, I’m sorry he’s not paying attention,” Merideth said. “Or he’s just lying.” 

On Thursday, state Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Democrat from Kansas City, brought the conversation back to abortion. The issue has been an undercurrent in this year’s initiative petition debate.

She recalled the end of session last year, when House Speaker Dean Plocher, a Republican from Des Peres, said his party expected an attempt to legalize abortion would land on the ballot and pass. 

So far, Plocher has been right. A campaign to legalize abortion up until fetal viability in Missouri has raised millions of dollars as they race toward a May 5 deadline to gather the 171,000 necessary signatures to end up on the statewide ballot.  

The main champions of the legislation seeking to change the initiative petition process have been anti-abortion groups. 

Democrats remain adamant voters will see through the “ballot candy” if the initiative petition legislation makes it to the ballot.

“Mark my words, this will be defeated. Missourians will say no to minority rule,” Nurrenbern said of the initiative petition bill. “Our folks in suburban districts are going to be coming out in record numbers to make sure that all of you know that they’re not going to be tricked.”

In the meantime, Nurrenbern said she hopes that when the bill reaches the Senate floor, “it just all implodes.”

This story was updated at 9:20 a.m. to reflect that citizen-led initiative petitions currently require signatures from 8% of voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts.

State Rep. Aaron McMullen, R-Independence, presents a bill in committee on Jan. 16, 2024 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Rep. Aaron McMullen is fighting an uphill battle — and he knows it.

McMullen, a Republican from Independence, is pushing legislation that would require Missouri’s members of Congress to reside in the district they represent.

But there’s one problem: His proposal conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution states that to be a U.S. representative, a candidate must be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for seven years and a resident of the state they seek to represent at the time of the election. Adding further requirements, such as those proposed in McMullen’s bill, would go against the Constitution.

McMullen’s 2-page proposal states that beginning in the 2026 federal elections, a candidate running to represent a congressional district in Missouri may do so only if they live in that district.

The bill further states that if a candidate runs for a congressional district in which the boundaries have not been changed in the past 24 months, that candidate must reside in that district for a period of 12 months before the election and for three months if the district’s boundaries have been changed. Before a candidate’s name appears on the ballot, their residency would have to be verified by the secretary of state’s office, the bill states.

But all of these requirements conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as determined by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1995.

In that ruling, Arkansas residents passed an amendment to their state constitution that sought to limit the number of terms members of their state legislatures and their congressional representatives could serve. In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that putting additional requirements on members of Congress is prohibited, and thus unconstitutional. The ruling invalidated similar measures passed by 22 other states, including Missouri.

“This is going to be a long process,” McMullen said in an interview, adding that he and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office are currently working to amend some language in the bill.

When McMullen first presented his bill during last year’s session, he faced stern opposition from Rep. Adam Schwadron, a St. Charles Republican, who called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional” and said he couldn’t support it.

Last week, Schwadron again laid out his argument for why the bill is flawed when it was heard by the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee.

“I understand where people are coming from,” Schwadron later said in his office. “Unfortunately, I don’t want to have to spend state money on something that we 100% know will be struck down by the courts.”

The question at the heart of McMullen’s bill is one of representation. Specifically, whether a candidate who doesn’t live in a particular district should be able to represent it.

The Missouri Constitution lays out requirements for members of the legislature, which includes district residency. But the U.S. Constitution, while specifying age, citizenship and state residency requirements, does not address the issue.

“The members of the Constitutional Convention were familiar with district residency requirements and many of the states imposed them in state constitutions. But they did not choose to put them in the U.S. Constitution,” said Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri. “While many Americans might agree on requiring district representation, it could only be mandated through a constitutional amendment.”

And an amendment is something McMullen, a candidate for Senate District 11, said he is open to.

“I feel like what this bill does is start the conversation to try to look and, you know, amend, possibly, the (U.S.) Constitution,” he said. “Everybody agrees with the concept and agrees that this is something that needs to be fixed. It’s just a long and arduous process.”

In 1996, Missouri residents passed a constitutional amendment that sought to place term limits on members of Congress to a maximum of three terms for House representatives and two for Senators. The measure passed with more than 57%, but was deemed invalid by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2001 decision.

Opposition to McMullen’s bill is sparse, with most either indifferent as a result of the legal hurdles still in its way or concerned with the precedent it might set.

“I get a little bit weary anytime we start confining the requirements that are already in the federal constitution,” said Rep. Kevin Windham, a Democrat from Hillsdale, who sits on the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee.

Windham said the bill raises a few red flags for him as it relates to placing boundaries around certain areas of the law.

“The state legislature draws the lines for congressional districts. What happens when what has seemingly been a practice of drawing folks out of certain congressional districts (occurs during redistricting every 10 years)? It has a little bit more of an effect when you say that that person can’t run at all in that district,” Windham said.

Windham added that he thinks there’s a clear conflict of interest when the legislature controls the process of both drawing the lines for congressional districts and narrowing down the district residency requirements in the U.S. Constitution.

“It puts, at least me, in particular, in a weird space as far as being able to support (the bill),” Windham said.

Squire said candidates can easily find themselves in new districts following redistricting, which could then place them in situations where they’re running for a district they do not live in.

“District lines shift and candidates may not want to move with them,” Squire said.

“In urban areas,” he added, “the lines don’t usually match media markets and members may be sufficiently well-known to run even if they don’t currently live in the district.”

It’s been nearly 32 years since the U.S. Constitution has last been amended, when in May 1992 Michigan became the 38th state needed to ratify the 27th Amendment.

Yet despite the slim odds McMullen’s bill might be facing during this legislative session, he remains optimistic.

“The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step,” McMullen said.

And if he somehow manages to pull it off, beginning the process of amending the U.S Constitution, even Schwadron, McMullen’s most ardent opponent, said he would support it.

“I would vote for that,” Schwadron said, “I would approve that, so long as it is an amendment to the United States Constitution.”

This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online. 

Washington Metropolitan Police body camera footage shows Joseph W. Fischer in the U.S. Capitol at 3:25 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 6, 2021 (U.S. District Court documents).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a Jan. 6, 2021, case that could potentially upend convictions for a mass of Capitol riot defendants and slash some election interference charges against former President Donald Trump.

The case, Fischer v. United States, centers on whether former Pennsylvania police officer and Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer violated an obstruction statute when he joined the mob that entered the U.S. Capitol and prevented Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election results for several hours.

The justices, appearing split and at times opaque in their individual stances, questioned Fischer’s attorney Jeffrey Green and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar for more than 90 minutes, though they grilled Prelogar for twice as long as Green.

“We thought it went about as well as it could, but we still think it will be a very close case,” Green told States Newsroom outside the court following arguments.

The provision in question stems from an early 2000s law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that passed after the Enron accounting scandal and targets “whoever corruptly … otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

In this particular case, the proceeding is referring to the joint session of Congress to certify the 2020 presidential election results.

The government maintains that Fischer had an intent to disrupt the proceeding, and points to his text messages in the preceding days that discuss stopping the democratic process and committing physical harm of Congress members.

The Justice Department also maintains video evidence shows Fischer assaulting a police officer and encouraging rioters to “charge” into the Capitol.

Fischer’s team argues that he wasn’t present while Congress was meeting, and that he only had a “four-minute foray to about 20 feet inside the Capitol.”

A lower trial court last year granted Fischer’s motion to dismiss the felony charge against him after he argued the clause is inseparable from preceding language that refers only to tampering with physical evidence.

The U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the ruling, though the three-judge panel split. Judge Florence Y. Pan wrote in the lead opinion that the statute is “unambiguous” in its meaning of what constitutes obstructing an official proceeding.

Roughly 350 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged under the same statute, and about 50 have been sentenced, according to Prelogar.

The clause in the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act is also at the core of two of the four election subversion charges brought against Trump by U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith.

Whether those charges stand now hangs on whether the justices agree that the law applies to Fischer’s actions at the U.S Capitol.

If the justices rule in Fischer’s favor, Trump would almost certainly challenge the government’s case, further delaying an already drawn out legal process as the 2024 presidential election inches closer.

Additionally, numerous Jan. 6 defendants convicted of the charge, among the most serious levied against them, could challenge and potentially re-open their cases.

A ruling is expected in late June or early July.

This developing story will be updated.

A rendering of the Royals proposed downtown ballpark (image submitted).

The Royals and the Chiefs had everything.

Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce — fresh off of a Super Bowl victory — endorsed a “yes” vote in ads airing on TV and on YouTube. Endorsements rolled in from the city’s top political players: Mayor Quinton Lucas (belatedly), U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and nearly every union in town.

All in all, the teams spent $3 million trying to convince voters a 40-year sales tax for a downtown ballpark would mean a win for everybody.

From a thorny stadium location and murky financial details to a community benefits agreement that drew criticism from workers groups and economists, the weeks leading up to the vote brought gaffe after gaffe, all in the public eye.

Jackson County voters couldn’t be convinced. With turnout higher than a typical April election and an unprecedented level of early voting, they shot the sales tax down by a 16-point margin.

The theories on what cursed the pitch to voters will pile up like Royals losses this summer, but some reasons already stick out.

‘No’ votes are easier than ‘yes’ votes

Any number of opposition groups will claim that the sales tax failed because of one key reason or another.

But a lot has to go wrong for a referendum to lose by such a wide margin.

In many ways, the stadium sales tax question was so complicated that it was doomed from the start, said Debra Leiter, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

“It wasn’t just a three-eighths cent sales tax,” she said. “It came with a load of baggage.”

If a voter supported funding the Chiefs but not the Royals, they were a “no” vote. If they wanted a downtown ballpark but not in the Crossroads, they were a “no” vote. If they wanted a downtown ballpark in the Crossroads but with a stronger community benefits agreement, they were a “no” vote.

That made it easy to convince voters that the stadium tax was a bad deal.

“The coalition with a small but clear message and less funding ended up winning,” Leiter said. “It’s a good reminder that it’s not just how much you spend. The message that you’re selling really can influence what voters are going to end up doing.”

KC Tenants, the citywide tenants union, managed to hone its message in a way that resonated with voters. The group expanded its reach into eastern Jackson County ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“People out here have a real bullshit detector,” said Keith Sadler, a leader with KC Tenants who lives in Blue Springs. “People can really hear when the message keeps changing.”

Big price tag, shrinking team leverage for a stadium tax

Part of the problem for some voters rested in the price tag and an awareness that taxpayers have become increasingly weary of subsidizing the stadiums of big-money sports teams.

For a referendum like Question 1, the teams would only want to win by a narrow margin, said Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economics professor at Smith College. Winning by a big margin, he said, would signal that they could have squeezed more tax dollars out of a deal.

“​​If they were to win 60%,” he said, “it means that they haven’t asked for as much as they could have asked for.”

At the same time, teams are losing the sway they once enjoyed with voters and the leverage to score better terms with taxpayers.

Patrick Tuohey, a senior fellow at the anti-tax Show-Me Institute, said teams will need to reevaluate their approach going forward. Public sentiment is shifting, he said, and that will require a new approach from sports teams nationwide seeking public stadium subsidies.

He pointed to Virginia, where the Democratic-controlled legislature last month declined to include any state dollars for an arena that would bring the region’s hockey and basketball teams from Washington, D.C., into Virginia. The package was a top priority of the state’s Republican governor.

It will be difficult for teams looking to make a move to find a friendly destination that’s willing to pay, Zimbalist said.

“(Teams) claim they’re going to be wonderful economic engines — they’re not,” Zimbalist said. “More and more cities are realizing that.”

In Jackson County, anger about 2023’s property tax assessments is still swirling, said Mark Jones, the chairman of the county GOP.

“We’re just not through with the 2023 property tax debacle,” Jones said. “People are still in their appeal process. People have absolutely no appetite for anything to increase taxes.”

A fear-based approach — that the Royals might leave Kansas City for a place like Salt Lake City that’s trying to seduce teams with big subsidies — won’t work for Republicans in Jackson County, Jones said.

“Don’t patronize us with threats,” he said.

What the teams will have to do differently next time to pass a stadium tax

Team owners Clark Hunt and John Sherman will have to go back to the drawing board, Tuohey said.

“The Chiefs and Royals can come back and demonstrate that they’ve listened, they’ve learned a lesson,” he said. “Jackson County doesn’t want the teams to leave. I don’t think the teams will want to leave.”

The cost of moving a team from city to city is high. When Rams owner Stan Kroenke decided to move the football team from St. Louis to Los Angeles, he ultimately had to agree to a settlement of $790 million. That’s real money even for an NFL owner.

When teams inevitably ask for tax money again, they’ll need a better rollout. And elected officials will need to get on the same page, Leiter said, pointing to Jackson County Executive Frank White’s opposition to the measure and Mayor Lucas’ eleventh-hour endorsement.

Tuohey said the Royals and Chiefs may need to revisit the economic argument for stadium subsidies.

“(Teams have) been able to make claims of economic benefit in the past,” he said. “They’ve been able to threaten to leave. That has worked in the past. I think that may not work anymore.”

Translating this momentum into future political movements

The vote saw left-leaning KC Tenants campaigning on the same side as the libertarian Show-Me Institute and some Republicans in eastern Jackson County.

But for other issues, it’s unlikely that Kansas City will see these groups work together again, Leiter said.

Many Jackson County voters, left and right, share a common sentiment: it’s not the time to foot the bill for those who don’t really need the help.

“It’s a unique movement that’s anti-elite,” Leiter said. “There is a lot of skepticism and people are skeptical of how the government is spending money.”

That’s what organizers and political parties are hoping to translate into future elections.

“I know we’re not going to get the entire coalition,” Jones said. “But as much of this coalition as we can that backs this populism, let’s translate that into the fall. … We’re tired of paying the entire bill.”

The KC Tenants group senses that momentum, as well, and is looking at expanding its reach into other parts of eastern Jackson County by propping up a new union in Independence.

The way voters rallied in opposition points to the importance of participating in local politics, Tuohey said.

“You don’t have to be a liberal or conservative to know that the potholes are making you crazy or that you want your trash to be picked up,” he said. “Municipal politics is the least beholden to these broad, vague national things. It’s really just that people want a return on their investment.”

This article first appeared on The Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Over the past several years, national voting rights and gun violence prevention advocates have been sounding the alarm over increased threats around elections, pointing to ballooning disinformation, looser gun laws, record firearm sales and vigilantism at polling locations and ballot tabulation centers (Photo illustration by Getty images).

Facing increased threats to election workers and superheated political rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his supporters, more states are considering firearm bans at polling places and ballot drop boxes ahead of November’s presidential election.

This month, New Mexico became the latest state to restrict guns where people vote or hand in ballots, joining at least 21 other states with similar laws — some banning either open or concealed carry but most banning both.

Nine of those prohibitions were enacted in the past two years, as states have sought to prevent voter intimidation or even violence at the polls driven by Trump’s false claims of election rigging. At least six states are debating bills that would ban firearms at polling places or expand existing bans to include more locations.

The New Mexico measure, which was supported entirely by Democrats, applies to within 100 feet of polling places and 50 feet of ballot drop boxes. People who violate the law are subject to a petty misdemeanor charge that could result in six months in jail.

“Our national climate is increasingly polarized,” said Democratic state Rep. Reena Szczepanski, one of the bill’s sponsors. “Anything we can do to turn the temperature down and allow for the safe operation of our very basic democratic right, voting, is critical.”

She told Stateline that she and her co-sponsors were inspired to introduce the legislation after concerned Santa Fe poll workers, who faced harassment by people openly carrying firearms during the 2020 presidential election, reached out to them.

The bill carved out an exception for people with concealed carry permits and members of law enforcement. Still, every Republican in the New Mexico legislature opposed the measure; many said they worried that gun owners might get charged with a crime for accidentally bringing their firearm to the polling place.

“We have a lot of real crime problems in this state,” said House Minority Floor Leader Ryan Lane, a Republican, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. “It’s puzzling to me why we’re making this a priority.”

But over the past several years, national voting rights and gun violence prevention advocates have been sounding the alarm over increased threats around elections, pointing to ballooning disinformation, looser gun laws, record firearm sales and vigilantism at polling locations and ballot tabulation centers.

National surveys show that election officials have left the field in droves because of the threats they’re facing, and many who remain in their posts are concerned for their safety.

Add in aggressive rhetoric from Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and it becomes “a storm” that makes it essential for states to pass laws that prohibit guns at polling places, said Robyn Sanders, a Democracy Program counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights group based at the New York University School of Law.

“Our democracy has come under new and unnerving pressure based on the emergence of the election denial movement, disinformation and false narratives about the integrity of our elections,” said Sanders, who co-authored a September report on how to protect elections from gun violence. The report was a partnership between the Brennan Center and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“The presence of guns in these places presents a risk of violence,” she added.

Increased threat environment

Over the past four years, threats have gone beyond voicemails, emails or social media posts. Armed vigilantes have harassed voters at ballot drop boxes and shown up outside vote tabulation centers. Other people reportedly have shot at local election officials.

While several states have enacted laws in recent years criminalizing threats to election officials, some states want to take it a step further through gun restrictions.

This year, primarily Democratic lawmakers in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia have introduced legislation that would ban most firearms in or near polling places or other election-related places. Most of these bills remain in committee.

Some of the states have seen political violence in recent years, including Pennsylvania, where a man tried to go into a Harrisburg polling place in November with a firearm and acted threateningly, confronting voters and pointing an unloaded gun at an unoccupied police cruiser.

A bill in Virginia to ban firearms at polling places got through the state legislature on a party-line vote this month, but Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has not yet acted on the legislation. His press office did not respond to a request for more information.

Two Democratic-backed bills in Michigan seek to ban most firearms at or within 100 feet of polling places, and ballot drop boxes and clerks’ offices during the 40 days before an election. They have passed the state Senate but await votes in the House.

Democratic state Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, the sponsor of one of those bills, told Stateline she expects the legislation to pass in April, after special elections fill two vacant seats.

“We want to make sure that we’re able to attract the needed election workers, and that they feel safe doing those jobs,” she said. “Sadly, we’re seeing more and more gun violence throughout our state and our nation. And I strongly believe that everyone should feel safe when they’re voting.”

But these bills are “good for headlines and nothing else,” said GOP state Sen. Jim Runestad in a statement on the Senate Republicans’ website.

“When one considers the sheer number of drop boxes placed throughout larger communities, like in the city of Detroit, these places could be nearly impossible to avoid,” he wrote, referring to gun owners.

One of his proposed amendments that failed would have exempted gun owners carrying guns for non-election-related business, such as going into a store near a ballot drop box.

In 2020, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson attempted to ban firearms within 100 feet of polling places, clerks’ offices and absentee ballot counting centers. But Michigan courts blocked her effort, finding she didn’t have the authority.

Michigan was one of many states where election officials faced violent threats during the 2020 presidential election. Last month, a man pleaded guilty to federal charges for threatening the life of former Rochester Hills Clerk Tina Barton, saying she deserved a “throat to the knife.”

There is broad bipartisan support among voters to ban firearms at polling places. According to a 2022 poll of more than 1,000 adults commissioned by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, nearly 80% of Democrats and more than half of Republicans and independents polled thought guns should be banned at polling places. Overall, 63% of adults surveyed supported a ban.

But that cross-party support has not translated to state legislatures.

Where are the bans?

Democratic-controlled states have spearheaded the effort to ban firearms at polling places in recent years, with only a handful of Republican lawmakers joining Democrats to pass the bills in some states.

In 2022, Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Washington state passed firearm restrictions at polling places. In 2023, California, Delaware, Hawaii and Maryland joined the list.

Nevada’s majority-Democratic legislature passed a similar ban last year, but Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed it. He said the measure would have infringed on the constitutional rights of Nevadans.

Maryland’s ban is facing a legal challenge from gun rights groups and activists who argue such bans infringe on Second Amendment protections and are ineffective.

“It’s a solution looking for a problem,” said Andi Turner, a spokesperson for the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is part of the lawsuit challenging the law. “We don’t have people threatening at polling places or going and shooting up election workers. I don’t see why this needs to be a thing.”

The states that had polling place firearm bans prior to the 2020 presidential election now have Republican-controlled legislatures: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas.

Georgia’s ban dates back to 1870, and in 1874 the state Supreme Court wrote that having a firearm at a polling place “is a thing so improper in itself, so shocking to all sense of propriety, so wholly useless and full of evil, that it would be strange if the framers of the constitution have used words broad enough to give it a constitutional guarantee.”

More Republican-led states should consider firearm prohibitions at polling places, said Jessie Ojeda, the guns and democracy attorney fellow at the Giffords Law Center, and one of the co-authors of the joint Brennan and Giffords report.

Gun safety advocates such as Ojeda see an opening for these laws, even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that widened the definition of protected firearm access. While the court struck down New York’s law that prohibited firearms in public, it did leave open the potential for bans in “sensitive places,” specifically noting polling places.

“We need to take action before 2024,” said Ojeda. “We have a growing number of incidents when firearms are thankfully not being used to shoot people, but they are being used to intimidate and deter voters and election officials from doing their job.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

Missouri state Sens. Denny Hoskins, left, and Rick Brattin, center, confer with Freedom Caucus Director Tim Jones, right. Hoskins and Brattin are Republicans and members of the State Freedom Caucus Network, which aims to push the party further to the right (Elaine S. Povich/Stateline).

When a Republican colleague threatened to read aloud from a 2-foot stack of books — including a biblical guide to leadership and a tome by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist — to protest inaction on his bills last week, Missouri state Sen. Rick Brattin quickly took up the cause.

Seizing on a chance to hijack the planned schedule, Brattin spoke for about 45 minutes, accusing the leaders of his own Republican Party of ignoring some bills and making things “really frustrating” for ultra-conservative members. He often waved his arms for emphasis, as other senators sat flipping through papers, waiting for the session to begin.

“It leads to things coming to a halt in this chamber,” he said. “I wish we would do things people actually want.”

Brattin is chair of Missouri’s Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican legislators who aim to push their party further to the right on issues such as immigration, voting access and transgender restrictions.

But some other Republicans say members of the Freedom Caucus gum up the legislative works and are more interested in publicity and grandstanding than conservative policymaking. Frustrated by such tactics, Missouri Senate leaders stripped four Freedom Caucus senators, including Brattin, of their chairmanships and parking spots earlier this year.

“It’s hard to do stuff even when everybody’s acting in good faith,” said Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, a Columbia Republican. Rowden once derided the Freedom Caucus members as “swamp creatures who all too often remind me more of my children than my colleagues.” He added that last week’s delay was a mix-up and that the bills at issue would come to the floor.

“They did that repeatedly, day after day for two weeks, basically,” Rowden said in an interview last week at his spacious desk in his high-ceilinged office across the hall from the Senate. “It became necessary for us to do something that would indicate that we’re not going to let four guys run the place. It’s just not how this works.”

The Missouri Freedom Caucus claims at least six senators and is approaching a dozen House members. There are similar chapters in 10 other states so far that are officially part of the State Freedom Caucus Network, an outgrowth of the congressional group that has held up deals and helped oust speakers in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The state chapters are proposing conservative legislation and slowing measures they don’t like, even bills that were once considered routine and noncontroversial. And its members in many states, including Missouri, are running for higher office. But regardless of whether they succeed on legislation, they excel at getting publicity and drawing attention to themselves.

That is by design, Andrew Roth, president of the Washington, D.C.-based network, told Stateline.

“What we try to do is push conservative policy,” he said. “If we win, we win. If we lose, we’re exposing the fake Republicans for who they are. They will then have to answer to their constituents. We feel like we win either way.”

The national organization provides the state caucuses with support and funding. That includes the salary of each state director, none of whom is a legislator, according to Roth.

The state directors pay attention to what’s going on in state government even when the legislatures are not in session and the mostly part-time lawmakers are home tending to other business. They can alert the more than 160 members to issues and either get them to call a news conference or draft legislation to be considered in the next session to highlight their priorities.

Tim Jones, a former Missouri House speaker who is now director of the state’s Freedom Caucus, said in an interview that since the parking spaces kerfuffle, the caucus has picked up five new members in the House.

“It’s not meant to be a publicity stunt for anybody,” he insisted. “It’s supposed to be the conservative North Star of the General Assembly.”

State Sen. Bill Eigel, a Missouri caucus member from Weldon Spring who is running for governor, said taking his parking spot “is kind of the height of pettiness,” but that he won’t be deterred.

“They are trying to silence us, just like they are trying to silence Donald Trump,” Eigel said in an interview. “Unfortunately for them, it’s not going to work. We’re going to continue to be bold.”

Eigel said he parks “down by the river” now, a few blocks away from the underground Capitol garage. His wife is happy that the extra walk means he’s getting in a few more steps each day, he quipped.

Pushing to the right

Like most other Republicans, Freedom Caucus members across states have championed school vouchers, pushed to send state troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to pursue migrants crossing into the country illegally, and opposed large state budgets and transgender medical care for minors.

But the Freedom Caucuses formed because some Republicans saw the rest of their party as not conservative enough. That has led to intraparty conflict in many GOP-dominated state capitols.

In Missouri, for example, the Senate passed a bill that would make it harder to amend the state constitution, if voters approve the measure, after leaders stripped a provision backed by the Freedom Caucus to ban non-citizens from voting.

The Missouri Constitution already restricts voting only to citizens, but Freedom Caucus members argued the ban could be made even more explicit. Democrats disagreed and staged a filibuster that tied up the Senate; Republican leaders eventually agreed to take the provisions out, drawing the Freedom Caucus’s ire.

Eigel would like the House to put the tougher provisions back in. Still, he claims credit for the Senate victory.

“If the Freedom Caucus doesn’t stand up and cause a ruckus, the [ballot] initiative petition doesn’t move,” he said.

In Idaho, Republican leaders removed some Freedom Caucus members from committee leadership late last year. And in South Carolina, some Freedom Caucusers who refused to sign a loyalty oath pledging not to campaign against other Republican members, which is against party rules, were dumped from the House Republican caucus.

Matthew Green, a politics professor at the Catholic University of America who has studied the state Freedom Caucuses extensively, said in an interview that the state caucuses are “arguably more important than the U.S. House Freedom Caucus for policymaking.”

In a forthcoming paper, Green found that state legislative conservative caucuses — precursors of the current Freedom Caucuses — began to form as early as 2017, driven by lawmakers who found the GOP in their states insufficiently conservative.

But since 2021, the caucuses have formed at the behest of the national State Freedom Caucus Network, “illustrating how national interest groups and elected officials can contribute to state-level polarization,” he said. His study also found that lawmakers who lack power and influence are more likely to join the caucuses.

These caucuses, Green said, have been able to “move [the] party’s agenda further rightward, especially if the caucus constitutes a sizable proportion of the party.”

Delaying tactics can force Republican leaders to act on some issues, he said. “Seems like if the Freedom Caucus is disruptive and confrontational, they can win battles.”

Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, said the Freedom Caucus members in Missouri take advantage of unlimited debate to slow the legislature down “to a snail’s pace. Given the rules … it is relatively easy for them to gum up the process when they are unhappy with the way things are going,” he wrote in an email. That means even bills with broad GOP support have not made it all the way through the process, he wrote.

The animosity is not restricted to Missouri. In South Carolina, Green said, there’s “basically a civil war” going on in the supermajority Republican Party.

Members of the South Carolina Freedom Caucus refused to pledge not to fund challengers to GOP incumbents; that flouted a 2006 law that prohibited “special interest” caucuses from raising money and becoming otherwise involved in political campaigns. Only major caucuses organized by political party, race, ethnicity or gender — the Democratic, Republican, Black and Women’s caucuses — were allowed political operations. The ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus argued that was unfair in a suit against the legislature’s Ethics Committee. Last year, a federal judge agreed.

Rep. RJ May, one of the leaders of the South Carolina Freedom Caucus, said that the law was a way to “sign away our First Amendment rights. The establishment attempted to weaponize the rules,” he told Stateline.

May said that one of the reasons the Freedom Caucus formed in South Carolina is that the majority Republicans don’t “follow the party platform” and are too willing to compromise. The push gained steam, he said, when GOP legislative leaders began to only allow floor amendments from leadership, not rank-and-file lawmakers.

“People in South Carolina are sick and tired of leaders saying one thing at home and doing something different in Columbia. They say they are for reducing the size of government, but they vote for budget after budget that increases the number of agencies.”

May said his caucus has had some victories, such as championing a bill that passed the House to ban gender-affirming care for minors. (The bill is awaiting action in the Senate.) Caucus members also claim credit for reducing the state’s spending bill, though many of its members’ amendments were rejected, such as a move to give grants to churches and nonprofits to bolster the foster care system.

May echoed leaders in Missouri and elsewhere by saying that passing a bill is not necessarily the goal. “We have the effect of moving the body to the right,” he said.

House Speaker Murrell Smith’s staff did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did he comment for local media stories about the caucus.

‘The farm team’

Most of the Freedom Caucuses formed in states with Republican supermajorities. An exception is Pennsylvania, where the governor is a Democrat and Democrats control the House, while Republicans control the Senate.

The Freedom Caucus there has filed a lawsuit accusing Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Gov. Josh Shapiro, of unconstitutionally wresting power from the legislature over expanding access to elections in the state. Just last week, a federal judge dismissed the suit.

Pennsylvania Rep. Dawn Keefer, the Republican Freedom Caucus chair, who is running for the state Senate, had no immediate comment on the ruling to local media. Nor would she comment for this story.

In Arizona, Freedom Caucus members, led by chair Sen. Jake Hoffman, spearheaded a drive that resulted in the state Board of Education delaying until next year a proposed new handbook governing how parents use state-funded educational savings accounts to send their kids to private schools. The new handbook was designed to tighten the rules for using the accounts.

Hoffman said parents had not been given sufficient input. The new rules would have restricted the use of the funds for summer programs and required more updates for use of the money for students with disabilities. He called for a “robust stakeholder working group” to give input into the rule changes. The Board of Education maintained it had consulted parents and other interested parties. Nonetheless, it caved after concerns from families and Freedom Caucus members.

Holding news conferences, filing lawsuits — it’s all part of the State Freedom Caucus Network playbook, according to its director, Roth.

“Our members consider themselves the farm team of the House Freedom Caucus,” he said. “We also provide them communications support, legal support and get them connected with legal groups to help them file lawsuits.”

Back in Missouri, roiling the entrenched GOP leadership is exactly what Freedom Caucus members are doing, Eigel said.

“We’re shaking the status quo just by going through a lot of bills that are brought to the floor and asking a lot of questions that can frustrate folks that are expecting a much easier route to get their special interest priorities to the legislative chamber,” he said just before last week’s Senate session that featured Britton’s delay tactics. “I suspect that if you are watching today, you’re going to see a lot of questions.”

And there were.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

Jamie Corley, a longtime GOP Congressional staffer, announced she is running for Missouri Secretary of State after ending a campaign effort for an initiative petition that would add rape and incest exceptions to Missouri’s abortion ban and legalize abortion up to 12 weeks (photo submitted by Jamie Corley).

A longtime GOP Congressional staffer and leader of an abandoned campaign to legalize abortion is now running for Missouri Secretary of State. 

Jamie Corley, a Republican from University City, officially filed to run in the GOP primary on Monday. This is her first time running for public office.

“There is more to me than abortion, actually,” Corley said after making headlines for the past year for her campaign to legalize the procedure up to 12 weeks and add exceptions for victims of rape and incest. 

She joins Republicans Valentina Gomez, a real estate investor also making her first run for office; Greene County Clerk Shane Schoeller; state Sen. Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg and state Rep. Adam Schwadron of St. Charles. The deadline to file to run in the August primary is Tuesday.

Two Democrats are also in the race: Monique Williams of St. Louis and state Rep. Barbara Phifer of Kirkwood.

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican, is leaving office to run for governor. 

Corley said she made the decision after Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden dropped out of the race last week, leaving open a moderate lane.

Her resume includes several years working in communications for a handful of Republican lawmakers. Corley described herself as having a deep knowledge of banking policy after having managed the banking communications portfolio for former U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee.

She also noted her experience as a small business owner. In 2016 Corley created a nonpartisan newsletter called The Bridge, which she later sold to her co-founder. In addition to overseeing elections, the secretary of state’s office also handles business filings. 

“I want to make it as seamless as possible to do business in Missouri,” Corley said, describing herself as a policy-nerd rather than a “bombastic candidate.”

Corley said her experience filing several initiative petitions informed her decision to run.

Last year, she sued Ashcroft, arguing the ballot summary and fiscal note he wrote for her initiative petitions were inaccurate and unfair. She dropped the lawsuit after dropping her campaign. 

Corley ended her abortion campaign in February after she was out-fundraised by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, a coalition whose backers include Abortion Action Missouri, the ACLU of Missouri and Planned Parenthood that’s attempting to put a constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot that would legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability. 

Corley continues to lead Missouri Women and Family Research Fund, a nonprofit she launched late last year. After dropping her ballot initiative campaign, Corley said she hoped to focus her nonprofit around conducting data-driven research and polling to inform legislators on the effects of abortion bans. 

“During the ballot initiative, and even before the ballot initiative, I talked to Republicans for the past two years about a really hot button issue and a lot of people opened up to me in ways that they’re not telling their Republican book club,” she said.

Corley doesn’t believe her abortion stance will affect her chances at a fair fight, adding that she’s more closely aligned with former President Donald Trump’s stance on abortion than the other Republican candidates. 

The Republican nominee for president has said he supports a 15 week federal ban.

“These candidates who just insist on defending this abortion ban,” Corley said, “you’re really bucking President Trump and that’s a strategic decision they’ll have to make.” 

KCPS wants the Royals to fund the DeLano Youth Housing and Supportive Services project, which would rehabilitate the closed school to provide shelter to at-risk youth (Mili Mansaray/The Beacon).

The Royals, vying for support weeks before voters will decide whether to promise them decades of tax money, are finalizing terms to give Kansas City Public Schools money to offset the loss of property taxes.

The team’s plans for a stadium and entertainment district in the East Crossroads would swallow up six blocks of real estate that would otherwise represent nearly $1.4 billion in property taxes over 40 years.

The news of a deal between the team and the school district comes a day after the Royals promised millions in a community benefits agreement — a deal that some organizations say offers too little.

Jackson County legislators say an agreement to offset the loss of property taxes means the new stadium won’t hurt public schools or shift the district’s tax burden onto other property owners.

Yet school officials argue that the team needs to pay for other community benefits. They contend that public schools might come out even on the property tax loss, but that public schools don’t get anything out of a downtown stadium.

The Royals have yet to make similar promises to other taxing districts that support libraries and mental health care.

Is KCPS gaining anything with this deal?

In 2023, the land targeted for the stadium and entertainment district generated $1.4 million in property tax revenue. Land in the area that would generate an additional $500,000 a year already benefits from tax exemptions or abatements.

The former Kansas City Star building got tax abatements until it shut down in 2021, said Dan Moye, vice president of land development at the Economic Development Corp. of Kansas City. He said the property lost its tax abatement when it stopped functioning as a printing facility.

KCPS got $850,000 in property taxes from the six-block area in 2023, according to a statement released by the district.

At least four of the six city blocks targeted for the ballpark district would be owned by Jackson County, which doesn’t pay property taxes. If voters approve a 3/8-cents sales tax extension on April 2, the county would purchase the land and the Royals would sign a lease with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority. Officials involved with the project remain unsure whether the two blocks the county wouldn’t own would be assessed property taxes.

If the stadium were built on privately owned land — say, if the Royals paid for the project on their own — county records suggest it would pay KCPS $16 million in property taxes the first year and $745 million over 40 years.

In a statement on Thursday, KCPS said it landed a guarantee that the district would not lose property tax funding and that the team would give paid internships to three to five students a year for 10 years.

Yet the district wanted more. It called for the Royals to fund its literacy programs and the cost of running the  DeLano Youth Housing and Supportive Services project. The DeLano project would revamp a former KCPS school building to provide shelter, transitional living and support services to youth ages 14 to 21.

“We are disappointed that we have been unable to secure any direct long-term benefits to the district,” the district’s statement said.

What will KCPS get from the county Community Benefits Agreement?

The day before this announcement to offset the loss of property taxes on a downtown stadium, the team committed to a community benefits agreement with the Jackson County-backed Community Benefits Coalition. While the coalition negotiated its own CBA with the Royals, KCPS has been advocating for a separate benefits agreement targeted at public education.

The Chiefs and Royals have committed to providing $260 million over the next 40 years to support Jackson County residents and workers. The Royals pledged $140 million over 40 years, or $3.5 million a year.

Initially, the coalition’s community benefits draft proposed both teams pay $1.4 billion in community benefits, including $120 million for education over 40 years. When their housing demands got slashed, leaders representing the Missouri Workers Center and Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom left the coalition.

“What the Kansas City Royals released today is far from reflective of any ‘significant input’ they claim to have gathered,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “The Royals have given themselves outsized power in making appointments to the ‘CBA Board’ responsible (omitting) a clear indication that community members will have any meaningful say.”

Leaders with the Metro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity (MORE2) also left the coalition.

Lora McDonald, executive director of  MORE2, said that her organization pulled out because she had to watch the negotiations on a television in a separate room.

“The people convening the table for Jackson County in this process wanted me, representing forty congregations and non-profits, to be sidelined,” she said in a statement. “I hope the Royals … can reach an agreement that somehow benefits the community. I can watch television at home.”

The terms of the official CBA haven’t been released, but Jackson County Legislator Manny Abarca said the team is offering “a historic level of benefits.”

Abarca said the school district is being promised more money than needed.

“The Royals told me they’re standing by figures I would even say are unreasonable based on incorrectly assessed values of 2023,” he said.

What about other tax jurisdictions?

Meanwhile, the Royals haven’t promised money to public libraries or mental health services that would lose revenue when more property in the proposed ballpark district becomes tax-exempt.

In 2023, Kansas City Public Library drew $90,000 in property taxes from the area. Without the existing tax abatements, the six blocks would have generated  $120,000 for libraries.

“We’re talking about a 40-year agreement at a minimum of $120,000 (a year),” said Debbie Siragusa, the library district’s assistant director.

That, she said, is the equivalent of hiring two workers.

Over 40 years, the library district would receive nearly $72 million from the ballpark if it was privately owned. The libraries get 95% of their money from property taxes. Siragusa said her office has not heard anything from the Royals.

“No one has reached out to us either from the Royals or the county,” she said.

She said the library district will be reaching out to the team this week, but developers going through tax incentive agencies are typically required to approach taxing districts.

“For a significant tax incentive, this is not how it would normally happen,” Siragusa said. “We have worked very hard with the city to make sure the taxing jurisdictions, including the library, have an opportunity to talk with developers and incentive agencies so we have input early on.”

The Jackson County Community Mental Health Fund is fully funded by property taxes. Bruce Eddy, the executive director, also hasn’t heard from the team. It stands to lose $350,000 a year, or $14 million over 40 years.

“I don’t know if there’s an intention of paying all of it, some of it, or none of it,” Eddy said.

The abatement the property receives from being leased with a government entity makes the stadium deal unique, said Dan Moye with the EDCKC. Although he is not involved with the deal, he said tax incentive agencies are subject to specific rules.

“A public agency will own the new stadium,” he said, “so it won’t go through the traditional abatement process.”

This article first appeared on The Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

A lawsuit filed by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana alleged the federal government pressured social media companies to target conservative speech across a range of topics, from the efficacy of vaccines to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election (Photo Illustration by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images).

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday morning in a potentially landmark case involving the federal government’s efforts to encourage social media companies to remove misinformation from their platforms.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana. It alleges the federal government colluded with social media companies such as Twitter, now called X, and Facebook to suppress the freedom of speech.

The government specifically targeted conservative speech, the attorneys general contend, across a range of topics — from the efficacy of vaccines to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. 

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who inherited the lawsuit from his predecessor, called the federal government’s actions “the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history.

“We’re fighting to build a wall of separation between tech and state to preserve our First Amendment right to free, fair and open debate,” Bailey said in an emailed statement. 

In a statement Thursday, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the case has uncovered 20,000 pages of documents that reveal an “extensive censorship campaign” on the part of President Joe Biden.

“George Orwell wrote ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ as a warning against tyranny,” Murrill said. “He never intended it to be used as a how-to guide by the federal government.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the Biden administration in the lawsuit, said in a filing asking the Supreme Court to take the case that the government was entitled to express its views and persuade others to take action.

“A central dimension of presidential power,” she wrote, “is the use of the office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest.”

Social media companies are private entities, Prelogar wrote, that made independent decisions about what to remove.

Monday’s case will be argued by Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general. Considered a rising star in conservative legal circles, Aguiñaga served as a law clerk for Judge Edith Jones, a conservative Ronald Reagan appointee on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Don Willett, then on the Texas Supreme Court. 

Aguiñaga was also a member of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate Judiciary Committee staff and chief of staff in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Trump administration. 

