12:48 PM

Legislative Update - March 12, 2021

With its regular mid-session break approaching, the legislature was particularly busy this week (3/8 – 3/12/2021), considering and voting in committee and on the floor on as many bills as possible.  Seventy-six bills or resolutions have been third read and passed, meaning they have been adopted by one chamber. Only a single bill, the annual supplemental appropriations bill, has been approved by the General Assembly and signed by the governor.  Legislators will return to their districts for a week, away from the whirlwind of lawmaking. After they return, the pace will pick up, as they sprint toward the end of session.      

To identify bills of interest in your practice area and see the latest legislative action on them, visit The Missouri Bar’s Legislative Engagement Center.  


Senate Floor Action 

For a complete list of bills approved by the Senate and delivered to the House for consideration, click here

Senate Committee Action 

The Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee met on March 8, 2021, and held public hearings on the following bills: 

SB 181 – Senator Tony Luetkemeyer (R – Parkville) 

SB 181 would amend section 431.202, RSMo, (validity and enforceability of employment covenants), adding a new subsection 3 concerning existing or prospective customer non-solicitation clauses and also adding a new section 431.201, providing definitions for the amended section 431.202 (“business entity,” “customers with whom the employee dealt,” and “employee”).   


  • Zach Skinner (Lockton Company) testified that SB 181 is pro-business legislation, providing certainty to businesses, as long as their employment covenants are narrowly tailored.  

  • Matthew Panik (Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry) 

  • Michael Henderson (Missouri Insurance Coalition) 

  • Rich Aubuchon (American Property Casualty Insurance Association) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

SB 314 – Senator Lincoln Hough (R – Springfield) 

SB 314 would amend section 575.095, RSMo, by adding the Attorney General or his or her appointee to the definition of “judicial officer” for purposes of the offense of tampering with a judicial officer. Tampering would occur if a person harasses, intimidates, or tries to influence a judicial officer.  A proposed committee substitute would also remove the current residency requirement for the Attorney General.  


  • Josh Foster (Missouri Attorney’s General Office)  

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

SB 331 – Senator Eric Burlison (R – Battlefield) 

SB331 would amend chapter 537, RSMo, adding two new sections (537.880 and 537.882) to establish disclosure procedures for claimants in civil actions for damages due to asbestos exposure. It would apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after its effective date and to pending actions in which trial had not commenced. 


  • Mark Behrens (U.S. Chamber of Commerce) stated the problems the bill seeks to address are related to trust transparency. Adopting the bill would eliminate inefficiency and waste in the system. According to Mr. Behrens’ testimony, if the legislation amending section 537.882, RSMo, were to pass, it would require disclosure and right size litigation.  

  • Tom Robbins (Missouri Insurance Coalition) 

  • Jorgen Schlemeier (American Tort Reform Association; Missouri Railroad Association) 

  • Matthew Panik (Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry) 

  • Rich Aubuchon (Missouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition; American Property Casualty Insurance Association)) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support 

  • Ray McCarty - Associated Industries of Missouri  


  • Bart Baumstark (O'Brien Law Firm, P.C.) testified that the bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, forcing plaintiffs to file bankruptcy claims before they could file a tort suit and calling for “discovery before discovery” and “trial before a trial.” The bill requirements would far exceed the pleading requirements of Supreme Court Rule 55.05 (sworn information listing every single product to which an injured party was exposed; how long the exposure occurred; and how close one was to the asbestos product).  

  • Mike Brockland (SWMW Law), whose firm represents people injured by asbestos-related diseases, described the bill as a stealth requirement that injured parties file all bankruptcy claims before they can file the lawsuit, rather than a disclosure bill.    

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Jake Hummel (Missouri AFL-CIO) 

  • Arnie C. AC Dienoff 

  • Tom Madden (Protect Missouri Workers) 

  • Wayne Kaufman (The Kaufman Fund) 

SB 338 – Senator Tony Leutkemeyer (R – Parkville) [Bar-Endorsed Legislation] 

SB 338 would amend chapter 456, RSMo, establishing a provision regarding interpretation of terms of familial relationship used in trusts and modifying a provision regarding distributions of income or principal from one trust to another trust, commonly referred to as “decanting.”  

Section 456.4-419 would establish the following with regard to trust decanting: 

A trustee, other than a settlor, who had discretionary power to make a distribution, could exercise such power by distributing all or part of the income or principal to a trustee of a second trust. The power could be exercised by distributing property from the first trust to one or more second trusts, or by modifying the first trust instrument to become one or more second trusts. 

