April 6, 2010
Missouri Medical Marijuana Amendment Fails in House
Although Missouri legislators have introduced medical marijuana proposals on several occasions in recent years, none have ever been put to a House or Senate vote. Until March 15, 2010. On that day, Rep. Kate Meiners (D-Kansas City) offered her proposal (basically the essential provisions of HB 1670) as an amendment to HB 1472, the House’s “K2” bill. A roll-call on the amendment was requested, and the vote was 22-133, with 7 “absent with leave.” Voting for the amendment were Representatives Atkins, Burnett, Calloway, Chapelle-Nadal, Colona, Holsman, Hughes, Jones, Kelly, Kratky, LeVota, Liese, Low, Meiners, Nasheed, Newman, Oxford, Spreng, Still, Talboy, Vogt, and Webber. The “K2” bill, without the amendment, was later passed by a vote of 142-10.
HB 1472 (Franz) re-classifies a number of drugs and compounds, including 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl) indole, commonly known as a spice cannabinoid or K2, which would be a Schedule I drug. In debate on the bill, Rep. Ward Franz (R-West Plains) argued that making K2 an illegal drug is necessary because children are able to purchase the chemical compound, which is being marketed as potpourri with K-2 sprayed on it. Opponents, including Rep. Jason Holsman (D-Kansas City) argued that they are also concerned about drug abuse, but that thirty years of evidence has shown that Prohibition didn’t work, just fills our jails, and that this measure, making it illegal without doing anything else, is just “taking the easy way.” “We’ve got to find a better way to help kids,” he said.
No Action on Bills of Special Interest to MYAA and MRN
Two bills of interest, introduced early in February, have seen no action since they were second read. HB 2055 (Silvey) provides that no person under the age of twenty-one shall be allowed inside the premises of a drinking establishment. An exception is made for underage entertainers. The bill was second read on February 9. HB 2078 (Skaggs) would ban possession or consumption of alcohol in the state capitol or on the state capitol grounds except during special events. It as second read on Feb. 10. Since neither bill has been referred to committee, no public hearings could be scheduled.
Budget Committee Sends Appropriations Bill for DMH/ADA
to the Floor With Few Changes
The Budget Committee’s recommendations for the Dept. of Mental Health’s Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse were forwarded to the House of Representatives with few changes from the bill as originally introduced. There were two areas of reductions: (1) $337,746 less from the General Revenue Fund for substance abuse treatment services; and (2) $95,302 (reduction of 2.00 FTE) less for administration. No changes were made in the line items for prevention/education, compulsive gambling, and the Substance Abuse Traffic Offender Program (SATOP) in the HCS for HB 2010.. In debate on the House Floor, any amendment offered for an increase must be matched with a corresponding reduction from another source. After the House passes HB 2010 it is sent to the Senate, whose Appropriations Committee will come up with its own set of recommendations.
Governor and Legislative Leaders Talk Further “Downsizing”
Governor Nixon said on March 1, “After reviewing the preliminary February revenue figures, it is clear that even as Missouri’s economy begins to rebound, state revenues will continue to lag for a prolonged period of time. As a result, we will need to downsize the scope of state government, while protecting necessary services to the citizens of Missouri. This week, I will meet with the leadership of the Missouri House and Senate, including Republicans and Democrats, to discuss lowering the consensus revenue estimate for next fiscal year. It is my hope that we can continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to not only balance next year’s budget, but also keep our state on sound fiscal footing for years to come.” State government has taken in 12.7 percent less revenue that at the same time a year ago.
According to a March 2 report by the Jefferson City News-Tribune, Senate leaders hope that the Governor will do more than that. “What we’re looking at, realistically, is that we have a state budget that is in deep trouble right now, and we’ll have a sustained period of lower-than-the-preceding year’s expectations all the way through (business year) 2013 or 2014,” Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, told reporters Monday night. “It’s not looking like there is going to be any immediate relief, so I think you’re going to see the governor and the Legislature engage in a discussion about how you truly can reform ... and restructure state government. Senate Majority Leader Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, noted Nixon’s administration already has cut about $250 million from the state’s operating budget. “And you’ve got a longer-term problem of the whole structure being set up to have a multi-billion dollar and growing problem if we don’t change the direction of the government.” Neither Shields nor Engler predicted what a reorganized state government might look like.