Most notably, Aguiñaga served as a clerk for Justice Samuel Alito during the Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term. 

‘Immensely important case’

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a court nominee of President Donald Trump, ruled that officials under both Biden and Trump coerced social media companies to censor content over concerns it would fuel vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or upend elections.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans prohibited the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from having practically any contact with the social media companies. It found that the Biden administration most likely overstepped the First Amendment by urging the major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content.

The Supreme Court placed a temporary stay on the order in October until it decides the case.

Three conservative justices — Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — dissented from the decision to block the injunction, with Alito calling the court’s action “highly disturbing” and arguing it threatened to curtail the discussion of unpopular political views online.

Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, called the lawsuit an “immensely important case that will determine the power of the government to pressure the social media platforms into suppressing speech.”

“The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech,” Abdo said, “but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views.”

Missouri attorney general’s social media lawsuit rallies anti-vaccine activists

The injunction put in place by the lower courts was way too broad, said David Greene, civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Government co-option of content moderation systems is a serious threat to freedom of speech,” Greene said. “But there are clearly times when it is permissible, appropriate and even good public policy for government agencies and officials to inform, communicate with, attempt to persuade or even criticize sites —free of coercion— about the user speech they publish.”

The federal government must be allowed to share information with social media companies in order to ensure the integrity of elections, said Gowri Ramachandran, deputy director of the elections and government program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Having accurate information about elections is critical to American democracy, Ramachandran said, and the proliferation of false information through social media threatens elections and election officials.

“We already had a situation where there was attempted foreign interference during the 2016 election,” she said. “After that, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, said if there’s foreign agents putting propaganda out on his platform, ‘I want to know. Please tell me.’ And so then the government started doing that, and I wouldn’t characterize it as being an instance of even anything close to government censorship.”

Ties to misinformation, conspiracy theories

As the case has meandered through the courts, it has added several co-plaintiffs with long histories of spreading misinformation and debunked conspiracy theories.

That includes Jim Hoft, founder of the right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit, who has built a career on promulgating conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

More recently, Hoft has been among the biggest purveyors of election fraud lies. He currently faces a defamation lawsuit in St. Louis circuit court filed by two Georgia election workers who faced death threats following Gateway Pundit’s false stories about a vote-rigging scheme. 

During appeals court arguments in August, the attorneys general specifically cited Hoft, claiming that he is “currently subjected to an ongoing campaign by federal officials to target the content on his website.”

Another named co-plaintiff in the case is Jill Hines. She is co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana, an anti-vaccine organization that, among other things, advances the theory soundly rejected by medical experts that vaccines are a cause of autism.

Louisiana Illuminator Editor Greg LaRose contributed to this report.

State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman presents her Senate-passed proposal to raise the threshold for passing constitutional amendments proposed by initiative petition to the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee on March 12, 2024 (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).

When Terrence Wise explains Missouri’s initiative petition process to his children, he brings up one particularly remarkable play by the Kansas City Chiefs.

The famous 13 second overtime win against the Buffalo Bills secured the Chiefs a place in the 2023 Super Bowl. As a result of the win, the NFL changed its overtime rules.

“That worked in our favor here in this Super Bowl this year, but that shouldn’t be the game we play when we talk about our democratic process,” Wise says he told his children, and then on Tuesday, Missouri lawmakers. “It should be majority rule and it should be fair and the winner should be the winner.”

Wise, with Stand Up KC, a group of low-wage workers who advocate for better pay and conditions in the Kansas City area, was among those who testified against a bill filed by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, seeking to change Missouri’s citizen-led initiative petition process by making it more difficult to pass constitutional amendments.

The bill went before the House Committee on Elections and Elected Officials on Tuesday, one of the first pieces of Senate legislation to go before the House.

The legislation would require a statewide majority and majority vote in five of the state’s eight congressional districts to pass a constitutional amendment through the initiative petition process or a state convention. Right now, constitutional amendments just need a simple majority of 50% of the votes plus one.

The bill – Senate Joint Resolution 74 – remains a top priority for Missouri Republicans. 

While similar legislation has been introduced several times over the past few years, there’s renewed urgency this session as an initiative petition campaign seeking to legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability continues to garner strong donor support.

In Missouri, all abortions are illegal except in the case of medical emergencies.

Coleman’s bill passed out of the Senate last month after Democrats filibustered for 21 hours, eventually scoring a win after Republicans agreed to remove so-called “ballot candy.” 

In addition to making it harder to enact constitutional amendments, the ballot candy would have asked voters if they want to bar non-citizens from voting and ban foreign entities from contributing to or sponsoring constitutional amendments. 

Democratic senators called the immigration and foreign entities provisions misleading and a sleight of hand meant to confuse voters from the issue at the heart of the amendment.  

Testifying Tuesday, Coleman asked representatives to return the ballot candy to the bill before passing it and sending it to the Senate for a final vote.

While lobbyists with Missouri Right to Life and Campaign for Life continue to testify in support of the bill, Coleman maintained the possibility of abortion landing on the November ballot isn’t her main motivator.

“People should have a voice, they should have a say. And that voice and that say should primarily be through their representative government whom they have a chance to throw out on our ears every two or four years,” Coleman said. “And they should have the ability to directly take something to the ballot, but we want to encourage people to make statutory changes and not constitutional changes.”

Asked if she’s confident the bill, if amended in the House, will pass once it’s back in the Senate, Coleman referred to a process called “previous question.”

Used to kill a filibuster, invoking the rarely-used rule allows the Senate to shut down debate and force a vote on legislation. 

Coleman on Tuesday said that while she and her Republican Senate colleagues opted out of using the rule to end a Senate filibuster last month, it remains in their back pocket when it comes time for a final vote.

As the Senate convened on Wednesday, Minority Leader John Rizzo of Independence and his fellow Democrats shut down any votes for the day, making a decision to filibuster after he learned Coleman threatened to invoke the previous question rule once back in the Senate.

“I have been through the movement of a previous question. It is mass chaos in here,” Rizzo said. “There are hard feelings that happen. People scream and yell at each other to the point where you are worried that people might come to blows.”

Rizzo said he hoped Wednesday’s filibuster would be an isolated event before returning to business as usual Thursday ahead of the legislature’s spring break. The Senate adjourned for the day after nearly two hours.

“Maybe we should’ve had course corrections before this,”Rizzo said Wednesday. “But the bottom line is we can do it today. We can do it now.”

State Rep. Tyson Smith, a Democrat from Columbia, on Tuesday called the bill an attempt to sabotage the initiative petition process and undermine majority rule.

In the past two election cycles, two ballot measures stemming from initiative petitions – Medicaid expansion and recreational marijuana legalization – have passed despite opposition from the GOP majority in the statehouse. Meanwhile, hundreds of other initiative petition campaigns failed to land on the ballot in the first place. 

Initiative petition campaigns are costly, in large part because of how many signatures are required to guarantee the measure makes it to the ballot. Groups are increasingly going through the process to amend the constitution in recent years because they are harder to overturn because a second statewide vote is required to undo any measure that passes.

Coleman and other lawmakers in support of the bill have maintained that changing the initiative petition process would give more voice to rural voters.

Republicans lawmakers have also argued that too many recent initiative petitions have been funded by out-of-state interest groups.

“It seems primarily to be a question of fundraising capability of those who are attempting to push it rather than the quality of the idea put forward when it comes to the initiative petition process,” Coleman said, pushing back on opinions that the initiative petition process is already difficult enough.

‘Uncharted territory’: How would abortion-rights amendment impact Missouri TRAP laws?

An analysis by The Independent found that by including the concurrent majority standard, as few as 23% of voters could defeat a ballot measure. This analysis looked at the majority in the four districts with the fewest number of voters in 2020 and 2022.

“It feels like we’re trying to fix something that ain’t broke,” said Amy Kuo Hammerman, with National Council of Jewish Women St. Louis, testifying in opposition.

Denise Lieberman, director of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, said the citizen initiative petition process is “the purest form of democratic participation.”

“When citizens are allowed to participate under the same ground rules as you all have, it advances our democracy, it encourages citizens to engage in conversations with one another, to talk and debate, to be participants,” she said. “And democracy functions better when that happens.” 

This story was updated at 2:50 p.m. Wednesday to include Senate Democrats’ response to Coleman’s statements during the House committee hearing.

House Speaker Dean Plocher during the legislature's annual veto session on Sept. 13, 2023 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher arranged a series of meetings in the state Capitol last month between GOP legislators and an out-of-state technology vendor, inviting renewed bipartisan criticism of the embattled Republican as he remains the focus of an ongoing ethics investigation. 

The unusual arrangement — including a meeting with GOP leadership that took place in the speaker’s Capitol office — is drawing comparisons to Plocher unsuccessfully pushing last year for the House to spend $800,000 outside the normal bidding process to hire a private company to manage constituent data. 

That push, which allegedly included threatening the jobs of nonpartisan staff who criticized the contract, was among the litany of scandals that eventually led to a House Ethics Committee investigation of Plocher. 

Both Plocher and the owner of Oklahoma-based Western Petition Systems LLC said last month’s meetings were informational and not an effort to solicit a change in state law or win a contract. 

But acting as an emissary for a potential vendor and arranging Capitol meetings with key lawmakers sounds more like the actions of a lobbyist than a legislator, said state Rep. Scott Cupps, a Shell Knob Republican.

Especially, Cupps said, when Plocher is already under an ethics investigation.  

“I’d have been surprised if this was any other speaker. It seems 100% par for the course for Dean,” said Cupps, who serves on the House committee that last year voted against privatizing constituent management services despite Plocher’s behind-the-scenes advocacy. 

Republican lawmakers and staff from the Missouri Secretary of State’s office were invited by the speaker’s office to attend meetings with Bill Shapard, founder of Western Petition Systems LLC.

In 2021, Western Petitions signed a $300,000 contract with  the Oklahoma secretary of state’s office to offer technical assistance for signature verification in the initiative petition process. 

To do something similar in Missouri would require a change to state statute. 

Shapard told The Independent he did not make the trip to Jefferson City in order to score a state contract. He was simply there to provide background on what his company has done in Oklahoma. 

“I had no expectations at all that anything was going to come of it or we were going to end up with some work out of this trip,” he said. “That was not my intention, and that was not the intention that was told in coming up to Missouri.”

Plocher downplayed the significance of the meetings in an email to The Independent, saying his office was connected with Shapard by another Republican legislator who wanted Missouri lawmakers to hear about changes that were implemented to the initiative petition process in Oklahoma. 

Shapard said that legislator was state Rep. Chris Lonsdale of Liberty, who didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Even if nothing inappropriate happened at these meetings, Democratic state Rep. Deb Lavender of Manchester questioned the wisdom of the speaker convening them. 

“He’s already got an ethics investigation against him for something similar,” she said. “Why he would be continuing down the same path seems odd.”

What happened in Oklahoma

Shapard is a longtime political pollster in Oklahoma who founded Western Petition in 2020. On the company’s website, it promises to modernize “the way that petitions are created, signed and validated.”

“Our innovative and automated process searches voter records and matches signatures with registered voters, highlighting discrepancies, and providing a detailed report to the Secretary of State,” the company boasts. 

The company insists on its website that the Oklahoma secretary of state remains in control over the signature verification process and it only supplies hardware, software and consulting services to the state. 

Just as in Missouri, the initiative petition process requires those hoping to put an issue on the ballot to collect a certain amount of signatures and submit them to the secretary of state’s office. 

In Missouri, the secretary of state then works with local election officials to verify that the signatures are legitimate.

Western Petition ran into controversy in 2022 when an initiative petition seeking to legalize recreational marijuana was unable to be placed on the November ballot because of delays in the signature verification process. 

Proponents collected more than 164,000 signatures and expected the verification would take roughly four weeks. It ended up taking seven weeks, pushing past a deadline for mailing overseas and absentee ballots and scuttling any chance of making the ballot that year. 

Shapard said the problems actually began when the Oklahoma Supreme Court waited until May of that year to allow the marijuana campaign to begin collecting signatures. Then the campaign turned in twice the number of signature sheets than he anticipated, Shapard said, which caused the verification process to take longer than originally planned. 

In mid February, Plocher’s office organized meetings in the Missouri Capitol so Shapard could discuss his company’s services with lawmakers and the secretary of state’s office. 

“I’m not a registered lobbyist. I don’t have a lobbyist in Missouri,” Shapard said. “I didn’t come to lobby for anything. I came to share our experience in Oklahoma, what Oklahoma’s problem was and how we fixed it with our solution. I think the speaker’s office and various other House and Senate members wanted to learn more about it to see if it’s a fit for Missouri’s current issues or not.”

Plocher said another legislator suggested a meeting be held to discuss changes in how Oklahoma handles the signature verification process. That legislator, who Shapard said was Lonsdale, “recommended Mr. Shapard as an authority on the subject, since he was involved in the legislative effort in Oklahoma,” Plocher said.  

“The speaker, nor his staff, have any connection with Mr. Shapard,” Plocher’s statement read. 

Shapard agreed that “prior to my visit to Missouri, I’d never had any dealings with Dean Plocher.”

Plocher said in his email to The Independent that he has no position on whether Missouri should follow Oklahoma’s lead, and “there is no effort, legislatively or administratively, to solicit or procure private vendors for signature verification that the speaker, or his office, are aware of.”

Meetings in Missouri

Among those invited to attend the meetings was state Rep. Mike Haffner, a Pleasant Hill Republican sponsoring legislation making changes to signature gathering rules for Missouri’s initiative petition process.

Haffner has been working with attorneys in the secretary of state’s office since 2022 on his legislation, he said, trying to identify and fix problems that have emerged in the process.

His bill, which the House approved last month, includes numerous provisions — ranging from a ban on compensating signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected to a requirement that gatherers reside in Missouri for at least 30 consecutive days prior to the collection of signatures.

Democrats decried Haffner’s legislation as a solution in search of a problem, arguing that it was a continuation of GOP attacks on the initiative petition process. Haffner countered that he was simply trying to ensure out-of-state interests weren’t able to manipulate the system. 

“We have to protect the process,” Haffner said. “Missourians should be in control of the Missouri constitution.”

Haffner said he wasn’t interested in adding any new provisions to his bill to allow private vendors in the process, and felt any discussion of new tools or technology should wait until after the legislature adjourns for the year in May. 

“We talked about some of the technologies that were available,” he said of the meeting he attended. “That may be something that we look at once the legislative session is complete. We deal with those issues in the off session. I prefer just to concentrate on the legislation while we’re in session.”

State Rep. Peggy McGaugh, a Carrollton Republican and chair of the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee, also attended one of the meetings with Shapard. 

She complimented his presentation but said when Shapard mentioned the cost could be more than $300,000, she knew the idea wasn’t going anywhere because it wasn’t already included in the proposed state budget. 

“A lot of the presentation and the handouts were things Missouri already did,” said McGaugh, who previously served 32 years in the Carroll County Clerk’s office.

JoDonn Chaney, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, said two of Ashcroft’s deputies attended a Capitol meeting with Shapard and others at the request of Plocher’s office. 

The secretary of state already has an in-house system in place to verify signatures, Chaney said, and doesn’t see a need to spend taxpayer money to replace something that they believe is working. Chaney also said there could be privacy concerns with allowing a private entity access to voter data.

Those were the twin concerns raised last year when Plocher began pushing House staff to award a contract to a company called Fireside to manage constituent information. 

Records obtained by The Independent last fall through the Missouri Sunshine Law document allegations that Plocher connected the success of the Fireside contract to the 2024 campaign — in which he is running for lieutenant governor — and engaged in “unethical and perhaps unlawful conduct.” 

The ordeal even garnered attention from federal law enforcement, with the FBI attending the September legislative hearing where the contract was discussed and voted down. The FBI, which investigates public corruption, also conducted several interviews about Plocher.

“This all sounds very familiar,” Cupps said of the Western Petition meetings. “If it were me, and I was under an ethics investigation, you better believe I wouldn’t be so brazen as to do this kind of stuff.” 

The House Ethics Committee held two meetings last week as part of its inquiry into Plocher, including one where the speaker’s lawyer attempted to remain in a closed hearing to listen to members discuss the findings of an attorney hired to conduct the investigation. 

Two more ethics hearings are scheduled this week. House rules require proceedings of the ethics committee to be confidential, with none of the discussions, testimony or evidence gathered made public until a final report is issued.

Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, speaks during House debate on May 13, 2022 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

A bill to protect politicians from “deepfake” images and recordings received broad bipartisan support Wednesday in the Missouri House.

State Rep. Ben Baker’s bill would prohibit the distribution of digitally created or manipulated messages that “create a realistic but false image” without labeling it as being created using artificial intelligence.

The penalty would be up to six months in jail, with increased penalties if the intent is to incite violence or bodily harm and for repeat offenders. The bill also grants targets of fake, deceptive videos the right to sue the creators.

The bill passed on a voice vote. A final roll call vote is required to send it to the Missouri Senate.

The issue, Baker said, is that deepfakes have advanced so far that the average person cannot tell it is not real.

“They can make a video look and sound just like that person saying something that they didn’t say or doing something they didn’t do, and then use that to campaign in a negative way against them, which I think is purposely deceiving voters,” said Baker, a Neosho Republican.

So far, there are no known instances of deepfake videos being used in Missouri political campaigns. But experts have warned for years that manipulated content is coming, and earlier this year deepfake videos depicting Taylor Swift in sexual situations were circulated online.

A bill to ban sexually explicit deepfake videos was heard Tuesday in a House committee but no vote was taken.

Under Baker’s bill, artificially generated images or audio that include a “deceptive and fraudulent deep fake of a candidate or party” could not be used within 90 days of an election without labeling. The bill exempts news reporting about the deepfakes from penalties and broadcasters who accept an ad created using deepfake technology.

The bill would also exempt content that constitutes satire or parody. Bills intended to regulate the use of deepfakes in elections are pending in 36 states, according to the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. Six states have enacted laws regulating deep fakes, with New Mexico being the most recent.

In another section, the bill also goes after the deceptive use of telephone numbers, known as spoofing. The bill would impose criminal penalties on any marketer who transmits “misleading or inaccurate caller identification information” intended to deceive, defraud or harass the recipient.

Supporters of the bill said they welcomed its protections but some worried it didn’t go far enough.

“Why just 90 days before an election?” asked state Rep. Peter Merideth, a St. Louis Democrat. “We’ve got year-long campaigns now and longer. It should just be kind of illegal anytime you do it.”

Baker said he was willing to consider a change to lengthen the time covered by the bill but added that his original idea was to focus on the period near an election when it would be harder to respond.

Members who were skeptical of the bill worried it would intrude on protected political speech. Many negative ads use manipulated photos or loose interpretations of an opponent’s position, said state Rep. Tony Lovasco, an O’Fallon Republican.

“If I photoshop a picture of you standing next to Nancy Pelosi or something and there’s a little word bubble of some random thing that approximates something that you said on the floor, or whatnot, there’s nothing factually inaccurate depicted but it’s very clearly something that didn’t happen,” Lovasco said.

The idea is not to make negative advertising about an opponent a criminal offense, Baker said.

“I don’t want to prevent negative ads,” Baker said. “I just specifically want to try to address the deepfake videos and audio that is depicting someone to be saying something or doing something that is not…that’s just not reality.”

Lovasco remained skeptical.

“How do we draw the line between what is a political opinion about someone’s conduct versus an objective fact,” he asked.

The advances of technology make deepfakes substantially different from other forms of negative advertising, said state Rep. Doug Richey, an Excelsior Springs Republican.

People are more likely to believe a video or photograph is a real-life depiction than they are reading false information, Richey said.

“Print is becoming one of those issues where it has less of an effect on people,” Richey said. “But man, you show them a picture, an image, a little video clip, and that it’s reality to them.”

A coal-fired power plant in Romeoville, Illinois (Scott Olson/Getty Images).

After a string of scandals and amid rising bills, lawmakers in statehouses across the country have been pushing legislation to curb utilities spending ratepayer money on lobbying, expert testimony in rate cases, goodwill advertising, charitable giving, trade association membership and other costs.

At least a dozen states have considered bills to limit how gas, water and electric utilities can spend customers’ money, according to a tracker maintained by the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group funded by environmental and climate-focused foundations that concentrates on utilities and fossil fuel interests.

Another, Louisiana, has opened a proceeding at its public service commission to investigate use of ratepayer cash on trade association dues, “activities meant to influence the outcome of any local, state, or federal legislation,” advertising expenses and other costs.

Michigan joined the party last week with the introduction of legislation to ban utility political spending. In states like Illinois, the push has been joined by groups like the AARP and the Citizens Utility Board, a state watchdog group, which said the legislation would “stop electric, gas and water utilities from charging us for a long list of expenses they rack up trying to raise our rates and further increase their political power.”

Three states  – Maine, Colorado and Connecticut – have already signed similar bills into law. The legislation comes as natural gas bills have fallen but average residential electric prices in the U.S. climbed from 13.66 cents per kilowatt hour in 2021 to 15.93 cents per kilowatt hour in 2023, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would mean a monthly bill going from $136.60 in 2021 to $159.30 in 2023 for a house that uses 1,000 kilowatt hours per month.

“It absolutely is a growing trend,” said Matt Kasper, the Energy and Policy Institute’s deputy director. “There’s a lot of eyes on the industry, how it’s operating.”

The institute published a report last year that scrutinized how electric and gas utilities use ratepayer money to “fund political machines that push legislation, curry favor with regulators and alter the outcomes of elections, sometimes even breaking laws in the process.”

Some of the lowlights include:

• A massive bribery scandal in Ohio involving FirstEnergy, a utility holding company that  paid nearly $61 million in bribes to the Ohio house speaker’s political organization in exchange for a nuclear plant bailout worth $1 billion to the company. A U.S. attorney called it “one of the largest public corruption conspiracies in Ohio history.”
• In Illinois, the state’s largest electric utility, Commonwealth Edison, or ComEd, showered the state House speaker’s allies with jobs, contracts and payments to grease the wheels for the company’s legislation. Three ex-lobbyists and a former CEO of the company were convicted by a federal jury last year for their roles in the scheme. The speaker’s trial is scheduled for later this year.
• Florida Power & Light, one of the largest utilities in the nation, is facing calls for a federal investigation over accusations of using political consultants to back “ghost candidates” in legislative races to draw votes away from candidates it opposed. It also took over a news website as “part of an elaborate, off-the-books political strategy to advocate for rate hikes, agitate for legislative favors, slam political opponents and eliminate anything  … (that) might undermine its near monopoly on selling power in the Sunshine State,” the Miami Herald reported. That’s not to mention accusations of hiring private investigators to follow a newspaper columnist who was critical of the company.

Other examples of questionable spending abound. In 2018, South Carolina lawmakers were flooded with bogus emails encouraging them to support Virginia utility giant Dominion Energy’s takeover of SCANA Corp., a company struggling under the weight of a failed nuclear project. Dominion denied having anything to do with the fake emails, which were sent by the Consumer Energy Alliance, a group that was then supported by Dominion. (The company is no longer listed as a CEA member).

Consumer Energy Alliance was also involved in a 2016 campaign to support a natural gas pipeline running through Ohio that involved sending 347 letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission using the names of locals — more than a dozen of whom signed affidavits denying they signed the letters —  including “an Ohio man who has been dead since 1998,” The Plain Dealer reported.

In Louisiana, Entergy was fined $5 million by the New Orleans City Council after actors hired by a public relations firm working for the utility showed up at public hearings to support a proposed power plant.

Arizona Public Service, which has 1.4 million electric customers in the state, spent $10 million in 2014 that was funneled to dark money groups to help elect its preferred members of the State Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities. That spending wasn’t revealed until 2019, when the company complied with a subpoena to release documents.

“Utilities are often using their ratepayer-funded political machines to slow the nation’s urgently-needed transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy,” the Energy & Policy Institute wrote. “Working hand-in-hand with their trade associations, the Edison Electric Institute and American Gas Association, utilities continue to fight tooth-and-nail against policies that enable the adoption of essential technologies like rooftop solar power, energy efficiency and building electrification.”

‘The appetite is there’

However, bills to curb utility influence spending can face an uphill fight, demonstrating the stronghold that the companies can have on state governments.

In Virginia, for example, another round of legislative attempts to prevent candidates from accepting donations from public service companies like Dominion Energy, the state’s largest electric utility and long the biggest corporate donor in Virginia politics, died in House and Senate committees. Both houses are controlled by Democrats.

“Time will tell what will happen,” Del. Josh Cole, a Democrat who was carrying the House version of the legislation,told the Virginia Mercury.  “The appetite is definitely there for it.”

A separate proceeding at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been looking into the “rate recovery, reporting and accounting treatment of industry association dues and certain civic, political and related expenses.”

The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned electric utilities and is one of the trade groups affected by some of the state-level legislation, said electric customers benefit when its member companies “have a seat at the table,” adding that they are among the most regulated businesses in the nation.

“We engage on their behalf through lobbying, advocacy and regulatory proceedings as part of our work to ensure that electricity customers have the affordable, reliable and resilient clean energy they want and need. Engaging in discussions with policymakers and regulators is essential to achieving these outcomes,” EEI spokeswoman Sarah Durdaller said in a statement. “We bring unique expertise and insights on how policy proposals will affect business operations, the cost for capital, and, ultimately, our customers. … There are strict laws in place already to ensure that lobbying activities are always funded by shareholders not customers.”

The American Gas Association, which represents natural gas utilities, did not respond to a request for comment.

On Monday, across the street from the Washington, D.C., hotel where the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners was holding its winter policy meeting, a group of climate justice organizations held a rally to call attention to energy company influence, taking aim at corporate sponsorship of the event and a lack of progress on renewable power.

“When we see events like this where utility execs fund gatherings and hobnob with regulators …  we need to speak out,” said Sukrit Mishra, DC program director at Solar United Neighbors, a nonprofit that helps communities form solar co-ops. He voiced support for state legislative efforts as well as federal legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat, to prevent utility companies from using ratepayer dollars to fund political activities.

“The public is ready to hold utilities accountable. We need regulators to do the same.”

Missouri candidates wait to pull a number in the candidate-filing system Tuesday morning (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Political candidates who make national headlines — and those who may only be known in their hometown — descended on Jefferson City Tuesday morning for the first day of a month-long window to file to run for office in Missouri.

To run for office, candidates have no choice but to show up in person. Some take advantage of the moment, talking to journalists and sending press releases. Others exit through the building’s back door to avoid questions.

Those making the trek on the first day have a separate entrance into the James C. Kirkpatrick State Information Center, home of the Secretary of State’s office. First, they confirm registration with a political party and pay a fee to run under that party’s banner. 

Then they wait in a line on the building’s third floor.

U.S. Rep. Sam Graves was the first to get through the line Tuesday morning, finishing the process at 8:07 a.m. according to the Secretary of State’s website. A total of 435 candidates filed by 5 p.m.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft greeted candidates upstairs, smiling ear-to-ear while taking their photos as they waited in line and making quips about the political process.

Candidates’ place on the ballot is determined by a number they pull from an acrylic box as part of a lottery system. Those with the lowest numbers are first on the ballot.

A line of people with numbers in the 900s, some of the highest of the day, took a photo together. 

“The Bible says, ‘The first will be last,’” one said.

One filer joked with Ashcroft that, next election, the numbered tickets should be placed in a machine that blows them around the candidate — like the money-blowing machines in some arcades.

“Well, there are some people who don’t like machines in elections,” Ashcroft said with a laugh.

Valentina Gomez, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State who recently came under fire for burning books, has spoken against “voting machines.” She posted on X, formerly Twitter, that “we must blow up the corrupt voting machines” less than a week before filing day.

Gomez is one of four Republican candidates for Secretary of State who filed Tuesday along with three Democrats. Current Missouri lawmakers Denny Hoskins, a Republican state senator; Adam Schwadron, a Republican state representative; and Barbara Phifer, a Democratic state representative are running for Secretary of State.

Sen. Caleb Rowden, a Columbia Republican, has announced he’s running for secretary of state but did not file Tuesday.

Some of Tuesday’s filers brought political consultants and campaign managers. A staffer for Wesley Bell carried a kelly green Hermes Birkin bag with her as she followed Bell around the building.

Others brought loved ones. Gubernatorial candidate Mike Kehoe’s wife, Claudia, donned a kelly green suit to match her husband’s campaign colors.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Darrell Leon McClanahan III, who wore a feathered western hat, brought his children. McClanahan lost a bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 2022, receiving less than 1% of the votes in the primary.

A dozen supporters of U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, who represents Missouri’s First District, followed her around the building and reverberated in agreement as she spoke to reporters.

Democratic Attorney General candidate Elad Gross brought along one of his biggest fans and a campaign sidekick: Liberty Belle, his rescue dog.

Gross held a filing-day tailgate in the parking lot prior to registration opening, with Panera bagels and coffee. His truck says “End puppy mills,” along with campaign visuals.

He told The Independent he believes Liberty Belle came from an abusive breeding situation he would describe as a “puppy mill.” Liberty Belle, who is familiar with the campaign trail, hobbles on three legs with the fourth tucked.

Gross, who has raised almost $115,000 as the only Democrat in the attorney general race, is hoping to face candidates with much larger campaign war chests. Andrew Bailey, the current Attorney General appointed by Gov. Mike Parson, has raised over $2 million between his campaign and associated political action committee. Will Scharf, a former assistant U.S. attorney and an aide to ex-Gov. Eric Greitens, has raised almost $1.2 million. 

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley has $4.9 million on hand for his campaign to keep his seat. Hawley did not attend the first day of filing Tuesday.

His Democratic opponent, Marine veteran Lucas Kunce, filed that morning with nearly $2.2 million in hand for his campaign.

“I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican or who you’ve voted for in the past,” Kunce told reporters. “This race is going to make a huge difference, my race in this state. And we need to flip this seat.”

Other no-shows on Tuesday include State Treasurer Vivek Malek, who is facing State Sen. Andrew Koenig and State Rep. Cody Smith among others for his position.

This story has been updated at 6:18 p.m. Tuesday to reflect the cash on hand for U.S. Senate candidates.

After filing for re-election, Congresswoman Cori Bush speaks to reporters about her campaign (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

After filing for re-election, Congresswoman Cori Bush speaks to reporters about her campaign (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Wesley Bell, who is hoping to unseat Cori Bush for Missouri's First District congressional seat, tells reporters he believes Bush isn't properly representing the district (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Will Scharf, a GOP candidate for Missouri Attorney General, tells reporters about his campaign Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Lucas Kunce, who is challenging Josh Hawley for a U.S. Senate seat, speaks to reporters on the first day of campaign filing Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Lucas Kunce, who is challenging Josh Hawley for a U.S. Senate seat, speaks to reporters on the first day of campaign filing Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)

Lieutenant Governor Mike Kehoe answers questions outside prior to filing his candidacy for governor Tuesday morning (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

State Sen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, tells reporters his plan if he becomes governor, like a "capture and deport" policy for undocumented immigrants, prior to filing his candidacy Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

State Rep. Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat, answers questions about her campaign for governor Tuesday before filing for candidacy (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

State Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, waits to file for re-election Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

U.S. Rep Emanuel Cleaver walks through the Missouri candidate filing process Tuesday morning (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

State Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, walks upstairs to file his candidacy for Missouri State Treasurer Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft takes candidates' photos as they wait in line to file for the upcoming primary election (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Congresswoman Ann Wagner cringes after seeing the result of the lottery-based number draw. Candidates with high numbers will be below their opponents on the ballot (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Democratic candidate for Missouri Attorney General Elad Gross trots out of a room where candidates pull their filing number Tuesday (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Maria Yepez Damian, regional manager for Elad Gross's campaign, stands with Gross's dog Liberty Belle. Earlier in his campaign for Missouri Attorney General, Gross held a tour in Liberty Belle's name (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

Missouri Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick (photo by Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

A lawsuit challenging the estimated cost of an initiative petition that sought to add rape and incest exceptions to Missouri’s abortion ban has been dismissed, with plaintiffs saying there was no reason to continue the fight now that the campaign behind the proposal is no longer active.

The lawsuit was filed late last year by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly and Kathy Forck, a local anti-abortion activist. The trio argued that Missouri Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick’s fiscal note was “insufficient” and “unfair.”  

They believe it should have stated that Missouri would lose billions of dollars in federal Medicaid funding because fewer people would be born in Missouri. 

But the campaign in support of the initiative petition threw in the towel earlier this month to make way for a more expansive abortion proposal seeking to legalize abortion up until fetal viability that’s currently gathering signatures to get on the statewide ballot. 

Coleman, Kelly and Forck dropped their lawsuit on Friday, according to Cole County Court records. 

Fitzpatrick, a Republican who opposes abortion rights, was responsible for writing a summary of the financial impact of ballot initiatives on state and local government. 

Fitzpatrick determined that the proposed amendment could cost the state up to $21 million in litigation costs because Attorney General Andrew Bailey said he would refuse to defend them in court if approved by voters. For local governments, he estimated a loss of at least $51,000 in annual tax revenues. 

Coleman, Kelly and Forck had already lost a legal challenge to a Fitzpatrick fiscal note for a separate set of initiative petitions seeking to more broadly legalize abortion. They appealed after a Missouri judge sided with Fitzpatrick, saying the plaintiffs’ briefs cited no authority that showed Medicaid funding was in danger.

Late last year, the Missouri Supreme Court denied their appeal.

Fitzpatrick pointed to that ruling in response to the latest dismissal. 

“This is an issue that was previously adjudicated with the court affirming the validity of the process our office has used for decades to create fair and accurate fiscal notes,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement after the plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuit Friday.

A bench trial had been scheduled for March 5 in the courtroom of Judge Christopher Limbaugh. 

“The fact the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit the day they were required to answer our discovery request makes it clear they knew a similar outcome was inevitable with this case,” Fitzpatrick said.

‘Uncharted territory’: How would abortion-rights amendment impact Missouri TRAP laws?

Coleman, Kelly and Forck, in a statement Monday, said it was “outrageous that pro-abortion liberals are wasting Missouri taxpayer money on their publicly abandoned pro-abortion petitions.”

Jamie Corley, a Republican who led the now-abandoned abortion amendment campaign, said on Monday that because her team was neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in the latest litigation, they did not have the ability to dismiss the lawsuit or end the litigation after they ended their campaign in early February.

The other ballot initiative campaign seeking to legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability has raised more than $4 million in their effort to garner the more than 170,000 valid signatures needed from six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts to make it to the ballot. 

That coalition is supported by Abortion Action Missouri, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Missouri.

“We are focusing all of our efforts on communicating with Missouri voters that they should decline to sign that extreme pro-abortion petition,” Coleman, Kelly and Forck said in a statement.  “And not petitions that were abandoned due to dissent in the Democrat Party over viability.”

This story was updated at 10:42 a.m. to accurately reflect Kathy Forck’s role in the lawsuit.

Late last month, local governments in Colorado, Missouri and Pennsylvania were hit with ransomware attacks (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and cybersecurity officials are warning the nation’s state election administrators that they face serious threats ahead of November’s presidential election.

Secretaries of state and state election directors must be ready for potential cyberattacks, both familiar and uncomfortably new, according to the feds. And they must remain vigilant about possible threats to their personal safety.

Voter databases could be targeted this year through phishing or ransomware attacks, election officials were told. Bad actors — both foreign and domestic — are trying to erode confidence in the integrity of elections through dis- and misinformation, and advancements in artificial intelligence present unprecedented challenges to democracy.

“The threat environment, unfortunately, is very high,” said Tim Langan, executive assistant director for the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch of the FBI, speaking last week at the winter conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State in Washington. “It is extremely alarming.”

Kentucky Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams knows this all too well.

Hours after he was sworn in for his second term early last month, there was a bomb threat at the state capitol in Frankfort. An email sent to several state government offices, including Adams’, said that the bombs placed at the capitol would “make sure you all end up dead.” Eight other state capitols received similar threats, but no bombs were found.

“Hopefully, it’s not a sign of what’s to come this year,” Adams told Stateline. “The benefit of all that we have gone through the last several years is that everybody in this room is psychologically prepared in 2024.”

He pointed out that since 2016 — when Russia and China tried to influence the outcome of the presidential election — state election officials have bolstered their relationships with federal cybersecurity and law enforcement agencies, election security experts and with fellow top state officials across the country through information-sharing partnerships.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced election officials to elevate those partnerships in an increasingly stressful and dangerous environment.

While the warnings that Adams and his peers received were stark, state election officials left the conference with a new understanding of the threats, along with new tools to combat them and new allies to help prepare in the months until the 2024 general election.

“We think a lot more creatively today about what could possibly go wrong and what are the challenges than we ever could have thought just four years ago,” Adams added.

Threats of violence and cybersecurity concerns

International criminal groups and foreign adversaries such as China, Iran, North Korea and Russia have made “extraordinary” advances in finding ways to break into systems, steal data and disrupt elections, said Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director for cybersecurity at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“We are in a really difficult cybersecurity environment right now,” he said.

Commonly called CISA, the federal agency last week unveiled a new website, #Protect2024, to provide resources for state and local election officials during the primary season and the general election in November.

Regionally based federal cybersecurity officials help train local election officials in internet
safety, offer security assessments for voting locations and county courthouses, and encourage county clerk offices to adopt .gov websites.

The same day that CISA unveiled its new website to protect elections, it issued a warning that China is actively targeting America’s critical infrastructure, particularly in the communications, energy, transportation and water systems sectors.

During Goldstein’s presentation, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, both Democrats, said they worry that county and municipal election officials in rural areas may not take these threats seriously, thinking they are too small to be a target.

“Every single location is at risk regardless of size, regardless of sector,” Goldstein said in response.

In early January, a cyberattack disabled court, tax and phone systems in Fulton County, Georgia, which includes Atlanta. Late in the month, local governments in Colorado, Missouri and Pennsylvania were hit with ransomware attacks.

“We’re under attack, and we need to be protecting everything,” said Rich Schliep, chief information officer at the Colorado Department of State, at an adjoining conference in Washington for the National Association of State Election Directors.

State and local election officials also continue to face personal threats at their offices, at ballot tabulation centers and at polling places, while also receiving emailed death threats and hazardous physical mail.

State election officials should invest in gloves, masks and the opioid-reversal drug Narcan, and should know how to safely open mail and what to do with a threatening letter, said Brendan Donahue, assistant inspector in charge at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, who spoke to both conferences.

Malicious mail isn’t new in the United States, he pointed out, and the law enforcement agency is still investigating a string of fentanyl-laced letters sent to election offices across the country during last November’s elections.

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican, encouraged his counterparts to get in contact now with their local FBI field office and its elections crime coordinator.

“You don’t want to do this in the third week of November this year,” Schwab said. “I really encourage you to go and start developing those relationships.”

Artificial intelligence and the disinformation challenge

Last month, voters in New Hampshire received a robocall seemingly from President Joe Biden telling them not to vote in the state’s primary. But when state election officials took a closer look at the call, they found it wasn’t Biden’s voice but one generated from artificial intelligence.

In response, the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of AI-generated voices in robocalls, saying they can be used to suppress the vote. New Hampshire Republican Attorney General John Formella started an investigation and sent a cease-and-desist letter to two Texas-based companies involved in creating the message.

But artificial intelligence can do so much more. AI-generated content can be used to create hyperlocal messages to voters to spread false information about polling place locations or voting times. It can create messages in other languages discouraging foreign-born citizens from voting. Or it can be used to create a flurry of content, even from fake local news outlets, to inflame existing challenges at the polls.

And there’s an internal risk for election offices. Staff could receive a call that sounds like the election administrator asking them to change a voting process. Sophisticated phishing emails could dupe staffers into allowing access to social media accounts or sensitive voter information.

“It’s misinformation on steroids,” said former Kentucky Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who is a member of the National Task Force on Election Crises. “We’ve been dealing with misinformation, disinformation threats for the last few years. But this is just another level.”

State and local election officials are already spending a good deal of time fighting disinformation. Secretaries of state are using #TrustedInfo2024 on social media in promoting the importance of going to trusted sources for election information. AI platform ChatGPT has started directing users with election-related questions to CanIVote.org, a website run by the National Association of Secretaries of State.

It’s a “constant challenge,” said Riley Vetterkind, public information officer for the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The state agency gives municipal election clerks templates for news releases, a calendar of suggested social media posts, webinars for communications strategies and email bulletins on existing disinformation.

In Colorado, election officials have aggressively targeted lies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that election systems are vulnerable to substantial levels of fraud.

“We have decided that we’re not going to be a backstop for BS anymore,” said Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association. “We’re going to be very aggressive in the public square.”

The challenges build off one another, said Mark Lindeman, policy and strategy director for Verified Voting, a nonprofit that advocates for paper voting records, post-election audits and election security.

But there is hope, he added. It’s easy for things to go wrong in elections, but it’s hard to bring down entire voting systems.