The requirements regarding permissible distributees of second trusts would include: 

  1. that at least one permissible distributee of the first trust be a permissible distributee of the second trust immediately after the distribution, and  

  1. that only a beneficiary of the first trust may be a beneficiary of the second trust. 

In addition, the proposed section would provide that: 

  1. the second trust instrument could retain, modify, or omit a power of appointment granted by the first trust, and  

  1. the second trust instrument could create a general or nongeneral power of appointment if the powerholder is a beneficiary of the second trust. 

Further, the fiduciary of a trust with a disabled beneficiary could exercise authority to make a distribution to a second trust if the second trust is a special-needs trust having a beneficiary with a disability, and if the fiduciary determines the exercise of authority furthers the trust’s purposes. 

The act would repeal current provisions regarding  

  1. a second trust's beneficiaries,  

  1. the limitations on a trustee's authority to make distributions from the first trust in certain circumstances,  

  1. trust contributions treated as gifts, and  

  1. the exercise of the discretionary power to reduce the income interest of any income beneficiary in certain trusts.  

If the exercise of the distribution authority were limited by an ascertainable standard, under which the trustee exercising such authority was a permissible distributee of the first trust, then the discretionary power would be subject to at least the same standard as the first trust. The trust instrument for the second trust could neither modify powers of appointment nor grant a power of appointment to a trustee who did not exist in the first trust. 

A second trust could neither include nor omit terms that would prevent the first trust property from qualifying as a marital deduction, as a charitable deduction, as a qualified subchapter-S trust, or for exclusion from the gift tax, or having a zero-inclusion ratio for purposes of the generation skipping transfer tax under the Internal Revenue Code. 

If the first trust property included shares of a S-corporation's stock and the first trust is a permitted shareholder, then the trustee of the first trust could exercise the authority with respect to the S-corporation stock if the second trust is a permitted shareholder. 

Notification would be required at least sixty days prior to making a discretionary to permissible distributees of the first trust as well as to the permissible distributees of the second trust. 

The second trust could have a duration that is the same as the first trust. However, the property of the second trust that is attributable to the first trust would be subject to the rules governing maximum perpetuity, accumulation, or suspension of the power of alienation which apply to the property of the first trust. This provision would not preclude creation of a general power of appointment in the second trust instrument. 

If part of the second trust instrument were not to comply with this act, the exercise of discretionary power would be effective, and provisions of the second trust instrument not permitted in or required in the trust instrument would be deemed void or included to the extent needed to comply. 

To address the interpretation of terms of familial relationships, section 456.1-114 would provide for a presumption that: 

  1. A child conceived or born during a marriage is a child of the married persons unless a judicial proceeding commenced before the death of the presumed parent determined the presumed parent was not the parent of the child. 

  1. A child who is not conceived or born during a marriage is not a child of a person who did not give birth to that child unless a judicial proceeding determined parentage, or the person openly recognized the child as his or hers and had not refused to voluntarily support it. 

A trustee would not be liable to any person for exercising discretion regarding the sufficiency of recognition and support of a child, unless the trustee acted in bad faith or with a reckless indifference to the purposes of the trust or interests of the beneficiaries. Rights afforded to the child are not retroactive but would apply from the time the relationship is established. A child adopted prior to age 18 would be a child of the adopting parent and not the natural parents, except adoption by a spouse of a natural parent would have no effect on the relationship between the child and the natural parent. The terms of a trust would prevail over this provision. 


  • Dan Wheeler (The Missouri Bar) testified that the proposed amendments to the decanting statute were the result of a review by the Probate and Trust Division of The Missouri Bar. Further, the bill also contained the proposed amendment to the Missouri Uniform Trust Code, which currently does not address out-of-wedlock children. The Supreme Court of Missouri has stated that decedent estate statutes don’t apply to trusts, and the proposed amendment would attempt to resolve that matter.  Mr. Wheeler also provided written testimony electronically, which expanded on his verbal testimony.  

