We all know the US Congressional maps are up for debate in the Missouri Senate this week. Those of us who prefer our representation in D.C. remain a reflection of our conservative values would expect our Republican majority to create a congressional map which would protect our current Republican seats.
Gaining a seat would be even better but potentially losing a seat in a weak 6-2 map is not acceptable.
One has to ask, "If we have a Republican majority, WHY in the world is this even a debate? WHY would our Republican led assembly vote for a weak 6-2 map?"
5 lies about redistricting
LIE #1: If we don't come to an agreement and decide, the courts will do it for us. The judges are liberal and that would be worse than our weak 6-2 map.
TRUTH: According to the Missouri Constitution, the map rendering and decision making in regard to the congressional district map is the responsibility of the General Assembly, not the court system. When it is taken to court, as we can expect it will be regardless of what map that is created, the court will deem it to be unconstitutional or not but they will not draw a new Congressional map. They will kick it back to the General Assembly for them to fulfill their responsibility.
Note: This is different than how the Missouri House and Senate district maps are handled.
US District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
Mar 4, 1968
279 F. Supp. 952 (W.D. Mo. 1968)
observing that when S 2c became law, the court "was relieved of the prior existing Congressional command [under S 2a(c)] to order that the 1968...congressional elections in Missouri be held at large..."were the Missouri Legislature to fail to enact a valid reapportionment statute in time"
Lie #2: February 22, 2022, is the filing date so if the map isn't settled by then, the court will draw up a map for us.
TRUTH: Campaign filing begins on February 22nd and runs through March 29th but it has nothing to do with the drawing of the map. See above. The General Assembly HAS to draw the map. If they don't agree on something in time for filing of the primaries, congressional elections will be held "at large." Of course, this isn't ideal, but it still does NOT mean that the court is going to draw up the map.
Lie #3: Secretary of State Ashcroft doesn't support a 7-1 map. He's ok with a 6-2 map.
TRUTH: Yes, the Secretary does support a 7-1 map and he's speaking out in regard to his opinion. Would he be "ok" with a 6-2 map? Well, common sense would tell you he'd be happier with a strong 6-2 than a weak one and he is definitely NOT ok with a 5-3. If you want to hear what he has to say about it, come on over to the Capitol around 11:00 am on Monday.
If you can't come to the Capitol, you might want to check this out on the SOS FB Page.
Secretary Ashcroft will talk about Missouri elections, redistricting, faith & freedom with Key Radio’s Kevin Burns Monday morning at 9:10. https://www.keygatheringplace.com/KeyRadio
And if neither of those work out for you, here's a quote from the News Tribune taken from an article dated January 11, 2022.
That includes Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who came out publicly for a 7-1 map late last year and has been vigorously lobbying lawmakers on the idea since the 2022 session began last week.
Lie #4: If we approve a 7-1 map, then Eric Holder and his redistricting committee with lots of money and power will say we're racist and sue us.
TRUTH: This might happen. It doesn't mean we are racist if they sue us. The map is likely going to get taken to court regardless of what is approved. Let's see what the court has to say.
It is interesting, though, speaking of discrimination, that 5 women were drawn out of their state districts in this process... ah, but I digress. That's a conversation for a different day.
Lie #5: Districts have to be equal "in exact person to person count."
TRUTH: SCOTUS says no. There can be an amount of deviation, which is actually a few thousand people AND the total state population can also be used to comply.
SCOTUS Rulings
Weberry v Sanders, 84 S. Ct ;526 (1964) Districts must be drawn so that "as nearly practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is worth as mch as another's."
Gaffney v. Cummings, 93 S Ct, 2321 (1973). SCOTUS found no issue with the deviation in Connecticut's map where there was 1.81% in the Senate and 7.83% in the House.
Evenwell v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016). States may use total population to comply with the concept of one person, one vote.
ok. I'm on board with the 7-1. now what
Call and email every Republican Senator who hasn't committed to support a7-1 map and request their support and vote.
Here are their names & contact info.