“One of my concerns is that we’re psyching ourselves out, scaring ourselves about all the things that could possibly go wrong,” Lindeman said. “We lose sight sometimes of how we can prepare to meet those challenges and to explain to people that we have met those challenges.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

Republican lawmakers again advocated for amending Missouri's century-old initiative petition process during a committee hearing Tuesday (Getty Images).

Republican lawmakers’ latest attempt to change Missouri’s century-old initiative petition process was met with widespread opposition Tuesday. 

Hanging over the proceedings, though hardly discussed on Tuesday, were a pair of initiative petition campaigns seeking to put an amendment on the statewide ballot rolling back Missouri near-total ban on abortion. 

One of the campaigns has already reported raising $2 million to bankroll its efforts, amplifying the sense of GOP urgency to get changes to the process done before any abortion amendment goes to voters. 

State Rep. Ed Lewis of Moberly put forth two bills looking to require any amendments to the state constitution receive a majority of votes statewide and in a majority of the state’s congressional districts.

Currently, a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot through the initiative petition process only requires 51% to pass. 

“To change the constitution of the state of Missouri, there should be broad support statewide, and I would submit broad geographic support,” Lewis told his colleagues during a hearing in the house’s elections and elected officials committee.

State Rep. Mike Haffner, a Republican from Pleasant Hill, re-filed legislation he put forward last year that would invalidate signatures on a petition if the ballot language changes. 

Missouri’s ballot initiative process – which gives citizens a pathway to amending the state constitution – is already grueling, those familiar with the process testified Tuesday.

Missouri law requires petitioners hoping to amend the state constitution to collect more than 171,000 signatures from registered voters in six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts by May. The path to successfully landing an initiative on the ballot usually costs millions of dollars and months of litigation

Sam Licklider, a lobbyist with Missouri Realtors, opposed all three pieces of legislation. His organization has vowed to spend big to defeat any initiative petition changes Republicans place on the 2024 ballot.

“It is horribly expensive and complicated as the dickens to pass an initiative petition.” said Licklider, whose organization pursued successful ballot campaigns in 2010 and 2018.

He said hiring signature collectors, who often come from out of state, is difficult because the job is often underpaid and “a miserable existence.” 

Plus, Licklider added, most attempts to make initiative petition processes more difficult in other states have failed. In 2023, voters in Ohio rejected a GOP push to make the initiative petition process harder by 13 percentage points.

Residency requirements, more power to state officials

Haffner wants to keep non-Missourians out of the signature gathering process. His bill would add a residency requirement for those paid to be signature gatherers, meaning only Missouri residents, or those who have lived in the state for at least 30 days, could participate. 

“This would ensure Missourians are in control of our Missouri constitution,” Haffner said. “Not out of state interests. Not out of state money.”

Most successful campaigns are so costly because they require campaigns to hire signature-gathering firms, which can employ people from anywhere in the country. 

Denise Lieberman, director and general counsel for the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, said the residency requirement was unconstitutional.

“We believe it imposes unnecessary, and in many cases, superfluous regulations of initiative petitions that are simply intended to draw out the process and make it harder,” she said.

Haffner also included a provision which would prevent signature gatherers from being paid on a signature-by-signature basis, as he argued this could incentivize fraud. 

Deputy Secretary of State Trish Vincent spoke in support of the bill, which she said her office helped draft and which she said would create efficiencies for the secretary of state. She also testified to the office’s careful process of validating signatures to prevent fraud.

She said in the current legislative cycle, 173 initiative petitions were filed, and her office approved all but nine for circulation. 

John Schmidt, with the American Civil Liberties Union, testified that the bill would expand the powers of Missouri’s secretary of state and attorney general by allowing them to review ballot initiatives for “sufficiency” and reject them.

“This bill would allow the attorney general to review petitions for their content,” Schmidt said. “What this means is it would install partisan politicians as essential gatekeepers to the initiative process.”

If the legislation passed, it would mean if a ballot title was changed in court after any signatures were collected, it would “severely hinder” the already costly signature collecting process and potentially kill the petition by rendering all initial signatures invalid, Schmidt said.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft was blamed for a delay in getting an initiative petition looking to restore abortion rights to the point of fetal viability off the ground. 

In November, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, backed by the Missouri ACLU, won a legal battle over the ballot summary language, giving the coalition the green light to move ahead with signature gathering months after they filed their initiative petitions.

Getting approval from more congressional districts

Lewis listed off to lawmakers recent ballot initiatives that he said were controversial in rural areas, including Medicaid expansion and recreational marijuana legalization.

He said his bills would give more voice to rural voters who didn’t approve of prior ballot measures. 

His legislation also includes what State Rep. Donna Baringer, a Democrat from St. Louis, called “ballot candy.” This includes language preventing sales taxes on food and foreign government influence on initiative petitions.

“Really what we’re trying to do is make it harder to pass initiative petitions,” said State Rep. David Tyson Smith, a Democrat from Columbia, adding that if Lewis really wants to prevent foreign ownership of Missouri land, he should write a separate bill.

But State Rep. Brad Banderman, a Republican from St. Clair, disagreed, saying broadening where signatures are collected made sense. 

“Getting a simple majority of those congressional districts I think is a fair approach to making sure that when we do something as sacred as our state constitution, something that’s very difficult for us to go back and amend,” he said. “That we do it in a way that the case has to be made across the entire state.”

Despite there being two attempts to get initiative on the statewide ballot to restore some abortion rights in Missouri, the issue was hardly discussed Tuesday.

Both Susan Kline, with Missouri Right to Life, and Samuel Lee, with Campaign for Life, testified in favor of Lewis’ legislation.

Lee said the bills would avoid “a tyranny of the majority,” but made no reference to the ongoing abortion rights campaigns.

Last week, senators spent two hours debating whether to invoke a little-used rule that would have the Senate act as a “Committee of the Whole” to debate legislation making it harder to pass a constitutional amendment by initiative petition. The effort failed.

Ranked choice voting, which asks voters to rank multiple candidates in order of preference, has seen its profile steadily expand since 2016. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

House Majority Leader Jon Patterson, R-Lee's Summit, speaks during an April press conference. Patterson announced last week that Jonathan Ratliff would step aside as executive director of the House Republican Campaign Committee. (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)

Missouri lawmakers return next week to Jefferson City for their annual session with a new fight brewing between House and Senate Republicans that may have hastened a change in duties for long-time House GOP political strategist Jonathan Ratliff.

Ratliff, who leveraged his success building a legislative supermajority into a political consulting firm with a variety of clients, will be replaced as executive director of the House Republican Campaign Committee. Ratliff will be retained as a “senior consultant,” Majority Floor Leader Jon Patterson said in a statement issued Friday.

In the statement, Patterson praised Ratliff for his performance, noting he had helped the committee, known as the HRCC, raise over $20 million and bring in 569 Republican victories in 14 years.

The announcement came a week after the  committee filed a brief with the Missouri Supreme Court in a lawsuit seeking changes to the state Senate district map. The filing prompted an urgent call from Senate Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin to Patterson asking why House Republicans wanted changes in a map that is acceptable to Senate Republicans.

O’Laughlin said she thinks Ratliff used the HRCC to take a stand that benefits some of his consulting clients.

“I think this is about outside interests,” O’Laughlin said. “He would rather see a Senate map different than it is right now.”

In an interview, Ratliff declined to address O’Laughlin’s criticism. He said his goal over the past year has been to prepare for a transition at HRCC.

“I am proud to  have spent the last 14 years of my life working for HRCC building our record majorities and I look forward to helping the next generation of HRCC leaders continue our legacy of two decades in the majority as a senior advisor,” Ratliff said.

The departure of Ratliff after 14 years with the HRCC was already in the works, Patterson said in an interview. The timing soon after the amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief that upset O’Laughlin was coincidental, he said.

“This is something that had been in the works for a while now,” Patterson said. “And it preceded the amicus brief and really had nothing to do with that.”

Ratliff has a busy year ahead. His company, Palm Strategic, works for House Speaker Dean Plocher, a candidate for lieutenant governor, and Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, a candidate for secretary of state, who both face hotly contested Republican primaries.

“The members who are the ones responsible for raising money for HRCC have been very clear this cycle, that they want someone to focus solely on House races, and I’m going to honor that,” Patterson said.

The dispute is one more problem to confound Republicans as they seek to align their fractious supermajorities for an election-year legislative program. The state Senate is riven by divisions that have stalled dozens of bills on the verge of passage during the past three years.

The House begins the year with Speaker Dean Plocher under a cloud as the Ethics Committee investigates his unsuccessful push to award an expensive contract to a company to manages constituent information and a decision to fire his chief of staff. The committee is also looking into Plocher’s reimbursement requests after The Independent reported that on numerous occasions he illegally sought reimbursement for airfare, hotels and other travel costs already paid for by his campaign.

The politics inside each chamber will be contentious. House members will vie with one another in open Senate seats. There are five Republican members of the Senate running for statewide office, with Rowden and state Sen. Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg both in the primary for secretary of state.

At the same time, Democrats are hoping to crack the supermajorities in at least one chamber. The GOP has lost at least one seat in each of the past four elections, including three in the 2022 elections. The GOP has gone from 118 of 163 seats at the start of 2015 to 111 currently. 

Palm Strategic has been paid $1.4 million by various campaigns since the start of 2020, according to records of the Missouri Ethics Commission. More than one-third, almost $522,000, was from the HRCC, including a $6,000 monthly payment for Ratliff’s management services.

Other major clients include Missouri Forward, Rowden’s joint fundraising PAC, which has paid Palm Strategic $192,387 in that period, and Uniting Missouri, the PAC supporting Gov. Mike Parson, with $157,534 in payments.

The PAC supporting Plocher, Missouri United, has paid Palm Strategic $30,634 for consulting work this year.

The purpose of each PAC, as well as Democratic counterpart committees, is to provide targeted assistance that support the election of Republicans and not to advance the political interests of any individual member.

There has been growing discontent with Ratliff’s dual roles, said Rep. Don Mayhew, R-Crocker.

“I know that that has been kind of a grumbling, over the years, including from me,” Mayhew said. “I know that was a problem that I had with it – you either do consulting for individual campaigns or you do HRCC. But I think it’s a conflict of interest if you try to do both.”

In the case before the Missouri Supreme Court, voters are challenging the constitutionality of splitting political subdivisions in the creation of district maps. The lawsuit focuses on four districts, challenging the split in Buchanan County between the 12th and 34th Senate districts and the division of Hazelwood in St. Louis County between the 13th and 14th Senate districts.

In September, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem rejected the challenge and found that the districts were a reasonable result of the process established by the Missouri Constitution. 

In the amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief, HRCC attorney Lowell Pearson argued that Beetem incorrectly interpreted the constitution’s directive not to cross political subdivision boundaries. 

“Under the state’s constitution, Senate and House districts shall be drawn in a way that follows the borders of cities and counties if it is possible to do so while abiding by other redistricting directives,” Pearson wrote. “This is a clear constitutional imperative.”

If Beetem’s decision is allowed to stand, Pearson wrote, it “might well lead to otherwise unnecessary litigation challenging the House map.”

The Missouri Senate Campaign Committee, the Senate GOP’s counterpart to the HRCC, on Tuesday filed an amicus brief supporting Beetem’s decision. Attorney Ed Greim wrote that the HRCC brief was filed to advance the interests of a few members and not the entire caucus.

The HRCC has no direct interest in the Senate map because it is not responsible for electing Republicans to the Senate, Greim wrote.

“Instead, individual members of the HRCC who aspire to advance to the Senate may have a purely personal interest in tailoring Senate districts in which they hope to run in the future,” Greim wrote.

Greim was contemptuous of the arguments advanced by the HRCC that upholding Beetem’s decision would bring new lawsuits. Beetem found that the constitution permits the commissions that draw legislative district lines to split counties or cities if doing so would make districts more compact and within the tolerance for population differences between districts, Greim wrote.

The HRCC brief argues that there is no allowance for splitting counties or cities with populations small enough to fit in a single district, he wrote.

“The HRCC claims that any contrary reading will prompt endless litigation and even endanger the House map,” Greim wrote. “Hogwash.”

Greim took other swipes at the HRCC in his brief. 

“In a surprising twist, the HRCC seeks leave to file an amicus brief in favor of the appellants, individuals aligned with Democratic interests,” Greim wrote. “This strange alignment is worthy of this Court’s attention because it speaks to the interest of each amicus.”

O’Laughlin said she learned about the HRCC brief the day it was filed and asked Patterson to withdraw it.

“I said if (Ratliff) was not going to be running HRCC, I asked them not to file that in the name of HRCC,” O’Laughlin said. “But you know, they wouldn’t and they did it anyway.”

That made stating the Senate Republican position to the court an important step, she said.

“The reason we filed one is to say listen, Republicans are not united in this situation,” O’Laughlin said. “And we certainly did not want the judges who were looking at it to think that this was something that we were all in support of because we are absolutely not supportive.”

Patterson declined to answer if leadership of the HRCC was comfortable with the amicus brief remaining among the filings in the case now that Ratliff was taking a different role.

If the high court overturns Beetem, he would be responsible for issuing an order changing the district boundaries. Because of the need to balance populations, the boundaries of five Senate districts, including two on the 2024 ballot, would change.

The case is on an expedited schedule and all filings are due by Jan. 8. Oral arguments would take place at least a week later.

Chuck Hatfield, attorney for the voters challenging the maps, said he would like the case resolved before filing opens in late February for offices on the August ballot.

The dueling amicus briefs – and the internal GOP divisions they expose – highlight the consequences of the case, Hatfield said.

“It shows that this is a very important matter and it is going to affect redistricting in the future for sure,” Hatfield said. “And it could affect other districts than those involved in this lawsuit.”

Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss, left, a former Georgia election worker, was comforted by her mother Ruby Freeman as Moss testified during a June 2022 hearing of the U.S. House investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S Capitol (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s attorney on Thursday tried to distance his client from the violent threats faced by Georgia election workers he falsely accused of fraud, arguing St. Louis-based Gateway Pundit was more responsible. 

During his closing arguments in the defamation lawsuit against Giuliani, attorney Joseph Sibley tried to convince a Washington, D.C, jury that Giuliani was a minor player in the unfounded election fraud allegations that led to an avalanche of threats against Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss.

Others deserve more blame, Sibley contends, specifically pointing to the right-wing website Gateway Pundit over its publication of security camera footage that linked Freeman and Moss to the unfounded allegations of election fraud touted by Giuliani and former President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Sibley argued that Gateway Pundit was “patient zero” in spreading the conspiracy theory.

“More likely than not,” Sibley told the jury, “this is the party that sort of doxed these women.”

Giuliani had already been found to have defamed Freeman and Moss, so Sibley was trying to convince the jury not to award a massive judgement. But his arguments seem to have fallen on deaf ears, as the jury returned Friday and ordered Giuliani to pay more than $148 million in damages for destroying Freeman and Moss’ reputations and causing them extreme emotional distress.

False fraud claims a focus of Rudy Giuliani’s 2020 Missouri testimony, St. Louis defamation suit

The saga is being closely watched in Missouri, where Moss and Freeman are also suing Gateway Pundit in St. Louis Circuit Court for defamation and emotional distress. 

Founded by brothers Jim and Joe Hoft, Gateway Pundit was among the first to identify Freeman as one of the election workers accused by Trump and his allies of ballot fraud in Georgia. 

“What’s Up, Ruby,” the site’s headline read in early December. “BREAKING: Crooked Operative Filmed Pulling Out Suitcases of Ballots in Georgia IS IDENTIFIED.”

Gateway Pundit would go on to publish a litany of stories about Freeman and Moss, with headlines like: “WHERE’S BILL BARR? — We Got Your Voter Fraud AG Barr — It’s On Video and They Attempted to Steal Georgia with It! — HOW ABOUT A FEW ARRESTS?” 

“It’s turned my life upside down,” Moss testified last year to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In the nearly two decades since its founding, The Gateway Pundit has become a major player in the far-right media ecosystem, using its influence to spread debunked conspiracies on a wide range of topics — from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The Hofts are represented by the Las Vegas law firm of Marc Randazza, who in the past has represented numerous far-right figures, including Alex Jones of InfoWars and Andrew Anglin of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

Asked by email Friday morning about the statements by Giuliani’s attorney, Randazza shared facts about domesticated vegetables in Mesoamerica.

The Hofts have argued that any stories published by the Gateway Pundit regarding Freeman and Moss were “either statements of opinion based on disclosed facts or statements of rhetorical hyperbole that no reasonable reader is likely to interpret as a literal statement of fact.”

Rhetorical hyperbole, the Hofts argue, “cannot form the basis of defamation and related tort claims.”

A legal standard set in a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision states that public officials must establish actual malice — or reckless disregard of the truth — before recovering defamation damages. In this case, the Hofts say the plaintiffs are “limited purpose public figures,” and must prove actual malice to claim defamation.

The Giuliani defamation case has another tie to Missouri.

Weeks after Trump lost his bid for a second term, Giuliani was allowed to testify via Zoom to a Missouri House committee, where he touted disproven claims about hacked voting machines and phony mail-in ballots.

Specifically, he told lawmakers that Georgia election officials had surreptitiously counted illegal ballots in order to steal the presidency for Joe Biden, pointing to the video published by Gateway Pundit that he falsely insisted “shows demonstrably the theft of about 40,000 ballots right in front of your eyes.”

Three years after his virtual testimony in Missouri, Giuliani conceded in a carefully worded court filing that his assertions about Georgia election workers committing fraud during the 2020 presidential race were false.

Thanks to the false fraud claims by Giuliani and others, Freeman and Moss were inundated with threats, many tinged with racist language. Freeman told the jury this week that she was bombarded with phone calls, messages and letters accusing and was ultimately forced to flee her home for two months for her own safety.

Last year in Michigan, an abortion-rights coalition spent more than $30 million on a ballot initiative campaign that voters ultimately backed.  This year in Ohio, in October alone, nearly $29 million was donated to the campaign supporting a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in that state’s constitution. The measure ultimately won (Getty Images).

Pulling off a successful ballot initiative campaign in Missouri is an undertaking so difficult that one Democratic political consultant compares it to skiing the slalom at the Olympics. 

There is a laundry list of deadlines to meet, an army of signature gatherers to hire, a host of legal battles to fight — all with a price tag that can quickly cost millions. 

“You’re going downhill at a very fast rate of speed,” said Jack Cardetti, who helped run a number of successful initiative petition campaigns in recent years. “You have to make decisions very quickly. And no matter how well you’re seeing, if you miss a single gate, you’re out, you’re disqualified.”

Two coalitions are hoping to put abortion on the 2024 ballot in Missouri, where virtually all abortions are illegal. The issue has proven to be a big winner on the ballot in numerous states this year, giving supporters hope Missouri will be next. 

But both groups face the same question: Is there enough time and money to get their initiatives off the ground?

The initiative petitions

In mid-November, Jamie Corley, a longtime GOP Congressional staffer, launched a campaign effort for an initiative petition that would add rape and incest exceptions to Missouri’s abortion ban and legalize the procedure up to 12 weeks. 

Volunteers are already in the field collecting signatures, Corley said last week. She plans to start recruiting paid signature gatherers before the end of the year.

The path forward for the other coalition, called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, is less certain. The group filed 11 initiative petitions earlier this year seeking to amend Missouri’s constitution to overturn the state’s abortion ban with limited room for lawmakers to regulate the procedure after viability.

Missouri Supreme Court won’t hear Jay Ashcroft’s appeal of abortion ballot summaries

Exactly which organizations are involved in Missourians for Constitutional Freedom is unclear. The only entity publicly connected to the campaign at the moment is the ACLU of Missouri, which represented the coalition in its court fight with Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft over ballot summaries.

The Missouri ACLU’s deputy director for policy and campaigns, Tori Schafer, said in an emailed statement that the coalition “wants to restore access in a meaningful way, and in order to do that MCF needs to win at the ballot box and have a huge amount of support and resources to do it.”

Just before Thanksgiving, the coalition won its legal battle with Ashcroft, allowing it to move ahead with signature gathering — though a decision still hasn’t been made about which of the 11 proposals to move forward. Most would limit lawmakers’ ability to regulate the procedure after viability.  

“Any campaign that would move forward is left to contend with a myriad of challenges, including a severely constricted timeline,” said Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, formerly known as Pro Choice Missouri. “At the same time there is incredible opportunity and there’s hope here because we continue to see abortion rights and access remain a top priority for voters across the country.”

Schwarz, who declined to comment on whether her organization is part of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, believes an abortion ballot measure that provides “true abortion access” would be the most expensive initiative petition campaign Missouri has ever seen. 

“I am hopeful that something moves forward,” Schwarz said. “In all the years that I’ve been working as an abortion rights advocate, I’ve never seen the level of enthusiasm and anger and commitment to fighting for what Missourians deserve.”

The ‘torturous’ initiative petition process

Since the pandemic, the only initiative petition to successfully land on the ballot was marijuana legalization, Cardetti said. In that time, hundreds of other attempts to amend the constitution failed to get off the ground.

Missouri law requires petitioners hoping to amend the state constitution through the statewide ballot to collect more than 171,000 signatures from registered Missouri voters by May, but Cardetti said realistically, campaigns should be gathering at least 130,000 more to compensate for signatures that ultimately won’t be valid. 

He said this “daunting task” also requires that signatures be collected in six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts, an endeavor he said typically costs several million dollars.  

 In the past five years, Cardetti has worked on three successful ballot initiatives in Missouri, including Medicaid expansion and marijuana legalization. He said the time and cost of getting signatures is mammoth. 

Cardetti is not involved with any of the abortion initiative petitions. 

“Even if you have enough voters out there willing to sign the petition to get it on the ballot, you have to physically have people out there collecting those signatures each and every day, seven days a week,” Cardetti said.

John Hancock, a longtime Republican consultant and former state lawmaker, points to a labor shortage since the pandemic and the increasing costs of recruiting paid signature gatherers as a major hurdle for any initiative petition campaign. He is not involved in the abortion initiative petitions.

“It’s just become a more torturous process,” Hancock said. 

The cost of a successful campaign

Last year in Michigan, an abortion-rights coalition spent more than $30 million on a ballot initiative campaign that voters ultimately backed. 

This year in Ohio, in October alone, nearly $29 million was donated to the campaign supporting a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in that state’s constitution. The measure ultimately won.

Cardetti said high dollar donations can be a sign of success as a campaign progresses. 

Corley’s PAC, called the Missouri Women and Family Research Fund, won’t file its first quarterly report with the state ethics commission until January and has yet to report any large donations that would need to be immediately disclosed.

While Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has not officially launched a campaign yet, so far it has raised just shy of $13,500 – mostly from in-kind donations from the ACLU of Missouri to cover the costs of legal representation. 

As of Oct. 1, the group reported having only $28 cash on hand and has reported no large donations since.

Cardetti doesn’t recommend waiting much past January to get a campaign off the ground, especially one that requires significant financial backing.

The PAC supporting recreational marijuana legalization in 2022 launched in January and only had five months to collect signatures, Cardetti said, but it went into the campaign with a warchest of more than $1.1 million. 

In total, the cannabis legalization effort cost more than $9.7 million.

“If you don’t see those type of contributions coming in, or those types of expenditures going out, it’s a pretty good indication that it’s not an effort that’s going to be successful,” he said. 

Better Elections, which sought to place a ranked-choice voting initiative on the 2022 ballot, fell short of the total signatures needed despite raising millions of dollars. 

In January 2022, Better Elections had nearly $930,000 cash on hand and had raised $2.4 million. By May, the group raised $6.8 million.

Another initiative petition seeking to make the 2024 ballot is the Jobs with Justice Ballot Fund. As of its October quarterly report, the group had $16,500 cash on hand to support an initiative that would increase minimum wage and require employers offer paid sick leave. 

Since the October quarterly report, the PAC set up to support the minimum wage and paid sick leave initiative — called Missourians for Healthy Families and Fair Wages — has raised more than $500,000 in large contributions. That includes $41,000 from Abortion Action Missouri. 

Planned Parenthood has not taken a public position on any of the abortion initiative petitions, but continues to advocate for “meaningful access.”

Vanessa Wellbery, vice president of policy and advocacy at Advocates of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region and Southwest Missouri, said they are still considering what investment and tactics would help build legal and unimpeded access to abortion, which she said will be a costly endeavor. 

“We are prepared, even if it takes many years, to hold those anti-abortion extremists accountable to the harm that they have done to Missourians,” Wellbery said. “Particularly the folks who face the most barriers to care and who are the most marginalized.”

Cardetti said if both coalitions are ultimately successful in getting abortion on the ballot next year, it could be “less than ideal” for the campaigns, “but it’s not fatal.”

“What you worry about though, is there’s some confusion and voters just sort of throw up their hands and say, ‘I don’t know. Let’s just vote both of these down and they’ll come back with a better one,’” he said. “That’s the situation you want to avoid.”

An election sign outside of Mizzou Arena in November 2020 in Columbia. A trial begins Friday in Jefferson City challenging a Missouri voter ID law passed in 2022. (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent)

Missouri’s requirement for voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot will be on trial starting Friday.

Over four days, Cole County Circuit Judge John Beetem will hear familiar arguments that the law passed in 2022 unconstitutionally restricts the right to vote by imposing burdens that disenfranchise large numbers of people. In 2006 and 2020, Missouri courts struck down photo ID requirements for voting as violations of the state’s constitution.

Denise Lieberman, director of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, said the law being challenged now makes it even harder to vote for people who have difficulties obtaining the necessary identification.

“The current law is more strict than the version struck down in the previous cases,” Lieberman said.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who is the defendant in the case because of his role overseeing state elections, was not available for comment Wednesday.

Missouri’s new voter ID law faces lawsuit claiming it’s unconstitutional

To qualify as acceptable for voting, the identification must be Missouri- or federally issued with a photo, date of birth and an expiration date. Identification that has expired since the most recent general election is also acceptable.

A voter who does not have one of those forms of identification can cast a provisional ballot. For that ballot to be counted, the voter must return to the polling place and show an acceptable ID or hope that the signature on the ballot is considered a valid match with their signature on file.

Prior to the law taking effect in 2022, a voter could also use an out-of-state driver’s license or identification card, a student identification, a voter registration card issued by the local election authority, or a recent bank statement or utility bill mailed to them at their registered address.

In the pre-trial brief in defense of the law, the state’s legal team argued that having a valid photo ID is needed for everyday activities like obtaining medical care, medications, housing or employment.

“There is not a severe burden on the right to vote as the state has gone to great lengths to help voters obtain IDs, and IDs are now needed in many areas of modern life; moreover, the plaintiffs cannot show one instance of more than a hypothetical harm of a provisional ballot being rejected for an improper signature mismatch,” the attorney general’s office argued in a legal filing defending the law. 

Three individual voters and two organizations – the NAACP of Missouri and the League of Women Voters of Missouri – are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The individual voters are:

• Rene Powell, a Columbia woman who has had epilepsy since she was a teenager and who also has mobility issues. Her non-driver identification expired in December 2021 and voting is the “only reason” she would need to get it renewed. Getting to the state license office is difficult because she relies on public transit that would drop her off “on a busy roadway with no sidewalks, preventing her from using her rollator.” 
• Kimberly Morgan of Fenton, who has her name misspelled as “Kimberley” on her birth certificate, on her state-issued identification card and her marriage certificate. She has been unable to get it corrected to match her name on voter registration rolls because the state requires her to find a document at least five years old that contains her correct full name, her age or date of birth and the date the document was prepared.
• John O’Connor of Columbia, a 90-year-old man who is almost completely homebound because of eyesight problems, hearing impairment and stability issues. Only with the assistance of his wife – and, the lawsuit alleges, the acceptance of an old, expired drivers license against department rules – he was able to gather the documents necessary to obtain an identification card.

“The burdens faced by Plaintiffs Powell, Morgan, and O’Connor are substantial and real,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in their pre-trial brief.

The state is arguing that Ashcroft’s office works diligently to help every person lacking identification obtain it and documents required, all at no cost.

The person in charge of that effort, the state contends, will “talk about the lengths she will go to in order to ensure that she clears away any roadblock the person may face in obtaining those underlying documents needed to get an ID, to include working with the voter to figure out requirements from out of state entities to obtain any of the person’s own underlying documents from those entities.”

Enacting a voter ID law has been a goal for Missouri Republicans since 2006. The first law, enacted that year, was struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court in a decision that found it violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause and the right of qualified, registered citizens to vote.

The law, the court wrote, was not “narrowly tailored” to prevent voter fraud.

The latest attempt began with the passage of a constitutional amendment in 2016 that allowed lawmakers to add a voter ID  requirement. The intent was to address the issues the court found in its 2006 decision.

But a law enacted in 2018 to implement the requirement was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, it required voters “to sign a contradictory, misleading affidavit” that they did not have required identification to cast a ballot using non-photo identification.

The new law does not require the affidavit but it also eliminates the use of any non-photo identification, Lieberman said. As a result, she said, the plaintiffs will show that the use of provisional ballots has gone up substantially and that few of those ballots are actually counted.

Matching signatures is tricky and most election clerks have no training as handwriting experts, Lieberman said. The use of electronic signatures also creates problems matching a signature signed on paper to one signed on a pad using a stylus or finger, she said.

“We have some local election authorities say there is no way we can accept that signature,” Lieberman said.

The main purpose of a voter ID law, proponents contend, is to prevent fraud at the polls. Such laws, the state argues in its legal filings, “protect the fundamental right to vote by deterring difficult to detect forms of voter fraud.”

The only type of voter fraud that a voter ID law prevents is in-person fraud at the polls, which is almost non-existent, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote.

“Because the voter ID restrictions offer no discernable protection against voter fraud while imposing significant burdens upon voters—disenfranchising many in the process—there is no rational basis for them,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote, “they cannot be upheld under even the most deferential standard, let alone the strict scrutiny that properly applies.”

Attendees react to early election results at an election night party Tuesday in Columbus, Ohio. The results of this year’s state and local contests, advocates say, could make future elections, including the 2024 presidential contest, freer and fairer. (Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal)

Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom hold a Bans OFF rally Oct. 8 in Columbus, Ohio. (Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal)

A person walks home after shopping in Jackson, Miss., in October 2022. By 2035, the U.S. will have more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 18, and advocacy groups are challenging states to develop housing solutions for older adults (Rogelio V. Solis/The Associated Press).

As older adults begin to outnumber young people in the United States in the coming decade, advocacy groups are challenging states to shift away from single-family zoning in favor of housing solutions that allow older adults to “age in place.”

By 2035, the U.S. will have more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 18, a first in the nation’s history. Recent census data suggests that the U.S. is short of aging-ready homes, with just 40% of the country’s housing considered accessible enough to meet the basic needs of older adults.

Organizations such as AARP are lobbying state by state for two housing approaches: the development of so-called middle housing such as duplexes, triplexes and townhomes, and the allowance of accessory dwelling units, often known as granny flats or in-law suites.

This year, some states overhauled the type of single-family zoning practices that advocates say have not aged well with the graying population.

Many older adults live in places where most residential lots are zoned for single-family detached homes, forbidding the construction of multifamily housing such as duplexes or condominiums. By prioritizing the construction of low-density development, such rules can disconnect older adults from their community and from crucial services such as transportation, according to the Urban Institute, a nonprofit think tank focused on social and economic policy.

As state lawmakers consider relaxing zoning rules to clear the way for more housing, advocates for older adults are taking part: lobbying legislatures, posting policy positions and speaking up at local zoning meetings.

“We don’t have housing that’s built for people of all ages,” Rodney Harrell, AARP’s vice president of family, home and community, said in an interview with Stateline.

While all populations stand to benefit from an increased supply of diverse and affordable housing, Harrell pointed out, more middle housing and a shift away from car-centric development would particularly help older adults on fixed incomes.

“A key issue is that a vast majority of our neighborhoods are exclusively single-family zoning,” he said. “That doesn’t leave a lot of housing options to meet the needs of our aging population.”

This year, Washington state overhauled single-family zoning statewide to pave the way for more middle housing — a move applauded by AARP as beneficial to the state’s older adults and their caregivers.

AARP Washington had been working with legislators and housing advocates on zoning changes for nearly a decade, said Cathy MacCaul, AARP’s Washington advocacy director.

Nationally, AARP has been pushing planning experts and local and state decisionmakers to conduct “code audits” to explore how to modernize zoning and code language.

In Vermont, a law passed this year, called the HOME Act, allows the development of duplexes in all single-family residential zones.

California, Maine and Oregon also have shifted away from single-family zoning. In 2019, Oregon became the first state to eliminate single-family zoning. Last year, California removed parking requirements for development near public transit to promote more housing construction in those areas.

And in Maine, legislators in 2022 began requiring municipalities to allow ADUs and duplexes to be built on land zoned for single-family housing.

Few states have made such sweeping changes. But Jennifer Molinsky, project director of the Housing an Aging Society program at the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, said advocacy for aging adults at the county and city levels — where most zoning decisions are made — is essential to creating more housing that is accessible for older adults.

“Zoning meetings may not be the most fun thing to do in a week. But it is where it’s happening. It’s where these decisions are being made,” said Molinsky. “Advocacy for aging at these meetings could go a long way in making sure [older adults] are being factored in these decisions.”

As the nation is aging, poverty among older people is rising. Among American adults age 65 and older, the poverty rate jumped from 10.7% in 2021 to 14.1% in 2022, according to a National Council on Aging analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

More than 10 million households headed by someone 65 or older spend more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities, according to the Urban Institute.

There aren’t enough homes these households can afford, Harrell said.

“We need to start to build these new types of housing now before we see this drastic demographic shift,” Harrell said. “It takes a while to build new housing. If we start now, we can get ahead of the affordability and supply crisis.”

By 2030, the country is set to face a shortage of accessible and affordable housing to meet the needs of the 1 in 5 Americans who will be over the age of 65, according to AARP.

Among the middle-style housing many advocates have supported are accessory dwelling units, often referred to as granny flats, mother-in-law suites or simply by the acronym ADUs. They might be built in basements, over garages or as separate, small buildings on the same lots as larger single-family homes.

The versatility of these units, MacCaul, AARP’s Washington advocacy director, told Stateline, allows older adults to live near their family or caregivers, keeping them connected to a support system.

A 2021 survey from the organization found that about three-quarters of adults 50 and over desire to stay in their current homes and communities and “age in place.”

“We use aging in place as kind of our North Star in terms of thinking about policy. The challenge is that a lot of states have systems that are not built for our aging population,” said MacCaul.

“Our housing system, our financing system and transportation infrastructure have not kept up with the aging population,” she said. “A majority of our systems have been built for young families, not the baby boomers who are now 60 and older.”

Washington state this year eased barriers to the construction of accessory-dwelling units such as owner-occupancy requirements and fees associated with their construction, while Montana legalized ADUs statewide.

“When we have zoning that restricts what we can build, where we can build and what we can build it, how can we solve this housing crisis?” said Montana state Rep. Daniel Zolnikov, a Republican who was among lawmakers pushing for changes. “Communities are meant to change. They can’t stay static and exclude people in a housing crisis.”

In Massachusetts, Democratic Gov. Maura Healey’s housing plan would override local zoning, requiring all municipalities in the state to allow homeowners to add ADUs. Maine cities and towns face a 2024 deadline to comply with state law and allow ADUs to be built alongside existing single-family homes.

North Carolina’s bipartisan effort to allow ADUs on single-family lots was motivated by a discussion that bill sponsor Rep. Matthew Winslow had had with his late mother. The House approved the bill last spring but it is pending in the Senate.

“Before she passed away, she said, ‘I don’t want to go into elderly care. I don’t want to go to a village or assisted living facility’ … so we allowed her to stay at our house,” said Winslow, a Republican.

“I imagine there are other families who would love to have their parents or in-laws with them, but these regulations on ADUs make it costly or frankly don’t allow it at all.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

Election administrators from the states with more contested elections said threats have increased in recent years, fueled largely by the types of unfounded conspiracy theories that Donald Trump espoused (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

State and local election officials face threats and intimidation, driving experienced workers out of the profession, a panel of election officials told a U.S. Senate committee Wednesday.

Conspiracy theories have fueled a more hostile environment for election workers, which has led many to quit, creating more challenges for the inexperienced new leaders, the top election officials from two battleground states testified at a U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on threats to election administration.

Democratic and Republican election workers have been the targets of “threats and abusive conduct,” Rules Committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said.

Senators stressed the bipartisan nature of the issue and neither members of the committee nor the election administrator witnesses – which included state officials from Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nebraska and the Rutherford County, Tennessee, administrator of elections — mentioned former President Donald Trump or his unfounded attempts to discredit the 2020 election results that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Congress must “continue the federal funding and to make clear this is a bipartisan, nonpartisan piece of the work that we do,” Klobuchar said.

“In recent years, election officials have faced both cybersecurity threats and physical threats,” the panel’s ranking Republican, Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, said. “They have struggled to retain experienced poll workers and to recruit and train new poll workers.”

Retention ‘one of the biggest challenges’

Threats against election workers and related issues have worsened since 2020, senators and witnesses said.

Twelve of Arizona’s 15 counties lost their chief election official in the last three years, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, told the committee.

“As a former county recorder myself, I can attest that the pre-2020 world for election administrators is gone,” he said. “We don’t feel safe in our work because of the harassment and threats that are based in lies.”

He urged action to combat the misinformation that has led to distrust of election officials, calling it a “threat to American democracy.”

“Many veteran Arizona officials from both political parties … have left the profession for the sake of their own physical, mental and emotional health and that of their families,” Fontes said. “The cost of persistent misrepresentations about the integrity of our elections is high, but the cost of inaction against those threats is higher.”

More than 50 top local officials resigned over the same period in Pennsylvania, Klobuchar said. The entire staff of the election officials in Buckingham County, Virginia, left earlier this year, she added.

Election workers saw new levels of hostility after 2020, Elizabeth Howard, a researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive voting rights nonprofit, testified.

That environment has led many experienced administrators to leave the profession, election administrators said.

Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican and the state’s highest ranking election official, described a vicious cycle. Experienced elections officials’ resignations left less experienced workers in charge.

“They’re more likely to make errors and make errors in an environment where everything is perceived as being intentional and malicious and seeking to change the outcome of the election,” he said.

Schmidt said the difficulty in retaining election workers and recruiting new ones is “one of the biggest challenges” in running elections.

But the environment since Trump pushed unfounded theories that his reelection loss in 2020 was illegitimate made that much more difficult.

“It almost defies common sense that we have people who want to get into these jobs,” Fontes said.

Red state officials report fewer issues

Nebraska Deputy Secretary of State Wayne J. Bena, who serves in an unelected position under an elected Republican, did not mention threats or intimidation of election workers in his state, but defended their work. A manual audit revealed only 11 discrepancies in nearly 50,000 ballots, he said.

“That’s an error rate of 23,000th of 1%,” he said. “This post-election audit provided valuable data in each county to verify the accuracy of our ballot counting equipment. Let me be clear: This expanded audit was not easy, but it provides another example of how our election officials go above and beyond to ensure the utmost integrity in our elections.”

J. Alan Farley, who oversees a county election commission in Rutherford County, Tennessee, said his workers have not experienced physical threats and the issue has not affected his office’s recruitment efforts.

At a recent event for about 250 election workers to discuss the 2024 presidential cycle, some who worked the 2020 and 2022 elections were “eager to return,” he said.

“Threats to election officials were never mentioned” during the event, he said.

But, Farley said, county elections officials in Tennessee did face cybersecurity challenges and could use federal funding to address them, he said.

“Many counties in the state of Tennessee do not have adequate funding for county IT departments,” he said.

Conspiracy theories feed difficult environment

But the election administrators from the states with more contested elections said threats have increased in recent years, fueled largely by the types of unfounded conspiracy theories that Trump espoused.

Administrators should take seriously the legitimate threats to election integrity, which is a real issue, Schmidt, whom Trump personally attacked for his work overseeing Philadelphia’s 2020 election results, said.

But conspiracy theorists who claim to be concerned with election integrity often promote wildly absurd ideas, he said, adding that such claims were particularly numerous about Philadelphia in the 2020 cycle.

“I can’t begin to share the number in Philadelphia that we experienced in 2020 that if it were a movie you’d walk out — it’s just so dumb,” Schmidt said. “But a lot of people believe it.”

Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff said conspiracy theories led to 65,000 voter registration challenges in just eight counties in his state in the leadup to the 2022 midterms. The challenges were “overwhelmingly frivolous” and targeted Black voters, Ossoff said.

Fontes urged a more aggressive posture to fight misinformation.

“I think we need to be very, very much more robust in attacking the illegitimate attacks for what they are: conspiracy theories and lies designed to undermine our democracy,” Fontes said.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey speaks to reporters outside the Western District Court of Appeals building in Kansas City on Oct. 30, 2023, while Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft waits for his turn the microphones (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote ballot titles for six proposals to restore abortion rights that were “replete with politically partisan language,” a Missouri appeals court unanimously ruled Tuesday.