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support 

  • Scott Martinsen (The Missouri Bar)  

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Arnie Dienoff  

The Committee took action on the following bills in executive session: 

  • SB 169 – Senator Eric Burlison (R – Republic)  Do Pass by a vote of 4 to 1 

  • SB 295  - Senator Sandy Crawford (R – Buffalo) Do Pass by a vote of 4 to 1 


House Floor Action 

For a complete list of bills approved by the House and delivered to the Senate for consideration, click here

House Committee Action 

The House Committee on Crime Prevention met on March 8, 2021, and held a public hearing on the following bill: 

HB 499 – Rep. Nick Schroer (R – O’Fallon) 

HB 499 would amend section 590.500, RSMo, to establish the “Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.” It would apply to any sworn peace officer, except an elected sheriff or deputy, who possesses the duty and power of arrest for violations of the state’s criminal laws, or for violations of county or municipal ordinances. It would not apply to an officer serving in a probationary period or the highest ranking officer of any law enforcement agency. It would specify rights an officer has when s/he is the subject of an administrative investigation or is being questioned or interviewed, including:  

  • being informed of the violation,  

  • requiring the complaint to be supported by a sworn affidavit, and  

  • allowing the officer to have an attorney.  

It would provide that any officer who is suspended without pay, demoted, terminated, transferred, or placed on a status resulting in economic loss would be entitled to a full due process hearing.  


  • Brian Millikan (Millikan Law Office, Kirkwood) 

  • Joseph Patterson (St. Louis County Police Association) 

  • Jay Schroeder (St. Louis Policer Officers Association; Missouri FOP) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support of 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition to 

  • Amy Axtel (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Cheryl Adelstein (Jewish Community Relations Council) (written testimony also) 

  • Elle Hollrah (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Gail Wechsler (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Gerald Axelbaum (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • John Steffen (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Jonathan Lindberg (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Karen Rogers (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Kristen Bowen (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Mo Del Villar (ACLU of Missouri) (written testimony also) 

  • Randee Steffen (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Richard Egan (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Susan Gibson (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Tara Bennett (individual) (written testimony also) 

The Committee took action on the following bills in executive session: 

  • HB 1088 – Rep. Barry Hovis (R – Cape Girardeau) Do Pass by a vote of 9 to 0 

  • HB 313 – Rep. Bob Bromley (R – Carl Junction)  Do Pass by a vote of 8 to 1 

The House Public Safety Committee met on March 9, 2021, and conducted public hearings on the following bills: 

HB 874 – Rep. Michael Davis (R – Kansas City) 

HB 874 would amend chapter 85, RSMo, by adding a new section (85.700) to require a St. Louis County municipality with 5,000 or fewer inhabitants, an area of less than two square miles, and a municipal police department, to disband its police department and to contract for law enforcement with either the county police department or another city if the combined population of the city disbanding it police department and the city with which it is contracting has at least 5,000 inhabitants. A city that originally contracted with another city could discontinue that contract and then contract with the county police department, but it could not discontinue a contract with one city and then contract with another city.  


  • No one 


  • Pat Kelly (Municipal League Metro St. Louis)  

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Richard Sheets (Missouri Municipal League) (written testimony also) 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

HB 1090 – Rep. Barry Hovis (R – Cape Girardeau) 

HB 1090 would amend section 566.150, RSMo, by adding the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) nature or education centers to the locations from which registered sexual offenders must stay at least 500 feet away. Any person who had been found guilty of such offense who is the parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child under 18 visiting the MDC centers could request permission from a center manager to be present on the property with the child during the visit. 


  • Aaron Jeffries (Missouri Department of Conservation) 

  • Kyna Iman (Conservation Federation of Missouri) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

The Committee took action on the following bills in executive session: 

  • HB 286 – Rep. Ashley Bland Manlove (D – Kansas City) Do Pass  

  • HB 290 – Rep. Lane Roberts (R – Joplin)   Do Pass  

  • HB 291 – Rep. Lane Roberts (R – Joplin)    Do Pass  

  • HB 553 – Rep. Ron Hicks (R – Dardenne Prairie) Do Pass  

The House Special Committee on Litigation Reform met on March 9, 2021, and held public hearings on the following bills:  

SS#2 SCS SBs 51 & 42 – Senator Tony Luetkemeyer (R – Parkville) 

Commonly called the “COVID-19 liability bill,” SS#2 SCS SBs 51 & 42 would amend chapter 537, RSMo, to establish new provisions of law relating to the following: 

  • COVID-19 exposure actions (Section 537.1005), providing that no individual or entity engaged in businesses, services, activities, or accommodations would be liable in any COVID-19 exposure action unless the plaintiff could prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that an individual or entity engaged in recklessness or willful misconduct causing actual exposure to COVID-19 and the actual exposure caused personal injury to the plaintiff; 

