Category: State Government

Missouri Black Caucus responds to Ferguson protesters’ demand for change

Leave a comment

Jefferson City News Tribune | Nov 26, 2014

When state Rep. Courtney Allen Curtis heard the St. Louis County grand jury had decided not to indict white police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, he was standing outside the Ferguson Police Department among a crowd of disappointed protesters.

The crowd heard “four supposed shots that were fired” after Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch made the announcement Monday night, Curtis, D-Ferguson, said.

He watched as protesters began to move toward the police. Some chanted and urged peaceful protest. Others began overturning a police vehicle, looting, rioting and setting fire to businesses. Several were hit with tear gas. In the end, 61 were arrested throughout the night.

Curtis said the protesters were expressing mounting frustration with a legal system infused with institutionalized racism. His constituents are demanding change, he said, and legislators in Missouri’s Black Caucus are determined to deliver it in the upcoming legislative session.

“People protest in different ways for a variety of different reasons,” Curtis said, explaining why some in the crowd resorted to violence. “The non-violence movement brought some change, but that change wasn’t permanent. … So if you make a bigger spectacle of it, then it will bring more attention and force change.”

Rep. Brandon Ellington, chair of the Black Caucus, didn’t condone the rioting, either, but he tried to explain why the protesters turned to arson and looting.

“When you’ve got people who are feeling overtly oppressed, then they act out with the only means they can,” Ellington, D-Kansas City, said.

Caucus members were as disappointed as their constituents by the grand jury’s decision, but they were not surprised.

“However, I am extremely surprised with the prosecutor’s tone,” Ellington said about McCulloch.

Ellington was especially taken aback that McCulloch cast blame on the media and witnesses, instead having “no blame for the officer that was involved in the shooting.”

Members of the caucus have already begun to address their constituents’ disillusionment.

Even before Monday night’s news conference, Rep. Karla May, D-St. Louis and vice chair of the Black Caucus, and Rep. Sharon Pace, D-St. Louis, met with Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, City Manager John Shaw and City Councilman Mark Byrne to consider possible reforms.

The group discussed legislation that caucus members plan to pre-file Dec. 1, including bills that would require police officers to wear body cameras and to participate in psychological testing and diversity and sensitivity training, Pace said.

In addition, they talked about incorporating a restorative justice plan that would allow adults charged with minor violations to participate in community service rather than pay fines. That plan would include some of those arrested during the Ferguson protests.

“We got feedback from both sides, and I think the meeting went very well as far as (Ferguson city officials) being receptive to what we were discussing,” Pace said.

Caucus members are aware the bills won’t see swift and easy passage through the legislature.

“The question is, can we come up with something that the majority party can get along with? Because they’re largely from rural areas, so they don’t have the same concerns,” Curtis said. “There’s a lot of strategizing taking place, a lot of conversations being had.”

Ultimately, members of the caucus hope that whatever reform they can achieve will lead to greater stability and equality in Missouri.

“I just hope for peace,” state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, said. She learned that rioters burned down an office where she teaches civic engagement classes twice a week in Ferguson.

What’s most important, Chappelle-Nadal said, is that Missouri implements “systematic change” that transforms “institutional prejudice, which is penetrated throughout state government and other institutions.”

Black Caucus: Activating Guard stirring anxiety

Leave a comment

Jefferson City News Tribune | Nov 19, 2014

Gov. Jay Nixon’s decision to declare a state of emergency and activate the National Guard has stirred anxiety surrounding anticipation of a grand jury’s verdict in the death of a Ferguson teen, the chairman of the Missouri Black Caucus said Tuesday.

The governor’s announcement Monday came ahead of the grand jury’s decision on whether to indict white police officer Darren Wilson, who killed unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in August in Ferguson. Since the shooting, demonstrators have taken to Ferguson streets, protesting police violence and Brown’s death.

During the fallout in August, police were criticized for using tear gas and military-grade equipment while some protestors turned to rioting. Nixon called upon the National Guard to quell the unrest.

On Monday, Nixon said he activated the Guard before the jury’s announcement in order to prepare for “any contingency that might arise.” He justified his decision with what he called “two pillars”: to keep the public safe and to protect constitutional rights.

“It (Nixon’s declaration) definitely increases anxiety, no ifs, ands or buts about it,” caucus leader Rep. Brandon Ellington said Tuesday. “It’s concerning because obviously even the governor feels that the police department in Ferguson is incapable of keeping the public peace and protecting people’s rights.”

Other members of the caucus said they are skeptical about whether the National Guard can protect public safety and constitutional rights.