In an expedited decision issued a day after hearing arguments, a three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals upheld, with only minor revisions, the revised ballot titles written by Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem.

In a decision by a separate panel, the court upheld the fiscal note summary written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick. Rejecting arguments from two lawmakers and an anti-abortion activist, the court said Fitzpatrick’s summary was “fair and sufficient.”

Ashcroft issued a statement that he would appeal the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, a process likely to take several weeks. The ongoing court battle narrows the time for gathering signatures to put the proposal on the 2024. Backers must secure more than 170,000 signatures from registered voters by early May.

A key error in Ashcroft’s ballot titles, states the opinion signed by Judge Thomas Chapman, was its single-minded focus on how it would impact the legality of abortion. The proposed constitutional amendments, he wrote, cover all aspects of reproductive health care.

“The absence of any reference to a right to reproductive health care beyond abortion in the summary statements is misleading,” Chapman wrote.

There was little to be saved from Ashcroft’s summaries, he wrote.

“The secretary’s summary statements do not fairly describe the purposes and probable effects of the initiatives,” he wrote. “The secretary’s summary statements are replete with politically partisan language.”

Missouri judge rejects secretary of state’s ‘problematic’ summary of abortion initiative petitions

Chapman zeroed in on particular phrases as especially troublesome. In the ballot title for each of the six proposals, Ashcroft wrote that passage would “nullify longstanding Missouri law protecting the right to life, including but not limited to partial-birth abortion.”

The phrase “right to life,” like its counterpart in the abortion debate, “right to choose,” is a partisan phrase intended to trigger a particular response, Chapman wrote.

“The use of the term ‘right to life’ is simply not an impartial term,” he wrote.

The same is true for “partial birth abortion,” he wrote, calling it “a politically charged phrase” that “carries no fixed definition.”

The lengthy battle to get ballot titles written began when Anna Fitz-James, a St. Louis physician, filed 11 proposed constitutional amendments with Ashcroft’s office in March on behalf of a political action committee called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom.

The proposals would amend the constitution to declare that the “government shall not infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” 

That would include “prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care and respectful birthing conditions.” Penalties for both patients seeking reproductive-related care and medical providers would be outlawed.

Each version of the proposed amendment says there must be a “compelling governmental interest” for abortion restrictions to be put in place. But while some allow the legislature to regulate abortion after “fetal viability,” others draw the line at 24 weeks of gestation. 

Some versions make it clear the state can enact parental consent laws for minors seeking abortions. Others leave the topic out entirely. 

Under Missouri law, Ashcroft had up to 56 days to obtain certifications of the form and fiscal note, write a ballot title and certify the petition for circulation.

Attorney General Andrew Bailey tested his authority during that process, refusing to certify the fiscal note summary written by Fitzpatrick until the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in July that his role was limited to determining whether it fit the form required by law.

With legal backing of the ACLU of Missouri, Fitz-James sued Ashcroft over his ballot titles. That led to Beetem’s ruling on Sept. 25 and the subsequent appeal.

In a statement issued Tuesday, the ACLU called the appeals court ruling a complete victory.

“Today, the courts upheld Missourians’ constitutional right to direct democracy over the self-serving attacks of politicians desperately seeking to climb the political ladder,” the statement read. “The decision from Missouri Court of Appeals is a complete rebuke of the combined efforts from the Attorney General and Secretary of State to interfere and deny Missourian’s their right to initiative process.”

Ashcroft said in a statement that Missouri courts “refused to allow the truth to be known. The Western District essentially approved the language that was entirely rewritten by Judge Beetem. Not only is the language misleading but it is categorically false. The circuit court’s opinion admits the real issue is about abortion. The Western District today continued to gloss over the issue in its affirmation. We stand by our language and believe it fairly and accurately reflects the scope and magnitude of each petition.”

Bailey also said in a statement that he disagreed with the decision.

“We remain undeterred in our fight to protect the health and safety of women and children from the radical abortion activists working to turn Missouri into California,” Bailey said.

The appeals court ruling will likely guide litigation over similar language Ashcroft applied to proposals seeking to add rape and incest exceptions to the state’s abortion ban. Those ballot titles, on proposals pitched as a middle ground between the ban currently in place and more expansive rights included in the Fitz-James initiatives, are being challenged in a lawsuit filed last week. 

Abortion became illegal in Missouri in June 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The only exception is for emergency abortions to save the life of the mother or when there is “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

In its ruling, the court of appeals upheld only one aspect of Ashcroft’s original ballot title – that the proposals would bar the government from discriminating against individuals or organizations that support reproductive rights or provide reproductive services.

The court restored the language, substituting “reproductive services” for “abortion” in Ashcroft’s sentence because “the Secretary’s singular focus on abortion in addressing the nondiscrimination provisions is, as previously noted, misleading.”

In upholding Beetem’s decision to rewrite all the ballot titles, Chapman said he had no choice. 

“After removal of the inaccurate and partisan language of the secretary’s summary statements, the circuit court was left with largely unworkable summary statements,” Chapman wrote. “The circuit court was authorized to write alternative language to fulfill its responsibility that a fair and sufficient summary statement be certified.”

In the decision on the fiscal note summary, Judge Alok Ahuja, also writing for an unanimous panel, ruled that Fitzpatrick had accurately summarized the fiscal note. State Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove, state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, and Kathy Forck, a longtime anti-abortion advocate from New Bloomfield, filed the challenge, arguing that the state could lose federal Medicaid funding and trillions in future tax revenue.

Their briefs cited no authority that showed Medicaid funding was in danger and Fitzpatrick received no information from state agencies that showed it was likely, the court ruled.

On another point, the panel rejected the idea that Fitzpatrick should have used an estimated loss of revenue from Greene County and projected it statewide. The assumptions used by Greene County were dubious, Ahuja wrote, because they are based on a pure revenue-per-person calculation of local tax collections.

Newborns aren’t likely to have the same spending patterns as adults, Ahuja noted.

“Moreover, despite Kelly’s glib contention that extrapolating the Greene County estimate would be a ‘simple’ exercise, she ignores that sales and property tax rates are not uniform state-wide – nor are the value of real and personal property, or the wealth, income and consumption patterns of individuals and businesses,” Ahuja wrote.

In a statement, Fitzpatrick said he was gratified that his work had been upheld again.

“I oppose these measures and wholeheartedly agree with the other opponents that protecting innocent life is vitally important,” Fitzpatrick said, “but that does not and cannot influence my duty to honestly inform the voters of the state as to their potential costs.”

This article has been updated since it was initially published. 

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (photo submitted).

Over the summer, Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined in the effort to try to convince a federal court to move a lead-poisoning lawsuit against a St. Louis company out of Missouri. 

The litigation in question was filed by thousands of people from Peru suing Doe Run Resources Corp. over alleged injuries caused by its lead smelter in that country. 

Bailey filed an amicus brief, signed by his solicitor general, arguing that the lawsuit should be handled by courts in Peru, where the plaintiffs live and where the pollution took place. 

Doe Run’s corporate headquarters is in St. Louis. 

Less than three months later, Bailey’s re-election campaign got a major boost. A political action committee created to support his 2024 hopes got a $50,000 check from Doe Run’s parent company, New York-based Renco Group. 

On Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs cried foul, asking a federal court to either throw Bailey’s brief out altogether or require him to amend it to acknowledge the five-figure contribution.

Plaintiffs noted Renco has only waded into Missouri politics twice: Last month for Bailey, and in 2018 for Gov. Mike Parson, shortly after he, too, tried to get the case to be moved to Peru. 

“Renco seemingly has only ever made two donations to Missouri state politicians — and both closely coincided with the recipients intervening in this litigation to help Renco,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. 

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the attorney general said the office is not a party in the lawsuit. 

“We filed an amicus brief not in the interest of a company or individual but rather to protect our state judicial system from abuse by foreign plaintiffs,” said Madeline Sieren, communications director for the Missouri attorney general’s office. 

Missouri AG drops out of gambling case after taking donations from companies suing state

A spokesperson for Doe Run said there is “nothing improper or even newsworthy about Doe Run’s parent company supporting political officials in Missouri, and its support for pro-business candidates is nothing new. 

“Attorney General Bailey took a principled position in the best interest of Missouri,” the company said, “that has nothing to do with political donations.”

But the Renco donation is not the first time Bailey’s political operation has caused headaches for his official office. 

In April, Bailey announced he was recusing the office from a lawsuit against the Missouri State Highway Patrol accusing it of harassment and a “concerted campaign of threats” against companies that profit from unregulated slot machines. 

Bailey did not specify what conflict of interest inspired his departure from the case, which had been ongoing for more than two years at that point.

But the announcement came after Liberty and Justice PAC — formed to bolster his 2024 campaign for a full term as attorney general next year — received large campaign contributions from a constellation of PACs linked to the two companies that brought the lawsuit against the state — Torch Electronics and Warrenton Oil.

The case was eventually dismissed, a result that is under appeal. 

La Oroya, Peru

The La Oroya smelter in central Peru, some 108 miles east of the capital city of Lima, opened in 1922, though Doe Run only run began running it in the late 1990s. And in 2007,  Doe Run Peru became a separate company under the Renco Group, filing for bankruptcy two years later.

The smelter is one of just a handful in the world that can process multiple metals, including copper and lead, as well as refine zinc. 

The city of La Oroya has been called one of the 10 most polluted places in the world by the Blacksmith Institute, a New York-based environmental organization. In one study, by St. Louis University in 2005, more than 90% of children from La Oroya had excessive levels of lead in their bodies. 

Lead is a dangerous neurotoxin that is especially harmful to children. Scientists agree there is no safe level of lead exposure.

A pair of lawsuits against Doe Run, filed more than a decade ago, include around 3,000 plaintiffs accusing the company of harming them with toxic lead emissions, among other pollutants. Both cases are in federal court in St. Louis, and judges have repeatedly rejected efforts to move the proceedings to Peru.

In his brief, filed in July, Bailey argues the sheer number of plaintiffs will have the effect of “clogging Missouri courts” and delaying justice for Missourians.  

The lawsuits also risk undermining the sovereignty of Peru, Bailey argues. 

“Faced with a factory that produced both bad outputs (substantial pollution) and good outputs (thousands of jobs in a region struggling economically), Peru decided not to throw the good out with the bad,” the attorney general’s office wrote. “It instead sought to limit pollution while allowing the facility to continue operating.”

If a Missouri company can be hauled into state court over matters that took place overseas, Bailey contends, “then any company that wants to engage in foreign investment will think twice before establishing a presence in Missouri.”

Parson’s office made a similar argument in 2018 in a letter to then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, first reported at the time by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, asking for assistance in moving the litigation from federal court in St. Louis to Peru.

The brief Bailey filed in the case includes a footnote saying no outside entity “made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.”

Even though the $50,000 contribution was made three months later, plaintiffs attorneys argue the court should direct Bailey to “correct that statement or should strike the brief altogether.”

“(Attorney) General Bailey reportedly withdrew from one recent matter in part because a party to that matter had indirectly donated $25,000 to the Liberty and Justice PAC,” plaintiffs wrote, referring to the illegal gambling lawsuit. “This case — involving a party’s direct $50,000 campaign donation to the same PAC — merits the same result.”

The two previous GOP attorneys general — Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt — declined to intervene in the case.

While Renco has only ever made two large donations in Missouri, Doe Run has a long history of involvement in state politics, including $16,000 in donations to various candidates and committees last year.

In Doe Run’s statement to The Independent, the company noted that one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Jerry Schlichter, is also a regular campaign donor in Missouri. According to the Missouri Ethics Commission, Schlichter gave around $8,000 last year and around $40,000 this year, mostly to local Democratic candidates in St. Louis. 

This story has been updated since it was originally published. 

House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, talks to the media on March 9, 2023 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher fired his chief of staff on Tuesday —  just weeks after the Republican lawmaker was accused by nonpartisan legislative employees of unlawful conduct.

In a letter to legislators, Plocher announced that the chief of staff position in his office is vacant effective immediately. Up until Tuesday, that job had been held by Kenny Ross, who has served as chief of staff to the last three Republican speakers — Todd Richardson, Elijah Haahr and Rob Vescovo.

There was no reason given for Ross leaving his position. A spokesman for the speaker’s office said he did not anticipate being able to provide clarity on the situation. Ross declined to comment. 

Shortly after Plocher’s decision to fire his top aide became public, Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden announced Ross would be joining his office as director of strategic initiatives.

“I am excited to add Kenny’s years of experience to my incredibly talented team,” Rowden said on social media. “We are ready to move Missouri forward this coming year.”

Ross’ departure from the speaker’s office comes in the wake of allegations by the chief clerk of the House of potentially illegal and unethical conduct by Plocher in his unsuccessful push for the chamber to spend nearly $800,000 to hire a private company to manage constituent information.

The accusations were uncovered in emails obtained by The Independent through Missouri’s Sunshine Law. 

Missouri lawmaker accused of ‘unlawful’ conduct in push for contract, drawing FBI scrutiny

Dana Miller, chief clerk of the House since 2018 and a legislative staff member since 2001, wrote to colleagues that Plocher directly connected his push for the contract to campaign activity and threatened her employment over her opposition. 

Ross was never mentioned in the emails.

Miller wrote that Plocher made statements to her “connecting this contract with campaign activity” — suggesting the speaker’s motivation was his 2024 campaign for lieutenant governor — and expressed that she had “growing concerns of unethical and perhaps unlawful conduct.”

Another staffer also complained that the pressure for the contract was “insanely inappropriate” and would lead to more bad behavior if Plocher got his way.

The allegations have drawn attention from federal law enforcement, with the FBI attending the legislative hearing where the contract was debated last month.

Plocher has not publicly addressed the accusations, though he denied them in a written statement to The Independent, saying: “No one has asked, received, nor will receive, any special treatment in regard to software contracts or any contracts while I am speaker.”

Jim Hoft, founder of The Gateway Pundit, talks with Stephen K. Bannon while appearing on an episode of Brietbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot at Quicken Loans Arena on July 21, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio (Ben Jackson/Getty Images for SiriusXM).

The St. Louis-based website being sued by former Georgia election workers for defamation is being accused of purposely delaying discovery in the case to forestall a jury trial. 

In a motion filed in St. Louis Circuit Court last week, attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss asked a judge to set an August 2024 trial date, as well as allow for depositions of at least 20 people involved in a series of stories published by The Gateway Pundit accusing plaintiffs of election fraud. 

The Gateway Pundit, founded by brothers Jim and Joe Hoft, was sued for defamation and emotional distress by Freeman and Moss in 2021. They contend the right-wing site published debunked stories accusing them of election fraud that resulted in threats of violence, many tinged with racial slurs.

Freeman and Moss’ attorneys say the Hofts have “repeatedly delayed discovery in this matter,” including by “failing to comply with the court’s discovery orders; failing to abide by their discovery obligations… and filing not just an improper counterclaim but also several meritless motions.”

The Hofts are represented by the Las Vegas law firm of Marc Randazza, who in the past has represented numerous far-right figures, including Alex Jones of InfoWars and Andrew Anglin of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer. He declined to comment when reached via email this week.

Freeman and Moss worked as election workers in Atlanta in 2020 when a top adviser to former President Donald Trump — ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — testified to a state Senate committee that Georgia election officials had counted illegal ballots to steal the presidency for Joe Biden. 

The allegations were quickly debunked by government officials and the media, but they still reverberated through right-wing media outlets.

Soon after Giuliani’s testimony in Georgia, the Gateway Pundit identified Freeman as one of the election workers accused of producing and counting 18,000 hidden, fraudulent ballots from a suitcase.

“What’s Up, Ruby,” the site’s headline read that day. “BREAKING: Crooked Operative Filmed Pulling Out Suitcases of Ballots in Georgia IS IDENTIFIED.”

A month after the initial allegations, Trump himself singled out Freeman by name in a call with Georgia officials pressing them to alter the state’s election results. The Gateway Pundit bragged in an article about the call that the site was “first to identify” Freeman and Moss in the “suitcase fraud scandal that was caught on tape and went viral online.”

The former president’s supporters went on the attack. 

Freeman and Moss say they were almost immediately bombarded with threats of violence, many tinged with racial slurs. Under advice from the FBI, Freeman says she had to flee her home. On Jan. 6, 2021 — the day of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — Freeman said her home was surrounded by Trump supporters shouting through bullhorns.

Moss says strangers tried to get into her grandmother’s home to make a “citizen’s arrest.”

Gateway Pundit would go on to publish numerous stories about Freeman and Moss, with headlines like: “WHERE’S BILL BARR? — We Got Your Voter Fraud AG Barr — It’s On Video and They Attempted to Steal Georgia with It! — HOW ABOUT A FEW ARRESTS?” 

“It’s turned my life upside down,” Moss testified last year to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Moss and Freeman also sued Giuliani over the false accusation, and in August he conceded in a carefully worded court filing that his assertions about Georgia election workers committing fraud during the 2020 presidential race were false. 

The Hofts argue that any stories published by the Gateway Pundit regarding Freeman and Moss were “either statements of opinion based on disclosed facts or statements of rhetorical hyperbole that no reasonable reader is likely to interpret as a literal statement of fact.”

Rhetorical hyperbole, the Hofts argue, “cannot form the basis of defamation and related tort claims.” 

A legal standard set in a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision states that public officials must establish actual malice — or reckless disregard of the truth — before recovering defamation damages. In this case, the Hofts say the plaintiffs are “limited purpose public figures,” and must prove actual malice to claim defamation. 

The Hofts filed a counterclaim in the case alleging the lawsuit against them is solely intended to drive the Gateway Pundit out of business.

“It is a form of political lawfare,” the Hofts’ counterclaim states, “and lacks legal merit.” 

The counterclaim was dismissed earlier this year. 

Efforts in recent years by many states to make it easier to vote by mail prompted a furious backlash from former President Donald Trump and his backers, who have repeatedly claimed that mail voting is dangerously vulnerable to fraud(Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

Lately, a rough consensus has emerged among people who study the impact of voting policies: Though they often spark fierce partisan fighting, most changes to voting laws do little to affect overall turnout, much less election results.

But one fast-growing reform appears to stand out as an exception.

When every registered voter gets sent a ballot in the mail — a system known as universal vote-by-mail — voting rates tend to rise, numerous studies have found.

Advocates for mail voting say these findings haven’t gotten the attention they deserve, and that they should lead more states that want to boost turnout to adopt UVM, as it’s called.

“To a remarkable degree, most of the nation’s leading journalists, democracy reform organizations, and elected officials continue to largely ignore, downplay — or even dismiss outright – the potentially profound implications of these noticeably high turnout rates,” said a research paper released last month by the National Vote at Home Institute, which advocates for increased use of mail voting.

Currently, eight states — California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington — use UVM.

Vote by mail attacked by Trump

Efforts in recent years by many states to make it easier to vote by mail prompted a furious backlash from former President Donald Trump and his backers, who have repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that mail voting is dangerously vulnerable to fraud.

Perhaps no state incurred Trump’s wrath more than Nevada, which, along with California, introduced UVM in 2020 in response to the pandemic.

“The governor of Nevada should not be in charge of ballots. The ballots are going to be a disaster for our country,” Trump said ahead of the 2020 election, referring to the state’s then-governor, Democrat Steve Sisolak (In fact, Sisolak was not “in charge of ballots.” Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, was). “You’re going to have problems with the ballots like nobody has ever seen before.”

Since replacing Sisolak this year, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, has pushed for eliminating UVM. (“Sending ballots to more than 1.9 million registered voters is inefficient and unnecessary,” Lombardo said in January.) But Democrats, who control the state legislature, have shown no interest in scrapping the system.

So great was the GOP’s suspicion of the practice in 2022 that some voters were told by party activists to hold onto mail ballots and hand them in on Election Day at their polling place, rather than mailing them.

But Trump and Republicans have lately backtracked, telling supporters to take advantage of mail voting rather than handing an advantage to Democrats. In June, the Republican National Committee announced a new get-out-the-vote drive encouraging early and mail voting.

States tinker with mail voting

Still, over 20 states have sought to restrict mail voting since 2020. Ohio has shortened the timeframe to apply for mail ballots and imposed new signature requirements, while Arizona now removes people from its list to receive a mail ballot if they go for more than two years without voting.

Among states looking to expand mail voting, not all have gone as far as UVM. Both New York and Pennsylvania, among other states, have loosened their rules to allow anyone to cast an absentee ballot by mail, rather than requiring an excuse — a system known as no-excuse absentee. But the voter still must take the trouble to apply to receive their absentee ballot, rather than being mailed one automatically.

Experts say there isn’t strong evidence that these more modest approaches to mail voting do much to boost turnout

Other reforms that likewise have become core to the Democratic platform on voting policy, like adding early voting opportunities, also haven’t consistently been shown to increase voting rates. Allowing people to register at the polls — often called same-day registration — has in some studies been associated with small turnout increases.

By contrast, the research on UVM finds a consistent and significant impact.

Advocates say that’s hardly surprising. Under UVM, election officials simply mail ballots to directly everyone on the voter rolls, almost literally putting a ballot in voters’ hands. Voters can return their ballot either through the mail or by leaving it in a secure ballot dropbox.

Research studies

A 2022 paper by Eric McGhee and Jennifer Paluch of the Public Policy Institute of California and Mindy Romero of the University of Southern California found that UVM increased turnout among registered voters by 5.6 percentage points in the 2020 election — what the authors called “a substantial and robust positive effect.”

A 2018 paper by the data firm Pantheon Analytics, which works for Democrats and progressive groups, compared Utah counties that used UVM with those that didn’t, and found that the system boosted turnout by 5-7 percentage points among registered voters.

And a forthcoming paper by Michael Ritter of Washington State University, to be published in the November 2023 edition of the Election Law Journal, looks at various mail voting systems over the last decade and finds that UVM led to an 8-point increase in registered voter turnout.

By and large, states that use UVM appear to see higher voting rates than those that don’t. The National Vote at Home Institute research paper found that eight of the 11 states that used UVM in 2020 were in the top 15 states for turnout of active registered voters. And none of those eight were battleground states, which tend to see higher turnout.

Two other states using UVM for the first time in 2020 ranked first and second on improved turnout compared to 2016 — Hawaii, which saw a 14% jump, and Utah, which saw an 11% jump.

The paper also found that UVM has a particularly large impact on turnout rates for young voters, Black and Latino voters, who tend to vote at lower rates than average.

No advantage for one party 

Advocates say there’s another reason why policymakers should have no reluctance to embrace UVM: Despite its impact on turnout, it doesn’t help one party more than the other, according to numerous studies.

“Universal VBM does not appear to tilt turnout toward the Democratic party, nor does it appear to affect election outcomes meaningfully,” a representative 2020 paper by a group of Stanford University political scientists concluded.

McGhee said that finding could have the effect of turning down the political heat on the issue.

“Hopefully as the evidence gets out that it boosts turnout without impacting partisan outcomes, that part of it will fade a little bit,” he said. “And it’ll just be seen as a good-government reform.”

(Getty Images)

Artificial intelligence could be used to disrupt U.S. election campaigns, members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration said during a Wednesday hearing.

But the hearing showed that imposing laws and regulations on campaign content without violating constitutional rights to political speech will be difficult.

Elections pose a particular challenge for AI, an emerging technology with potential to affect many industries and issues, committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said. AI can make it easier to doctor photos and videos, creating fictional content that appears real to viewers.

Klobuchar called that “untenable for democracy.”

Klobuchar said the hearing underscored the need for Congress to impose guardrails for the use of AI in elections. Klobuchar is the lead sponsor of a bipartisan bill, with Republicans Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware, that would ban the use of AI to make deceptive campaign materials.

“With AI, the rampant disinformation we have seen in recent years will quickly grow in quantity and quality,” she said. “We need guardrails to protect our elections.”

But some Republicans on the panel, and two expert witnesses, also warned that regulating AI’s use in elections would be difficult — and perhaps unwise — because of the potential impact on First Amendment-protected political speech.

“A law prohibiting AI-generated political speech would also sweep an enormous amount of protected and even valuable political discourse under its ambit,” said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for TechFreedom, a technology think tank.

Election risks

Klobuchar twice used an example of AI-generated deep-fake images, meaning wholly false images meant to look real, that appeared to show former President Donald Trump hugging Anthony Fauci. Fauci is the former leader of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who is deeply unpopular with some sections of the Republican electorate because of his positions on COVID-19.

The images were used in a campaign ad by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who along with Trump, is running for the 2024 Republican nomination for president.

Trevor Potter, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, testified that election laws are intended to help voters by requiring transparency about who pays for political speech and who is speaking. AI could upend those goals and make interference by foreign or domestic adversaries easier, he said.

“Unchecked, the deceptive use of AI could make it virtually impossible to determine who is truly speaking in a political communication, whether the message being communicated is authentic or even whether something being depicted actually happened,” Potter said. “This could leave voters unable to meaningfully evaluate candidates and candidates unable to convey their desired message to voters, undermining our democracy.”

Klobuchar asked the panel of five witnesses if they agreed AI posed at least some risk to elections, which they appeared to affirm.

Misinformation and disinformation in elections is particularly important for communities of color, said Maya Wiley, the CEO of the Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights.

Black communities and those whose first language is not English have been disproportionately targeted in recent elections, including material generated by Russian agents in 2016, she said.

First Amendment concerns

Misinformation in campaigns has been attempted without AI, said Neil Chilson, a researcher at the Center For Growth And Opportunity at Utah State University. Deception, not the technology, is the problem, he said.

“If the concern is with a certain type of outcome, let’s focus on the outcome and not the tools used to create it,” Chilson said in response to questioning from ranking Republican Deb Fischer of Nebraska.

Writing legislation narrowly enough to target deceptive uses of AI without interfering with common campaign practices would be difficult, Chilson said.

“I know we all use the term deep fake, but the line between deep fake and tweaks to make somebody look slightly younger in their ad is pretty blurry,” Chilson said. “And drawing that line in legislation is very difficult.”

If a federal law existed, especially with heavy penalties, the result would be to “chill a lot of speech,” he added.

U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican, said he didn’t trust the Biden administration and Congress to properly balance concerns about fraudulent material with speech rights and fostering the emergence of AI, which has the potential for many positive uses in addition to possible nefarious ones.

While he said he saw issues with AI, Congress should be careful in its approach, he said.

“Congress and the Biden administration should not engage in heavy-handed regulation with uncertain impacts that I believe pose a great risk to limiting political speech,” he said. “We shouldn’t immediately indulge the impulse for government to just do something, as they say, before we fully understand the impacts of the emerging technology, especially when that something encroaches on political speech.”

Difficult, not impossible

Responding to Hagerty, Klobuchar promoted her bill that would ban outright fraud that is created by AI.

“That is untenable in a democracy,” she said.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon testified that while it may be difficult for courts and lawmakers to determine what content crosses a line into fraud, there are ways to navigate those challenges.

“Sen. Hagerty is correct and right to point out that this is difficult and that Congress and any legislative body needs to get it right,” he said. “But though the line-drawing exercise might be difficult, courts are equipped … to draw that line.”

Congress should require disclaimers for political ads that use AI, but such a requirement shouldn’t replace the power to have content removed from television, radio and the internet if it is fraudulent, Klobuchar said.

She added that in addition to banning “the most extreme fraud,” her priorities in legislation that could see action this year would be to give the FEC more authority to regulate AI-generated content, and requiring disclaimers from platforms that carry political ads.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., speaks during a press conference at Hudson County Community College’s North Hudson Campus on Sept. 25, 2023 in Union City, New Jersey (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — More than a dozen U.S. Senate Democrats are calling on New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez to resign following his indictment on corruption charges for the second time.

Among the 18 senators on the record as of early Tuesday afternoon was New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who said in a statement that Menendez’s refusal to step down was a “mistake.”

“Stepping down is not an admission of guilt but an acknowledgment that holding public office often demands tremendous sacrifices at great personal cost,” Booker said.

Menendez, who has temporarily stepped down from the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has vehemently denied the charges, and has reiterated that he does not intend to resign. On Friday, federal authorities unveiled an indictment alleging Menendez traded official favors for cash, gold bars, and a Mercedes-Benz.

“I recognize this will be the biggest fight yet, but as I have stated throughout this whole process, I firmly believe that when all the facts are presented, not only will I be exonerated, but I still will be New Jersey’s senior senator,” Menendez said Monday.

Booker was the first Democratic member of the Foreign Relations Committee to call for Menendez’s resignation.

Additional Democratic senators calling for Menendez to resign include Bob Casey and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania; Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; Peter Welch of Vermont; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Jon Tester of Montana; Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin; Jacky Rosen of Nevada; Martin Heinrich of New Mexico; Mark Kelly of Arizona; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; Michael Bennet of Colorado; Kirsten Gillibrand of New York; Ed Markey of Massachusetts; Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire; Mazie Hirono of Hawaii; and Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

“The covenant we have with the American people is sacred, and ensuring the public has faith that those of us elected to serve are working for them and not other interests is paramount,” Warnock said in a statement.

“Senator Menendez has every right to make his case in our courts, but for the good of public trust in our institutions and our democracy, he should step aside and resign.”

Breach of public trust

Nearly all the Senate Democrats argued that while Menendez is innocent until proven guilty, the charges are egregious enough that they are a breach of public trust, and urged him to resign.

“He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence, but he cannot continue to wield influence over national policy, especially given the serious and specific nature of the allegations,” Fetterman, who was the first Democrat to call for Menendez to quit, wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Several senators have already announced they plan to give away campaign funds accepted from Menendez’s political action committee.

Tester and Casey, who both have tough 2024 re-election campaigns, said they are each donating $10,000 in contributions from Menendez’s PACs, according to the Hill.

Tester’s campaign will donate its $10,000 to a veterans’ charity, and Casey’s campaign will donate its $10,000 to an unspecified organization.

“Public service is a sacred trust,” Casey said in a statement. “The specific allegations set forth in the federal indictment indicate to me that Senator Menendez violated that trust repeatedly.”

Fetterman also announced he will be returning $5,000 from a PAC associated with Menendez, according to CNBC. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said on the Senate floor last week that Menendez had “rightfully” stepped down from his position as chair of Foreign Relations, and did not express an opinion as to whether Menendez should remain in office.

“Bob Menendez has been a dedicated public servant and is always fighting hard for the people of New Jersey,” Schumer said. “He has a right to due process and a fair trial.”

The White House has largely pivoted away from the matter. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday whether Menendez resigns is “certainly going to be up to him and the Senate leadership.”

But not all senators are calling for him to step down.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas criticized the Justice Department for prosecuting Menendez.

“He should be judged by jurors and New Jersey’s voters, not by Democratic politicians who now view him as inconvenient to their hold on power,” Cotton said on X.

And when asked on MSNBC, Democratic Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow said she wanted to “let this move forward this week and we’ll see what happens.”

Menendez accusations

Federal authorities last week charged New Jersey’s senior senator with one count each of conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit extortion under the color of official right.

Menendez and his wife, Nadine Menendez, are accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for official favors meant to aid three men — Wael Hana, Jose Uribe, and Fred Daibes — and the nation of Egypt. Nadine Menendez, Hana, Uribe, and Daibes are named in the indictment.

A handful of New Jersey lawmakers have also called on Menendez to resign, such as U.S. Democratic Reps. Andy Kim, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Josh Gottheimer and Tom Malinowski.

Kim also shortly announced plans to run against Menendez for his seat.

This is not the first time federal prosecutors have charged Menendez. In 2018, New Jersey prosecutors dropped a case where Menendez was charged with campaign contributions and other bribes in exchange for official favors.

The Cole County Courthouse in downtown Jefferson City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).

A Cole County judge rewrote the ballot titles for six initiative petitions seeking to enshrine the right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution, ruling that 13 phrases in the summaries written by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft are “argumentative” or unfairly biased.

In a ruling issued Monday morning, Circuit Judge Jon Beetem wrote that the summaries crafted by Ashcroft completely ignored the initiative proposals’ protections for contraceptives and other reproductive health needs.

In a separate decision, Beetem upheld the fiscal note summary written by state Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, rejecting claims by two state lawmakers and an anti-abortion activist that passage would impose enormous costs not reflected in the summary.

Beetem’s ruling comes two weeks after he heard arguments from ACLU of Missouri attorneys representing Dr. Anna Fitz-James, the physician who is the named sponsor of the initiatives, challenging Ashcroft’s ballot titles.

“The court finds that certain phrases included in the secretary’s summary are problematic in that they are argumentative or do not fairly describe the purposes or probable effect of the initiative,” Beetem wrote.

Abortion became illegal in Missouri in June 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The only exception is for emergency abortions to save the life of the mother or when there is “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

Representing a political action committee called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, Fitz-James filed 11 versions of the proposal with Ashcroft’s office in March. There has already been one lengthy court case over the initiatives, with the Missouri Supreme Court ruling in July that Attorney General Andrew Bailey had no authority to question the contents of Fitzpatrick’s fiscal note summary.

This new round of litigation, expected to also end with appellate review, has delayed the final decision on which of the initiatives to circulate. To make the 2024 ballot, backers must secure more than 170,000 signatures from registered voters by early May.

In his ruling, Beetem wrote that the problematic phrases Ashcroft used in his summary, which must be 100 words or less, include statements that the initiatives would allow “dangerous, unregulated and unrestricted abortions,” that abortion would be allowed “from conception to live birth” and could be performed by anyone “without requiring a medical license” or “potentially being subject to medical malpractice.”

Beetem wrote that he also found “that while the proposals have the greatest immediate impact on abortion, the absence of any reference to reproductive health care beyond is insufficient in that it would cause a voter to believe that abortion is the only health care comprising the initiatives.”

Each version of the proposed amendment says there must be a “compelling governmental interest” for abortion restrictions to be put in place. But while some allow the legislature to regulate abortion after “fetal viability,” others draw the line at 24 weeks of gestation. 

Some versions make it clear the state can enact parental consent laws for minors seeking abortions. Others leave the topic out entirely.

Beetem rewrote each of six ballot summaries, making them different based on the contents.

The first sentence of each is identical, asking Missouri voters if they want to “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any government interference of that right presumed invalid.”

“The court saw Ashcroft’s proposed summary statements for what they were — the language of a biased politician seeking the support of special interest groups,” said Anthony Rothert, director of integrated advocacy at the ACLU of Missouri, which represented the plaintiff in the case. 

In a statement to The Independent, Ashcroft’s office said it would appeal the ruling.

“We will not stand idly by while the courts hide the effects of this amendment and mislead the people as to what they may very well be voting on next year,” Ashcroft’s statement read.

In his statement Aschroft’s office said Beetem “may pretend this does not allow ‘dangerous, unregulated, unrestricted’ abortions,” but the initiative, Ashcroft said, would allow abortion providers who injure or kill their patients to do so without fear of prosecution.

In his ruling on the challenge to the fiscal note summary, Beetem wrote that Fitzpatrick was under no obligation to do an independent analysis of the potential costs. Filed by state Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove, state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, and Kathy Forck, a longtime anti-abortion advocate from New Bloomfield, the challengers argued that the state could lose federal Medicaid funding and trillions in future tax revenue.

Beetem noted that in another case from 2020, the same parties had argued that banning abortion would cost Missouri its Medicaid funding.

“Petitioners have thus argued that both banning and legalizing abortion would each result in a 100% disallowance of the state’s federal Medicaid funding,” Beetem wrote. “That argument is untenable, and the record tends to show neither scenario has resulted in a disallowance of federal Medicaid funding, in any amount.”

Fitzpatrick’s summaries are sufficient, he wrote.

“The auditor’s fiscal note summaries do not have to express an exact dollar figure,” Beetem wrote, “especially when one cannot be calculated with any degree of certainty.”

In a statement, Fitzpatrick said he was pleased that Beetem had again found his office issued an accurate, unbiased summary of the fiscal note.

“Even though I would prefer to be able to say these initiative petitions will cost the state billions of dollars, I have a responsibility to the people of Missouri to not allow my personal beliefs to prevent the Auditor’s office from providing a fair cost estimate based on facts,” Fitzpatric, said. “I honored that responsibility in this case and that is what I will continue to do.”

Fitzpatrick added that he personally will work to defeat any of the initiatives that make the ballot.

This article has been updated since it was initially published.

A rioter holds a Trump flag inside the US Capitol Building near the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

The FBI and U.S. Department of Homeland Security failed to share intelligence with the U.S. Capitol Police ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, leaving the Capitol Police under-prepared for that day’s violence, the former chief of the Capitol Police told a U.S. House panel chaired by Georgia Republican Barry Loudermilk on Tuesday.

But Democrats at the House Administration hearing said the testimony by former USCP Chief Steven Sund didn’t change that former President Donald Trump bore responsibility for boosting baseless allegations that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen.

Trump then summoned supporters to the Capitol, urged them to disrupt then-Vice President Mike Pence’s ceremonial role in certifying the election and then stood by as his supporters attacked the Capitol, Democrats said.

Sund told the panel: “Significant intelligence existed that individuals were plotting to storm the Capitol building, target lawmakers and discussing shooting my officers. And yet, no intel agencies or units sounded the alarm. We were blindsided. Intelligence failed operations. The January 6 attack at the Capitol was preventable.”

Sund told the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight that besides intelligence failures, the U.S. National Guard had also been instructed not to assist Capitol Police out of concern for political “optics.”

Republicans on the panel, led by Loudermilk, used the hearing Tuesday to rebut the findings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol that Trump bore responsibility for the insurrection.

Loudermilk has a personal history with the Jan. 6 committee, and noted Tuesday he had been “a target” of the panel.

The committee asked Loudermilk last year to answer questions about a Capitol tour he gave the day before the attack. Some Democratic House members had said they suspected rioters used tours in the days leading up to the attack to gain a better understanding of the Capitol’s layout.

Democrats said Tuesday that Trump, who faces criminal indictments in connection with Jan. 6, is the main responsible party.

“The person responsible for directing the violence to the Capitol that day in order to undermine — to undermine — a peaceful transfer of power is the favorite to secure the Republican nomination for president,” subcommittee ranking Democrat Norma Torres of California said, referring to Trump’s 2024 bid to reclaim the presidency.

Intelligence breakdown and National Guard slowdown

Sund, who resigned from the Capitol Police two days after the Capitol attack, said that intelligence made public since the attack could have prevented that day’s violence if it was shared ahead of time.

“If the intelligence had been accurately reported and the FBI and DHS had followed their policies and established practices, I wouldn’t be sitting here today,” he told the panel.

“This could have been preventable if we had gotten the intelligence they had,” he later told Virginia Republican Morgan Griffith.

Sund’s department’s own intelligence operations also failed to note the potential danger in the days leading up to the attack, he said.

The USCP Intelligence Division issued a Jan. 3 intelligence assessment, but didn’t highlight an imminent concern, Sund said. The division had intelligence available, but failed to include it, Sund testified.

Sund also told the panel that he was stymied in efforts to have National Guard troops assist U.S. Capitol police.

He’d asked the sergeant at arms of each chamber of Congress on Jan. 3 for permission to call in the National Guard, but was denied in deference to the “optics” of having National Guard troops at the Capitol, he said.

On Jan. 6, he asked House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving to call the National Guard, but didn’t receive approval for more than an hour, he said. The Guard’s arrival at the Capitol was delayed hours more by Defense Department officials, who also cited “the optics of the National Guard on Capitol Hill,” he said.

Memos on Jan. 4 and Jan. 5 from the Defense Department and Department of Army restricted the D.C. National Guard from being involved in responding to Jan. 6 pro-Trump protests, Sund confirmed in response to House Administration ranking Democratic Joseph Morelle of New York.

Sund was unaware of those restrictions until after the attack, he said.

Jan. 6 committee questioned

Loudermilk and other Republicans on the panel used Sund’s testimony to blame the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — not Trump, as the U.S. House committee that investigated the attack, found.

The Jan. 6 committee didn’t ask Sund to appear, the former chief said Tuesday, in response to a question from Loudermilk.

Republicans highlighted Sund’s testimony that Irving delayed National Guard backup and noted that, as the House’s top law enforcement officer, Irving reported to Pelosi.

“None of us in this room are saying what happened on Jan. 6 was correct,” U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican, said. “But I absolutely believe the conditions for that to occur rest at the former speaker’s lap and the two sergeant at arms, and complicit with other individuals. You know, it’s one thing for something to occur, but it’s another thing to create the conditions for that to occur.”

Trump has also called Pelosi responsible for the attack, a claim Pelosi rejected on “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart” on MSNBC.

“He knows he’s responsible for that, so he projects it onto others,” Pelosi said of Trump. “The assault on the Capitol building, the assault on the Constitution, the assault on our democracy. Shame on him.”

Morelle at the hearing disagreed with the Republicans’ effort to shift blame to Pelosi.

