Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By stan_sipple

Infighting at the Missouri House as Republicans try to introduce constitutional amendment to head off Kansas school funding lawsuit. Kansas City Star. Missouri House Republicans overruled vigorous Democratic opposition to give preliminary approval Tuesday to a constitutional amendment that would limit rulings by state courts (HJR 41).The proposed amendment, if passed by lawmakers and approved by voters, would prohibit state courts from imposing new or increased taxes or compelling the state to spend funds outside what has been approved by legislation or a public vote.Such an amendment is necessary because of actions by courts in other states and at the federal level, said its sponsor, Rep. Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican.As an example, Cunningham pointed to a 2005 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that ordered lawmakers to increase school funding to comply with the state constitution.The House spent less than 10 minutes discussing the proposal ? enough time for Cunningham to introduce the bill and for one amendment to face debate.After that amendment failed, Rep. Bryan Pratt, a Blue Springs Republican who was presiding over the House at the time, quickly declared the debate over and took two voice votes that he said gave first-round approval to the proposal.Democrats loudly said ?no? on both votes, but Pratt declared them passed anyway.Afterward, Rep. Paul LeVota, the minority leader, was livid. Democrats had prepared at least 10 amendments to the proposal and expected a lengthy debate on the issue.?This is just a clear attempt to push their agenda to cut down access to the courts,? LeVota, an Independence Democrat, said of the Republicans. ?They do not want to be accountable for the actions they make, so they cut the debate that?s supposed to be part of our deliberative government right off.?Pratt said that wasn?t the case at all. Rather, he said, he asked if anyone else sought to speak on the issue and, after seeing none, closed the discussion.?Here?s the deal: I didn?t see anybody seeking recognition,? Pratt said.Several present reported seeing Democrats waiting to be acknowledged when Pratt closed the debate.Cunningham said she too was surprised debate ended so quickly, but pointed the finger at Democrats.?I think there were some people asleep at the switch,? Cunningham said, noting she too had seen no Democrats prepared to offer amendments when debate was ended.Cunningham also suggested that prolonged discussion wasn?t necessary because similar legislation was approved by the House last year.?This exact same HJR came through the House last year and passed overwhelmingly with tremendous amounts of debate,? she said. ?It?s not like this hasn?t been debated.?HJR is short for House Joint Resolution, legislative code for a constitutional amendment.LeVota took umbrage at that argument as well.?This year is different from last year,? he said. ?It?s a ridiculous statement to say we?ve discussed this bill, because it?s never been on the House floor? this year.The proposed amendment will come up for final approval on Thursday, Pratt said. House rules say lawmakers can discuss the bill before that vote, but not offer any amendments to it.The constitutional amendment limiting judicial rulings is House Joint Resolution 41.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).