  • COVID-19 medical liability actions (Section 537.1010), providing that no health care provider would be liable in any COVID-19 medical liability action, unless the plaintiff could prove reckless or willful misconduct by the health care provider and that the personal injury was caused by such misconduct; and 

  • COVID-19 products liability action (Section 537.1015), providing that any individual or entity who designs, manufactures, imports, distributes, labels, packages, leases, sells, or donates a covered product would only be liable in a COVID-19 products liability action if the individual or entity (1) did not make the covered product in the ordinary course of business; (2) made the covered product in the ordinary course of business and the emergency required the product to be made in a modified manufacturing process that was outside the ordinary course of business; or (3) made the covered product in the ordinary course of business and the use of the covered product was different from its recommended purpose and used in response to the COVID-19 emergency, unless the plaintiff proved, by clear and convincing evidence, recklessness or willful misconduct by the individual or entity and the misconduct caused the personal injury. 

Section 537.1020 would provide that punitive damages could be awarded in any COVID-related action, but they could not exceed an amount in excess of nine times the amount of compensatory damages. 

Section 537.1035 would provide that sections 537.1000 to 537.1035 shall expire four years after the effective date of the bill. The statutory causes of action created in those sections would replace any such common law causes of actions. The following statutes of limitation would also apply: 

  • COVID-19 exposure action, not later than two years after the date of the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure; 

  • COVID-19 medical liability action, not later than one year after the date of the discovery of the alleged harm, damage, breach, or tort (unless toll for proof of fraud, intentional concealment, or the presence of a foreign body in the person without therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect; and 

  • COVID-19 products liability action, not later than two years after the date of the alleged harm, damage, breach, or tort (unless tolled for proof of fraud or intentional concealment).  

The bill also contains an emergency clause, providing that it would take effect upon its passage and approval by the governor. However, the Senate failed to approve the emergency clause by the constitutionally required margin.  


  • Mark Behrens (American Tort Reform Association) testified that COVID-19 liability protection was critical to Missouri’s businesses because they were afraid of opening up and facing lawsuits, even if they did everything they believed was right to protect customers.  

  • Dana Frese (Missouri Hospital Association; Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers) testified that the risk of lawsuits continued for wrongful death due to negligence.   

  • Bill Gamble (Missouri Railroad Association; Greater St. Louis Inc.) 

  • Nikki Strong (Missouri Health Care Association) testified that nursing homes sought protection from things over which they had not control, not protection for bad actors.  

  • Rich Aubuchon (The Doctors Company, Kansas City Chiefs, American Property Casualty Insurance Association; BNSF Railway, Missouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition; Missouri Retailers for Fair Competition))  

  • Matthew Panik (Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry) 

  • David Overfelt (Missouri Retailers Association; Missouri Grocers Association; Missouri Tire Industry Association)  

  • Ray McCarty (Associated Industries of Missouri) 

  • David Winton (BJC Healthcare Systems; CoxHealth) 

  • Shantel Dooling (Missouri State Medical Association) 

  • Steve Nittler (Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support  

  • Brad Jones (NFIB) 

  • Charles Pierce (Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants) 

  • Michael Henderson (Missouri Insurance Coalition) 

  • Michael Gibbons (Bayer U.S.; Enterprise Leasing STL) 

  • Patrick Dunlap (Heartland Credit Union Association) (written testimony also) 

  • Richard Sheets (Missouri Municipal League) 

  • Tom Crawford (Missouri Trucking Association) 

  • William Bates (LeadingAge Missouri) (written testimony also) 


  • David Terry (Terry Law Firm) 

  • Rachel Stahle (Dollar, Burns, Becker & Hershewe) 

  • Carla Garilli 

  • Gail Griswold  

  • John Beckett 

  • Charlene Moore 

  • Mandy Bickers 

  • Lisa Pannett  

  • Melanie Taylor (417 Freedom Fighters) 

  • Jennifer Byrd 

  • Jennifer Parker 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition  

  • Arnie Dienoff 

  • Caroline Waltman 

  • Kim Williams 

  • Lizbeth Schmidt (Organic & Healthy, Inc.) (written testimony also) 

  • Rebecca Boerner (written testimony also) 