“I’m disturbed by that you don’t blame the rioters or the president,” Morelle said. “It’s like blaming a homeowner when he or she is robbed instead of blaming the intruder.”

Morelle added that Irving had been appointed and reappointed to his post by Republican former Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan.

Further, Sund’s account of the National Guard’s delay on Jan. 6 could not solely be attributed to Irving, Morelle noted. The Pentagon, which then was controlled by Trump appointees, also contributed to the delay in sending National Guard troops, he said.

(Getty Images).

The state Senate district map is constitutional despite its splits to political subdivisions in St. Louis County and northwest Missouri, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled Tuesday.

In a 21-page decision, Beetem rejected a challenge to the districts drawn last year by a panel of appeals court judges. The choices made by the Judicial Redistricting Commission are permitted by the constitution and prioritize compactness over other factors the commission was required to consider, Beetem wrote in the ruling.

“This court will not fault the Judicial Redistricting Commission for making less than ‘ideal’ choices within a constitutional framework, especially as compounded by the short amount of time that the Judicial Redistricting Commission had to complete its task,” Beetem wrote.

In the case, residents of Buchanan County in northwest Missouri and Hazelwood in St. Louis County argued that the map violates a provision of the Missouri Constitution requiring as few splits as possible of municipalities and counties in the 34-district Senate map. The lawsuit alleged that it violates the Missouri Constitution because it “packs” Black residents into two St. Louis area districts and splits Buchanan County without good cause.

The plaintiffs, a resident of Hazelwood and a resident of Buchanan County, wanted Beetem to redraw the lines for 13th and 14th districts in St. Louis County and to revise the boundaries of the 12th, 21st and 34th districts in northwest Missouri. The plan submitted by attorney Chuck Hatfield would have put all of Buchanan County in the 12th District, shift a portion of Clay County from the 21st to the 34th District and shift eight small population counties from the 12th District to the 21st.

Beetem heard evidence during a one-day trial in July. In his ruling, he wrote that the map drawn by the judicial panel meets the constitution’s requirements for compactness and does not violate provisions limiting differences from an ideal distribution of population.

The choices made by the commission are reasonable, Beetem wrote, adding that “the Constitution does not require numerical precision or any other form of perfection from the redistricting commissions, who are chosen to fulfill this legislative task.”

In a text message to The Independent, Hatfield wrote that no decision has been made on whether to appeal the ruling. But the number of changes to the redistricting process since the last Senate map was crafted make an appeal attractive.

“This ruling would be a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to give guidance on redistricting,” Hatfield wrote.

After every census, political district lines based on population are revised to be as equal as possible. Lawmakers redraw congressional district lines. The job of devising legislative district boundaries is given to 14-member Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commissions, one for the House and one for the Senate.

If either fails to produce a map, the job is then turned over to a panel of appeals court judges. The House bipartisan commission produced a map for 163 districts that has not been challenged.

During the trial, Beetem heard testimony from Sean Nicholson, a long-time political activist for progressive causes who led a 2018 ballot campaign that made partisan fairness a major factor for redistricting. Republican backlash put a proposal on the 2020 ballot that made following local political boundaries a priority and put partisan fairness as the lowest priority.

Nicholson testified as an expert on redistricting over the objections of an attorney representing Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, the defendant in  the case. On the stand, Nicholson admitted that he didn’t know all the mathematical formulas for determining whether districts are compact or other measures. 

In his decision, Beetem wrote that Nicholson did not have the expertise to know whether the proposed alternative map met constitutional requirements or even if the web-based application he used to create it had accurate population information.

The legal standard for a challenge is whether the map “clearly and undoubtedly” violates the constitution’s directives for creating districts, Beetem wrote. The 2020 revision to redistricting rules, Beetem wrote, also “restored compactness and contiguity to their pre-2018 prominence.”

The splits to Buchanan County and Hazelwood in the map drawn by the judicial commission are natural choices, he wrote.

“The evidence clearly shows that to the extent any political subdivision lines were crossed,” Beetem wrote, “the Judicial Commission chose districts that were more compact.”

Russ Carnahan, chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party, said in an interview Wednesday that the cash-strapped party has a projected budget, along with donors lined up to help finance the party-run primary (photo courtesy of Missouri Democratic Party).

Democrats in Missouri, like their counterparts nationally, will use 2024 to test a new system for determining the party’s presidential preference now that the public primary for all parties has been abolished.

Instead of reverting to a caucus-only system, the process used in most elections prior to 2000, the Missouri Democratic Party is seeking comment on a plan that will use mail-in ballots and four hours of in-person voting on a Saturday – March 23 – to gauge party sentiment.

Russ Carnahan, chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party, said in an interview Wednesday that the cash-strapped party has a projected budget, along with donors lined up to help finance the party-run primary, but he declined to reveal either.

According to the latest disclosure filings, the party had $14,277 in an account for federal elections and $9,184 on hand in its state account. The state report to the Missouri Ethics Commission, for the quarter ending June 30, showed expenses exceeding income.

“It is a daunting task,” Carnahan said. “It’s different. We were sort of served this cow pile, to put it mildly, stuck with this state law the way it is.”

Missouri House votes down bill to reinstate presidential primary

To cast a vote in the primary, Democratic voters will have to ask the party for a ballot that will be returned by mail for tabulation. The plan calls for the party to have at least one in-person voting location open for four hours on March 23, with extra polling locations in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas.

“There is an expense, but we think it is worth it to allow for more participation and more engagement with the public,” Carnahan said.

The party is also experimenting with ranked-choice voting. Anyone casting a ballot will be asked to rank their three preferences among the listed candidates. 

A candidate must receive 15% of the vote in a congressional district to win district delegates and 15% statewide to win at-large delegates. Votes for candidates ranked as the first preference who do not meet those thresholds will be distributed based on second and third preferences until every vote is assigned to a candidate meeting or beating the threshold.

“The bottom line is that the very important piece of this is voter education, so we’re gonna have to do a lot of training for our local folks,” Carnahan said.

Primary history

The first modern presidential primary, with delegates pledged to a candidate by the outcome, was held in 1912 in North Dakota. Democrats nationally this year are rearranging their primary schedule, moving Iowa and New Hampshire, traditionally the first states to vote, behind South Carolina and Georgia.

Missouri’s first primary was in 1988, a one-off contest enacted by a Democratic legislature to benefit then-St. Louis Congressman Dick Gephardt.

Gephardt won the primary but lost the presidential nomination. 

A permanent primary was created for the 2000 election. There was bipartisan support for the primary, with Gephardt again in the contest for the Democratic nomination and then-U.S. Sen. John Ashcroft seemingly prepared to enter the GOP contest.

The Republican-controlled legislature repealed the law authorizing the primary in 2022. An attempt was made to revive the primary in this year’s session – Carnahan and GOP state Chairman Nick Myers testified in favor of it – but the bill died in the gridlock that gripped the state Senate during the final week of this year’s legislative session.

On average, 480,000 Democrats and 450,000 Republicans voted in each of the six primaries since 2000. The actual number varied widely, depending on whether there was an incumbent seeking a second term.

In 2008, when both parties had contested nominations, 1.4 million people voted in the primary, including more than 825,000 Democrats. In 2016, when both nominations were again open contests, almost 1.6 million voted, including more than 935,000 Republicans.

Only 73,000 Democrats voted in 2012, as President Barack Obama was seeking re-election and only 123,000 Republicans voted in 2004 when President George W. Bush was running for a second term.

In 2024, President Joe Biden so far faces no strong challenge renomination, so Democratic turnout would likely not be very high. But that is not a reason to return to the caucus system, Missouri’s traditional method of selecting convention delegates, Canahan said.

“The problem with the caucus is such limited participation in overall numbers,” he said.

Only about 1% of voters take part in caucuses, he said. There are many reasons people who would vote in a primary can’t get to a caucus, he said.

“If you’re handicapped, elderly, you’re in the military, you’re going to work, you’ve got family obligations, you’re out of town,” Carnahan said. “You can name all the reasons people have a hard time getting to a meeting.”

While the primaries in recent election years have divided the state’s national convention delegates, the caucus system has continued to select the individual delegates.

With small numbers of participants, caucuses are also susceptible to well-organized groups seeking to control delegate selection. In 2012, police were called to the St. Charles County Republican caucus after supporters of Ron Paul – who received 12.7% of the county’s primary vote – disrupted proceedings in an effort to control the meeting.

Carnahan said he doesn’t see any likelihood of a repeat of that scene when Democrats hold their mass meetings in April 2024.

“I have a really very minimal concern with that,” Carnahan said.

Next steps

The Democratic State Committee must adopt a delegate selection plan and will consider the party-run primary at a meeting that has not yet been scheduled. Afterwards, it must be submitted to the national party for approval.

The Republican Party has not released its delegate selection plan, but it seems likely to use a caucus-only system.

The Democratic Party is working with vendors and talking to other state parties, some of which have run primaries, to work through the logistics, he said. 

The goal will be to avoid a debacle like the 2020 Iowa caucuses, where that state’s Democratic Party adopted a virtual voting system that would be used alongside its traditional caucuses. It failed horribly and three weeks after the vote no one had valid results.

The party is using paper ballots and centralized tabulation of the mail-in ballots, augmented by the local counts after in-person voting concludes. The results should be available soon but the most important aspect of the primary is for voters to feel they had a voice in the process, Carnahan said.

“The best option for a hybrid system is to do the caucus, with the mail-in ballot, and that accommodates a lot of people that have a hard time getting to an actual meeting,” he said. “So it’s just for our engagement in reach and participation. Given the limitations of the current state law, it looks like the best we can do.”

Paul Berry III, a St. Louis County resident who has run for various offices as a Republican in recent years, filed a lawsuit in Cole County this week asking a court to block a trio of proposed constitutional amendments that supporters hope to place on the 2024 ballot (Getty images).

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey believes a push to allow St Louis and Kansas City to enact their own gun regulations would cost the state hundreds of millions and lead to a massive increase in rape and murder. 

And his argument, made in a July letter to Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, is now a key piece of litigation filed Monday that seeks to block a trio of initiative petitions that supporters hope to place on the 2024 ballot.

Paul Berry III, a St. Louis County resident who has run for various offices as a Republican in recent years, filed a lawsuit in Cole County asking a judge to reject proposed constitutional amendments that would empower Kansas City, Jackson County, St. Louis and St. Louis County to pass local regulations that are more strict than state law on the possession and transfer of guns. 

Part of Berry’s litigation focuses on Fitzpatrick’s fiscal notes for each version of the amendment that say the attorney general estimates the proposals could result in increased litigation costs of up to $7.5 million. 

Other state and local governmental entities, the fiscal note says, estimate no costs or savings.

But Bailey argued the cost would be far higher in a letter to the auditor in July that estimated the amendments could cost Missouri around $704 million. 

“This includes $696.64 million in increased crime costs,” Bailey wrote, “and $7.5 million in increased legal costs for the attorney general’s office.”

To justify the expense, Bailey argued stricter gun-control laws in certain subdivisions would “meaningfully increase the economic losses from increased crime and the amount that must be spent protecting citizens from crime.”

Specifically, Bailey contends enacting stricter gun regulations would lead to an additional 32 murders and 726 rapes in St. Louis and Kansas City every year. Aggravated assault and robberies would also increase, Bailey wrote.

“These proposed initiative petitions would subvert current state law and give political subdivisions unconstitutional control over local resident’s gun rights,” Bailey wrote. “Not only is that wrong-headed, it is expensive.”

Missouri auditor says AG trying to falsely inflate projected cost of abortion amendment

In his lawsuit, Berry argues Fitzpatrick “rubber stamped” the estimated costs that were submitted by numerous other government agencies but ignored Bailey’s conclusions.

Berry wants Cole County Judge Cotton Walker to declare the proposals unconstitutional and order the Missouri secretary of state to reject them. Short of that, he wants the judge to rewrite the ballot summary and order Fitzpatrick to issue a new fiscal note.

Neither the attorney general’s office nor the auditor could be immediately reached for comment.

A spokesman for Sensible Missouri, which is backing the gun regulation amendment, declined comment. 

This marks the second potential showdown this year between Bailey and Fitzpatrick over the cost of an initiative petition. 

Bailey refused to sign off on Fitzpatrick’s fiscal note earlier this year for an abortion-rights amendment that concluded the proposal would result in “no costs or savings” if it were approved by voters. 

The attorney general demanded the auditor increase the estimate to say the amendment would cost the state billions of dollars. Fitzpatrick said Bailey’s estimates were not based in reality and refused to include them. 

Last month, Fitzpatrick was victorious when the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Bailey had no authority to refuse to sign off on the auditor’s work. 

For the gun regulations amendment, Bailey did not try to block the fiscal note. He signed off on it despite the fact that it did not reflect his arguments about the cost. 

This story has been updated. 

Of the 11 versions of an abortion-rights constitutional amendment submitted to the secretary of state, supporters appear focused on six of them (Astrid Riecken/Getty Images).

The fight over the Missouri abortion ban begins with language.

Eager to once again legalize the procedure in the state after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year made way for the General Assembly to ban it, abortion-rights supporters have been floating 11 versions of a petition to ask voters for a change in November 2024.

They submitted those would-be changes to the state constitution to Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to sort out what sort of summary could actually show up on ballots.

Ashcroft, a Republican abortion opponent and 2024 candidate for governor, crafted ballot language that supporters found misleading and designed to sink petitions in a public vote. His office’s summaries seemed to invite a challenge that would delay for months any group’s ability to circulate petitions.

The physician who filed the petitions has sued Ashcroft and will face off with his office at a court hearing on Sept. 11.

Meanwhile, abortion-rights groups fight over language themselves while they look for the strongest changes they can make and still convince a majority of Missouri voters to cast “yes” ballots.

Of the 11 versions of the petition submitted to Ashcroft, abortion-rights supporters appear focused on six of them.

One would promise the right to abortion flat out. The others would give state lawmakers room to regulate. Three versions would let the General Assembly ban abortion after fetal viability (a point that’s coming earlier in pregnancy with medical advances). Two other versions would protect the right of abortion at least up to 24 weeks of gestation, three weeks before the end of the second trimester.

In the summary written by his office for the 11 different abortion rights initiative petition proposals, Ashcroft says the measures will allow for “dangerous, unregulated abortions” without requiring a medical license. If the summary language remains unchanged, things like sample ballots would show voters only Ashcroft’s summary, not the full text of the amendment.

Ashcroft contends the petitions are misleadingly worded to hide the extent of what abortion-rights passage would mean.

“My office is committed to protecting voters from misinformation,” he said in an Aug. 18 op-ed  in The Missouri Times, a conservative website. 

In a lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union accused the secretary of state of politicizing what should be essentially a bookkeeping role.

“Missourians want the right to make personal decisions about their reproductive health care … free from government interference,” ACLU spokesperson Tom Bastian said in a statement to The Beacon. “Out-of-touch politicians (want) to suppress the right to vote on reproductive rights.”

Dr. Anna Fitz-James submitted the 11 original petitions to the secretary of state. The ACLU of Missouri is litigating the case in state courts.

In the meantime, Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom stand as the public face of the drive to put a question to voters. Campaign finance records show the group formed in March.

While that group hasn’t commented publicly about the petition campaign, multiple abortion-rights groups are huddling privately to balance their desire to make abortion legal in as many situations as possible against what could actually pass in 2024.

Polling from August 2022 shows that about 48% of Missourians support a constitutional amendment wiping out Missouri’s existing abortion ban. Roughly 40% oppose legalizing abortion.

The competing Missouri abortion legalization proposals

All the versions of the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative” start with similar language and lay out broad abortion rights.

They would promise “the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”

That mimics language that passed in Michigan and that voters in Ohio will consider in November.

The Missouri petitions lay out broad access to abortion. Kathryn Abrams, a law professor and social organizing researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, spent eight months interviewing abortion-rights organizers in Missouri.

The question at hand, she said, was whether the recent past should be the “ceiling or the floor” for Missouri abortion rights.

She said discussions among the activist groups behind the proposals centered around whether to return Missouri to something like when Roe v. Wade — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized abortion in 1973, and got reversed last year — was the law. Or whether to ask voters for stronger abortion rights.

“A lot of groups in the state …said Roe was never more than the floor,” Abrams said.

Should fetal viability be the standard?

In five of the six versions that those with knowledge of the petitions say appear to be moving ahead, the language would give lawmakers the power to pass laws that regulate abortion at some point in the pregnancy. Three versions allow bans once a fetus is viable — or could likely survive beyond the womb. Two other versions would leave room for bans on abortion beyond 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

The petition that passed in Michigan last year and the Ohio petition up for a vote this fall left room for legislators to ban abortion at the point of fetal viability. The petitions in those states and the proposals for Missouri define fetal viability as the point in pregnancy when clinicians conclude a fetus likely could sustain survival outside of the uterus without the use of “extraordinary medical measures.”

But some of the groups want a ban on any abortion limits. Pamela Merritt, the executive director of Medical Students for Choice, said she won’t back a petition that includes language about fetal viability or 24 weeks of gestation.

“To me, it’s cleaner,” she said. “It’s as clear as that…. Anything else is a solution in search of a problem.”

Merritt said a simpler version would have made it harder for Ashcroft to slow down the signature gathering process — supporters need about 172,000 signatures by mid-May — by arguing about ballot summary language.

“Give him the least amount of words to work with,” she said. “That would have been my recommendation.”

But polling suggests Missourians appear more likely to support something in the middle — abortion access in some cases, but not all.

The August 2022 poll from St. Louis University and pollster YouGov found 58% of respondents supported abortion access at eight weeks and only 40% supported that right at 15 weeks.

Parental consent for minors and protections for clinicians 

Two of the six versions still in play would leave room for laws that insist on parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion.

But those two versions of the petition would still give a minor an exemption from parental consent if a clinician, “in good faith judgment,” believed seeking that consent put the patient at significant risk of emotional or physical harm. They would also offer a consent exemption if the minor is mature and capable of consenting to an abortion, or at times when obtaining consent would not be in their best interest. The proposals don’t specify how those judgments would be made.

All versions of the petitions also lay out protections for those seeking an abortion and for those providing abortions.

The proposed amendments would bar prosecution of people based on how their pregnancy ends — a miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion. The same concept would apply to abortion providers or those helping someone to get an abortion.

Abortion rights advocates sort out language

Merritt said she’s worried organizers may be tempted to compromise on what she thinks are essential parts of any petition. Just because abortion-rights supporters added certain restrictions, she said, doesn’t necessarily make them good or productive.

Merritt pointed to Ohio. Similar to what Republican lawmakers hope to do in Missouri, lawmakers there asked voters to weigh in on a constitutional amendment, not mentioning abortion, that would raise the amount of support needed for a constitutional amendment to pass. Voters rejected the amendment.

“Everybody who showed up in August knew that they were voting on whether or not Ohioans would be able to determine at a future ballot, abortion or no abortion,” she said.

At the same time, abortion opponents say the language paints things with broad strokes. Ingrid Duran, the state legislative director at the National Right to Life Committee, said she reads the petitions as “intentionally vague.”

While some of Missouri’s versions define things like “fetal viability” or “government,” Duran said she thinks some essential explanations were left out of the conversation, like the mention of “respectful birthing conditions.”

“What the 11 proposals are trying to do is just trying to get all of the fearmongering and concerns that happened post-Dobbs with one broad stroke,” Duran said. “It says respectful birthing conditions and I was like, ‘What does that mean? What is respectful birthing? Respectful to whom?’”

The hearing over summary language is set for Sept. 11, but Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem, who is hearing the case, said those involved should be prepared for an appeal on his decision.

This article first appeared on The Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Booking photos from the Fulton County conspiracy case charging Donald Trump and allies with trying to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. Top row, from left Jeffrey Clark, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Michael Roman, Ray Smith, David Shafer, Sen. Shawn Still. Center row, from left, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro. Bottom row from left, Robert Cheeley, Harrison Floyd, Stephen Lee, Scott Hall, Misty Hampton, Cathleen Latham, Trevian Kutti. (Photos from Fulton County Sheriff’s Office)

At the end of a historic week at the Fulton County jailhouse, the criminal case against former President Donald Trump and his 18 allies also accused of subverting Georgia’s 2020 presidential election is just beginning.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and the rest of the group – which include lawyers, former federal officials, people accused of trying to secure fake electoral votes for Trump and people alleged to have broken into election equipment – with racketeering charges.

Trump denied the charges as politically motivated and described his experience in an interview on Newsmax.

“Terrible experience,” he said. “I came in, I was treated very nicely, but it is what it is. I took a mugshot, which, I never heard the words mugshot, they didn’t teach me that at the Wharton School of Finance, I had to go through a process, it was election interference.”

Trump spent less than half an hour in jail, and nearly all of the alleged co-conspirators had similarly short stays, save one, Harrison Floyd, who was booked on Thursday but not yet released, according to jail records.

According to the indictment, Floyd, as director of Black Voices for Trump, assisted in getting Trevian Kutti in touch with Fulton County poll worker Ruby Freeman, who had become the center of false conspiracy theories surrounding the vote count in Fulton County.

The indictment lists a series of phone calls between Floyd and Kutti on Jan. 3, 2021, before Kutti traveled from Chicago to Atlanta the next day. Kutti then allegedly traveled to Freeman’s home and told a neighbor she was a crisis worker looking to help Freeman.

According to the document, Kutti later set up a meeting with Freeman, which Floyd attended by phone, and the two allegedly attempted to convince her to make false statements about her role in the vote count, which Willis says amounts to witness tampering.

Willis’ office has not released a statement explaining Floyd’s continued stay in the jail. Floyd was also charged with allegedly attacking an FBI officer who knocked on this door earlier this year to serve him a subpoena in relation to the U.S. Justice Department’s investigation of efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, Floyd, a former U.S. Marine and MMA fighter, chased after two officers who served him the subpoena in his Rockville, Maryland home. According to the filing, Floyd charged into one of the agents on a stair landing “striking him chest to chest” and knocking him backward and shouted profanities at them.

Floyd later placed a 911 call alleging that the agents had accosted him and was recorded saying “They were lucky I didn’t have my gun on me, because I would have shot his f–-–ing a–,” according to the filing.

On Monday, Mark Meadows, Trump’s former top White House aide, is scheduled for a hearing in Atlanta’s U.S. District Court on his request to have his case moved from Fulton County’s jurisdiction to federal court. Meadows’ attorneys are arguing for the change in court jurisdiction because they say Meadows was acting on the president’s behalf as a federal officer at the time of the alleged offenses.

Three fake GOP electors, including now-state Sen. Shawn Still, charged in the Fulton County election interference probe are also trying to have their case moved to federal court.

The 41-count, 98-page indictment contends that the alternate elector meeting, which was held as Georgia’s legitimate electors met to cast the state’s official electoral ballots, was a key part of a multistate criminal plot to overturn the 2020 election results. The GOP electors signed and mailed a certificate falsely stating Trump won Georgia, which he narrowly lost by about 12,000 votes.

Then-state GOP party chairman David Shafer and ex-Coffee County chairwoman Cathy Latham were booked and released Wednesday, each under $75,000 bond agreements. Still surrendered early Friday morning and posted a $10,000 bond.

The three argue they were serving in a federal role – calling themselves “contingent” presidential electors – and were advised by counsel, including an attorney representing the president at the time, to cast electoral ballots to preserve Trump’s election challenge.

Notably, not all 16 “alternate” GOP electors were swept up in the sweeping indictment. At least eight of them have accepted plea deals, agreeing to cooperate with Fulton County prosecutors, according to court filings.

This week a judge denied Meadows request to delay his arrest beyond Friday’s deadline set by prosecutors. Instead Meadows would turn himself into Fulton authorities on Thursday.

Another defendant, Jeffrey Clark, who served as Trump’s top environmental lawyer, also turned himself in after a judge denied his motion to halt the county proceedings. Clark is also seeking for his case to be taken up in federal court.

The indictment alleges that Clark solicited a U.S. attorney general and deputy attorney general to make false statements about significant concerns about the election’s outcome in December 2020. That was after Georgia election officials certified the presidential victory for President Joe Biden.

Willis shot down those requests on Wednesday in a fiery response, and a judge declined to extend the Friday deadline.

Willis had said she intended to try all 19 defendants at once. She initially put forward a timeline that included arraignments during the week of Sept. 25 with the trial to commence March 4, 2024, which Trump’s camp complained was too soon.

But the trial could come even sooner for at least some of the defendants. On Wednesday, one of the defendants, attorney Kenneth Chesebro, filed a demand for a speedy trial, and on Friday, fellow attorney Sidney Powell did the same.

Willis has so far responded by offering an Oct. 23, 2023 trial date for Chesebro, and Judge Scott McAfee has approved his request. It will be up to McAfee to set the timetable for the other defendants.

Trump’s attorneys have filed a request to have the former president’s case severed from Chesebro or anyone else who requests a speedy trial.

This article was initially published by the Georgia Recorder, a part of the States Newsroom network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. 

Voters cast their ballots in Boise, Idaho, during the May 2022 primary. Idaho was one of three states this year that banned the use of ranked choice voting. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)

Over the past decade, ranked choice voting has become increasingly popular. From conservative Utah to liberal New York City, 13 million American voters in 51 jurisdictions — including all of Alaska and Maine — now use the system, under which voters rank candidates based on preference, leading to an instant runoff in a crowded race.

This year, Democrats and Republicans in power pushed back.

Arguing that ranked choice voting is too complicated for voters to understand, Democrats in the District of Columbia and Republicans in states such as Idaho, Montana and South Dakota took steps to prevent adoption of the voting system.

Earlier this month, the D.C. Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to block a ballot initiative that would adopt ranked choice voting and allow voters without a party affiliation to cast ballots in primaries. The lawsuit argued in part that ranked choice voting might confuse voters, which “could ultimately suppress the voice and influence of voters of color for decades to come.”

If ranked choice voting survives the lawsuit, voters will consider the measure next year. Two of D.C.’s neighbors — Takoma Park, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia — have used the voting system. A November hearing has been scheduled.

Voters in Nevada will consider a similar ballot question in 2024. Several top Democratic officials in the state oppose it.

A petition drive in Missouri to implement ranked choice voting fell short of making the ballot in 2022 but backers have vowed to try again. An attempt in the General Assembly to block the use of ranked choice voting passed the Missouri House this year but died in the Senate.

In April, Montana Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed into law a measure that preemptively bans localities from adopting ranked choice voting.

It’s a “complicated process,” Montana Republican state Rep. Lyn Hellegaard said in a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in March. Hellegaard, who sponsored the bill, argued that the voting system could delay vote counting by weeks because of the state’s large size.

“It throws voters into a game of odds, rather than informed choice,” she said at the hearing. “This scheme of voting would only solidify the distrust Montanans have in our elections.”

Republican lawmakers in Idaho and South Dakota enacted similar measures this year; Florida and Tennessee banned ranked choice voting last year. Republican-led legislatures approved proposals to ban it in Arizona and North Dakota, but the bills were vetoed by, respectively, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and Republican Gov. Doug Burgum.

Understanding the opposition

In ranked choice voting, voters rank candidates for an office from first to last. If no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the least support is eliminated, and the second-place votes on those ballots are distributed to the remaining candidates.

The process continues until one candidate reaches a majority.

Proponents of the system argue it encourages candidates to appeal to a broad swath of the electorate, while also leading to a more diverse candidate pool and less negative campaigning.

But the challenge to the status quo has led to opposition from people in power, said Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, a nonpartisan organization leading the advocacy effort to adopt ranked choice voting.

“Sometimes, when we see party opposition, that can be a reflection of elected officials who know how to campaign, know how to win under the old system, not quite ready to want to throw that system out yet,” she said in an interview.

Republican opposition to the system revved up after the 2022 midterm elections, when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lost her congressional bid, blaming her loss on ranked choice voting. Voters in the state had adopted the method in 2020 through a ballot initiative.

Democrat Mary Peltola had plurality support after the first round of voting and eventually won after several rounds of tabulation.

“Ranked choice voting is the weirdest, most convoluted and most complicated voter suppression tool that Alaskans could have come up with,” Palin said in November, according to the Anchorage Daily News. “And the point is, we didn’t come up with this. We were sold a bill of goods.”

Former President Donald Trump, whose lies about the 2020 election continue to influence the GOP, has railed against ranked choice voting in Alaska.

“You never know who won in ranked choice. You could be in third place, and they announce that you won the election,” Trump claimed at an Anchorage rally last summer. “It’s a total rigged deal. Just like a lot of other things in this country.”

But there is nothing for conservatives to fear about ranked choice voting, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

It’s not a ploy by Democrats, he said, contrary to what he’s heard from Republicans. The Virginia GOP even used ranked choice voting in 2021 to nominate now-Gov. Glenn Youngkin, he pointed out in an April column.

“If you look at the history and how it’s worked, you realize that it’s neutral between sides of the spectrum,” he told Stateline. “Finding a party candidate who better represents a wide range of voters in that party is good for whatever party adopts it.”

Still, he added, it might be hard to shake some of this conservative opposition, which he said has become more vocal and organized in recent years.

In Idaho, activists are gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that, if approved by voters, would adopt ranked choice voting statewide. Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador, whose office is tasked with writing the titles of ballot initiatives, was ordered by the Idaho Supreme Court this year to re-write one that portrayed the idea negatively.

Labrador hasn’t been shy about his disdain for ranked choice voting.

“Let’s defeat these bad ideas coming from liberal outside groups,” he tweeted in May.

What’s next?

Despite this opposition, several other states are poised to adopt ranked choice voting in the coming years, said FairVote’s Otis, who argued it is “the fastest growing election reform in the country,” and could be used by Republicans in some states in next year’s presidential primaries.

Indeed, there were far more bills in state legislatures this year that supported ranked choice voting (74) than opposed it (17), with a handful of bills that would amend existing laws or commissioning studies of the voting system, according to Ballotpedia. There also was a substantial increase in the number of bills, rising from 44 bills in 2022 to 106 this year.

Ranked choice voting also was expanded in Burlington, Vermont, and adopted in Redondo Beach, California, this year.

Voters in Oregon will decide in November 2024 whether to adopt ranked choice voting. The measure was placed on the ballot by the state legislature — the first time this has happened in the country.

The ballot question is the culmination of a multiyear effort with a diverse coalition of voters of color, labor unions, youth groups and agricultural organizations, said Mike Alfoni, executive director for Oregon Ranked Choice Voting, which is leading the ballot initiative campaign.

“It isn’t this frightening overhaul of the system that would disrupt everything that is going on,” he said. “It’s simply an upgrade that gives voters more choice and has better outcomes, especially with open seat races.”

All but two Republicans opposed the measure in the legislature, which Alfoni blamed on the deep partisan divisions of Oregon politics. If approved, the state would implement the system by 2028.

Rudi Keller of The Missouri Independent contributed to this report.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

State lawmakers attempted to remove state funding of libraries earlier this year, and Secretary of State John "Jay" Ashcroft established a new rule that restricts what books those under 18 can check out (Getty Images).

Ballot measures seeking to fund local libraries had mixed results Tuesday, with Cole County voters striking down a 15-cent tax increase and Taney County residents narrowly approving an 18-cent levy to create a public library.

The votes come at a precarious time for Missouri’s libraries, as they have increasingly been pulled into the political scrum over culture-war topics like drag shows and transgender youth as legislators attempt to pull “obscene” materials from library shelves.

State lawmakers attempted to remove state funding of libraries earlier this year, and Secretary of State John “Jay” Ashcroft established a new rule that restricts what books those under 18 can check out.

The Missouri Library Association, responding to Ashcroft’s rule, said in a tweet that librarians follow ethical standards when selecting books.

“We don’t buy porn for kids. We buy some books — say — that feature same-sex parents,” the organization wrote. “That’s not porn. That’s real life for some people.”

In Taney County, home to Branson, backers of the tax levy tried to allay any potential concerns by stating flatly that there would not be “drag queen story hours” or “liberal book” purchases.

It squeaked out a win by a single percentage point.

In Cole County, where the library tax levy was defeated by over 26 percentage points, the culture war topics that have bedeviled libraries this year weren’t the focus of the opposition.

Critics didn’t go on the offensive about what was on library shelves, but rather panned the hit to taxpayer’s pocketbooks.

“The cost of living has gone way up, and a lot of people are struggling,” Tom Rackers, chairman of Concerned Citizens of Cole County, told The Independent. “It’s just not the time to have frivolous taxes.”

Rackers’ group sent mailers throughout Cole County and spread infographics on social media to oppose the tax levy. But he said the opposition had nothing to do with the library itself.

“We don’t have any problem with the library,” Rackers said. “I don’t think there’s anyone that doesn’t support the library.”

Cole County

Rackers said Concerned Citizens of Cole County, composed largely of conservatives, had been meeting for two and a half years and “recruiting” city council candidates and school board members. 

He said any advocacy for local candidates came in the form of personal donations, not from the PAC.

The group’s efforts were relatively low key until the library initiative, Rackers said, and it didn’t spend enough money to require registering as a political action committee until the days leading up to the vote.

A postcard, mailed to voters from the committee, warned voters of a “75% tax increase.” 

“The library proposition will nearly double your taxes,” the mailer proclaims to voters.

The 75% increase would only apply to the library’s portion of property taxes, of which is small. Overall property taxes would increase by an average of 2.5%, according to estimates from the library.

Claudia Young, director of the Missouri River Regional Library, believes the postcard and graphics on social media impacted voters’ decisions.

“They were purposely trying to confuse people into thinking that the overall property tax bill was going up 75%,” she said.

Nearly 17% of Cole County’s voters weighed in on the issue, and over 63% decided not to approve the levy. Young did not anticipate the outcome and said the library will have to consider new options to expand the building.

“The dream hasn’t died,” she said. “It’s just kind of on pause right now.”

Young doesn’t think questions about progressive literature impacted the vote.

“I think it has everything to do with the fact that our community is very tax intolerant,” she said.

The library unveiled its campaign 16 weeks ago, announcing plans staff had started in 2017. They worked with a financial analyst to propose the 15-cent increase and decided to not sunset the tax, as they anticipated needing long-term funding, Young said.

But the unending nature of the proposal worried Concerned Citizens of Cole County. Rackers said he didn’t like approving a tax in perpetuity and thought the scale of the renovations was too large.

His group emerged in the public eye in late July when Jefferson City Third Ward Councilman Scott Spencer posted a graphic from the group on social media website Nextdoor.

It said Rachel Reagan-Purschke, a lawyer outside of the county, was the group’s treasurer. She is the treasurer of four other political action committees, but is not registered as Concerned Citizens’ treasurer.

The group’s treasurer is Edith Vogel, a Jefferson City resident who sued the city last year when it removed Confederate-related pavers from a city park.

Spencer said it was emailed to him from an unknown sender and that he posted it because he doesn’t believe it is the right time for a tax increase.

“I’m not for any increase in property taxes or sales taxes at this time,” he said.

He deleted the original graphic, later posting a similar picture that Concerned Citizens of Cole County shared on its Facebook page. Both Nextdoor posts garnered debate in the comments before Spencer deleted them.

“They’ve been up and there’s been plenty of discussion on it, so I just delete them,” he said. “I delete them after a few days like I always do with other issues that I post.”

Taney County

Taney County will turn a local nonprofit library into a public resource with the tax approved by voters. The county does not have a public library — a rarity in Missouri.

The Taneyhills Library, in campaign literature, said it was heading toward closure at the end of the year unless it could access public funds.

The measure to fund Taneyhills Library with an 18-cent levy passed by 46 votes with 15% of Taney County voters heading to the polls. Other initiatives were on the ballot, like a local tax on marijuana sales.

The campaign’s frequently-asked-questions page sought to allay fears from conservative voters by stating flatly that the library will not hold “drag queen story hour,” and there will be no requirement to purchase “liberal books.”

Tuesday evening, as votes were being tallied, Branson’s Board of Aldermen finalized restrictions on drag performances that will limit them to a small portion of the city. Drag performances will have to obtain a special permit, treating them like adult entertainment.

“If any citizen has a concern about any book or other media, there is already a process in place to communicate and address those concerns at the Taneyhills Library,” the website says. “We expect that process to continue and improve with a public library operation.”

Most other questions addressed operational concerns and funding.

State lawmakers

The legislative session that adjourned in May renewed tension between librarians and lawmakers that began in 2022 when the General Assembly passed a bill that would charge school librarians for providing “explicit sexual material” to students. In February, the ACLU of Missouri sued on behalf of librarians, saying the law caused schools to remove “hundreds of titles from library shelves.”

In retaliation, the Missouri’s House budget committee proposed a cut to state funding of public libraries this year. The Senate Appropriations Committee restored libraries’ $4.5 million state funding.

Bills filed this legislative session included proposals in the House and Senate to cut state funding for libraries that provide age-inappropriate material to minors. The bills were referred to committee but not heard, possibly because they mirrored a rule by the Secretary of State proposed in October.

The rule, now in effect, requires parental permission for children and teens to check out books. Ashcroft, who is running for governor, said in a press release the rule is intended to protect children.

The Missouri Library Association said in a statement that the rule has created “mass confusion.”

“Many Missouri libraries and library employees have reached out asking for guidance, looking for templates, and wondering what materials may need to be censored, but there has been no clarification by the Secretary of State, or his office,” it says. “There is no information on what material, display, or program may ‘cross the line,’ or if the line will simply be drawn by the most vocal and restrictive community members.”

The organization said many libraries are considering suspending the cards for members under 18 in order to require parents to “reaffirm their child’s right to have a library card.”

Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 4, 2023 in New York City. With the indictment, Trump becomes the first former U.S. president in history to be charged with a criminal offense (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

Former President Donald Trump is a defendant in three criminal proceedings.

Two cases are federal, brought after investigations by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The other case is in New York state court and is being prosecuted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

A fourth indictment, on state charges in Georgia related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results there, could come in the near future.

The indictments lay out the alleged crimes by Trump, the first person who has served as president of the United States to face felony charges. In months to come, the legal proceedings in courts from New York to Florida to D.C. will demand Trump’s time and attention as he wages his campaign for the 2024 GOP nomination for president.

To help readers keep track, States Newsroom put together a timeline showing the accusations and legal battles that have swirled around the ex-president, from Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016 until today.

There are three separate indictments:

• Hush money payments, New York state court: Trump is accused of breaking state law against falsifying business records by reporting hush money payments as legal expenses. According to the prosecution led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump’s attorney and personal fixer, Michael Cohen, paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to stay silent about an alleged affair between her and Trump. Trump then repaid Cohen through his business, but recorded the transactions as legitimate legal expenses.

• Classified documents, U.S. District Court in Fort Pierce, Florida: Trump is accused of taking classified materials from the White House when he left office, improperly storing them in his South Florida estate and refusing to return them to official record keepers with the National Archives and Records Administration.

• Election interference, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.: Trump is accused of seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The alleged conspiracy involved using slates of fraudulent electors in seven states, and it culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges. He has also denied having an affair with Daniels.

Timeline

June 2015-November 2016: Trump’s first presidential campaign.

Oct. 7, 2016: The “Access Hollywood” tape is published showing Trump, years before, bragging about sexually assaulting women. The negative publicity is part of what prompts the Trump campaign to try to limit other negative attention about Trump’s relationships with women, including alleged affairs, according to the New York state court indictment.

Oct. 26, 2016: Cohen wires $130,000 to an attorney for Daniels. In return for that payment, Daniels was to remain silent about an alleged sexual relationship she and Trump had while Trump was married, according to the indictment.

Nov. 8, 2016: Election Day. Trump is elected the 45th president of the United States.

Throughout 2017: Trump makes monthly payments to Cohen to reimburse him for the payment to Daniels, according to the New York indictment. The payments are recorded as legal expenses, according to the indictment.

Nov. 3, 2020: Election Day. Trump appears likely to lose reelection to Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden, but several states remain uncalled for days.

Nov. 7, 2020: News outlets project Biden wins Pennsylvania, reaching the threshold to win the presidential election.

Biden ultimately wins fives states Trump had secured in the previous election: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Those states, along with Nevada and New Mexico, would become the focus of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election by recruiting fraudulent slates of electors, according to the election indictment.

November 2020-January 2021: Trump and a group of at least six co-conspirators conceive and attempt a plan to reverse his election loss, according to the indictment of Trump.

Dec. 14, 2020: State electors certify their votes. Slates of false electors in seven states Trump lost attempt to fraudulently certify votes for Trump.

Jan. 2, 2021: Trump calls Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, attempting to have Raffensperger alter the state’s vote count. Trump asks Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to swing the state to him.

Jan. 3, 2021: Trump meets in the Oval Office with U.S. Justice Department leadership and Jeffrey Clark, then the acting head of the DOJ Civil Division, who had drafted a letter to states implying that federal investigations into election fraud were ongoing.