State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal represents Missouri’s 14th district, where Ferguson is located. Since Nixon’s announcement, she said she has received numerous phone calls, emails, tweets and Facebook messages from residents of the district in response to Nixon’s decision.

“According to my constituents, who I’ve been on the ground with since day one, they have absolutely zero faith in the governor because of the multiple mistakes he made in the whole aftermath after Mike Brown was killed by Darren Wilson,” Chappelle-Nadal said. “He (Nixon) is focusing on the unrest instead of focusing on the fact that people are hurting, and we have a problem when it comes to police brutality.”

Ellington said he wished the governor had taken a more diplomatic approach by engaging the community through conversation.

“Rioting and protests historically is the voice of the voiceless,” Ellington said. “People start rioting and protesting when people feel like their voices aren’t being heard. People feel like they don’t have any due process under the law.

“Sometimes you can alleviate the situation by actually talking to people, actually treating people with respect and decency,” he said.

On the day Nixon declared the state of emergency, the Black Caucus called for Ferguson to establish a restorative justice plan in response to the fines and arrests of protesters over the past three months.

Through restorative justice, those accused of crimes make restitution to society through community service or other productive functions rather than just serving a sentence or paying a fine.

“People have the right to protest. People have the right to voice their opinion. People have the right to peaceably assemble,” Ellington said, referring to the non-violent protestors and members of the press who have been arrested in Ferguson. “And the government should not deny people these rights … and if you give them fines for trying to exercise their constitutionally protected rights, that’s wrong.”

On Monday, the Black Caucus sent out letters to Ferguson city officials, including the mayor, city council members and the local prosecutor, asking them to meet with the Caucus regarding protesters’ fines. Ellington hopes they can come to a solution, perhaps by replacing fines with required community service.

According to Ellington, they have already received some positive reactions from city council members.

The Black Caucus is still discussing what legislation it plans to push in the upcoming legislative session. But Ellington is already determined to re-file House Bill 1699, which would require police to wear video cameras with their uniforms.

He filed the bill in the last legislative session, but it did not pass the House.

“With the wake of what happened in Ferguson, I think it is something that is extremely needed,” Ellington said. “Had we had that law in place, and the law enforcement officers were required to wear audio and video equipment, it wouldn’t be a question what happened.”

Ellington plans to file the bill Dec. 1, the first day legislators can pre-file bills for the upcoming session.

VETO SESSION: Abortion wait time expected to be hot topic

Leave a comment

Columbia Missourian | Sept 10, 2014

JEFFERSON CITY — One of the legislature’s most emotionally charged debates in the veto session, which begins Wednesday, is likely to surround a bill that would triple the wait time for women having an abortion in Missouri.

Currently, that wait time is 24 hours. Advocates of the bill say that women need 72 hours to make an informed decision. Opponents respond that 72 hours of waiting only prolongs the woman’s pain.

For Liz Read-Katz, a Columbia resident and stay-at-home mother who had an abortion in 2011, the notion that 72 hours is beneficial for reflection is misguided.

Read-Katz was 16 weeks pregnant when she learned that her child had a 10 percent chance of having Trisomy 18, a chromosomal defect that few infants survive past birth.

After an amniocentesis confirmed the diagnosis, her doctor told her that the child would know only a short life of suffering. Read-Katz decided to terminate her pregnancy.

Read-Katz was living in Texas at the time. Although Texas has a 24-hour waiting period, she had to wait two weeks while her doctor petitioned the ethics board to allow the abortion at her Christian hospital.

“Waiting has zero impact on women. Once they’ve made the decision, they’ve already thought about it for a lot longer than 72 hours,” Read-Katz said. “No woman wants to have an abortion. They do it because they need to. The only thing a waiting period does is makes the woman hurt more and for longer, emotionally and physically.”

Read-Katz recalled that during her two-week wait, people asked her on a daily basis when her child was due, or whether she would be giving birth to a boy or a girl.

Three years later, House Bill 1307 appeared in the Missouri legislature.  The bill aimed to extend the time between a woman’s initial meeting with the abortion provider and the procedure from 24 hours to 72 hours. The 72-hour period would include no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 111-39, and it passed in the Senate 22-9.

In July, Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill.

As it stands now, Missouri law requires that physicians offer women literature on the risks of the procedure and abortion alternatives, including printed materials that “prominently display the following statement: ‘The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.’”

The physician must also provide the opportunity for women to view an ultrasound, although they are not required to do so. Women must then wait 24 hours before they can give their consent to go through with the procedure.

Extending the wait period to 72 hours would allow women more time to consider all of the information given upon the initial meeting, said Rep. Kevin Elmer, R-Nixa, sponsor of House Bill 1307. Elmer based his bill on the laws of two other states — Utah and South Dakota — that require women to wait 72 hours before an abortion.

