After Prop A rollback, Missouri Jobs With Justice launches ballot fight
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A newly passed Missouri bill aimed at reversing parts of Proposition A is now awaiting Governor Mike Kehoe's signature — and he's signaled he's ready to sign.
In a dramatic move during one of the final moments of the legislative session, the Missouri Senate used a rare procedural tactic to end a filibuster and pass HB 567, a bill that removes the state's newly approved paid sick leave requirement.
That means the sick day accrual policy, passed by voters just months ago, is on track to be eliminated.
Kansas City man convicted in 2021, 2022 murder-for-hire plot
The group Missouri Jobs with Justice is already preparing to fight back — filing paperwork to put the issue back on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
'Missouri voters clearly support this policy — over 1.6 million people, or 58% of the state, voted for it,' Richard Von Glahn, the Policy Director for Missouri Jobs with Justice, said.
While HB 567 doesn't entirely undo the state's new minimum wage increase — with the $15 per hour rate still set to take effect in January — it does cancel the automatic inflation-based increases that were scheduled to begin in 2027.
KC Triathlon, Zoo pet vaccination event to shut down roads this weekend
Supporters of the rollback say the changes will help businesses and protect jobs, but opponents argue this move is a clear case of lawmakers overturning the will of voters.
'We'll have to educate the public on why this is not in their best interest — this will stifle businesses opening up in Missouri,' Buddy Lah,l the CEO of the Missouri Restaurant Association, said.
'We also know that Missourians don't support politicians who overturn their decisions' von Glahn said.
For now, the paid sick leave provision approved by Prop A remains in effect — but only until August 28.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
4 days ago
- Business Journals
The real cost of the Big Beautiful Bill: Hunger and health
The Big Beautiful Bill, currently being considered by the United States Senate, is anything but beautiful. The proposed harms to people are many — jeopardizing millions of Americans' access to Medicaid, food assistance, higher education grants and infringing on the rights of lawful immigrants to pursue the American dream — all to make permanent tax cuts benefiting only the top 1% of earners. But what about the rest of us? The widespread harms of the bill have garnered bipartisan opposition at a time when polarization is the norm. Kansas Senator Jerry Moran spoke about the negative impacts of the bill on the Senate floor. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley has long been outspoken in opposition to the bill, calling it 'morally wrong.' Other legislators across the political spectrum have also raised grave concerns about this massive bill that will, even after cuts to essential programs, add $3.3 trillion to our national deficit. The fallacies of this bill show in how the legislature has moved to adopt it. Middle of the night debates and votes, and accelerated processes to move the bill through the House, are contrary to the transparency and sound decision necessary in a true representative democracy. Only through such tactics could legislation that would cut $700 billion from Medicaid and cause an estimated 15 million people to lose their health insurance coverage make it this far in the process. We as Americans must stand up for ourselves and say no. Impact of work requirements The addition of work requirements on top of federal spending cuts compound and confuse the issues of Medicaid program efficacy and efficiency. The vast majority of Kansans and Missourians covered through Medicaid are already working. Where states have enforced work requirements, it has resulted in many working Americans losing their coverage, not because they do not qualify, but because of administrative burden and error. For example, Arkansas removed 18,000 working people from Medicaid shortly after implementing work requirements a few years ago due to overly complicated online filing requirements, lack of awareness and lack of internet access. In Missouri, where Medicaid was expanded in 2020 by constitutional amendment, it is estimated that work requirements would cut off nearly 80,000 people from health insurance for similar reasons. This is an unjust consequence for people working in our communities and positively contributing to our economy. Cuts to food assistance and job losses Another cruel element of the bill is its sweeping, unprecedented cuts to food assistance (known as SNAP), totaling nearly $300 billion and projected to cut nutritional support for 28 million children, older adults, and people living with disabilities, impacting Congressional districts across Kansas and Missouri. In the bi-state Kansas City region, well over 30,000 working Missourians with children in school and 15,000 in Kansas would lose life-saving access to food. Research and history show that reducing or losing SNAP benefits altogether increases hunger and makes for worse health outcomes in working families with children. There is no discernible economic gain to these moves that would justify leaving families sick and hungry. Economists project that the 550,000 in job losses from the Medicaid cuts alone will put us at the brink of a recession. Cuts to SNAP are no better, leading to a loss of 143,000 jobs directly and indirectly associated with our food systems and reduced economic activity of $30 billion. Many of these workers who face lost opportunities and jobs would simultaneously be unable to access safety net benefits like SNAP because of the cuts. Harming our rural