Trump considered firing the top two DOJ officials, who disapproved of the plan and encouraged Trump to accept the election results, and appointing Clark to lead DOJ. He ultimately declined to elevate Clark. Details of the meeting were described in one of the U.S. House hearings on the Jan. 6 attack and in the election indictment.

Jan. 6, 2021: Trump holds a rally on the White House Ellipse in which he tells supporters to “fight like hell” and implied Vice President Mike Pence could reverse the election result as he certified the state electors, a formality to finalize the 2020 presidential election results.

A large group of Trump supporters violently storm the U.S. Capitol after Trump’s speech to disrupt the certification. Five people died that day or shortly after. Four Capitol Police officers on the scene died by suicide later that year.

According to the prosecutors, the riot was the last step in a multipart plan by Trump to overturn the election results.

Jan. 7, 2021: Congress eventually certifies Biden’s victory at 3:24 a.m.

Jan. 20, 2021: Biden is inaugurated the 46th president of the United States.

Trump leaves the White House for Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. He takes hundreds of classified documents with him, according to a federal grand jury in Florida.

June 9, 2021: The U.S. House votes to form the Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6, 2021 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

July 2021: Trump shows “highly confidential” materials to a writer, publisher and two staff members who lacked security clearance to view the materials, according to the federal indictment.

August or September 2021: Trump shows a classified map of a military operation to a political aide who lacked security clearance, according to the indictment.

Jan. 17, 2022: Trump responds to months of demands from the National Archives and Records Administration to provide missing presidential records by sending 15 boxes of documents containing 197 documents with classification markings, according to the indictment.

March 30, 2022: The FBI opens a criminal investigation into unlawful retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

June 3, 2022: In response to a grand jury subpoena, Trump provides 38 more documents with classification markings.

June-December 2022: The U.S. House committee investigating Jan. 6 holds 10 live televised hearings documenting its findings. The panel focuses on Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.

Aug. 8, 2022: The FBI searches Mar-a-Lago and recovers 108 more classified documents.

Nov. 15, 2022: Trump announces he is a candidate for president in 2024.

Nov. 18, 2022: Attorney General Merrick Garland appoints former federal and international prosecutor Jack Smith to be special counsel overseeing federal investigations into Trump. With Trump a candidate and Biden likely to seek reelection, the move is meant to insulate the investigation from the perception that the Biden administration is targeting a political rival.

Dec. 19, 2022: The U.S. House committee releases a report of its findings and makes criminal referrals to the U.S. Justice Department for Trump and attorney John Eastman.

April 4, 2023: Bragg announces the 34-count indictment against Trump in New York. It’s the first time a former president has been indicted.

April 4, 2023: Trump appears in state court in Manhattan and pleads not guilty.

June 8, 2023: A federal grand jury in Florida indicts Trump on 37 charges in the documents case. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee. The indictment is issued under seal and is unsealed the following day.

June 13, 2023: Trump appears in federal court in Miami and pleads not guilty in the documents case.

July 19, 2023: A New York judge denies Trump’s request to move the hush money case to federal court.

July 27, 2023: A superseding indictment adds three charges in the classified documents case, alleging Trump and co-conspirators sought to delete potentially incriminating security footage.

Aug. 1, 2023: A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicts Trump on four counts related to his efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Aug. 3, 2023: Trump appears in federal court in Washington, D.C., and pleads not guilty to charges in the election case, appearing before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya .

Aug. 4, 2023: Trump pleads not guilty to the new charges in the documents case.

UPCOMING

Jan. 15, 2024: The Iowa caucuses are the first nominating contest in the Republican presidential primary.

March 25, 2024: Trial in the New York state case scheduled to begin. Subject to change.

May 14, 2024: Trial in the classified documents case scheduled to begin. Subject to change.

Voters in Minneapolis, Minn., line up to vote during the 2018 midterm elections. Minnesota is one of two states this year that expanded the right to vote to people with felony convictions upon release (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

The year started out strong for advocates trying to make it easier for people with felony convictions to regain their voting rights.

In March, the Democratic-led legislatures in Minnesota and New Mexico enacted measures that cleared a pathway for residents serving prison time for felonies to regain their right to vote upon being released.

It followed a decadelong trend that has allowed more than 1.5 million Americans a chance to cast a vote once again, after being denied the right on parole, probation or because of guidelines that left that decision up to governors.

But in more recent months, state officials in North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia have taken steps to make it far more difficult for people with felony convictions to register to vote, leading to widespread concern among voting rights activists who have steadily and successfully changed laws in states around the country in recent years.

State officials said the changes followed the letter of the law and argued that those who served the entirety of their sentences — parole, paid fees and all — could eventually regain their voting rights.

Frustrated by what they see as a regression on access to the ballot box, voting rights advocates have taken those and other states to court. They argue that the chance to participate in elections allows residents with felony convictions to feel part of the community and makes them less likely to commit crimes in the future.

There has been “a lot of whiplash” for people with felony convictions in those states, said Blair Bowie, director of the Restore Your Vote project at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan legal advocacy group.

“That means there’s a ton of confusion in those states over who can and can’t vote,” she said. “And that confusion can lead people who did have their rights restored and people who are fully eligible to vote to sit out elections because of fear that they’re ineligible and a fear that they would get prosecuted.”

Last month, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled against the Campaign Legal Center after it sued the state for forcing a resident who had been convicted of a felony, served his sentence and later had his voting rights restored, all in Virginia, to also prove he served his parole and paid all court costs associated with that felony to Tennessee officials before being eligible to vote.

A week after the ruling, Mark Goins, the state’s coordinator of elections, said in a July memo to county election commissions that though the ruling applied to out-of-state convictions, his interpretation of the case now meant that all Tennesseans with felony convictions must have their full citizenship rights restored by a judge or show they were pardoned by the governor.

Previously, Tennesseans with felony convictions could petition for their voting rights if they proved they served their entire sentence, parole and all, and paid all court fees or child support. Now, residents must also seek a gubernatorial pardon or court-ordered citizenship restoration.

It’s “an impossible standard,” said Bowie.

The Campaign Legal Center is in another, ongoing lawsuit in federal court over Tennessee’s strict guidelines for restoring voting rights. The trial is set for November.

More than 20% of voting-age Black people in Tennessee are disenfranchised because of felony convictions, according to The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit that advocates for solutions to mass incarceration. Overall, more than 470,000 Tennesseans are denied voting rights for felony convictions — the second most in the country after Florida.

Momentum interrupted

Since the Civil War, states have generally stripped people with felony convictions of their voting rights. Many of those laws are rooted in racism and specifically targeted formerly enslaved Black people. In some states, disenfranchisement lasted for life.

Voting rights and criminal justice advocates have for the past decade built a political infrastructure across the country to educate and encourage state legislators to pass measures that allow people with past felony convictions to either vote upon leaving prison or never lose their right to vote; they’ve had widespread success, sometimes with bipartisan support.

In March, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, both Democrats, signed into law measures that restored the voting rights of people with felony convictions once they leave incarceration.

Twenty-three states now restore voting rights after the end of prison sentences, while residents of the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont never lose their right to vote, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 14 states, people must wait until the end of parole or probation before being able to vote again, and in 11 states the period is indefinite and people must seek the governor’s approval before registering to vote.

As of last year, around 4.6 million people were disenfranchised because of felony convictions, according to The Sentencing Project.

“I do think we’re trending in the right direction,” said Bowie of the Campaign Legal Center. “But backlash is part and parcel of progress. Power doesn’t give up power easily. And some people view restoring voting rights as a sort of a power shift.”

While the trend has generally shifted toward an expansion of voting rights for people with felonies, some states have made it harder to regain those rights, including Virginia.

Earlier this year, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration confirmed he had rolled back an automatic voting rights restoration process that had been used by both Democratic and Republican Virginia governors for more than a decade.

In a July letter to the Virginia NAACP, Republican Secretary of the Commonwealth Kay James said Youngkin will make “an individual case-by-case determination considering the unique aspects of every case” in accordance with state law. She added that the state has ensured that every person leaving incarceration is aware of their responsibility to apply for voting rights restoration.

“We take our responsibility to consider re-enfranchisement seriously,” she wrote. “Because the constitution gives Virginia’s governors sole discretion on the restoration of rights, each governor determines how he will make these important decisions individually.”

But voting and civil rights groups have lambasted this new approach.

“He has made it much harder for formerly incarcerated people to have their rights restored,” said Rachel Homer, counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonprofit that advocates for expanding voting rights. “He has not provided clear guidance on when he will be granting those applications.”

In June, Protect Democracy sued the state in federal court over a provision in its constitution that the group says violates a 150-year-old federal law limiting the kinds of felonies the state could use to strip residents of voting rights. Virginia’s constitution disenfranchises residents convicted of any felony, which Protect Democracy argues is illegal.

The state is expected to respond to the lawsuit by the middle of this month.

And in April, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a state law that does not allow people who are on probation, parole or other supervision to vote, overturning a lower court’s 2022 decision that struck down the statute — another blow for voting rights advocates.

North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are states with large Black populations, severe criminal justice systems and laws that make it difficult for people with felony convictions to ever regain their right to vote, said Nicole Porter, senior director of advocacy at The Sentencing Project.

“People with felony convictions are acutely vulnerable,” she said.

In a court decision that could impact other states’ laws, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit late last week overturned Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban for people convicted of certain felonies, describing the state’s policy as “cruel” for excluding them “from the most essential feature and expression of citizenship in a democracy — voting.” Mississippi is expected to appeal the decision.

More legal action ahead

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected a challenge to Kentucky’s felony disenfranchisement law, which allows the governor to arbitrarily grant voting rights to people with former convictions. But the fight isn’t over.

Last week, the group behind that challenge, the nonpartisan Fair Elections Center, filed for a rehearing of the case before the federal panel. If the panel denies the motion within the next two weeks, the Fair Election Center plans on appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The center’s case argues that Kentucky’s law around felony disenfranchisement violates 85 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent that prohibits discretionary decision-making about, or “arbitrary licensing” of, First Amendment-protected expression, said Jon Sherman, the center’s litigation director and lead counsel.

“Voting is a political expression,” he said. “We think it’s clear that the practical effects of voting rights restoration make it a licensing scheme, and there are no rules or criteria governing the decision of whether to grant or deny voting rights restoration applications.”

Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear has restored the voting rights of more than 183,000 Kentuckians in his time in office, but voting rights groups don’t want to have to rely on a single governor to restore these rights — they want an automatic process upon leaving incarceration.

Meanwhile, Minnesota’s new law is getting its own legal challenge.

Instead of a law that restored voting rights for people with felony convictions upon leaving prison, the legislature should have sought a constitutional amendment, said Andy Cilek, executive director of the conservative Minnesota Voters Alliance, which is suing the state on grounds that the state constitution has clear guidance on felon voting rights.

“We’re for a second chance for everybody,” Cilek said. “But that’s not what this case is about, with all due respect. We’re not arguing whether it’s a good idea or what it should look like. We’re arguing about who has the authority to make the change. In our view, it’s not the legislature.”

There is a district court hearing for the case in October.

While it became more difficult for people with felonies to vote in certain states this year, the movement to expand the franchise is still moving forward in other states, said Porter, of The Sentencing Project.

She expects Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York in either this or upcoming legislative sessions to pass measures that would overturn their disenfranchisement laws outright. But she hasn’t given up on states with more restrictive laws, such as North Carolina and Tennessee. It will just take years of organizing and interstate support, she said.

“There’s a lot of momentum,” she said. “What we do now is support people in those states, laying the groundwork to build the infrastructure and the power to set those states up for a future where everybody’s vote is guaranteed.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

Rudy Giuliani, personal attorney for former President Donald Trump, testifies via Zoom to the Missouri House special committee on government oversight on Dec. 14, 2020 (screenshot via House Communications).

Weeks after former President Donald Trump lost his bid for a second term, the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election found its way to Missouri. 

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and one of Trump’s lawyers, appeared via Zoom before a Missouri House oversight committee in December 2020 to tout disproven claims about hacked voting machines and phony mail-in ballots.

He also told lawmakers that Georgia election officials had surreptitiously counted illegal ballots in order to steal the presidency for Joe Biden, pointing to a video from Atlanta he insisted “shows demonstrably the theft of about 40,000 ballots right in front of your eyes.” 

None of it was true. 

Before his testimony, Giuliani’s allegations about Georgia had already been debunked by government officials, law enforcement and the media. 

And last week, three years after his virtual appearance in Missouri, Giuliani conceded in a carefully worded court filing that his assertions about Georgia election workers committing fraud during the 2020 presidential race were false. 

That concession — made as part of a defamation suit against him filed in Washington, D.C., by two Georgia election workers — has rekindled interest in Giuliani’s 2020 Missouri testimony and the impact it could have in a separate defamation suit filed in St. Louis by the same election workers against the right-wing outlet Gateway Pundit. 

State Rep. Peter Merideth, a St. Louis Democrat who sparred with Giuliani during his 2020 committee appearance, notes that the former mayor signed a witness form that declares “false testimony may be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or other offenses, or contempt proceedings pursuant to Article III, Section 18, of the Missouri Constitution.”

Soon after his 2020 testimony, Merideth pointed to that form in a letter to the New York State Bar Association asking that Giuliani’s law license be revoked. A year later, Giuliani’s license to practice law was suspended after a court ruled he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” about election fraud. 

“Rudy blatantly lied to us, under oath,” Merideth said Wednesday. “That’s perjury.”

Meanwhile, the ongoing defamation suit against the Gateway Pundit in St. Louis alleges that by trumpeting Giuliani ’s ’s false tales of election fraud, the right-wing site incited months of death threats and harassment against Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, the mother and daughter accused of trying to steal the Georgia election by the former president’s supporters.  

Giuliani’s admission won’t help the Gateway Pundit fend off the allegations, said Daxton Stewart, an attorney and journalism professor specializing in media law at Texas Christian University.

“Just repeating something that someone else said that was false still makes a publisher subject to defamation claims,” Stewart said.

It could make the plaintiffs’ case harder, Stewart said, if they can’t show that the Gateway Pundit published the claims knowing they were false or acted recklessly in publishing them at the time.

“But we’re talking about wild accusations by Trump loyalists that should have made anyone skeptical,” he said, “even the most fierce partisans.”

Dueling defamation claims

In a two-page declaration filed in Washington, D.C., Giuliani acknowledged he had made statements about Freeman and Moss, and that the remarks “carry meaning that is defamatory per se.” 

He also admitted that his statements were “actionable” and “false,” and that he no longer disputed the “factual elements of liability” raised in the lawsuit.

However, Giuliani said he continues to believe his accusations about Freeman and Moss were “constitutionally protected” under the First Amendment and refused to concede that they caused any damage. 

That distinction is important because plaintiffs in a defamation case must prove not only that a statement made about them was false but that it also resulted in actual damage.

Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Giuliani, said in an email to PBS that the filing was made “in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss.”

The Gateway Pundit, run by brothers Jim and Joe Hoft, picked up Giuliani’s accusations, which were magnified by the former president, and published stories for months identifying Freeman and Moss as “crooked” operatives who helped steal the 2020 election. 

Freeman and Moss said the accusations resulted in an avalanche of violent threats, many tinged with racial slurs. Under advice from the FBI, Freeman said she had to flee her home. On Jan. 6, 2021 — the day of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — she said her home was surrounded by Trump supporters shouting through bullhorns.

Moss said strangers tried to get into her grandmother’s home to make a “citizen’s arrest.”

Gateway Pundit would go on to publish numerous stories about Freeman and Moss with headlines like: “WHERE’S BILL BARR? — We Got Your Voter Fraud AG Barr — It’s On Video and They Attempted to Steal Georgia with It! — HOW ABOUT A FEW ARRESTS?” 

“It’s turned my life upside down,” Moss testified last year to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

‘Rhetorical hyperbole’

In December 2021, Moss and Freeman filed a lawsuit in St. Louis Circuit Court against the Gateway Pundit for defamation and emotional distress.

The Hofts argue that any stories published by the Gateway Pundit regarding Freeman and Moss were “either statements of opinion based on disclosed facts or statements of rhetorical hyperbole that no reasonable reader is likely to interpret as a literal statement of fact.”

Rhetorical hyperbole, the Hofts argue, “cannot form the basis of defamation and related tort claims.” 

A legal standard set in a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision states that public officials must establish actual malice — or reckless disregard of the truth — before recovering defamation damages. In this case, the Hofts say the plaintiffs are “limited purpose public figures,” and must prove actual malice to claim defamation. 

The Hofts filed a counterclaim in the case alleging the lawsuit against them is solely intended to drive the Gateway Pundit out of business. St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer dismissed that counterclaim last month, clearing the way for a trial next year. 

Giuliani’s concession was made in a separate case, Stewart noted, and the former mayor is not a party in the Gateway Pundit litigation. 

“But I could see the attorneys for the Georgia election workers wanting to depose him or bring him in as a witness in the Missouri case,” he said. “They could use this other filing to keep his testimony in line with what he’s said elsewhere.”

As for his 2020 testimony in Missouri, Merideth still believes Giuliani perjured himself and “should be prosecuted.” 

Republican leadership in the Missouri House could ask the local prosecutor in Cole County to file criminal charges for perjury, a class E felony with a three-year statute of limitations. Alternatively, the House could pursue holding Giuliani in contempt, which carries a small fine and could result in 10 days in jail. 

But Merideth says there is “zero” chance of that ever happening in Missouri.  

“Republicans love to scream about nonexistent voter impersonation,” he said, “all while trying to commit the greatest voter fraud in American history.”

David Leist of Columbus (left), a field organizer for Ohio Citizen Action, hands registered voter Richard Hall a flyer July 25 with information while canvassing against Ohio Issue 1 which if passed at the Aug. 8 special election would require a 60% vote to pass future citizen-initiated amendments, including the Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which will be on the ballot in November. (Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal)

CLEVELAND — Ohioans over the last century have used the state’s ballot initiative process to pass constitutional amendments that raised the minimum wage, integrated the National Guard and removed the phrase “white male” from the constitution’s list of voter eligibility requirements.

Now, lawmakers want to make it much tougher for an initiative to be approved. Opponents of the effort, who are leading in the polls, say doing so would undermine democracy. Whoever prevails, the verdict could reverberate far beyond the Buckeye State, as other states also eye limits on ballot initiatives.

Since mid-July, Ohioans have been voting on a new ballot measure, drafted by the Republican-controlled legislature and known as Issue 1, that would require future initiatives to be approved by 60% of voters, rather than the simple majority needed now. Also, starting on Jan. 1, 2024, the measure would mandate that, to get an issue on the ballot in the first place, backers gather signatures in all 88 Ohio counties, double the 44 now needed.

GOP lawmakers and their supporters say it’s too easy for out-of-state interests to use the initiative process to change the state’s constitution. Among other examples, they point to a 2009 ballot measure that legalized casino gambling in the state, which passed with 52% of the vote after national gambling interests spent over $50 million in support.

States Newsroom partnered with News 5 Cleveland to meet the organizers and canvassers on the ground. The team spent one day with opponents of Issue 1 and the next with supporters.

“We believe that a 60% threshold is absolutely critical to protecting our constitution from these outside influences,” state Sen. Jerry Cirino, a Republican, said in an interview at the headquarters of the Lake County GOP in Painesville, about 30 miles east of Cleveland.

And, though it isn’t a message they emphasize publicly, Republicans also have said that they want to make it easier to stop a measure to protect reproductive rights that will be on the ballot in November.

“After decades of Republicans’ work to make Ohio a pro-life state, the Left intends to write abortion on demand into Ohio’s Constitution,” Rep. Brian Stewart, a leader of the push for Issue 1, wrote in a letter to colleagues in December. “If they succeed, all the work we accomplished by multiple Republican majorities will be undone.”

“Some people say this is all about abortion,” Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, said in May, in a video obtained by News 5. “Well, you know what? It’s 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.”

LaRose, who for months had denied that Issue 1 was about abortion, added that the higher threshold for approval also would be useful down the road to combat other “dangerous plans” from “the left,” including raising the minimum wage and legalizing marijuana.

Power grab seen

Opponents of Issue 1 — a coalition of over 200 groups — call it a brazen power grab by the legislature that threatens Ohio’s democracy.

With state lawmakers entrenched in power in Columbus thanks to gerrymandered maps, opponents argue, the ballot initiative process is the last meaningful avenue left for ordinary Ohioans to effect change. Issue 1 would raise the costs both of the signature-gathering process, by making organizers hire canvassers in all 88 counties rather than just half, and of the campaign itself, by requiring that 60% of voters approve. The result would be to make ballot initiatives usable only by deep-pocketed special interests, opponents say.

And, they add, it would threaten the principle of one person, one vote by allowing just 40% of voters plus one to override the clear will of the people.

“Issue 1 would end majority rule as we know it,” Jen Miller, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, told a raucous crowd at a July 20 rally for the “No” campaign at a union hall in Boardman, just outside Youngstown.

Opponents also accuse the GOP of trying to sneak the measure through by setting an Aug. 8 election date — a time when politics is the furthest thing from many voters’ minds — to depress voting rates, since lower turnout is often thought to help Republicans. In last year’s August primaries, turnout dropped to a meager 8%.

Still, the early signs suggest that turnout will be strong.

In the first 13 days of early voting, 231,800 Ohioans voted in person, according to numbers released July 28 by the secretary of state’s office. That’s a higher rate of votes per day than the 136,000 people who voted in person during the first nine days of early voting for last November’s high-profile and competitive U.S. Senate race.

However voters come down, other states will be watching closely.

From Arizona to the Dakotas to Florida, legislators are working to make it harder to get initiatives passed into law, or on the ballot at all. In doing so, they’re taking aim at a form of direct democracy that’s emerged in recent years as a favorite tool of advocates looking to enact popular policies — on issues from health care to the minimum wage to democracy reform — that elected politicians have failed to prioritize.

Sarah Walker, the policy and legal advocacy director for the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which works to support progressive ballot measures, said she views the push to restrict ballot initiatives as closely tied to higher-profile efforts, in some states, to tighten voting laws in what voter advocates have called suppression.

“It’s ultimately another step on the road towards authoritarianism and towards consolidated power,” said Walker. “And what happens in Ohio is going to shape … whether or not these attacks on direct democracy are going to continue.”

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

Ballot initiatives grow popular

Ballot initiatives have found themselves in state lawmakers’ crosshairs just as they’ve become a key method to subvert those lawmakers’ power.

A quarter-century ago, conservatives started using the initiative process — which exists in about half of all states — to make gains they were unable to achieve through legislation, on issues from voter ID to criminal justice to same-sex marriage.

In Ohio, a 2004 gay marriage ban put on the ballot by GOP lawmakers — reportedly at the urging of top White House political strategist Karl Rove — was credited with super-charging conservative turnout, helping President George W. Bush win the state, and with it, reelection.

But after Republicans took full control of a slew of state governments in 2010, the shoe switched to the other foot.

Shut out of state capitols, progressives in many states poured resources into the ballot initiative process, which they’ve used throughout the last decade — including in deep-red states like Utah, Idaho, Kansas, and Arkansas — to expand access to Medicaid, protect abortion rights, boost the minimum wage, establish paid sick leave, reform the redistricting process, liberalize voting rules, legalize marijuana and more.

In some states where Republican legislators have little fear of losing their majorities, the ballot initiative process has become their opponents’ most significant check on lawmakers’ power.

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center counts 76 state bills introduced this year that would make the initiative process harder to use — often by creating tougher signature requirements or by raising the threshold for approval, the two methods used by Issue 1.

Last fall, Arizona voters approved two measures, both backed by the legislature, that restricted the initiative process. Voters rejected a third, further-reaching measure that would have rendered the process all but moot by letting lawmakers amend or repeal initiatives already passed by voters.

Arkansas this year raised the number of counties where initiative supporters must gather signatures from 15 to 50. North Dakota voters will weigh in on a measure next year that would amend the constitution by raising the threshold for initiatives to 60%.

And in 2020, Florida imposed tougher signature-gathering requirements for the initiative process — a response in part to the passage in 2018 of a measure re-enfranchising people with past convictions, which the legislature had already weakened via legislation.

Some of these efforts have failed. South Dakota voters in June 2022 rejected a bid by the legislature to raise the threshold for ballot measures to 60% — which one top lawmaker acknowledged was aimed at foiling a measure on the November ballot to expand Medicaid. (The Medicaid expansion ultimately passed with 56% of the vote.)

And in Missouri, legislation that would have required ballot initiatives to gain 57% approval passed the House but died in the Senate in May. Republicans, who control state government, have vowed to try again next year. As in Ohio, lawmakers have said they want to stop an abortion rights measure, which could be on the 2024 ballot in the state.

“There is a common thread between all these efforts,” Elena Nunez, the director of state operations at Common Cause, told reporters. “They are responses to people using the ballot measure process to address the important issues of the day — things like economic justice, democracy and voting rights, and reproductive health.”

Nunez added: “We are seeing states where the legislature is not only not doing that — they are taking efforts to make sure that the people themselves can’t do it either.”

Abortion access 

Ohio’s Issue 1 popped up because of one reason: abortion.

When swing states started enshrining abortion access into their constitutions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Roe v. Wade, Ohio reproductive-rights groups jumped on board. They organized a November ballot measure to do the same for their state.

In May, the Republicans who control the Ohio Statehouse responded by passing a joint resolution to put their own measure, Issue 1, on the ballot. As legislators voted, hundreds of protestors, including law enforcement, union workers and nurses, demonstrated outside the chambers.

The resolution called for an August special election, meaning that if Issue 1 passed, the abortion rights measure in November would need to win 60% of the vote.

That threshold could well be the difference between victory and defeat. Of the six abortion-rights ballot measures to have been held since Roe was struck down, four — those in Kentucky, Montana, Michigan, and Missouri — have passed with between 52 and 59 percent of the vote. Only in deep-blue Vermont and California did they win over 60%.

But there was one problem with lawmakers’ plan. Back in December, they had passed a bill to eliminate the vast majority of August special elections, which have an abysmal turnout rate and cost $20 million. A coalition of Issue 1 opponents filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the August special election date, citing the recent change in law. In 1897, they noted, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that the legislature couldn’t amend statutes by passing joint resolutions.

The court’s Republican majority allowed the election to move forward, finding that the legislature could override itself to set an election date.

Proponents of Issue 1 say they want to stop wealthy special interests from coming into the state. But the effort is being bankrolled in part by Richard Uihlein — an out-of-state billionaire and a major supporter of groups that helped organize the rally on Jan. 6, 2021 that led to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — who gave over $4 million to a pro-Issue-1 PAC Protect Our Constitution.

Newly filed campaign finance documents reveal that the PAC has raised about $4.8 million. Uihlein’s donations have been 82% of the group’s total support. But out-of-state interests aren’t just funding the vote yes side.

One Person One Vote, the anti-Issue 1 PAC, has raised more than $14.8 million, according to the filings. The largest lump sum was $1.8 million from the Tides Foundation, a progressive social advocacy charity based in California. In total, 83% of the funds raised by the vote no campaign have also been from out-of-state interests. However, these include national organizations that have chapters in Ohio, like the National Education Association.

Some of the ads run by Issue 1 supporters have been called misleading. One declares: “Out-of-state special interests that put trans ideology in classrooms and encourage sex-changes for kids are hiding behind slick ads.” Neither the abortion-rights measure nor any other potential Ohio ballot measure in the works relates to trans issues.

LaRose, too, has received criticism for campaigning energetically for Issue 1 while being responsible for overseeing the vote in an unbiased way as the state’s top elections official. In July, he also announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate, in a competitive Republican primary.

“We don’t expect, especially this close to the election, for the secretary of state to be out there as the chief cheerleader of Issue 1,” Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio told News 5 recently.

A spokesperson for LaRose did not respond to a request for comment at that time.

Polling favors opponents

A Suffolk University/USA Today poll released July 20 found that 57% of registered Ohio voters oppose Issue 1, while 26% support it, with 17% undecided.

That has some Issue 1 opponents talking about triumphing by a margin large enough to make a statement to the legislature.

“I don’t want to just win this, I want to win this big,” Jaladah Aslam, an organizer with the Ohio Unity Coalition, a civil rights group, told the crowd at the Boardman rally. “I want to send a message to them to stop messing with us.”

Getting the resounding victory they want will depend on how effectively Issue 1’s opponents can mobilize their voters. By July 28, the campaign said it had knocked on over 63,000 doors and participated in more than 15,000 conversations since May.

“Overwhelmingly, folks who know about the issue are excited to vote no or they’ve already voted no,” said Tatiana Rodzos, an organizer for Ohio Citizen Action, a progressive group playing a leading role in the “No” effort.

As he went door-to-door on a recent afternoon in Westlake, a Cleveland suburb, Mike Todd found plenty of potential voters who didn’t know about the election.

“It’s kind of voter education,” said Todd, the field director for OCA. “Making sure folks are aware that there’s even an election going on in August.”

States Newsroom and News 5 followed as Todd went door-to-door on a recent afternoon in Westlake, a Cleveland suburb. Plenty of potential voters said they didn’t know much about the election.

At each door, Todd introduced himself and described the measure as a threat to majority rule that would take power away from regular Ohioans and give it to politicians. Most people promised to study the literature he left and consider the issue.

Playing a key role in the “No” campaign are progressive organizations who may look to use the initiative process to advance their issues. That means not only reproductive-rights groups, but also workers’-rights advocates pushing to raise the minimum wage, anti-gerrymandering activists who want to reform redistricting, and more.

One Fair Wage is collecting signatures for a possible 2024 ballot measure that would boost Ohio’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, from the current $10.10, by 2026. On a recent afternoon, Barry Goldberg, a canvasser for the group, was asking for signatures on a busy shopping street in Cleveland Heights, a small city just outside Cleveland.

If passers-by agreed to sign — and most registered Ohio voters did — Goldberg would then tell them about the election for Issue 1, explaining that it would make it harder to pass initiatives like the minimum-wage measure. He asked them to write their contact information on a separate sheet so that organizers could get them to the polls.

Goldberg said the current rules make it challenging enough to gather the signatures needed to get an issue on the ballot through the initiative process. In the 44 counties required, organizers must get signatures from registered voters numbering at least 5% of the county’s total vote in the last gubernatorial election.

Having to gather signatures in all 88 counties?

“That would kill nearly every ballot initiative before it started,” Goldberg said. “All it would take is someone with a million dollars who didn’t like a bill to just dump money into a handful of counties, and do everything they can to make it harder to get signatures. Something could be wildly popular, and still not even get (on the ballot).”

Making change difficult 

But Issue 1 supporters say trying to change the state’s founding documents should be difficult.

“If a constitutional issue is significant enough to impact all 11.8 million Ohioans, then it should have to garner and demonstrate broad statewide backing for consideration,” the Ohio Restaurant Association and other business groups who oppose a minimum-wage hike said in a May statement backing Issue 1.

Cirino, the Republican senator, agrees.

“The U.S. Constitution has very stiff requirements in order to make amendments,” he said. “The founding fathers designed it that way, so that the Constitution could not be changed on a willy-nilly basis.”

“Yes” campaign leaders have mostly tried to publicly downplay the role of abortion in the effort. But it wasn’t hard to find Ohioans who cited the issue to explain their support for Issue 1.

“The driving force for us to be here was the abortion issue,” said Bob Dlugos, a local voter who stopped in to the Lake County GOP headquarters with his wife to pick up a lawn sign. “I do not want abortion to go up to the date of birth,” said Dlugos. “So that 60% vote is crucial.”

In fact, the proposed abortion-rights ballot measure would allow for abortion to be banned “after fetal viability,” unless a pregnant patient’s life or health were at risk.

But Cirino said passing Issue 1 would have a positive impact beyond abortion.

“Minimum wage, recreational marijuana — there will be other things,” he said. “If organizations realize that they can easily get into the Ohio Constitution with a 50%-plus-one majority, they’re going to be flocking to the state of Ohio to get things done that way.”

And Cirino suggested that making direct democracy too easy undermines the whole idea of representative government.

“Legislators — we are all elected by the people,” he said. “We speak for the people. We are up for election every two years in the House, in the Senate every four years.

“So that gives the people an opportunity to express their views to the legislators,” Cirino continued. “And then we can act accordingly, in their best interests.”

But Issue 1 opponents say that because lawmakers have used the redistricting process to ensure they’ll stay in power, that system isn’t working.

“We’re living under gerrymandered maps,” Mia Lewis, the associate director of Common Cause Ohio, told reporters recently. “There’s super-majorities in both chambers … one party controls the Ohio Supreme Court, and all statewide elected positions. But it’s not enough. They actually want to take away the citizens’ last meaningful way to have their voices heard.”

Turnout

Although polling has favored vote no, and so has the sharp increase in absentee ballots, this election will most likely come down to one thing: voter turnout.

When it comes to Republicans, state data shows they went out to vote twice the amount as Democrats in the 2022 primary. This provides some comfort for Cirino. But Rodzos says he is in for a shock.

“It’s just really motivating to think that supporters of Issue 1, they don’t see that we can do this — but we’re going to do it,” the vote no advocate said. “The energy is there, the excitement is there and the anger is there.”

Until Aug. 8, advocates will continue knocking.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to supporters Saturday during a political rally while campaigning for the GOP nomination in the 2024 election at Erie Insurance Arena in Erie, Pennsylvania. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, speaks in 2014 after announcing a 16-member Ferguson Commission in St. Louis to investigate the response to the shooting of Michael Brown. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Republican efforts to change the rules for initiatives and administrative delays that force petitioners to go to court spurred former Gov. Jay Nixon to return to political action, he said Tuesday.

During an online town hall for the No Labels organization, Nixon referred repeatedly to legislation that would make it more difficult to gather signatures and pass voter initiatives as well as recent Missouri court cases.

Nixon, a Democrat who was governor from 2009 to 2017, last week was named ballot integrity director for the No Labels organization, which intends to have ballot access in every state for a possible independent presidential candidate.

“What brought me off the bench and got me out is these folks raising these resources to go after citizens all across our country to make it more difficult to get the signatures, more difficult to get on the ballot, and then loading up for litigation to try to win by delay and win by obfuscation,” Nixon said.

Voters in Ohio will decide in a Tuesday special election whether the threshold for passing constitutional amendments in that state should be raised to 60%. In Missouri this year, a measure to increase the majority for constitutional amendments passed both chambers but the differences between House and Senate versions could not be reconciled.

And two recent actions by elected officials delayed signature gathering for petitions. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft killed an effort to hold a referendum on a restrictive abortion law in 2019, a move later deemed illegal by the Missouri Supreme Court.  

And last month, the court again ruled in favor of petitioners when it ordered Attorney General Andrew Bailey to certify a fiscal note on an abortion rights petition. His job was not to question the accuracy of the fiscal note, the court stated, just whether it met the required legal form. 

In the majority opinion, Judge Paul Wilson noted that Bailey’s refusal had delayed a process that should have been completed “nearly 100 days ago.”

“This is very much a moral high ground for us,” Nixon said during the town hall. “We’re talking about giving citizens what they already have, which is the right to petition their government, the right to get people put on the ballot and the right to vote for folks.”

Nixon said his job will be to monitor efforts to block No Labels from organizing ballot access state-by-state.

The No Labels organization was founded in 2009 by former U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, a one-time Democrat from Connecticut who ended his political career as an independent. The group has advocated for bipartisan solutions and prior to the current effort has not tried to nominate candidates for any office.

National co-chairs include former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, and Benjamin Chavis, president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a trade association for Black-owned community newspapers.

The town hall was hosted by Hogan. Like Nixon, he was in office with a legislature with large majorities from the opposite party, he noted. 

Both he and Nixon understand how to forge compromises and make government work, Hogan said. The partisan fighting doesn’t accomplish anything, he added.

“Almost 70% of the people in America are completely frustrated about the toxic politics about how everything’s broken in Washington, the divisiveness, and dysfunction,” Hogan said. “And we’ve all heard the loudest and angriest voices that seem to get all the attention.”

The No Labels organization is not calling itself a political party but it is working to put a line for a possible presidential candidate on the 2024 ballot. In Missouri, that means turning in 10,000 signatures from registered voters by late July. In other states, it means getting people to change voter registration.

The No Labels organization says it has obtained ballot status in five states – Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Utah – and gathered 700,000 signatures. Nixon and Hogan did not take questions during the online event and the moderator did not answer questions posed through the chat function.

Nixon could not be reached for comment after the event.

The organization intends to hold a convention in Dallas next year to nominate a candidate.

The reason the movement is gaining momentum, Nixon said, is the unpalatable choices voters are likely to have next year. A rematch of the 2020 election is the most likely outcome currently, with former President Donald Trump holding a commanding lead among Republicans and President Joe Biden facing no big-name opposition among Democrats for a second term.

“When you look at a situation in which you have the same folks running again, neither one of them very popular – and quite frankly very unpopular,” Nixon said. “You have these criminal indictments, you have other issues going on. And the public is just not engaged.”

No third-party presidential candidate has won electoral votes since 1968. Missouri political consultant John Hancock, a former state GOP chairman, said he thinks the No Labels organization is attractive to Nixon because he didn’t make party building a priority while governor.

As he sought a second term in 2012, Nixon did not use any of his campaign surplus to help Democratic legislative candidates and found himself with a Republican supermajority in the legislature.  

“Jay has never been a movement Democrat,” Hancock said. “You know, he’s always kind of kept the Democrats at arm’s length.”

The No Labels organization has indicated it won’t offer its ballot lines to a candidate if the GOP does not nominate Trump. Hancock said that if the organization does offer a candidate, it will push the election to Trump.

Hancock said few Republicans would desert the party and the No Labels candidate would split the independent vote.

Most states are so polarized that taking a portion of the winners’ vote won’t change the outcome, Hancock said.

“The only place that they are going to matter, I think, is in the six or seven battleground states, where they would ostensibly take the vote away from Biden,” Hancock said.

Polling shows that is not true, Hogan said. 

“There are an awful lot of people that have already said in polling that they’d be open to this idea,” Hogan said. “ We’ve got to at least give people that option. And this is what this is all about.”

This story has been updated since it was initially published.

Then-Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon speaks on Oct. 21, 2014, in St Louis. Nixon has joined the national No Labels campaign as ballot integrity director. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

A national campaign to field a third-party presidential candidate in 2024 enlisted former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon as director of its effort to make the ballot in all 50 states next year.

Nixon, a Democrat who was governor from 2009 to 2017 following 16 years as state attorney general, has generally stayed out of politics since leaving office. He was pushed in 2021 to make a third run for a seat in the U.S. Senate but decided to sit out the race to replace retiring Sen. Roy Blunt.

The No Labels organization was founded in 2009 by former U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, a one-time Democrat from Connecticut who ended his political career as an independent. The group has advocated for bipartisan solutions and prior to the current effort has not tried to nominate candidates for any office.

National co-chairs include former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, and Benjamin Chavis, president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a trade association for Black-owned community newspapers.

Nixon will direct the organization’s Ballot Integrity Project. No Labels has gathered over 700,000 signatures and qualified for the ballot in five states, the news release announcing Nixon’s new role states. 

No Labels needs 10,000 signatures from registered voters, submitted no later than July 29, 2024, to make the 2024 ballot in Missouri.

“Americans have the constitutional right to put any person or party on the ballot and to vote for whomever they want,” Nixon said in a news release. “Anyone who is against that isn’t standing up for democracy. They are standing in the way.”

Nixon did not respond to messages seeking comment.

After leaving office, Nixon became a partner in the Dowd Bennet law firm.

No Labels created the position for Nixon because of increasing efforts to block the new party from accessing state ballots, the news release said.

In Arizona, Democrats are suing to keep No Labels off that state’s ballot and in Maine, the secretary of state accused No Labels of misleading voters with their signature push.

Starting a new party, or chasing the presidency via third party effort, has been almost universally unsuccessful in American politics.

“No Labels is a movement dedicated to democracy, and democracy can’t stop because the powers that be think it’s ‘dangerous’ to have competition,” Chavis said in the news release announcing Nixon’s role..

The Republican Party was considered a third party when Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election and that victory is viewed as the only time a third party has put its candidate in the White House. The second-best showing by a third party presidential candidate came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt, running on the Progressive Party ticket, ran second to Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson with incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft running third.

No third-party candidate has won any electoral votes since 1968, when segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace carried several southern states running on the American Independent Party label.

The best recent popular vote showing by a third party was the 3.28% received by Libertarian Party nominee William Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, in the 2016 election. The most recent third party presidential candidate to exceed 10% of the vote was Ross Perot, who polled 19% in the 1992 election.

Leaders of the No Labels organization have said their polling shows there is a path to electoral college victory in 2024. The party will do polling in early 2024 to determine if that path still exists prior to gathering in Dallas.

“No Labels will gauge the mood of the American public and their openness to an independent Unity ticket and will offer our ballot line to a ticket if and only if such a ticket has a viable path to victory in the 2024 presidential election,” the news release announcing Nixon’s appointment stated.