Legislation Proposed by Shields Would Eliminate Specific Departments
Authorized by the State Constitution
SJR 44, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, may be what is known as “shot-across-the-bow” legislation. The joint resolution would put before Missouri’s voters an amendment of the State Constitution that eliminates the titles of 13 existing departments, including the Department of Mental Health. On the other hand, SJR 44 leaves in place (i.e. does not repeal) the provision that “there shall be no more than fifteen departments and the office of administration” as well as “the general assembly may create by law two departments, in addition to those named, provided that the departments shall be headed by a director or commission appointed by the governor on the advice and consent of the senate.” It would appear that Sen. Shields’ intent is not necessarily to reduce the number of departments but to re-organize them. SJR 44 has been referred to the Senate Committee on General Laws, chaired by Rep. Jack Goodman (R-Mt. Vernon).
The not-for-profit public interest group Missouri Budget Project (MBP) has issued the following:
“For far too long our state has relied solely on cuts to critical state services including infrastructure, education, health care, mental health, child protection and senior services in response to its budget struggles . These cuts impact the ability of our families to thrive and diminish the foundation on which a strong economy can grow. The only responsible course of action in the face of the state's continued decline in revenue is a balanced approach that includes measures to enhance state revenues to meet the needs of Missouri residents.We have options! One of these options has momentum in the Missouri Legislature and we need your help to bring it to the finish line. We need you to call your State Senator and State Representative this week!
Senate Bill 905 - referred to as the Streamlined Sales Tax bill- would allow Missouri to provide the mechanism to collect sales tax on online Internet shopping purchases. The bill has strong bi-partisan support and passed the Senate Ways and Means committee on Wednesday, March 3rd by a 6 - 2 vote. It is likely to be debated on the Senate Floor soon. House Bill 2302 was filed on March 4th by Representative Sutherland, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.
THE FACTS:
- The Streamlined Sales Tax provides the mechanism for online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes to states and localities on products that are currently subject to tax in Missouri.
- The bills level the playing field between online retailers and Missouri's stores. It does not create a new sales tax, but allows Missouri to collect a tax that already should be paid.
- The bills will NOT affect small business owners, or other Missouri companies who are already physically in the state and are already collecting and remitting sales taxes;
- 23 states including Missouri's neighbors, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Tennessee have already passed similar legislation.
- According to a University of Tennessee analysis, Missouri will lose an estimated $187 million in state and local sales tax revenue by FY 2011 if these bills are not passed.
- At a time when state lawmakers are considering severe cuts to health and mental health care, transportation, and education; the only responsible action for lawmakers is to pass SB 905/HB2302 which could help our state be able to invest in the services and infrastructure our families and economy needs to be able to thrive.
MBP lists the “potential revenue-related options” that are “currently on the table:”
- Taxing internet sales – the same way that purchases made in bricks-and-mortar stores are taxed
- Closing the yacht sales tax loophole – requiring purchasers of 25 foot+ yachts to pay sales tax rather than the much smaller fee
- Sweeping a portion of some funds – proposed by the Governor
- Restructuring government, combining functions and merging some state departments, establishing a process for long-term strategies and budget forecasting (none will help solve immediate problems)
- Reining in the growth of tax credits
- Delay phasing in funding for the foundation formula - elementary and secondary education
- Reforming the personal income tax structure (Rep. Oxford’s HB 2034, which has not been given a hearing)
on Intoxication-Related Traffic Offenses
The Senate’s “DWI law reform bill,” SCS/SBs 880, 780, & 836, was approved by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. It was taken up on the Senate Floor and placed on the Informal Calendar on March 17. It contains the following provisions:
(1) Any circuit court may establish a docket or court to dispose of cases where a person has pleaded guilty to DWI or driving with excessive BAC. A person is eligible for this docket or court if he or she operated a motor vehicle with at least .15 BAC, or has had a previous alcohol-related conviction.
(2) The existing Drug Courts Coordinating Commission and Drug Court Resources Fund are expanded to include DWI courts. DWI courts may operate in conjunction with drug courts and drug court com-missioners may preside over DWI courts.
(3) The DWI court has authority to grant a limited driving privilege to participants. The DWI court may not grant the limited privilege to individuals who are otherwise prohibited by law from having a limited privilege, except certain participants who would have otherwise had their licenses revoked for a year or would not be eligible to apply for a limited driving privilege for 2 years may be granted such.
(4) For a first DWI offense, if the individual had BAC of at least .15, the minimum jail time shall be 48 hours, unless the person participates in a DWI court program. If the individual had a BAC of at least .20, the minimum jail time shall be 5 days, unless the person participates in a DWI court program. If a first-time DWI or driving with excessive BAC offender has a BAC higher than .15, they may not receive suspended imposition of sentence.