communities This bill is disastrous for rural communities — where good paying jobs, access to health care and healthy food are extraordinarily hard to come by. Cuts to Medicaid are projected to result in rural hospital closures, as they rely on Medicaid for revenue. Rural health care jobs would be cut by direct extension. An analysis by the National Rural Health Association shows that each rural hospital employee is associated with roughly $200,000 per year in economic activity. While many rural residents are reliant on the Medicaid program for coverage and SNAP for food assistance, even those who are not on Medicaid and Medicare will suffer when the hospital nearest to them closes or other services are cut because of lack of funding. Impact on workforce development The bill also changes the eligibility for Pell grants for students in households earning low incomes. Given the physician workforce shortage (and shortages in other health science professions) and that at least 5 percent of students in medical schools would have qualified for these grants, reduced access to funding for higher education will exacerbate work force shortages in rural and other parts of our country. Infringements on immigration Legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are also impacted. People who arrived legally in America would be denied access to Medicaid and Medicare even if they qualify or have satisfied the requirements to utilize these programs. There is too much at stake for too many people, as this budget bill sacrifices the quality of life for most Americans for the benefit of a small few. We cannot afford to gamble on hypothetical trickle-down economics when the economic benefits of these programs and the positive impact on people's life circumstances are proven. Senators must heed what is best for the American people with whom they are responsible for representing and vote this bill down. Health Forward Foundation is supporting and building inclusive, powerful, and healthy communities by prioritizing people who experience the greatest injustices in health outcomes. Through leadership, advocacy, and resources, we are championing an equitable future that will serve us all. Since we began grantmaking in 2005, Health Forward has awarded approximately $364 million to nonprofit organizations addressing community health needs.
New York Times
5 days ago
- New York Times
Missouri governor signs package to help finance Chiefs, Royals stadium projects
Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a legislative package Saturday intended to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Kansas City Royals to remain in the state amid ongoing discussion of the teams' futures along the Missouri-Kansas state line. The Chiefs and Royals have played in side-by-side stadiums on the east side of Kansas City (Mo.) for five decades and shared a lease at the Truman Sports Complex that runs through Jan. 31, 2031. As the expiration date nears, legislators in Missouri and Kansas have battled to present the best financial framework to attract the teams to their respective sides of the state line. The Chiefs are considering renovating Arrowhead Stadium or building a state-of-the-art venue, likely a dome. The Royals, who play at Kauffman Stadium, intend to be in a new ballpark before the lease ends. Advertisement The new legislation from Missouri, approved by lawmakers at a special session last Wednesday, authorizes the state to cover up to 50 percent of stadium construction costs through state-issued bonds, and it authorizes the use of up to $50 million in tax credits for each stadium. Local governments would also have to provide an unspecified amount of aid to help finance stadium projects that both teams have voiced interest in. Last year, the Chiefs and Royals put forward a plan to voters in Jackson County, Mo., agreeing to remain in the county for at least the next 25 years if voters agreed to an extension of a three-eighths-cent sales tax to help finance a renovation of Arrowhead Stadium and the construction of a new downtown ballpark. However, voters rejected the extension of the sales tax, further raising questions about the teams' futures in Kansas City. Then, legislators in Kansas added pressure by approving state bonds last summer that would cover up to 70 percent of new stadium costs in their state. The bonds expire June 30, an unofficial deadline for both franchises to decide their futures, but could be renewed for another year. In a statement to The Associated Press, the Chiefs described the recent Missouri legislative vote as a 'significant step forward' that enables the team to continue exploring options to remain in the state. Kansas City (Mo.) Mayor Quinton Lucas, a lifelong Chiefs fan, said in August he believes the teams will remain in Missouri. 'The way that we do our stadium obligations in Missouri is that they are publicly owned as compared to what you see in Kansas,' Lucas said in August. 'That makes a very big difference (in) tax implications long term. If you look at the economics, if you look at the plans the teams have said before, both teams will be in Kansas City, Mo., for years to come.'
Bloomberg
6 days ago
- Bloomberg
NFL's Chiefs Are Wooed With Stadium Financing Offer in Missouri
The battle over where the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs will end up is intensifying, with Missouri lawmakers taking a major step to keep the team from crossing state lines. Governor Mike Kehoe signed legislation over the weekend that authorizes the state to help finance stadium upgrades for professional sports teams. The measure allows Missouri to partner with sports teams to finance stadium construction or renovation through bond payments and tax credits.