No Labels believes it can attract moderate voters put off by the extremes dominating the two major parties. A recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire was headlined by Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and former Republican Gov. John Huntsman of Utah, raising speculation that they could be the No Labels ticket for 2024.

That path likely closes if the Republican Party does not nominate former President Donald Trump, a No Labels leader said recently.

“From the polling and modeling that we see today, if it’s any Republican other than Trump, those voters probably” back the GOP nominee, Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels, said during a recent Zoom interview with Politico.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks to guests at the Republican Party of Iowa 2023 Lincoln Dinner on Friday in Des Moines, Iowa. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Iowa Republicans emphasized they were open to hearing from all 13 presidential candidates Friday at the state party’s Lincoln Dinner, but many in the audience were ready to send former President Donald Trump back for a rematch.

“In Iowa, we are a neutral, objective state,” Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Jeff Kaufmann said. “We’re going to give everybody a fair chance.”

The rules were the same for all 13 of the Republican 2024 presidential candidates: 10 minutes and the microphone was cut off.  While all candidates had equal time, they did not meet an equally enthusiastic audience.

Trump, who spoke last, received an extended standing ovation as he walked onto the stage.
“I’m here to deliver a very simple message: Iowa has never had a better friend in the White House than President Donald J. Trump and I think we know that,” he said.

More than 1,000 gathered for the state Republican Party event at the Iowa Events Center in Des Moines Friday to eat and hear from nearly the entire field of Republican presidential hopefuls aiming to secure the party nomination.

Most candidates who spoke chose not to name Trump — who still holds wide lead in Iowa with support from 46% of likely Republican caucusgoers, according to a recent Fox Business poll — during their speeches. Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd was booed when he brought up the multiple criminal indictments Trump faces.

“Donald Trump is not running to make America great again,” Hurd said. “Donald Trump is not running to represent the people that voted for him in 2016 and 2020.  He’s running to stay out of prison.”

“I know the truth, the truth is hard,” he responded, before ending his remarks.

Guests cheered when Trump made false claims that the 2020 election against President Joe Biden was “rigged,” promising that he would not allow the same to happen in the 2024 election. The former president ran through a list of his accomplishments as president from appointing U.S. Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade to supporting ethanol and E-15 fuel.

Trump dismissed the legal cases against him, saying, “If I weren’t running, I would have nobody coming after me.” Trump said he was still the best choice to take on Biden in 2024.

“There’s only one candidate, and you know who that candidate is,” Trump said. “He’s going to get the job done.”

Trump has retained his lead despite declining to participate in other “cattle call” events in the state like U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst’s “Roast and Ride” fundraiser or the Family Leadership Summit. The Iowa GOP event was the first time Trump appeared at with competitors like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Trump made some comments about DeSantis at the Des Moines event, saying the Florida governor does not support ethanol and would lose in a general election to Biden. The former president did not spend much time talking about his rivals in comparison to his speeches at rallies, saying getting through his presidency’s list of accomplishments is “hard to do that quickly” as he tried to stay within the 10-minute time slot.

Kaufmann emphasized that the Republicans need to keep their eyes on the target: Biden.

“When we are done with this process – and yes, there’s gonna be some elbows, yes, this is a full contact sport – But we were are going to unify and get rid of that fool in the White House,” Kaufmann said.

After the dinner and speeches, candidates held receptions in rooms at the event center, taking pictures and speaking directly with voters.

John Gehling was one of many guests who waited in line to take a picture and shake hands with Trump following the event. He said he was not entirely committed to Trump, but that the former president is still his top pick for now because of his track record as president.

“Stump speeches are one thing, but Trump has delivered,” Gehling said. “So that’s a known quantity, where the rest are campaign promises.”

Annette Hoover of Indianola said she was committed to supporting Trump in 2024, but that she did not dislike any of the other candidates running. She said she was “inspired” by candidates like U.S. Sen. Tim Scott and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and would want to see them tapped by Trump if elected.

“I just think, whoever is president, that there was a place for a lot of people in the administration,” Hoover said. “I think that’s what’s good about that kind of thing.”

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley

As the first speaker of the night, Haley told Iowans that she was committed to telling the truth. That means admitting Republicans played a role in the country’s current budget problems, she said.

“I would love to say Biden did that, but I’ve always spoken hard truths,” Haley said. “I’m gonna do that with you today. Our Republicans that that’s us too.”

Haley said spending measures like the the $2.2 trillion COVID stimulus bill, supported by Republicans, have contributed to the national debt and added people to welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps. The former South Carolina also called for term limits and requirements for officials over age 75 to take mental competency tests.

Biden is 80 years old and Trump is 77. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 81, made news for suddenly going silent mid-sentence while talking with reporters.

“That’s not being disrespectful,” Haley said. “These are people who are making decisions on our national security. They’re making decisions on our economic policy.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson was the first candidate to launch a broadside against former President Donald Trump – and received only a smattering of applause.

“As it stands right now, you will be voting in Iowa while multiple criminal cases are pending against former President Trump,” Hutchinson said. “Iowa has an opportunity to say, ‘We as a party, we need a new direction for America and for the GOP.’”

Former U.S. Rep. Will Hurd

Before he made his risky remarks about Trump, Hurd drew some applause when he talked about doing another dangerous job: serving as an “undercover officer” in the CIA.

“My job was to stop terrorists from blowing up our homeland. My job was to stop nuclear weapons proliferators from bringing in a dirty bomb. My job was to stop the Russians and the Chinese from stealing our secrets,” he said. “I was shot. I was chased. And there was number of times when I thought I was going to meet my maker, and my mother was going to get a phone call no mother ever wants to get. It was an honor to put my life on the line to serve a country that has given me so much.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis received a standing ovation from the Lincoln Dinner crowd for his speech that focused on Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over his Republican rivals.

The Florida Republican joked about avoiding drama in the White House if elected on issues that have come up during Biden’s tenure.

“I can promise you this in my White House, there will be no cocaine allowed in the White House,” he said. “And look, my son’s only five years old so he’s not going to be lining his pockets with money from foreign governments that don’t worry about that.”

DeSantis also said he would “repeal Bidenomics” and return the “fundamental right” of parents to direct their children’s’ upbringing. The Florida governor brought up a recent visit from Vice President Kamala Harris, who was also in Des Moines Friday, to Florida because of “phony narratives” on Florida school curriculum.

Harris and others – including Republicans like U.S. Sen. Tim Scott – criticized new Florida Black history curriculum guidelines for including directions to instruct students about how enslaved people “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

He said Harris was attacking Florida because the state has “stood up to the left’s agenda.”

“We have beat the left’s agenda in the state of Florida, and so she thinks she can come down and lie about we’re doing in the state of Florida,” DeSantis said. “I’m not budging an inch. We are going to fight back against these people, and we are not letting them take over our schools any longer.”

DeSantis did not bring up Trump by name, but said there’s no room for “excuses” in the 2024 general election.

“We either win this election and make good on all the promises that we’re making, or the Democrats are going to throw this country into a hole that’s going to take us a generation to come out,” DeSantis said. “I believe that decline is a choice. I believe success is attainable. And I know that freedom is worth fighting for. This is our chance in 2024.”

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina focused, as he often does, on offering his personal history as an example of how American values make it possible to climb from poverty. “But Joe Biden and the radical left, he is attacking the values that made us possible. He is tearing down every rung of the ladder that helped me climb,” he said.

Scott did not repeat the criticism he offered earlier this week about one aspect of Florida’s school curriculum that seems to suggest students will be taught that some enslaved people benefited by learning skills. “There’s no silver lining” to slavery, he said in Ankeny.

That put him at odds with DeSantis, who defended the curriculum and accused Democratic critics and the media of lying about it.

Perry Johnson

Businessman Perry Johnson told the crowd he has some positions that other Republicans would disagree with.

“I know that I’m probably going to get killed by (Chris) Christie and Pence, but I think it is ridiculous that we’re sending $113 billion over to the Ukraine when we’re going broke here,” Johnson said.

In addition to stopping foreign aid to Ukraine, Johnson called for freezing the budget and shutting down the U.S. Department of Education and the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur from Ohio, framed the GOP primary as a choice between incremental reform and revolution.

“There are good people in this race who will tell you this is the time for reform. We need to work within the institutions we have. We should incrementally reform them for the better. But that’s a false promise” because of the entrenchment of the bureaucracy or “deep state,” he said. “… This is not a moment for reform. I don’t stand for reform. I stand for revolution.”

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum drew some groans and boos from the audience by taking a poke at Iowa sports teams. He said two of the greatest days of his and his wife’s life were in Iowa: “The first was when the North Dakota State Bisons beat the Cyclones and the second was when the North Dakota State Bisons beat the Hawkeyes. Yeah!”

At the audience reaction, he jokingly chided: “What, what, too soon? Too soon? Come on, that was 2014, 2016. Come on, let’s move on.”

Burgum gained some applause, however, for touting tax cuts and reductions in government spending in his state. “North Dakota is on track to have the highest GDP of any state in the nation,” he said. “… We know how to get the economy going.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence

Though former Vice President Mike Pence launched his 2024 presidential campaign with a condemnation of his 2016 running mate, he did not mention Trump in his Lincoln Dinner address.

Pence instead asked for Iowans to support his campaign because he would return dignity to the White House.

“I truly do believe the American people long to restore a threshold of civility in public life,” Pence said. “… I want to promise each and every one of you, if I have the privilege of being your President, we will restore honesty, integrity and civility to American public life.”

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez told Iowans about his family’s history migrating from Cuba when his parents were “kicked out” of the country after Fidel Castro took power.

“He made everybody equally poor and equally miserable,” Suarez said. “And that is fundamentally the opposite of what this great nation is.”

Suarez, who entered the race in June, said he was worried about the “rising threat” of China, saying that China has a base on the island where the country is “potentially, maybe training the military” in Cuba.

“That is something that cannot happen, and will not happen if I become President of the United States,” Suarez said.

Ryan Binkley

Texas businessman Ryan Binkley also argued the need for new leadership, but he managed to avoid the ire of the crowd.

“I have to be able to appreciate the leadership that’s passed. But in my heart to you, I have to tell you, it is time and I believe it’s God’s will that we move forward as a nation. It’s so difficult to try and settle the scores and look in the rearview mirror when there’s a huge vision ahead,” he said.

Larry Elder

When Larry Elder was running for governor of California in the 2021 recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom, he said Biden called him the “closest thing to a Donald Trump clone as I’ve ever seen.”

He said he was flattered by the comparison. But Elder said he was running for president instead of simply supporting Trump because there are several issues the Republican party ignores. The former conservative talk show radio host said he would address the “epidemic of fatherlessness” as president, in addition to expanding school choice and combatting the “lies that America remains systemically racist.”

The idea that America is racist is the driving force for “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives and race-based preferences, “which is the very opposite of what MLK wanted,” Elder said.

“He wanted a colorblind society, not a color coordinated one,” he said.”

This article was originally published by the Iowa Capital Dispatch, a part of the States Newsroom network.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis answered questions from reporters Thursday in front of the Never Back Down PAC bus in Chariton, Iowa. (Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch)

CHARITON, Iowa — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Thursday in Iowa that Vice President Kamala Harris is spreading “phony narratives” about the Black history curriculum in Florida.

DeSantis, who is seeking the GOP nomination for president, spoke to reporters about the conflict after a campaign event in Iowa.

Earlier in July, the vice president said Florida’s new history curriculum standards will mean students are “to be told that enslaved people benefited from slavery.” Harris said Republican politicians are trying to divide the country and push “revisionist” history on American children.

“What they are doing is they are creating these unnecessary debates,” Harris said in Florida. “This is unnecessary to debate whether enslaved people benefited from slavery.  Are you kidding me? Are we supposed to debate that?”

DeSantis disagreed with Harris’ characterization. He told reporters the country has “seen this Kamala Harris lie exposed about Florida’s high school curriculums.”

Harris and others, including U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, a Black Florida Republican, specifically took issue with language in the new standards that calls for instruction on “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

DeSantis said the provision is meant to show that some enslaved people developed skills “in spite of slavery, not because of slavery.” He said this perspective is also included in the standards of the Advanced Placement African American studies course that Harris supported.

In January, DeSantis said the Florida Department of Education rejected the AP course because it was pushing an “agenda.” As of April, the College Board had announced plans to remove several topics from the course, including queer studies, Black Lives Matter and slavery reparations.

“Now it comes out that she had endorsed in AP African American curriculum, which had a lot of good things in it, we didn’t like some of the Marxism and the gender ideology they tried to do (with) it, but that same curriculum as the same point in there,” DeSantis said. “So they already endorsed and so these are things that are obviously phony narratives.”

The Florida Republican did not directly answer questions from a reporter who asked if there were beneficial aspects to slavery. He said the state’s outlined standards are “very clear about the injustices of slavery in vivid detail.”

DeSantis took media questions after speaking to more than 50 people Thursday in Chariton. It was his first stop on a bus tour with the Never Back Down super PAC, with plans to visit Osceola and Oskaloosa before attending the Republican Party of Iowa’s Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines Friday. Harris will also be in Iowa Friday, talking about reproductive health care access in Des Moines.

The tour marks a shift from campaign-hosted events to sponsorship by the super PAC. The change came as campaign finance filings showed DeSantis’ campaign spent nearly $8 million in the first six weeks of his campaign. Those reports were followed by polling from sources like Fox Business that showed DeSantis was significantly lagging behind former President Donald Trump in Iowa and other states.

Angela Rich, a Chariton resident, said she was impressed by what DeSantis has done in Florida. She said she didn’t believe polls that showed DeSantis’ momentum slowing accurately reflected Iowans’ views, and said there is still plenty of time for other candidates to catch up to Trump.

“ I don’t know that they’re very accurate,” Rich said. “And a lot of things change after Iowa, so these nationwide polls, I don’t know that they should be trusted. A lot can still happen.”

This article was initially published by the Iowa Capital Dispatch, a part of States Newsroom.

Eric Greitens addresses the media after filing to run in the Missouri Senate primary on Feb. 22, 2022, at the James C Kirkpatrick State Information Center in Jefferson City (Madeline Carter/Missouri Independent).

Eric Greitens, the disgraced former Missouri governor whose Senate campaign cratered last year under allegations of domestic abuse, tip-toed back onto the political stage this week with a column for a pro-Trump news site declaring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential hopes dead.  

In the column entitled “Accept It, Already: DeSantis is Done,” Greitens writes that DeSantis “refuses to accept reality” that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president next year.  

“DeSantis is done — and for many, myself included, it’s not personal,” Greitens wrote. “We’re in a fight that’s too important, perhaps, the greatest this nation has ever faced: To restore the power to the people.”

DeSantis is the pick of “the establishment,” Greitens contends, and is being “fueled by their money, their airwaves or their henchmen.” 

Republicans must nominate “the man with the scars,” Greitens wrote, “who’s taken their arrows and goes back to the mat every single time. From where I stand, only one man fits that bill: President Donald J. Trump.”

Greitens going all in for Trump is no surprise, as his attempt at a political comeback last year hinged on winning over the former president’s supporters. 

In the run up to the 2022 U.S. Senate election, Greitens more than any other candidate in the crowded field latched himself to Trump and the grievances that fueled his rise — from lies about a stolen election to the alleged betrayal of so-called “RINOs.” 

Greitens was trying to shake off the scandals that drove him from office four years earlier, including accusations that he sexually assaulted a women with whom he was having an affair and that he stole from a veteran’s charity he founded.

In the end, Trump’s endorsement — seen as Greitens’ only hope to win the hotly contested Senate race — fell flat, with the former president throwing his support behind “Eric” and refusing to clarify whether he meant Greitens or the eventual winner, Eric Schmitt. 

It was an ignominious conclusion to a campaign that derailed over accusations by Greitens’ ex-wife that he physically abused her and his children. Those claims were made in a sworn affidavit by the former First Lady as part of a child custody dispute, and were amplified by more than $1 million in TV ads aired in the run up to the GOP primary. 

With his political comeback dead, Greitens once again retreated from the public spotlight. His federal campaign committee is largely dormant, and he shuttered his state committee in November and donated all of its leftover money to a nonprofit run by his former campaign manager. 

His column this week in support of Trump, who is himself attempting a political comeback despite being awash in scandal and indictments, marks the first sight of Greitens since his child custody dispute was transferred to Texas late last year.

In moving the case, a Boone County judge concluded there was “no pattern of domestic violence” by Greitens. 

The former governor declared himself exonerated, pointing the finger at the media for publicizing the charges. His ex-wife, however, said she never alleged a “pattern” of abuse — only claiming instances of abuse when Greitens was angry or stressed.

Vivek Malek speaks Dec. 20, 2022, after being announced as the next Missouri State Treasurer by Gov. Mike Parson (Photo courtesy Missouri Governor's Office).

Missouri Treasurer Vivek Malek may have to fend off at least two of his fellow Republicans in the GOP primary next year, after another state legislator joined the race on Monday. 

Malek, who was appointed treasurer by Gov. Mike Parson in January, was already facing a primary challenge by state Rep. Cody Smith, a Carthage Republican and chairman of the powerful House budget committee. 

Smith officially launched his campaign earlier this month, though he signaled his intentions in April by filing paperwork with the state ethics commission declaring he would run for treasurer.

On Monday, state Sen. Andrew Koenig joined the race, kicking off his candidacy with a fundraiser in St. Louis. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he is running because “we need conservatives up and down the state ticket.”

The treasurer’s office was vacated by Scott Fitzpatrick last year after he was elected state auditor. 

Since taking office, Malek has post huge fundraising totals — especially for a first-time candidate. 

Between his candidate committee and an independent PAC created to boost his campaign, Malek reported roughly $2 million cash on hand this month. He recently launched a TV ad introducing him to voters by highlighting his journey from India to America. 

Smith reported this month roughly $300,000 cash on hand between his campaign and supporting PAC. Koenig had around $80,000. 

Lucas Johnson, a business owner from St. Louis County, is running in the race as a Democrat.

Following the 2020 presidential election, state legislatures with a Republican majority have passed strict voting requirements such as voter ID laws, a shorter period for early voting and additional requirements for mail-in voting, among other things (SDI Productions/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats on Tuesday said they plan to again introduce a bill to set national voting standards in response to state legislatures passing strict voting laws.

The bill, known in a previous Congress as the Freedom to Vote Act, would establish national standards for early voting, mail-in ballots and protection of poll workers and volunteers from harassment. It provides funds for states to purchase updated voter machines and cybersecurity updates, among other initiatives.

“Democracy is facing unprecedented threats like we have not seen in more than a century,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said. “MAGA Republicans prove the need for this legislation time and time again.”

The bill also would require super political action committees to disclose their donors and tackles gerrymandering by establishing criteria for nonpartisan congressional redistricting.

“This bill speaks to our nation’s ideals,” said Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration.

“We believe in our core that democracy works best when everyone can participate and has an equal say in the decisions governing our lives. We will pass the Freedom to Vote Act to stand up against disenfranchisement and protect the very bedrock of our democracy,” Morelle said.

But with Republicans controlling the House, and Democrats with a slim majority in the Senate, the bill is unlikely to become law.

Chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said she knows “we have an uphill fight.”

She said Democrats have worked to put voting rights on the national stage and that several state legislatures — including her home state of Minnesota — have used the congressional bill as a template to pass voting laws.

House Republicans last week passed their own elections reform bill out of committee, which is also unlikely to become law.

During that meeting, Democrats submitted an amendment that included the text of the Freedom to Vote Act, and it was not adopted by Republicans.

Following the 2020 presidential election, state legislatures with a Republican majority have passed strict voting requirements such as voter ID laws, a shorter period for early voting and additional requirements for mail-in voting, among other things.

This trend has concerned voting rights activists and Democrats who have pushed for legislation to strengthen voting rights, partially after a 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act.

Schumer said that the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would also be introduced later this Congress. That bill would restore the section of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down in 2013, but the legislation has repeatedly failed to advance in the U.S. Senate

A U.S. House committee led by Republicans on Thursday night passed an overhaul of U.S. voting laws (Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — On a party-line vote, the U.S. Committee on House Administration on Thursday night passed a bill that would enact strict new voting laws for states, such as requiring copies of IDs for voting by mail, and set penalties for states that allow voting by noncitizens in local elections.

The 224-page bill, H.R. 4563, was approved 8-4, and contains provisions similar to those passed in many Republican-led states since the 2020 election.

The chair, Republican Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, said the measure establishes a “common sense election integrity” standard that is similar to those in states with recently passed voter overhaul bills, such as Georgia. Many Democrats and voting rights advocates have criticized the Georgia voting law for its strict voting requirements, arguing that it would disproportionately harm voters of color.

“Two years ago, Georgia implemented their election integrity reform,” Steil said. “The data shows voter participation increased under the new law. Georgia experienced record midterm turnout in 2022. The left is still falsely claiming election integrity leads to voter suppression.”

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, slammed the House bill for “catering to the demands of election deniers,” and said it will not increase voter access to the ballot.

“Americans can take solace in the fact that this bill will never become law,” Morelle said.

While the overhaul has a chance of passage in the Republican-controlled House, it’s likely to die in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority.

There are currently 100 Republican co-sponsors of the bill, including GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California. No Democrats are backing it.

Amendments offered

During the markup, Democrats unsuccessfully offered more than a dozen amendments that would lengthen early voting to two weeks, expand access to voting by mail and require reporting of digital ads to the Federal Election Commission, among other election-related measures.

Republicans argued that states should have the ability to run their own elections without interference from the federal government.

“The government closest to the people is best to serve its needs, and our states are the ones who should be deciding specific policies, specific procedures and practices they will implement and utilize,” Republican Rep. Laurel Lee of Florida said in support of the bill.

Lee previously served as Florida’s secretary of state and facilitated the state’s elections.

One amendment from Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer of Washington was included in a unanimous vote. That amendment related to special election requirements ensuring the continuity of Congress, should there be a mass casualty event.

“Our existing rules would leave us without a functional government for a period of several months while special elections occur,” he said.

He said that under current law, states are required within 49 days to hold special elections. The amendment would authorize a study to see if states could meet those requirements if there is a mass casualty event.

Vote by mail

Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama unsuccessfully offered several amendments that would expand voting access, such as same-day voter registration, establishing Election Day as a federal holiday, extending early voting to weekends and establishing automatic voter registration.

None of her amendments were adopted. Republicans argued that states should handle early voting, and the federal government should not impose those requirements.

Steil also argued that federal workers have many days off already and that there’s no guarantee that people would actually vote on the holiday.

Sewell said she was also concerned about state legislatures passing laws with strict voting requirements.

“We saw unprecedented voter turnout in the 2020 election. Rather than responding to increased voter participation with welcoming arms and pro-voter policies, states enacted laws that roll back access and aim to erect roadblocks to the ballot box,” she said.

Sewell said the bill makes voting harder, similar to the states that have passed laws following the 2020 presidential election.

The bill would require that voters who request mail-in ballots to include a copy of their ID with their application.

There’s a large body of research that has found that strict voter ID laws disproportionately impact voters of color.

Kilmer said voting by mail should not be a partisan issue. He pointed out that his state only votes by mail and has done so since 2011, and that all eligible voters in his state are automatically registered to vote.

“It’s been widely embraced,” he said of voting by mail in his state.

The bill also requires that every two years, states send the federal Election Assistance Commission a report that lists inactive voters and registered voters who voted in at least one of the prior two consecutive general elections.

The bill would also bar states from using federal funds to partner with a nongovernmental organization in voter registration drives or voter mobilization, “including registering voters or providing any person with voter registration materials, absentee or vote-by-mail ballot applications, voting instructions, or candidate-related information, on the property or website of the agency.”

D.C. elections

The bill also takes aim at the District of Columbia, which is home to more than 700,000 residents. Because of its status as a district, D.C. has one House member who has no voting status in Congress, similar to Puerto Rico and four other U.S. territories.

The bill would set voting laws for D.C., overriding any laws passed by the Council. For example, the bill would require voter IDs for someone to vote in D.C., which is currently not a requirement in D.C. elections, and would prohibit the city from using ranked choice voting.

The bill also includes mandatory audits and requires the District to conduct an audit within 30 days after each election.

“I find it to be incredulous to tell the citizens of D.C. what they can and cannot do when they are larger than a lot of the states that get two senators and get representatives,” Sewell said, adding that D.C. needs statehood.

The bill also would repeal an amendment passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. California, Maryland and Vermont have similar laws, and the bill would set requirements for those states who have laws to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

For example, under the bill, states that allow noncitizens to participate in local elections would need to have a separate voter roll for noncitizens who are registered and there would be a 30% reduction in federal payments to any state or local jurisdictions that permit voting by noncitizens. Those states would also be barred from receiving any federal funding to implement certain election administration activities.

The bill text says that “[i]t is the sense of Congress that” even if a state has sovereign authority, “no State should permit non-citizens to cast ballots in State or local elections.”

The bill also clarifies that states have the authority to remove noncitizens from voter rolls. Some noncitizens have been found on voter rolls, but it’s usually by mistake — for example, when the state will automatically register an individual who is getting a driver’s license even if they apply for a license with a work visa or green card, as NPR reported happening in Pennsylvania.  

“[A]llowing non-citizens to cast ballots in American elections weakens our electoral system, directly and indirectly impacts Federal policy and funding decisions and candidate choice through the election of State and local officials, dilutes the value of citizenship, and sows distrust in our elections system,” according to the bill text.

The bill would also require a district court to notify the chief election official of the state and the state attorney general if an individual is turned away from serving on a jury because they are not a citizen.

Cole County Judge Jon Beetem (screenshot of pool video courtesy of KRCG-TV).

Residents of five Missouri Senate districts – and perhaps a sixth – will have to wait until this fall to learn if the boundaries will be revised.

At the end of a day-long trial Wednesday, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem directed attorneys challenging and defending the map drawn last year to submit final briefs by Aug. 15, meaning his ruling is not likely before sometime in September.

In the case, residents of Buchanan County in northwest Missouri and Hazelwood in St. Louis County argue that the map crafted by a panel of judges violates a provision of the Missouri Constitution requiring as few splits as possible of municipalities and counties in the 34-district Senate map.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office, which is defending the map, argued that it passes constitutional muster. If it does not, Assistant Attorney General Jeff Johnson argued, the Beetem should make as few changes as possible. Johnson offered an alternative to the plaintiffs’ proposed map that puts all of Hazelwood in a single district but leaves Buchanan County split after minor changes in the boundary.

The decision facing him, Beetem said after denying a request that he rule in favor of Ashcroft, is like cases involving the language that appears on ballots for constitutional amendments and propositions.

“I can write a better ballot summary than you can,” Beetem said, but that is not enough.

In those cases, he said, the question is whether the summary being challenged meets the legal standards for fairness.

Under the one-person, one-vote standard, representative districts should be as close as possible in population.

In this case, the question is whether the current map meets all the requirements of a rewritten legislative redistricting plan adopted by voters in 2020. It is the first case testing which elements must be followed strictly and which are more flexible.

Trial this week to decide boundaries of five Missouri Senate districts

The plan adopted in 2020 requires districts to be within 1% of the ideal population. The difference can be as much as 3% if the district includes entire counties and does not split cities.

For the plaintiffs, represented by attorney Chuck Hatfield, that means only counties with more than enough people for more than one Senate district can be split. And cities can only be split if there is no other way to make a map that has nearly equal populations in each district.

The first priority, under the constitution, intended to “take precedence over any other part of this constitution,” is to make them racially fair. Another priority is that splits of counties “shall each be as few as possible” and that “as few municipal lines shall be crossed as possible.”

The Senate map being challenged splits Buchanan County, which includes St. Joseph, between the 34th and 12th senate districts. The plan submitted by Hatfield would put all of Buchanan County in the 12th District, shift a portion of Clay County from the 21st to the 34th District and shift eight small population counties from the 12th District to the 21st. 

Hazelwood is split between the 13th and 14th districts. Hatfield’s proposal would put Hazelwood entirely within the 13th District and shift other small cities and unincorporated territory into the 14th.

That map was prepared by Sean Nicholson. A long-time political activist for progressive causes, Nicholson led a 2018 ballot campaign that made partisan fairness a major factor for redistricting. Republican backlash put the proposal on the 2020 ballot that made following local political boundaries a priority and put partisan fairness as the lowest priority.

Nicholson testified as an expert on redistricting over the objections of Johnson. He said he fell back on what he learned while working to influence House and Senate maps as they were being redrawn in late 2021 and early 2022.

Nicholson admitted that he didn’t know all the mathematical formulas for determining whether districts are compact or other measures. He was trying to find districts that kept counties and cities whole, he said.

“The first and most relevant question is whether (that section) is followed,” Nicholson said.

When Johnson asked for Beetem to exclude the testimony because of a lack of expertise, he declined.

“He is qualified to give the testimony he gave,” Beetem said.

For Johnson and co-counsel Jason Lewis, the question for Beetem is whether the districts are as compact as possible. They brought Sean Trende, a nationally recognized expert on redistricting, to testify.

He told Beetem that the maps proposed as a replacement make the 12th and 34th less compact but that the 21st District would be more compact. He drew a third version of the map that adopts the plaintiffs’ proposal for Hazelwood but shifts a few precincts in Buchanan County to the 12th District from the 34th and Sullivan County from the 12th District to the 18th.

His proposal – one of 5,000 iterations of a Senate map he produced – meets the constitutional requirements. Those changes, Trende said, get the population in the 12th, 18th and 34th districts within 1% of the ideal population of 181,027.

The new map proposal was a surprise. Asked by Hatfield why Ashcroft’s attorneys asked for it, Trende said it was to salvage some sort of victory if Beetem rules against the existing map.

“If the defendants are going to lose,” Trende said, “this is how they prefer to lose.”

Sen. Holly Rehder, R-Scott City (photo by Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications)

A longtime Republican state lawmaker announced Tuesday she is running for Missouri lieutenant governor. 

Holly Thompson Rehder, who served eight years in a Sikeston-based Missouri House seat before being elected to the state Senate in 2020, will run to replace Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe. 

Kehoe is giving up his office to run for governor next year. 

In announcing her candidacy, she specifically pointed to legislation she sponsored this year that was signed into law to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in sports that align with their gender identity.

“I am running for Missouri lieutenant governor because I want to better the lives of all Missourians by unabashedly protecting sacred Christian and Conservative values,” she said in a press release. 

Thompson Rehder, 53, is a graduate of Southeast Missouri State University, with a bachelor’s degree in mass communications. In 2004, she co-founded a cable telecommunications contracting company, Integrity Communications, and later worked for the Missouri Cable Telecommunications Association.

Her campaign announcement noted that at 16, she was a “high school dropout and supporting her first child and made the decision that her daughter would not grow up in the harsh poverty cycle of America as she had.”

“I don’t shy from hard work,” she said, “and I won’t be outworked running for lieutenant governor.”

In joining the lieutenant governor primary,  Thompson Rehder sets up a potential showdown with House Speaker Dean Plocher, a Des Peres Republican who is also vying for the office. On the Democrat side, state Rep. Richard Brown of Kansas City has filed paperwork with the Missouri Ethics Commission indicating a run for lieutenant governor. 

During her time in the Senate, Thompson Rehder has had several high-profile showdowns with the chamber’s conservative caucus. Last year, she led a bipartisan group of lawmakers who condemned the tactics of the conservative caucus that resulted in years of gridlock in the Senate. 

The caucus disbanded in late 2022, but many of its members continued to tussle with GOP Senate leadership, effectively derailing the final week of the 2023 session and resulting in few bills being passed than any non-COVID session in decades.

State Sen. Karla May, D-St. Louis, talks with Gov. Mike Parson at a 2021 bill signing ceremony (photo courtesy of Missouri Governor's Office).

State Sen. Karla May is the latest Democrat to jump into the U.S. Senate primary in the hopes of taking on Republican incumbent Josh Hawley next year. 

May joins Marine veteran Lucas Kunce and St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell in the primary field. 

After serving eight years in the Missouri House, May was elected to the state Senate in 2018, representing portions of St. Louis and St. Louis County. She cruised to reelection last year, winning in November with 74% of the vote. 

She announced her intentions over the weekend at the Mound City Bar Association, then confirmed her candidacy on social media. A formal announcement is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.

“As a long-standing champion for the rights and welfare of the citizens of Missouri, Sen. May has consistently demonstrated her dedication to serving the public,” her campaign said on social media. 

Kunce, who has a huge fundraising advantage over his two likely Democratic rivals, welcomed May into the race. 

“The state senator and I spoke on the phone ahead of the announcement,” Kunce said, “and we had a great conversation. I’m happy to welcome her to the race and look forward to seeing her on the trail.”

Whichever Democrat emerges from the primary faces an uphill fight against Hawley. Democrats currently hold no statewide elected office in Missouri and have won only once statewide since 2012. 

Last year, Republican Eric Schmitt defeated Democrat Trudy Busch Valentine by 13 percentage points to capture Missouri’s open U.S. Senate seat.

The Missouri Senate at the end of the 2023 legislative session. (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)

A political activist who spent much of the past six years in the fight over how Missouri legislative districts should be drawn will be the prime witness in a case challenging the state Senate map.

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem on Monday denied an effort to exclude testimony from Sean Nicholson, principal at GPS Impact and leader of the 2018 Clean Missouri initiative, as an expert witness on redistricting. He will be the only witness for a group of three plaintiffs who are challenging aspects of the map crafted by a panel of judges in early 2022. 

The lawsuit asks Beetem to redraw the boundaries of five districts – three in northwest Missouri and two in St. Louis County – to remedy what the plaintiffs see are unconstitutional flaws. They contend that splitting Hazelwood in north St. Louis County between the 13th and 14th districts violates the constitution, as does splitting Buchanan County between the 12th and 34th districts.

If Beetem agrees, and changes the map, it would be used in the 2024 elections. The proposed map is unlikely to change the partisan makeup of the Republican-dominated Senate, but it would shift at least one candidate planning to run next year out of their current district.

Monday’s hearing on Nicholson’s qualifications was the last preliminary step before a trial, set to begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday. Beetem did not indicate Monday whether he would rule at the end of the presentations Wednesday or at a later date.

Lawsuit alleges Missouri Senate map hurt minority voters, splits too many counties

Assistant Attorney General Jason Lewis, representing the secretary of state’s office, argued that advocacy does not equal expertise in redistricting issues. 

“He certainly is an experienced professional in the area of civics and campaigning and advocacy,” Lewis said. “That is not redistricting. That is not a redistricting field. Redistricting is a specialty.”

In response, Chuck Hatfield, the Jefferson City attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Nicholson’s personal involvement in the fight over how Missouri should draw legislative districts makes his testimony important to determining whether the map should be changed.

In addition to working on ballot-issue campaigns, Nicholson worked on the House map currently in use and helped draft proposed Senate maps that ultimately were rejected by the Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission, Hatfield said.

“I don’t think there is any way this evidence should be excluded,” he said.

Map issues

Under the concept of one person, one vote, legislative districts are supposed to be nearly identical in population. And under civil rights laws, districts should be drawn to give minority voters an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

To meet those standards, and reduce political gerrymandering, since the 1960s the Missouri Constitution has required bipartisan commissions to do the work of redrawing lines after every census. When a commission, after being given six months, is unable to agree on a map, the job is turned over to a panel of appeals court judges.

In 2018, Nicholson and his backers successfully changed the constitution with an initiative petition they called Clean Missouri to make partisan fairness of the map a key priority for the commissions. 

Republicans, upset with the potential for new maps that would challenge their supermajorities, put their own ideas for changing the process on the 2020 ballot and it passed.

It retained the idea that the districts should show some partisan fairness but made it a lower priority than keeping counties and cities intact in the new districts.

Both Clean Missouri and its successor retained redistricting commissions and, when they could not agree, judicial panels. 

The Senate map being challenged in court was drawn by the judicial panel. A commission that worked on the Missouri House map agreed to a plan and it has not been challenged in court.

The first priority, under the constitution, intended to “take precedence over any other part of this constitution,” is to make them racially fair. Another priority is that splits of counties “shall each be as few as possible” and that “as few municipal lines shall be crossed as possible.”

In court on Monday, Beetem said that what he must decide after Wednesday’s trial is whether the map proposed in the lawsuit is a “better map,” constitutionally, than the one in use.

Based on the 2020 census, an ideal Senate district has 181,027 people. There can be a deviation of up to 1% overall, and districts that do not cross municipal or county boundaries can vary as much as 3% from the ideal. 

Counties that have enough population for one or more districts are supposed to have as many whole districts as the population allows, with the remainder attached to a single adjacent district.

It is “possible” to draw a constitutional map with fewer splits, Hatfield said in an interview. That makes the current map unconstitutional.

“We think it is a very straightforward case,” Hatfield said.

The lawsuit contends that the line drawn through Hazelwood as a boundary between the 13th District and 14th District is unnecessary, violating the “few as possible” provision and packing Black residents into the 13th District.

Only the boundary between those two districts would be changed under the proposed map.

On the western side of the state, Buchanan County is split between the 12th District and the 34th District. Putting Buchanan entirely within the 12th District, as proposed by the plaintiffs, would mean altering the 21st District as well.  

Under the proposed map, the 34th District would include Platte and all of Clay County outside the 17th District, which is entirely within the boundaries of Clay County. The portion of Clay County that would shift is currently drawn into the 21st District.

The counties that would become part of the 21st District are Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Daviess, Grundy, Linn, Livingston and Sullivan.

In the court filings responding to the proposed map, Lewis wrote that “many maps” could be drawn that do not split Hazelwood or Buchanan County but not every map with that result “is necessarily constitutional.”

Political consequences

Republicans hold a 24-10 majority in the Senate, and the changes being sought in Wednesday’s trial won’t significantly alter the partisan leanings of any district.

Half of the Senate is on the ballot every two years. Next year, odd-numbered districts will elect senators.

The two St. Louis County districts are both represented by Democrats. Sen. Angela Mosley will be seeking her second term representing the 13th District, while Sen. Brian Williams, who represents the 14th District, won his second and final term last year.

In the northwest Missouri districts, Sen. Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, won his 12th District seat last year and won’t be on the ballot until 2026. In the 34th District, Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville, is barred from running again in 2026 due to term limits.

But proposed changes in the 21st District would put state Rep. Doug Richey, R-Excelsior Springs, the 34th District. Richey and state Rep. Kurtis Gregory, R-Marshall, have launched campaigns for the GOP nomination in the district currently represented by Sen. Denny Hoskins.

Richey’s home would be just a few miles outside the new district line but only residents of a district may run for legislative seats.

Richey made headlines during the session for his budget amendment that would have barred state agencies, institutions and contractors from having diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The amendment was ultimately defeated.

He thinks the district lines will survive the challenge, Richey said.

“It is not likely that a judge is going to rule against a panel of judges with a declaration they didn’t have enough information to draw the map,” he said.

He’s going to continue campaigning while the court case – which is likely to be appealed no matter how Beetem rules – goes on, Richey said.

“Everyone is going to be watching very closely how he decides that matter,” Richey said. “It will definitely have an effect on this Senate district in terms of its boundaries.”

Members of the House Democratic Caucus look on as Minority Floor Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, addresses the media on the final day of the legislative session on May 14, 2021 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).

The top Democrat in the Missouri House officially launched her campaign for governor early Sunday morning, taking direct aim at her likely GOP rivals while touting efforts to restore abortion rights and block foreign ownership of farmland.

State Rep. Crystal Quade, 37, is the first major Democratic candidate to enter the field to replace Gov. Mike Parson next year. In an introductory video announcing her campaign, she discussed being raised by a single mom and relying on food stamps before touting her record in the legislature.

“I committed myself to working for families like the one I grew up in,” she said. “Now I’m a leader in the state House, where I’ve stood up for workers against corporate special interests, sponsored a law to stop China and Russia from buying our farmland to squeeze out Missouri farmers  and I’m leading the fight to restore our abortion rights.”

Quade is scheduled to kick off her campaign Monday in her hometown of Springfield.

She enters the race facing steep odds in an increasingly Republican-dominated state. Parson, who can’t run again due to term limits, defeated Democrat Nicole Galloway in 2020 by nearly 17 percentage points. And currently, no Democrats hold statewide office in Missouri.

Three major Republican candidates are already actively running for governor — Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe and state Sen. Bill Eigel.

Quade took direct aim at Ashcroft in the video, saying the secretary of state “uses fear to score cheap political points and divide us.”

In the description of the campaign video, Quade contrasted her background with two of her potential opponents, noting that Ashcroft is the scion of a well-known political family and Kehoe became wealthy after purchasing a Ford dealership in Jefferson City.

Student loan borrowers gather near the White House to tell President Joe Biden to cancel student debt (Paul Morigi/Getty Images for We, The 45 Million).

WASHINGTON — Supporters of student loan debt cancellation are organizing to hold GOP lawmakers “accountable” in the 2024 election cycle following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling blocking President Joe Biden’s debt relief plan.