(5) The minimum jail time for a person who has a prior offense is increased from 5 to 10 days, unless the person participates in the existing community service option, or in the DWI court program. The minimum jail time for a persistent offender is increased from 10 to 30 days, unless the person participates in the existing community service option, or in the DWI court program.
(6) Currently, a state, county, or municipal court must determine if a defendant is a prior, persistent, chronic, or aggravated offender with multiple offenses. In such instances, if the court is municipal, after making such a finding, the court shall transfer the case to an appropriate circuit court. Also, a municipal court must make a preliminary finding as to whether the defendant was driving with a BAC of at least .15 or refused to submit to testing by law enforcement. If either is found by the municipal court, the case shall be transferred to a circuit court.
(7) Currently, refusal to submit to chemical testing for an intoxication-related offense means license revocation for 1 year. This bill proposes extension of the period of revocation to 2 years.
(8) Law enforcement agencies and prosecuting attorney offices are required to provide relevant information regarding intoxication-related offenses in their jurisdictions to the Highway Patrol's tracking system (DWITS). If such agencies or offices fail to enter the information into DWITS, the Governor may withhold its appropriated state funding. The Highway Patrol shall collect and analyze information received through the DWITS website. At least once per year, the Highway Patrol shall issue accountability reports regarding agency and office compliance with this requirement.
(9) The bill removes the provision requiring a DWI arrest without a warrant to occur within 90 minutes after the alleged violation occurred.
The fiscal note on the bill is quite complicated. It shows that estimated net cost to the General Revenue Fund would be “more than $2,525,102 for FY 2011 and “more than $3,047,092” for FY 2012. There would also be an estimated increase of 40 FTE personnel and a net cost to local governments of $691,432 for FY2011 and $829,719 for FY2012. Since the legislation is permissive (courts “may” establish a DWI docket) cannot estimate how many circuits would create such a program. OSCA estimates that 15,639 cases would be added to the circuit caseload and that the increase would require 5 additional associate circuit court judges and 35 court clerks. There would also be a loss to municipality revenue of $1,979,650 from fees, surcharges and fines. The Dept. of Corrections estimates that potential costs would be in excess of $100,000 per year. One-time costs to the Highway Patrol, for the DWITS system, are estimated at $525, 280, and recurring costs at $32,800 per year. The Office of State Public Defender estimates a cost of $337,500 per year to cover increased representation (an additional 900 cases at an average cost of $375 per case. For details, see
------
The House bill (HCS for HB’s 1695, 1742 & 1674) was referred to the Rule Committee by the House Committee on Crime Prevention. It contains some of the provisions of the Senate bill, but also a number of additional provisions. An abbreviated version of the summary of HB 1695, as prepared by the House Research staff:
(1) Any nonviolent offender who has been convicted or found guilty and is incarcerated for the offense may be required to participate in the Missouri Postconviction Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program and upon release be required to complete a department-approved community supervised program or, if no program is available, to submit to continuous alcohol monitoring for at least 90 days.
(2) Allows any circuit court to establish a DWI docket to provide an alternative for the disposition of DWI or driving with excessive BAC cases when the driver has a BAC of at least .15 or the person has pled guilty to or has been found guilty of one or more intoxication-related traffic offenses.
(3) Requires the course of instruction that all municipal judges must complete to include a review of state laws regarding intoxication-related offenses, jurisdictional issues related to those offenses, reporting requirements for courts, and required assessment for offenders under SATOP. Circuit and municipal court clerks must retain all records pertaining to intoxication-related offense convictions for at least 50 years.
(4) Requires each municipal judge to adopt a written policy requiring court personnel timely report all dispositions of all charges for intoxication-related traffic offenses to the central repository and to provide a copy of the policy to the Office of State Courts Administrator and the State Highway Patrol.
(5) Offenses involving DWI where the defendant has had two or more previous offenses, two or more alcohol-related contacts, or a previous intoxication-related traffic offense and the pending offense resulted in physical injury to another person will not be cognizable in municipal court.
(6) Requires the municipal prosecutor to certify to the municipal judge that a review of an offender's driving record was conducted prior to exercising jurisdiction for a DWI offense. The review must include a search of the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES), the Driving While Intoxicated Tracking System (DWITS), and the driving record maintained by the Dept. of Revenue.