  • Ron Calzone (Missouri First, Inc.) (written testimony also) 

  • Shelly Knichel 

  • Tamara Harrill 

HB 1064 – Rep John Wiemann (R – O’Fallon)  

HB 1064 would amend chapter 537, RSMo, to establish provision of law relating to liability in COVID-19 related actions. The bill is nearly identical to  SS#2 SCS SBs 51 & 42

HB 997 – Rep. Bruce DeGroot (R – Ellisville) [postponed]  

HB 1119 – Rep. Curtis Trent (R – Springfield) [postponed] 

HB 1304 – Rep. Mike Henderson (R – Desloge) 

HB 1304 would authorize school boards of any school district to purchase insurance contracts to insure against loss, damages, or expenses for a claim arising out of the sickness, bodily injury, or death by accident of any student injured on school premises or during school-sponsored activities; as well as insurance for the benefit of students to insure against losses resulting from loss of, theft of, or damage to personal property of students  It would also stipulate that an employer who accepted a secondary school student in a work-based learning program would not be subject to civil liability for any claim arising from the student's negligent act or omission. 


  • Stacey Preis (Aligned) testified that work-based learning for students is a very valuable opportunity, and adoption of this bill would encourage additional opportunities. 

  • Bill Gamble (Greater St. Louis Inc.) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support  

  • Arnie Dienoff 


  • Nimrod Chapel, Jr. (Missouri NAACP) testified that citizens should have the ability to bring an action if student interns do something that might harm people. He suggested indemnification rather immunity.    

The Committee took action on the following bill in executive session: 

  • HB 347 – Rep. Rudy Veit (R – Wardsville) Do Pass by a vote of 9 to 0  

The House Committee on General Laws met on March 9, 2021 and held public hearings on the following bills: 

HJR 43 – Rep. Justin Hill (R – Lake St. Louis)  

Upon voter approval, HJR 42 would amend sections 19 and 25(a) of Article V of the Constitution of Missouri to specify that judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Court of Appeals would be limited to a single term of twelve years. It would also provide that appellate judicial vacancies would be filled by gubernatorial appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate, rather than the existing process of nonpartisan selection under section 25(g), where the governor appoints one of three individuals nominated by the Appellate Judicial Commission. HJR 42 would retain the current nonpartisan selection process for circuit and associate circuit judges in St. Louis City and Jackson, St. Louis, Clay, Platte, and Green counties, who would be appointed by the governor from among panels submitted by circuit judicial commission. 


  • Jeremy Cady (Americans for Prosperity) testified in support of a federal-style plan, stating that the present commissions are not accountable.  

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

  • Bev Ehlen (individual) (written testimony also) 

  • Carol Pitzer (individual) 

  • Carole Zumwalt (individual) 

  • Carolyn Scism (individual) 

  • Cheryl Bohl (individual) 

  • Darlene Slattery (individual) 

  • Debra Kohl (individual) 

  • Debra Cochran (individual) 

  • Ginger Yoak (individual) 

  • Haven Howard (individual) 

  • Jaclyn Riebold (individual) 

  • Janet Dabbs (individual) 

  • Jerome Jacobsmeyer (individual) 

  • Jim Conrady (individual) 

  • Judith Moorfield (individual) 

  • Kathy Forck (individual) 

  • Kenneth Venezia (individual) 

  • Laurel Breedlove (individual) 

  • Lorna Ruth Piper (individual) 

  • Nicole Olszewski (individual) 

  • Paula Juelich (individual) 

  • Robyn Hamlin (individual) 

  • Ron Cawood (individual) 


  • Randy Scherr (Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers) presented a history of the nonpartisan selection plan, including the defeat of SJR 51 on the ballot in 2012. He presented articles on merit selection of judges and pointed to speeches by Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush stating the federal system was broken.  

  • Mark Moreland (Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys) testified that adopting the process in HJR 43 would likely place judicial selection back in closed rooms filled with cigar smoke, where it had been prior to the adoption of the nonpartisan selection process. 

  • John Gunn (The Missouri Bar) testified that the nonpartisan selection process and the current structure of the judicial commissions assures no one hand picks judges. Missouri has a proven history with the merit selection of judges, and numerous states have followed Missouri’s lead in adopting all or part of the nonpartisan court plan.  The nonpartisan court plan reduces partisan politics in the selection of judges.   