The left-leaning Protect Borrowers Action will target 13 U.S. House districts across California, Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania where Republicans opposed Biden’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 for roughly 40 million qualifying student loan borrowers.

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority, ruled that a loan servicer in Missouri, the Higher Education Loan Authority, known as MOHELA, would have its revenue threatened by the debt relief.

The justices unanimously decided that a second case challenging the debt relief plan did not have legal standing.

About 26 million borrowers had already applied for the program, and more than 16 million had been approved for relief, according to the Department of Education.

“I think we need to definitely take stock of just how crushing the Supreme Court ruling was, and it really is evidence that this court has just completely lost its legitimacy. But at the same time, you know, there were members of Congress working tirelessly to ensure that their own constituents would be blocked from life-changing relief,” said Aissa Canchola Banez, the group’s political director.

Amicus brief, House votes

The 13 U.S. House lawmakers targeted by the group co-signed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to rule against the debt cancellation and voted in favor of legislation blocking the president’s program.

The lawmakers, picked because they hold what the organization says are vulnerable seats, also voted in favor of the GOP’s original but unsuccessful debt ceiling bill that included a provision to nullify the loan forgiveness program as a way to cut spending.

The following month they supported a joint resolution disapproving of the student loan debt cancellation plan. The resolution passed the House in a 218-203 vote, with two Democrats — Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — voting in favor.

The measure cleared the Senate in early June in a 52-46 vote, with Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin IIl of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, as well as independent Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, on board.

Lawmakers in favor of revoking the student debt plan pointed to its cost, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could reach about $400 billion.

Biden vetoed the legislation.

Protect Borrowers Action organizers plan to reach voters through social media and partnerships with community-based organizations that mobilize local residents.

The group’s fundraising goal is $2 million, with some already raised according to the organization, though an amount was not specified. The organization identifies itself as a fiscally sponsored project of Fund for a Better Future, Inc., a 501(c)(4).

Republicans head into next year’s election with a 222-212 majority.

District fact sheets

On Thursday, the campaign released fact sheets for the targeted lawmakers listing the number of student loan borrowers in each district and how many were eligible and approved for debt relief under Biden’s plan.

Those lawmakers fought to keep their constituents in a “financially harmful position,” Canchola Banez said.

“Folks deserve to be heard and deserve to be able to hold their members of Congress accountable for that,” Canchola Banez added. “That’s why this project is so important and why we see this issue of student debt so critical to the fight to center dignity for working people and make sure the economy works for everybody, not just those rich and privileged few.”

The targeted lawmakers include:

California

• Kevin Kiley, 3rd District
• Mike Garcia, 27th District
• Ken Calvert, 41st District
• Michelle Steel, 45th District

Colorado

• Lauren Boebert, 3rd District

Michigan

• John James, 10th District

Nebraska

• Don Bacon, 2nd District

New York

• Nick LaLota, 1st District
• Anthony D’Esposito, 4th District
• Mike Lawler, 17th District
• Brandon Williams, 22nd District

Oregon

• Lori Chavez-DeRemer 5th District

Pennsylvania

• Scott Perry, 10th District

Biden announced his one-time student loan debt relief program in August 2022. The plan would have made borrowers who earned up to $125,000, or $250,000 for married couples, eligible for up to $10,000 in forgiveness, and up to $20,000 if the individual received a federal Pell Grant for higher education costs.

The plan was criticized by the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget as “expensive, inflationary and poorly targeted.”

The committee hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying it “resolves nearly a year of legal ambiguity for borrowers, but with only a couple of months remaining before the three-year payment pause comes to an end. The Administration and Department of Education should focus their efforts on helping borrowers resume payments in an orderly manner. Too much time has been wasted on empty promises, and not enough time has been spent on making sure borrowers are prepared to begin making payments again.”

The White House lambasted the decision and announced what it called new actions to provide debt relief for student loan borrowers, including its Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan, which the administration says will cut payments for low earners.

President Joe Biden speaks about his economic plan at the Flex LTD manufacturing plant on July 6, 2023 in West Columbia, South Carolina (Sean Rayford/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden traveled Thursday to South Carolina — home of the first-in-the-nation 2024 Democratic presidential primary as well as two GOP presidential candidates — to rebuke Republicans for voting against bills in Congress that are now providing billions in federal dollars.

“All those members of Congress who voted against it, suddenly realize how great it is. And they’re bragging about it,” Biden said. “As my mother would say, ‘God love ’em.’”

Biden’s criticism of GOP lawmakers is part of an ongoing strategy from the White House, in which the president and top officials call out Republicans who voted against key bills, but then cheer and promote the federal cash those laws funnel to their home states.

Biden on Thursday chastised the South Carolina GOP lawmakers who voted against the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act as well as those who sought to block bipartisan legislation, like the infrastructure law and the CHIPS and Science Act, which was designed to boost investment in semiconductors and provide funding for scientific research.

“That hasn’t stopped them, though, from claiming credit now that billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are coming to the United States,” Biden said.

GOP presidential candidates

South Carolina is home to two Republican presidential contenders, with U.S. Sen. Tim Scott and former Gov. Nikki Haley both in the running to possibly face Biden in the general election in November 2024.

Biden lost South Carolina during the general election in 2020, receiving 43% of the vote compared to Donald Trump’s 55%. The state holds nine Electoral College votes, and has eight Republicans and one Democrat representing it in Congress.

Scott said on FOX News’ “America’s Newsroom” earlier Thursday that Biden should use the stop in South Carolina to apologize for policies his administration has pushed, arguing they have spurred inflation and increased the price of everyday goods like groceries and gas.

“I hope he is going to start his apology tour here in South Carolina because what the president wants the American people to do is to believe what he says and not what we see with our own eyes,” Scott said.

Haley tweeted that Biden’s economic policies, which the White House is calling “Bidenomics,” have led to “record-breaking inflation and wiped out people’s savings.”

“South Carolinians are still paying more for gas and groceries than they did before Bidenomics,” Haley wrote. “If Joe Biden really thinks Bidenomics is working, he definitely needs to take a mental competency test.”

White House targets Republican votes

Biden didn’t specifically mention Scott or Haley during his speech, but a fact sheet from the White House sought to highlight that Scott as well as Republican U.S. House Reps. Jeff Duncan, Nancy Mace, William Timmons and Joe Wilson voted against some of the legislation that Biden spoke about.

The fact sheet said that “if most South Carolina Republican Members of Congress had their way, the state would have lost out on over $2.6 billion in infrastructure funding and nearly $1 billion in funding for high-speed internet for South Carolina.”

After touring Flex LTD in West Columbia, South Carolina, Biden spoke from the facility about how the bills Congress has passed and actions he’s taken as president have impacted the economy.

Biden touted several economic indicators during the speech, including that more than 13 million jobs have been created since he took office, that unemployment has remained below 4% for the longest stretch in the last half century and that inflation has dropped to about half of what it was last year.

Biden, however, noted there are still ways he and his administration are hoping to boost the economy.

“I’m not here to declare victory on the economy. I’m here to say we have a plan that’s turning things around quickly,” Biden said. “But we have a lot more work to do.”

Advocates say adding a question about voter registration to the Healthcare.gov application would be much more effective at generating applications (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images).

A group of U.S. Senate Democrats is pressing the Biden administration to make it easier for the millions of Americans who sign up each year for health insurance through a federal website to register to vote.

The lawmakers, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wrote in a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra Tuesday that HHS has made “important progress” toward fulfilling the goals of a 2021 executive order issued by President Joe Biden, which aimed to spur federal agencies to offer voter registration opportunities.

“But HHS can do more,” the senators added. “In particular, it should expeditiously implement changes to HealthCare.gov to facilitate access to voter registration services.”

The senators — Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, as well as Warren — asked Becerra to provide, by July 10, a detailed report on progress by HHS toward carrying out the order.

In response, a CMS spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom that the agency was working to expand the places on Healthcare.gov that connect users to voting information at vote.gov without needing to be logged in. That includes a newly added link to vote.gov in the Healthcare.gov footer, and new links to voting information on several resource articles on the site.

Laura Williamson, a senior policy adviser for voting rights at the Southern Poverty Law Center, dismissed those steps as insufficient.

“Unfortunately, these steps are not likely to make a difference in closing registration gaps,” Williamson said.

Advocates say adding a question about voter registration to the Healthcare.gov application would be much more effective at generating applications, because people who are applying for health care are more invested in the transaction than general users of the site.

“The agency must take steps to integrate a voter registration question into the application on Healthcare.gov immediately to promote access to voting across the country,” Williamson added. “There is no time to waste.”

Urgent issue

Providing a meaningful voter registration opportunity through health care signup could be a transformative step in expanding access to the ballot. Nearly 8.4 million Americans applied for health insurance through Healthcare.gov during the 2022 open enrollment period, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data cited by the senators.

Advocates say the issue is urgent because the 2024 presidential election could make efforts to boost voter registration in response to the executive order too politically sensitive to prioritize next year. And a new administration could pull back on enforcing the order, or rescind it outright, in 2025.

Williamson of the Southern Poverty Law Center noted that Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi all currently use the federally facilitated health care exchanges to let their populations sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Georgia plans a new state-run platform later this year.

“So this would create a meaningful registration opportunity for millions of voters across the Deep South,” Williamson said.

Tuesday’s letter is only the latest bid to prod HHS to action. In response to Biden’s 2021 order, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it would make it easier for people using Healthcare.gov to access voter registration services, among other steps to promote registration.

In June 2022, the same group of Democratic senators wrote to Becerra asking for an update on progress toward fulfilling that pledge. Becerra did not respond.

As States Newsroom reported, a coalition of voting- and civil rights groups released a report in March of this year on how effectively 10 different federal agencies are implementing the order. It found that progress by HHS toward making registration easier through Healthcare.gov has been “very slow-moving.”

This isn’t the first time the issue has spurred controversy. After the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2013, Republicans expressed outrage that the law might help boost voter registration. The Obama administration ultimately made the registration opportunity so unobtrusive and ineffective that voter advocates charged it was violating federal voting law.

It’s not only HHS that has lagged in carrying out Biden’s order. Most of the 10 agencies examined in the advocacy report — including the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service — had made only minimal progress toward the order’s goals, the authors found.

If every government agency carried out the order effectively, they could add around 7 million voters to the rolls each election cycle, the report estimated.

Advocates say the order was targeted in particular at expanding voting access for low-income and minority communities, who use federal government services at a higher rate than other groups.

While Missouri and Louisiana filed the case, over the last year a number of additional plaintiffs were added who have run into issues with social media companies for spreading misinformation online (Getty Images).

A federal judge on Tuesday prohibited Biden administration officials from communicating with social media platforms about “protected speech,” a ruling emerging from litigation originally filed by former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt. 

The ruling, by Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted a temporary injunction barring numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from contacting social media companies “for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Federal agencies are still allowed to notify the companies about crimes, national security threats or foreign attempts to influence elections.

The litigation was filed last year by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. It alleges the federal government colluded with social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to suppress the freedom of speech.

Doughty, a Trump-appointed judge, has not issued a final ruling but wrote that plaintiffs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

Government attorneys argued federal officials don’t have the authority to order content removed from social media platforms, accusing GOP attorneys general of misrepresenting communications with companies about public health disinformation and election conspiracies. 

Schmitt, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November, celebrated the injunction on Twitter, calling it a “big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.”

While Missouri and Louisiana filed the case, over the last year a number of additional plaintiffs were added who have run into issues with social media companies for spreading misinformation online. 

That includes Jim Hoft, founder of the right-wing conspiracy website Gateway Pundit, who was added to the lawsuit in August. 

Hoft’s website has spread debunked conspiracies on a wide range of topics, from the 2018 Parkland school shooting to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. 

More recently, Hoft has been among the biggest purveyors of election fraud lies. He currently faces defamation lawsuit in St. Louis circuit court filed by two Georgia election workers who faced death threats following Gateway Pundit’s false stories about a vote-rigging scheme. 

Schmitt’s lawsuit also attracted support from high-profile leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, including now-presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Attendees of the Kansans for Constitutional Freedom watch party celebrate after primary election results verify Kansans voted to keep abortion a constitutional right (Lily O’Shea Becker/Kansas Reflector).

Polls show that most Americans, even in red states, oppose the strict abortion bans Republican state lawmakers have enacted in the year since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

Emboldened by that fact, abortion rights advocates in multiple states might propose ballot initiatives for voters to consider in next year’s election, if not before. Last year, voters in six states — including conservative Kansas, Kentucky and Montana — endorsed abortion rights when presented with abortion-related ballot questions.

But in several states, Republicans have scrambled the political calculus by making it more difficult to place initiatives on the ballot or by requiring a supermajority of voters to approve them. GOP lawmakers had mixed success with such efforts this year, but they are likely to continue to push them in hopes of raising the barriers before the 2024 election.

GOP officials also could short-circuit ballot measures by, for example, tinkering with their language or rejecting the signatures on petitions, abortion rights supporters worry.

Maryland and New York are so far the only states where abortion rights measures are officially on the 2024 ballot. Each of those initiatives, placed on the ballot by legislators, would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Voters in those deep-blue states almost certainly will approve them.

Everywhere else, the prospects for getting a citizen-generated abortion rights measure on the ballot, let alone winning voters’ approval, is murkier.

Many activists on both sides of the abortion debate are focused on Ohio, where abortion rights supporters must submit the required number of signatures by July 5. The courts have temporarily halted Ohio’s abortion ban, which prohibits the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — before most women know they’re pregnant.

Abortion rights supporters are expected to land a “right to reproductive freedom” amendment on this November’s ballot. Polls suggest that most Ohioans will support it: One survey conducted last fall found that 59.1% of Ohio registered voters favor enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, compared with just 26.7% who oppose it.

But the initiative’s fate may hinge on another election Aug. 8, which Republicans scheduled in May. In that election, Ohio voters will be asked to raise the threshold for passing constitutional changes from a simple majority to 60%.

Earlier this year, GOP backers of raising the threshold in the Buckeye State insisted their intent was to protect the state constitution from “outside influence and special interests,” as the House sponsor of the measure, Republican state Rep. Brian Stewart, put it when he filed the bill. But in a letter obtained late last year by The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, Stewart made it clear to his House colleagues that his goal was to thwart an abortion rights amendment.

“After decades of Republicans’ work to make Ohio a pro-life state, the Left intends to write abortion on demand into Ohio’s Constitution,” Stewart wrote. “If they succeed, all the work accomplished by multiple Republican majorities will be undone, and we will return to 19,000+ babies being aborted each and every year.”

The other state where abortion rights advocates are actively pushing a constitutional amendment is Florida, where a coalition of groups announced in May a drive to put a measure on the November 2024 ballot. They launched their effort less than a month after Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into a law a bill banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

As in Ohio, polls suggest that most Floridians don’t like strict abortion bans. In one survey conducted earlier this year by the University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab, 62% of registered Florida voters said they strongly opposed a six-week ban without exceptions for rape and incest. Only 13% said they were strongly in favor.

But the law DeSantis signed does allow abortions up to 15 weeks for victims of rape, incest and human trafficking. And it will take more than a simple majority of voters to amend the constitution: A bill that would have raised the standard to nearly 67% failed, but Florida already requires a 60% supermajority.

In other states that allow citizen-generated initiatives, including Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and Oklahoma, abortion rights advocates might pursue ballot initiatives but are still mulling their options, according to Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, which backs progressive state ballot measures across the country and is consulting with activists in those states.

In each place, Hall said, advocates would have to file proposed ballot language and form committees before Labor Day to qualify for the 2024 ballot. She cautioned, however, that just because surveys show a growing majority of Americans oppose strict abortion bans doesn’t mean ballot initiatives are sure to succeed, or that they are the right strategy in every state.

“Ballot measures are a very powerful and attractive tool when there is this large gulf between public opinion and the actions of elected politicians,” Hall told Stateline. “Framed through that general high-level lens, you would expect advocates to not think twice and to move into that gap where they know public opinion is on their side and to pass ballot measures.”

But, Hall added, “the newspaper story polling you read about — and we do think it reflects public opinion — is a very shallow look at public opinion.” Some surveys don’t focus on likely voters, she explained, or they ask questions in a way that doesn’t resemble the legalese that tends to end up on the ballot.

And, she said, state officials who are hostile to an initiative can alter the wording so that it is less palatable to voters or derail it by refusing to certify signatures.

As in Ohio and Florida, Republicans anticipating abortion rights ballot initiatives elsewhere have tried to raise barriers to amending the constitution.

In Missouri, for example, the state Senate adjourned in May without taking up a House-passed measure that would have raised the threshold for passage of constitutional amendments to 57%. Missouri bans abortion “except in cases of medical emergency.”

Shortly after the constitutional amendment proposal died, Republican House Speaker Dean Plocher lashed out at GOP senators.

“I think we all believe that an initiative petition will be brought forth to allow choice,” Plocher said a week later. “I believe it will pass. Absolutely.”

Judge: Missouri AG had ‘absolute absence of authority’ to question abortion initiative cost

But Missouri GOP leaders have pledged to revive the threshold measure next year. Meanwhile, abortion rights supporters, who announced in March that they would seek to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, were delayed in collecting signatures because of a dispute among Republican state officials over the amendment’s fiscal impact. Fiscal notes are required on the signature forms.

Republican state auditor Scott Fitzpatrick in March estimated that the measure would cost the state nothing and reduce local tax revenues by about $51,000 annually. But GOP Attorney General Andrew Bailey countered that it could cost the state up to $51 billion because of $12.5 million in lost Medicaid revenue to Catholic hospitals and the lost tax revenues of residents who wouldn’t be born. A judge has ordered the attorney general to accept the auditor’s estimate.

Hall, of the Fairness Project, said supporters of constitutional amendments often must clear such hurdles to get their measure onto the ballot.

“There are lot of steps in the complex process of putting a constitutional amendment forward to voters,” she said. “The ultimate impact is incredibly powerful, but it does mean that you have gone through a lot of work, a lot of scrutiny, a lot of bureaucratic red tape to actually get that question in front of voters.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

The Missouri state flag is seen flying outside the Missouri State Capitol Building on Jan. 17, 2021 in Jefferson City (Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images).

Despite voters’ attempts to tighten Missouri’s campaign finance laws, many former state legislators keep control of tens of thousands of campaign dollars without running for public office again.

A review of hundreds of former Missouri legislators’ campaign finance reports shows that some of them drew from their candidate committees to spend on campaigns that never happened. They bought computers, reimbursed themselves and their relatives without specifying the expenses, and paid rent for their offices.

One went to a brewery conference. Another paid a personal credit card bill. Others kept buying food and paying their internet bills.

Some were still in office when they began finding creative ways to manage their money. One former state legislator, Republican Ryan Silvey, moved campaign funds around in such a manner that they ended up under the control of his wife in a nonprofit.

Silvey, who left the Missouri Senate to serve on the Public Service Commission in 2018, moved hundreds of thousands of his campaign dollars from his committee to a political action committee just before that was prohibited. More than $300,000 of those funds made it to a nonprofit run by his wife, Angela Silvey, a Jefferson City lawyer who used more than $85,000 to pay her own law firm.

Missouri voters took up the issue of campaign finance in 2016, when they passed an amendment to the state constitution that imposed contribution limits for statewide and legislative offices, banned candidate committees from contributing to each other and prohibited them from donating to PACs. The extra rules added to the campaign finance disclosure laws the legislature has passed over the years.

John Messmer, a political scientist at St. Louis Community College-Meramec and a staunch proponent of campaign finance reform, said the spirit of these laws is to curb profiting from political campaigns.

“You raise money — fine,” Messmer said, “but then that money should be exclusively for future campaigns or for the campaigns of others.”

The do’s and don’ts of candidate committees

Candidates cannot convert the contributions in their candidate committees to personal use, Missouri law mandates. They form these committees, which they usually control directly, to receive contributions and spend for their candidacies.

Committees are overseen by the Missouri Ethics Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws in the state. It is the commission’s practice not to comment on specific situations, and officials declined to comment for this story.

Candidates can keep their candidate committees open when they win an election and can continue to spend on costs associated with the duties of their offices. These costs can include providing entertainment and social courtesies to their constituents, professional contacts and other politicians.

When they close their committees, candidates can refund their contributions to donors. They can also make donations to political parties or as unconditional gifts to “any charitable, fraternal or civic organizations or other associations formed to provide for some good in the order of benevolence.”

Those gifts cannot result in direct financial benefit to the candidates or their immediate family members.

Missouri law states that candidates who lose an election must close their committees the latter of either 30 days after a general election in which they were not elected or when they’ve paid off all of their committee’s debt. Candidates have to get rid of all funds in their committees before terminating them.

However, successful candidates who leave office can keep their committees open and collect and spend on their campaigns.

But are they actually running?

Many politicians who term out of the state legislature keep their candidate committees alive and declare that they’ll run in a future election. They continue spending their contributions, but they never actually run.

Republican Chrissy Sommer left the Missouri House in January 2021. Her candidate committee remains active and, according to an amended committee statement she made last year, Sommer is running for a seat on the St. Charles County Council in 2026.

That’s not what her website said before a reporter contacted her for this story.

“Nope, I am not running for any office, but you never know what the future might hold,” her website stated.

But since May 2021, Sommer’s committee has paid accounting fees each reporting period, for a total of $900. There are no details in her reports about who is doing the accounting work, but she and her husband, Mike Sommer, are both listed as treasurers for the committee. 

There remained $24,369 in Sommer’s committee as of April.

“We do what is allowed by the Ethics Commission,” Sommer told the Missourian.

Chesterfield Republican Don Gosen resigned from the House in February 2016 after admitting to having an extramarital affair. Gosen had $94,603 in his committee before his resignation. He kept his committee open until last year, asserting in campaign documents that he was running for the Missouri Senate’s District 26 seat.

He never ran.

Gosen said candidates sometimes “pick an election they would potentially run for” when they decide to keep their committees open. He added that he decided about a year and a half ago that he was not going to run last year.

But between 2016 and 2022, Gosen continued to pay phone and internet bills, and rent for his campaign office, on his committee’s dime. By the time he terminated his committee last October, Gosen had paid almost $38,000 to Dierbergs Markets in Chesterfield for “campaign office rent.” The campaign also paid a few thousand dollars to AT&T for his phone and internet service.

Gosen said his committee entered into a lease agreement with Dierbergs when he was first elected. He added that his insurance business was also located in the office and paid part of the rent.

“I had an obligation to pay that until the lease terminated this past year,” Gosen said.

As for the phone payments, Gosen said it made sense to keep his campaign line open because part of the office’s full cost included a phone installation system.

“You’ll find when you leave office, people continue to call,” Gosen said. “These campaign numbers are in databases. I still get letters in the mail every week for different political reasons. And so I kept the address up, I kept the phone line up, kept most of that up.”

In March and April 2017, Gosen spent more than $2,000 to attend a Brewers Association National Guild and Government Affairs meeting in Washington D.C. October 2017 and January 2018 campaign expenses show Gosen spent more than $2,000 on attending the 2018 World of Concrete conference in Las Vegas.

Gosen said that while these were not campaign events, they were related to his interest in eventually running for office again. He added that he was involved in 90% of alcohol-related legislation at the Capitol.

“I didn’t want to lose my expertise in those areas,” he said. “They were very beneficial for me, as a brewery owner when I first ran, to have that expertise and have that continued involvement with that industry if and when I work or run again.”

The concrete association meetings were important, Gosen said, because of the infrastructure talks going on in state government at the time.

“Relationships — they’re very important in a campaign,” Gosen said. “I’m not sure why I chose to extend some activities and not the others. Probably because the Washington D.C. hotel costs so dang much.”

Some leave the legislature due to term limits. State senators are limited to two four-year terms and state representatives to four two-year terms.

Democrat Tom McDonald termed out of the House in January 2017 but continues to hold on to his committee. The committee held close to $11,000 when McDonald left office and only had $320 as of his last complete report in January. In that time frame, his campaign continued to pay for meals and office supplies. It also spent $6,362 on “data access.”

McDonald said those expenditures were for internet access, and that they were within the bounds of the law. He kept his campaign machinery in place “with the expectation that I would make the decision to run again.”

“If you’re still thinking about running for office, the rule of thumb is anything you need to get elected is within the lines,” he said. “So, I feel that me spending that money on keeping my computer — which actually belongs to the campaign — active, was a part of that.”

His committee documents indicate McDonald was going to run for a seat on the Independence City Council in 2020, but he never did. McDonald said the pandemic ultimately led him to decide against a run.

He said a future run for a local office is still possible.

“I don’t think I’m any different than just about 99% of the other candidates who still have a committee,” McDonald said.

More than one-third of the 34 legislators who left the state Senate since January 2017 continue to hold on to their candidate committees. Republican Will Kraus resigned that year to serve on the Missouri Tax Commission, but his committee says he plans to run for a statewide office next year.

Democrat Scott Sifton, who termed out of the Senate in 2021, still has an open committee with $272,018 as of April. His documents say he’s running for a statewide office in 2024, too.

“Statewide office” is a box commonly checked in the reports of former legislators who keep their committees open, say they’re running but don’t specify what they’re running for.  In fact, at least 38 current and former state legislators have committees open that list “statewide office” as their goal in next year’s election.

Some former state senators have moved on to the U.S. Congress, but their state committees continue to hold hundreds of thousands of dollars, which cannot be used for their federal campaign expenses.

Republican Eric Schmitt, former state senator and attorney general, won a U.S. Senate seat in November. His state committee still had $128,984 as of April. Eric Burlison, a Republican who served in the Missouri Senate and is now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, reported $407,123 on hand.

Burlison gave Missouri Republicans a total of $30,000 prior to the November election, when he was running for a national office.

The law does allow these U.S. congressmen to keep their state committees open because they were successful candidates, meaning they didn’t leave a state office due to losing an election.

Others who sit on large sums include Elijah Haahr and Todd Richardson, both former House speakers. Their April reports state they are candidates for “statewide office.” Neither say when they are running or what office they’re seeking.

Richardson resigned from the House in November 2018. At the time, a report showed he had more than $75,000 in his committee.Since then, Richardson’s committee has paid Grote and Associates, a Columbia-based campaign management firm, $9,500 to ensure his campaign remains in compliance. The former speaker still had $47,079 in campaign funds as of April.

Haahr termed out of the Missouri House in January 2021. He had close to $260,000 in his committee in April of that year and has filed “limited activity” reports since then, meaning he has not received or spent more than $500 during each reporting period.

Former Rep. Caleb Jones, a California Republican whose district included the southern end of Boone County, is another whose campaign documents call him a “statewide office” candidate. He had $120,064 when he resigned from the State House in January 2017 to serve as former Gov. Eric Greitens’ deputy chief of staff. He had $85,335 in his committee as of April of this year. His campaign gave out tens of thousands to a Catholic church and Missouri Republicans, but Jones hasn’t made any charitable contributions in close to four years.

Donating to a good cause?

The constitutional amendment on campaign finance that Missouri voters passed in November 2016 took effect Dec. 8 of that year. The amendment provided that “candidate committees cannot make contributions to political action committees/continuing committees.”

Ryan Silvey, then a state senator from Kansas City, beat the clock by three days.

He moved more than $350,000 to the Building Consensus PAC, controlled by his wife, Angela Silvey. She is the owner of Silvey and Associates, a law firm in Jefferson City.

In April 2017, Angela Silvey incorporated a nonprofit, Building Consensus Inc. A 2017 tax filing said the organization intended to help recently released inmates by providing them with care packages.

Angela Silvey, her daughter, Taylor Mansker, and an employee of her law firm, Jennifer Thompson, all served on the board of Building Consensus Inc. In May 2017, the PAC of the same name paid the nonprofit $100,000.

But most of the $100,000 transfer from the PAC to the nonprofit was essentially a payment to Angela Silvey’s law firm. The board of the nonprofit approved a contract under which Building Consensus Inc. would pay Silvey and Associates $87,600 up-front for three years of rent, accounting and legal services.

During the same month, the law firm took out a $94,000 loan to purchase property at 425 E. High Street in Jefferson City, according to records in the Cole County Recorder of Deeds office. The address houses both the law firm and Building Consensus Inc.

When the Building Consensus PAC was terminated in early 2018, it passed on another $215,524 and an “in-kind contribution of physical property” to Building Consensus Inc. Ryan Silvey also gave the nonprofit another $28,820 before he closed his last candidate committee in April 2019.

The Silveys did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Silveys spent $4,000 of the nonprofit’s money on a trip to Europe in July 2017, according to Ryan Silvey’s personal financial disclosure filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Documents indicate he and Democrat Jason Holsman, a former state senator who serves on the Public Service Commission, spoke together at a conference in Crete called Building Bridges in a Complex World.

The Public Service Commission regulates investor-owned utilities.

Holsman paid for his trip to Crete with funds from his candidate committee, but his personal financial disclosure for 2017 shows the Silveys’ nonprofit paid for Holsman’s wife’s travel to the conference.

Over the years, Building Consensus Inc. has made donations of several thousand dollars to organizations such as Hope House, the American Heart Association and the Mid Mo Samaritan Center.

Democrat Jason Kander, a former secretary of state, donated to an organization he is connected to. In 2017 and 2018, Kander donated close to $700,000 of his campaign funds to Let America Vote, which he founded.

Kander wrote in an email that he received no compensation for his role as president of Let America Vote and that he gave the option for refunds to his contributors. He added that his campaign told contributors their donations would go to Let America Vote if they declined a refund.

Others were more selective in offering refunds. 

Former Rep. Rocky Miller’s November 2021 termination report shows he and his mother, Janice Miller, received unspecified “reimburse” payments totaling $10,280 that month. Even though the law requires reimbursements to be explained in reports, they were not. Miller, a Republican from Osage Beach, said those “reimburse” payments were refunds for past contributions he and his mother made to his campaign.

Ethics Commission enforcement limited

Anyone who “purposely” violates the ethics law can be charged with a misdemeanor. But that is rare.

The Missouri Ethics Commission can audit candidates’ reports, but it has to have a reason to. Sometimes staffers notice issues during reviews of committees. Sometimes people file complaints about candidates’ spending, and that leads to an audit. 

Audits have found incidents of inaccurate reporting and improper spending.

That happened to the committee of former House Speaker John Diehl, a Republican who resigned in 2015 after admitting to exchanging sexually suggestive texts with an intern. Diehl hasn’t run for anything since 2014, but his candidate committee remains open.

His committee didn’t report a new bank account number in a timely manner, and the MEC audited his campaign. The audit found that Diehl used $6,762 of his campaign funds in January 2020 to pay a credit card bill for expenses not related to his campaign, among other things.

In the updated report for that period, Diehl’s campaign wrote that the payment was made “mistakenly.”

Diehl had to return to his committee what he spent on expenses not related to his campaign, and the MEC fined his committee more than $47,000. However, like most campaigns that come before the MEC, his committee can pay a fraction of the fine and the rest of the fine will be voided.

Diehl’s campaign has to pay $9,762 to avoid paying the rest. His campaign is allowed to pay the fine using its committee funds.

Is the law enough?

Peverill Squire, a political scientist at MU, said campaign finance reform is an issue that many legislators would prefer to avoid.

Bills focusing on ethics, such as one that would require candidates to include bank statements in their campaign finance reports, have been filed in the legislature in recent years. They end up getting stuck, though.

When legislators leave office, some genuinely think they’ll run again and it just doesn’t work out, Squire said. Others, he said, see their campaign finance resources as a way to stay involved in the political system, potentially to begin careers as lobbyists or consultants.

Under the law, “it’s hard for them to simply put it in their pocket,” Squire said. But the law “does leave the door open for potential abuse.

“Some of these politicians can be remarkably creative in how money gets shuffled around.”

Recovery, swinging bridges, churches and bald eagles

Sometimes legislators donate to causes they say they’re passionate about.

Former Sen. David Sater, a Republican from Cassville who left the Missouri Senate in January 2021, gave a large amount of his campaign funds to a charity that helps people struggling with addiction.

Between August 2018 and his committee’s termination in January 2022, David Sater’s campaign donated a total of $99,442 to a Cassville-based organization called Recovery Resources Inc.

David Sater said Recovery Resources Inc. is a nonprofit that provides safe housing options for people who are going through drug court or have been paroled. He added that the nonprofit has three residences for people struggling with addiction.

The organization had its tax-exempt status revoked in May 2020 for failing to submit federal tax filings for three consecutive years, according to its IRS profile. It’s also not on the federal government’s current list of tax-exempt organizations in Missouri.

But a 2020 report to the IRS by Recovery Resources Inc. is available. It states “the organization’s books are in the care of Sharon Sater,” the wife of David Sater and the nonprofit’s secretary at the time. IRS reports and David Sater’s campaign documents both indicate Recovery Resources Inc. was located at the Saters’ home in Cassville.

“My wife is the treasurer of the nonprofit, so she has bills and everything sent here,” David Sater said. “We don’t want those, and she doesn’t want those, bills to be sent to one of the residences. That would be confusing.”

Sater said his wife does not decide how the nonprofit spends its money. Although she is on the nonprofit’s board of directors, Sater said she casts just one vote of seven.

Others give their leftover cash to unique causes. 

Miller helped a community fight to save a bridge. Save the Historical Brumley Swinging Bridge, a grassroots organization that formed to restore the Grand Auglaize Bridge in Brumley, Missouri,  received $3,685 from the Miller campaign in 2021.

“It’s just a beautiful swinging bridge that needs to be rebuilt,” Miller said. “I was working with those folks when I was in office to get it back. It’s still taking donations.”

Republican Kirk Mathews used his leftover money to help his church. His campaign donated its last $20,869 to Genesis Church in Eureka, where he serves as the pastor of evangelism and community connections.

“It is 100% volunteer work,” he said of his position as an elder with the church.

Mathews said he considered that friends and church members had donated to his campaign. He added that Genesis Church is involved in a lot of charity work in Eureka, such as helping people buy gasoline at cheaper prices and running food pantries.

Republican Don Rone, who left the Missouri House this year, paid a taxidermist last year to stuff a bald eagle.

Rone said he and his wife had been watching an eagle family have eaglets on their farm for a few years. When the mother eagle died, he asked the game warden if he could pay to mount the bird.

“It took him a year to get permission,” Rone said.

The mounted eagle is now on display at the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Southeast Regional Office in Cape Girardeau.

“Everyone now has the opportunity to look at a real eagle that was found dead in Pemiscot County,” Rone said. “It’s a great asset to the people of southeast Missouri.”

This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during U.S. Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Feb. 22, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Demetrius Freeman-Pool/Getty Images).

A Cole County judge on Wednesday ordered the state to pay more than $240,000 in legal fees as part of a ruling that found the attorney general’s office “knowingly and purposefully” violated open records law while it was being run by now-U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley.

“A big win for transparency, election fairness and the rule of law,” Mark Pedroli, an attorney on the case and founder of the Sunshine and Government Accountability, wrote on Thursday morning. 

Late last year, Cole County Judge Jon Beetem determined the attorney general’s office violated the Sunshine Law by taking steps to conceal emails between Hawley’s taxpayer-funded staff and his political consultants during his 2018 campaign for U.S. Senate. 

The motivation for breaking the law, the judge concluded, was concern that releasing the records could harm Hawley’s campaign.

Beetem ordered the attorney general’s office to pay $12,000 in civil penalties — the maximum allowed under state law — plus attorney’s fees.

The plaintiffs in the case, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, asked the judge to award $306,000. Hourly rates for the attorneys involved in the litigation ranged from $550 an hour up to $1,200 an hour.

On Wednesday, Beetem awarded plaintiffs $242,385.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, which is now run by Andrew Bailey, could not be immediately reached for comment. 

The emails in question were requested by the DSCC in late 2017. Hawley’s office told the DSCC at the time that it had “searched our records and found no responsive records.”

But a year after the request was denied, The Kansas City Star revealed Hawley and his staff had used private email rather than their government accounts to communicate with out-of-state political consultants who would go on to run Hawley’s U.S. Senate campaign. 

Among those included in the private email discussions was Daniel Hartman, who at the time was the attorney general’s office’s custodian of records.

The DSCC filed a lawsuit in 2019. 

In his November order, Beetem agreed that Hartman was aware communications responsive to the DSCC request existed and should have turned them over. It appears he didn’t, Beetem concluded, because it could have been politically damaging to Hawley.

“Then-Attorney General Hawley was actively running for U.S. Senate at the time of these requests, which were submitted by a national party committee supporting his opponent,” Beetem wrote in his ruling. “The requested documents showed — at a minimum — questionable use of government resources.”

Further, Beetem wrote, the fact that public business was being conducted on private email accounts — in violation of the attorney general’s office’s own policy — is “itself evidence of a conscious design, intent or plan to conceal these potentially controversial records from public view.”

Pedroli said that “instead of sticking taxpayers with a record verdict, Sen. Hawley should step up and apologize to the people of Missouri and donate proceeds from his ‘Manhood’ to cover the bill.”

“Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs” is Hawley’s latest book, which was published earlier this year. 

Kyle Plotkin, spokesman for Hawley’s campaign, called the lawsuit a “witch hunt” that was instigated by “Democrat Party bosses.”

He noted that while the attorney general’s office initially refused to turn over records that were requested, they were eventually made public voluntarily.

“The only purpose seems to have been to bilk Missouri taxpayers out of thousands and thousands of dollars,” Ploktin said. “They should return whatever money they get to the people of Missouri and apologize.”

A view of the front portico of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected North Carolina Republican legislators’ argument that state courts cannot review laws legislatures pass governing federal elections.

Republican lawmakers claimed the Elections Clause in the U.S. Constitution makes legislatures the sole state authorities on federal elections law, including congressional redistricting. Critics said the high court’s endorsement of the independent state legislature theory would cause chaos with state elections, with states trying to enforce a set of rules for state elections and another set for federal elections.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court rejected Republicans’ argument.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Sam Alito dissented. Thomas wrote that the case was moot because the North Carolina Supreme Court has already decided the question that brought Republican legislators to court in their favor.

“We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.  “We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”

The case drew national attention because of its potential to disrupt laws for federal elections across the country.

The leader of Common Cause North Carolina, which was a party in the case, said in a statement that the opinion is a victory for American democracy.

“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that state courts and state constitutions should serve as a critical check against abuses of power by legislators,” said Bob Phillips, Common Cause North Carolina executive director.  “Now, we must ensure our state courts fulfill their duty to protect our freedoms against attacks by extremist politicians.”

Contentious Fringe Legal Theory Could Reshape State Election Laws

The opinion affirms the February 2022 decision by the Democratic majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court that congressional districts the Republican majority created were extreme party gerrymanders that required revision.

Roberts wrote that courts “may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”

“We decline to address whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. The legislative defendants did not meaningfully present the issue in their petition for certiorari or in their briefing, nor did they press the matter at oral argument.”

When pressed during December’s oral arguments whether the state’s Democratic justices has misinterpreted the state constitution, the Republicans’ lawyer “reiterated that such an argument was ‘not our position in this Court.’”

Lawyers on both sides of the case tried to use the historical record dating back to the founding of the country to bolster their arguments.

Roberts’ opinion said that history supports judicial review.

“State cases, debates at the Convention, and writings defending the Constitution all advanced the concept of judicial review. And in the years immediately following ratification, courts grew assured of their power to void laws incompatible with constitutional provisions,” he wrote.

During oral arguments last year,  Thomas, Alito, and  Gorsuch indicated they supported the Republican legislators’ argument, while Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan challenged their logic and interpretation of history.

The state Supreme Court’s new Republican majority is unlikely to intervene in congressional redistricting this year.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court could rule, Republican legislators petitioned for and received a chance to reargue a redistricting decision the state Supreme Court issued in December that said the Senate districts used for the 2022 elections were unconstitutional.

The court majority in April overturned partisan gerrymandering opinions handed down last year by a Democratic court majority. The Republican-majority opinion said redistricting is the legislature’s job and the courts cannot not judge partisanship.

The U.S. Supreme Court twice asked case participants this year if the state Supreme Court rehearing the gerrymandering case and later, siding with Republican legislators made the federal case moot.

The lawyer representing Republican legislators said the Supreme Court should decide the federal case even though North Carolina’s highest court had given them a victory.

Republicans found agreement from Common Cause, which sued over the redistricting plans and opposed Republicans’ position on the independent state legislature theory. Common Cause wants the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the question because it will keep coming up, its May letter said.

Most of the parties who opposed state Republicans’ position, including the U.S. Solicitor General, told the court the case was moot.

Attorneys for a group of voters who sued over the Republican redistricting plans said in a  recent letter to the Court that since the state Supreme Court had ruled in Republicans’ favor, Republicans no longer had standing and there is nothing more that they could win. Likewise, a lawyer for the NC League of Conservation Voters wrote the case is moot.

This story was originally published by NC Newsline, a States Newsroom affiliate.