1. United States
2. Mo.
3. Letter

I stand in strong opposition to SB141 (Black), HB558 (Hovis), SB188 (Bernskoetter), SB357 (Schroer), and HB147 (Hovis), which seek to circumvent the will of Missouri voters and disregard constitutional principles. These bills attempt to revive flawed funding mechanisms and undermine local governance, despite clear judicial and public rejection. 1. Unconstitutional Funding Schemes SB141 and related bills aim to replenish sheriff retirement funds through fees and redirected jail reimbursements. However, the Missouri Supreme Court already ruled such fees unconstitutional in 2020, striking down the $3 surcharge that previously funded these accounts . Reintroducing similar mechanisms ignores this precedent and risks further legal challenges. The Court’s decision was clear: shifting financial burdens onto citizens through arbitrary fees violates constitutional safeguards. 2. Voters Have Already Spoken In 2024, Missourians overwhelmingly rejected Amendment 6, a ballot measure seeking to reinstate these fees. The public’s refusal to endorse this approach reflects a demand for accountable, equitable solutions—not regressive financial burdens on households already struggling with rising costs . Forcing these policies through legislation, after voters rejected them at the polls, is undemocratic and disrespectful to the electorate. 3. Undermining Local Control and Worker Rights SB357 and HB147 compound these issues by redefining “earnable compensation” for St. Louis police retirees, allowing the state to retroactively set the salary. This undermines local governance. As seen in past debates over police department control, Missourians value local accountability—evidenced by the 2012 passage of Proposition A, which restored St. Louis’ authority over its police force with 64% voter approval . Centralizing compensation decisions in Jefferson City erodes this accountability and harms public servants who advocate for fair treatment. 4. Economic Inequity These bills disproportionately impact low-income communities. For example, redirecting jail reimbursements ($2/day per detainee) risks straining county budgets, potentially leading to service cuts or higher local taxes. Similarly, fee increases for civil process services will burden individuals navigating the legal system, many of whom are already financially vulnerable. Missouri cannot afford policies that exacerbate poverty or housing instability, as seen in the consequences of utility rate hikes opposed by advocates in 2024 . The legislature must respect the judiciary and the electorate. SB141, HB558, SB188, SB357, and HB147 repeat past mistakes, ignore constitutional boundaries, and disregard voter intent. Instead of reviving failed ideas, we urge you to pursue sustainable, equitable funding solutions that align with Missourians’ values. Uphold democracy, local control, and economic justice by rejecting these bills.