  • David Klarich (Missouri Circuit Judges’ Association) testified that the Constitution of Missouri pre-supposes three co-equal branches of government, including an independent judiciary.     

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Eric D. Jennings (The Missouri Bar) 

  • Patricia Churchill (Judicial Conference of Missouri) 

HJR 60 – Rep. Justin Hill (R – Lake St. Louis) 

Upon voter approval, HJR 60 would amend sections 19, 20, 25(a), and 25(d) of Article V of the Constitution of Missouri to specify that judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Court of Appeals judges would be limited to a single term of sixteen years. In addition, judges also would be prohibited from directly or indirectly accepting any gift of any tangible or intangible item, service, or thing of value from any paid lobbyist or lobbyist principal, although campaign contributions or gifts from relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity would be excluded. For appellate and trial court vacancies in participating circuits, the governor would continue to make appointments from panels submitted by the Appellate Judicial Commission and the relevant circuit judicial commissions. However, appellate appointments would also be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and the composition of the nominating commissions would be altered. The governor would select one attorney and one nonattorney citizen from the Southern District. The Speaker of the House of Representatives would select one attorney and one nonattorney citizen from the Western District. The President pro tempore of the Senate would each select one lawyer and one public member from the Eastern District. A judge of the Supreme Court, selected by the members of the Supreme Court, would continue to serve. For the judicial circuit commissions, the presiding judge of the relevant appellate district would continue to serve. The governor would select two resident nonattorney citizens, and the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore would each select one attorney.  


  • Jeremy Cady (Americans for Prosperity) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support  

  • All those submitting electronic witness forms in support of HJR 43, with the exception of Arnie Dienoff, submitted electronic witness forms in support of HJR 60. 


  • All those testifying in opposition to HJR 43 also opposed HJR 60.  

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

  • Patricia Churchill (Judicial Conference of Missouri) 

HJR 24 – Rep. Bill Hardwick (R – Waynesville)  

Apart from limiting appellate judges to a single term of sixteen years, HJR 24 is identical to HJR 43, with the same witnesses in support and opposition.  

The House Special Committee on Criminal Justice met on March 9, 2021, and conducted public hearings on the following bills: 

HB 38 – Rep. Kevin Windham (D – Hillsdale) 

HB 38 would amend section 590.120, RSMo, to require the director of the POST Commission to employ at least one full-time investigator for each congressional district in the state. 


  • Mo Del Villar (Missouri ACLU) testified remotely that the ACLU agrees with leading law enforcement agencies who noted it was problematic that the POST Commission had only two investigators for the entire state and its law enforcement officers. The bill would increase the number of investigators to match the number of the state’s congressional districts. Early and swift intervention could identify officers exhibiting problem behavior and allow supervisors to intervene before there are instances of serious and or repeated misconduct. (provided written testimony also) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support  

  • Eva Santiago (individual) 

  • Hannah Roos (individual) 

  • Jan Schumacher (individual) 

  • Karen Sholes (individual) 

  • Nancy Bates (individual) 

  • Shanette Hall (Ethical Society of Police) (written testimony also) 

  • Susan Gibson (individual) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition  

  • Arnie Dienoff  

HB 460 – Rep. Shamed Dogan (R – Ballwin) 

HB 460 would amend section 590.065, RSMo, to establish “The John Ashcroft Fourth Amendment Affirmation Act,” to protect against discriminatory practices in policing. An officer would be required to report additional information each time s/he stops a driver of a motor vehicle. Such information would include: the infraction for which the individual was stopped, the manner in which an individual’s consent to a search was documented and the specific reasons for the stop. It would require that such information be reported to the Attorney General of Missouri and would require the Attorney General to include information regarding discriminatory policing when analyzing reports compiled by each law enforcement agency in the state.  It would require each law enforcement agency to adopt a policy on discriminatory policing, as well as a policy on eliminating discriminatory policing in administering consent searches. 


  • Cheryl Adelstein (Jewish Community Relations Council) testified remotely about the need to establish standards for law enforcement to treat all communities with dignity and limited use of force against minority communities. (written testimony also). 

  • Mo Del Villar (Missouri ACLU) testified that this legislation would increase transparency in policing and rebuild trust in our communities (written testimony also). 

  • Rev Dr. Cassandra Gould (Missouri Faith Voices) testified remotely. 