The states implemented their laws too recently for statistics on these laws’ effects to be available. However, Dina van der Zalm, volunteer and former legislative intern for Planned Parenthood in Columbia, said she would be cautious of these figures, regardless.

Missouri has one abortion clinic in St. Louis, but van der Zalm said that some women travel to abortion clinics in other states, such as the one in Overland Park, Kan., near Kansas City. Women who opt to receive their abortions in other states will skew the statistics and conclusions drawn from them, van der Zalm said.

“Women have the choice to take all the time they want, but mandating a 72-hour wait increases the economic and emotional burden on women, even more so if they are juggling work schedules and childcare,” van der Zalm said.

Susan Klein, legislative liaison for Missouri Right to Life, sees the wait time as beneficial rather than burdensome.

“When a woman is in a crisis situation, it’s good to reflect on this decision. It’s going to take the life of an innocent child,” Klein said. “On Sept. 10, we’re going to be around to protect those innocent little lives.”

Klein is part of the anti-abortion advocacy groups hosting a #ShowMeLife rally and prayer vigil at the Capitol steps on Wednesday, the first day of the veto session. The groups are confident that the veto will be overturned. In fact, the groups have already scheduled a victory celebration rally for 4 p.m. Wednesday on the Capitol steps.

Read-Katz shared her story on the state Capitol steps in May during a filibuster sponsored by activists, and she plans to be back in Jefferson City on Wednesday to participate in another rally. The Stand With Missouri Women Rally was organized by a coalition of Missouri groups including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The vote to override Nixon’s veto is scheduled for Wednesday. The #ShowMeLife rally will be at noon at the Capitol Rotunda, and the Stand With Missouri Women Rally will begin at 11 a.m. at the state Capitol.

VETO SESSION: Bill regarding sale of e-cigarettes to minors likely to be debated

Leave a comment

Columbia Missourian | Sept 10, 2014

JEFFERSON CITY — This spring, both chambers of the Missouri legislature passed a bill making the sale of alternative nicotine products and vapors to minors illegal.

But several months later, the bill was vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon and was being characterized as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” by Jeff Harris, senior policy adviser to Nixon.

Senate Bill 841, which was sponsored by Sen. Jay Wasson, R-Nixa, would ban the sale of e-cigarettes and other vapor products to those under 18 and would also exempt the products from being taxed and regulated as tobacco products.

In a roundtable discussion last week in Columbia, Nixon said that the bill began with good intentions, but as the legislature participated in ongoing negotiations, the nature of the bill was changed.

“It may have started out with the purpose of preventing the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, but somewhere along the way, language was added to this bill that would exempt e-cigarettes from the same regulations and taxes as traditional cigarettes,” Nixon said.

Moreover, Harris said, the FDA has proposed rules that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors on a federal scale.

The governor vetoed the bill, which passed with a 27-4 vote in the Senate and 127-19 vote in the House, in July. Both chambers originally approved the bill with the two-thirds majority needed to override Nixon’s veto.

E-cigarettes are meant to imitate traditional cigarettes. When the smoker puffs the e-cigarette, a battery heats up a nicotine-induced liquid solution that then vaporizes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration notes that since e-cigarettes have not been fully studied, consumers do not know the products’ potential risks and benefits, nor exactly how much nicotine is being inhaled.

Folks like Alex Brousse, assistant manager at Aqueous Vapor in Columbia, find some value in the legislation.

“Agree to disagree, you know?” Brousse said. “They haven’t necessarily proven that e-cigs are harmful. … It’s kind of a no-brainer in a sense that you can choose the route that you know will cause cancer, or you can choose the route that probably won’t.”

Brousse wasn’t entirely opposed to regulations and taxes on e-cigarettes, despite his commitment to them. Regarding extra taxation, he shrugged it off, explaining that “we might have to drop our prices down a little bit to stay reasonable, but besides that I don’t think it’ll be too much of an issue. We’ve all kind of seen it coming for a while now.”

Brousse acknowledged that greater transparency in packing labels on e-liquids would be beneficial, but he dismissed the value of other regulations regarding the distribution and manufacturing of e-cigarettes and other vapor devices.

“E-cigs and the technology develop just like phones. Every month, every week, there’s something new coming out. If they pass regulations that are strict enough, it could probably stop or slow down the development of electronic cigarettes,” Brousse said.

Ultimately, the fate of the e-cigarette in Missouri lies in the hands of the state legislature. The veto session begins at noon Wednesday in the Missouri Senate.