  • Sarah Owsley (Empower Missouri) testified that the bill would strengthen the annual Vehicle Stops Report (VSR). The VSR requirements were initially passed in 2000 as a way to gain insight into which drivers are stopped in Missouri and what happens in the course of these stops. The VSR has shown a disproportionate number of stops and post stop searches along racial lines each year since the law has been implemented. 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support of 

  • Arnie Dienoff  

  • Arthur Rizer (individual) 

  • Nancy Bates (individual) 

  • Jan Schumacher (individual) 

  • Michael Bobzin (Criminal Justice Ministry) 

  • Nancy Bates (individual) 

  • Susan Gibson (individual) 

HB 750 – Rep. Tony Lovasco (R – O’Fallon) 

HB 750 would amend chapter 513, RSMo, to prohibit law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities from referring, transferring, or otherwise relinquishing seized property to a federal agency for forfeiture under federal law.  


  • Dan Alban (Institute for Justice) testified (remotely) that the bill would close the loophole created by the federal equitable sharing program, which circumvents the protections for Missouri property rights. (written testimony also) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Support  

  • Arthur Rizer 

  • Cheryl Adelstein (Jewish Relations Council) (written testimony also) 

  • Christine Wood (Empower Missouri) (written testimony also) 

  • Jan Schumacher (individual) 

  • Jeremy Cady (Americans for Prosperity) 

  • Michael Bobzin (Criminal Justice Ministry) 

  • MoDel Villar (ACLU of Missouri) 

  • Nancy Bates (individual) 

  • Sue Gibson (individual) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms in Opposition 

  • Arnie Dienoff 

  • Kevin Merritt (Missouri Sheriffs United) 

  • Michael Gibbons (St. Charles County) 


  • Mike Wood (individual) 

Electronic Witness Appearance Forms for Informational Purposes 

  • David Edward Roland (individual) 

The Committee took action on the following bill in executive session: 

  • HB 521 – Rep. Kevin Windham ( D – Hillsdale) Do Pass by a vote of 9 to 0  

The House Committee on Children and Families met on March 10, 2021, and held public hearings on the following bill: 

HB 33 – Rep. Suzie Pollock (R – Lebanon)  

HB 33 would amend chapter 191, RSMo, adding one new section (191.1180) to prohibit medical providers from administering any medical or surgical treatment for gender reassignment for anyone under the age of eighteen. Any licensed health professional who assisted in any prohibited actions would be subject to license revocation. Any parent who obtained such treatment for a child would be reported to the DSS Children's Division for child abuse.  

For a partial list of those testifying on HB 33, click here

The Committee took action on the following bill in executive session: 

  • HB 673 – Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R – Arnold) Do Pass by a vote of 6 to 3 (1 present)  

The House Judiciary Committee met on March 10, 2021, and held public hearings on the following: 

HB 1416 – Rep. John Black (R – Marshfield) 

HB 1416 would amend chapter 1, RSMo, to establish the Fundamental Freedom from Government Act. Section 1.304 would provide that neither the state nor any political subdivision shall infringe or unnecessarily restrict citizens’ fundamental rights to freely exercise their religion or to keep and bear arms.  

No one testified in support of or in opposition to the bill.  

HB 1069 – Rep. David Evans (R – West Plains) 

HB 1069 would enact two new sections of statute (21.403 and 21.405) concerning individuals who have been subpoenaed to testify or provide information at a proceeding before a body of the General Assembly and refused on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination and willful failure to appear, testify, or produce documents. The bill would enact various amendments relating to the General Assembly in the criminal offenses of perjury (575.040), making a false affidavit (575.050), interference with legal process (575.160), tampering with a witness or victim (575.270), acceding to corruption (575.280), and obstructing government operations (576.030). Finally, HB 1069 would create the new criminal offense of contempt of a body of the General Assembly (575.330). 

No one appeared to testified in support of or in opposition to the bill.  

The Committee took action on the following bills in executive session: 

  • HB299 – Rep. Wayne Wallingford (R – Cape Girardeau) Do Pass by a vote of 8 to 1  

  • HB 1242 – Rep. David Evans (R – West Plains) Do Pass by a vote of 9 to 1 

The House Public Safety Committee met on March 11, 2021, and took action on the following bills in executive session: 

  • HB 874 – Rep. Michael Davis (R – Kansas City) Failed by a vote of 0 to 7 

  • HB 1090 – Rep. Barry Hovis (R – Cape Girardeau) Do Pass by a vote of 8 to 0