Dave Schatz at 573-751-3678 and/or Dave.Schatz@senate.mo.gov
Caleb Rowden at 573-751-3931 and/or Caleb.Rowden@senate.mo.gov
Karla Eslinger at 573-751-1882 and/or Karla.Eslinger@senate.mo.gov
Lincoln Hough at 573-751-2583 and/or Lincoln.Hough@senate.mo.gov
Elaine Gannon at 573-751-4008 and/or Elaine.Gannon@senate.mo.gov
Mike Bernskoetter 573-751-2076 and/or Mike.Bernskoetter@senate.mo.gov
Mike Cierpiot at 573-751-1464 and/or Mike.Cierpiot@senate.mo.gov
Jeanie Riddle at 573-751-2757 and/or Jeanie.Riddle@senate.mo.gov
Dan Hegeman at 573-751-1415 and/or Dan.Hegeman@senate.mo.gov
Justin Brown at 573-751-5713 and/or Justin.Brown@senate.mo.gov
Cindy O'Laughlin at 573-751-7985 and/or Cindy.O'Laughlin@senate.mo.gov
Paul Wieland at 573-751-1492 and/or Paul.Wieland@senate.mo.gov
Jason Bean at 573-751-4843 and/or Jason.Bean@senate.mo.gov
Holly Rehder at 573-751-2459 and/or Holly.Rehder@senate.mo.gov
Sandy Crawford at 573-751-8793 and/or Sandy.Crawford@senate.mo.gov
Bill White at 573-751-2173 and/o rBill.White@senate.mo.gov
Tony Luetkemeyer at 573-751-2183 and/or Tony.Luetkemeyer@senate.mo.gov
rep pollock's school vaccine bill - HB 2009
Representative Suzie Pollock's school vaccine bill is one of my favorites this session. Here's why.
If you agree and you'd like to help get this bill across the finish line, please let me know by registering here. I'll be in touch soon with specific action items and keep you updated as to what's happening.
Do you want more vaccines added to the school requirement list?
Not only this experimental Covid shot, but whatever else might be coming down the pipe?
Currently, in the State of Missouri, required vaccinations can be added to our school requirement list by direction from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) in coordination with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). No elected official is involved. Parents won't even know until after it too late.
I don't know about you, but in the current climate of Covid craziness and unknown future - that doesn't sit well with me. This bill would change the statute to require all new additions of vaccines to the school requirement list be approved by Missouri legislature. That means the PEOPLE and our elected officials would have a voice in the process and the power would be removed from the overreaching bureaucrats at DHSS.
do you want mo statutes aligned with the constitution?
This bill brings statute into alignment with the Missouri Constitution by requiring public schools to acknowledge religious AND conscientious exemptions at the written request of the parent. No more trips to the county health department to obtain a yellow card with a seal on cardstock. A simple letter will do.
This bill also...
- Requires schools to recognize acquired immunity
- Requires DHSS to educate parents on what their rights actually are regarding exemptions
- Provides choice for private and parochial schools
- Gives college students living off campus a choice regarding the meningococcal vaccine
- Protects parents rights to choose if they vaccinate without fear of abuse or neglect charges or investigations
- Protects physicians from licensing concerns over granting medical exemptions
Because this bill is especially important, we want to communicate with supporters directly to ensure you don't miss any opportunity to help. Please sign up for email notifications!
employers who mandate should be liable
HB 1692 is sponsored by Mitch Boggs and requires employers who require the vaccine be held liable for any injury that would occur as a result. It does provide an option for employers to be covered by insurance for the loss.
The method of coverage is somewhat unclear and needs to be determined. We feel it would not be beneficial for the victim to be covered under workman's comp and the insurance provision could possibly lead to unintended consequences related to insurance requirements or costs to small businesses.
We believe Representative Boggs will work to perfect the bill with conservative values in mind and, therefore we support this bill. We believe the risk to employees is great and this issue needs to be addressed and employee health should be protected when the decision to take the vaccine has been due to an employer requirement.
action item
1. Submit testimony online in support of the bill and express your concern regarding the insurance clause.
Be sure the appropriate box is checked for HB 1692 and that you are SUPPORTING the bill.
are you concerned about healthcare options in missouri?
In order to open a new hospital, surgical center, expand services or even purchase equipment that costs more than $1M, a government committee must approve the request. And guess what? YOUR COMPETITORS get to comment on whether or not that request should be approved.
We need to FREE THE HEALTHCARE MARKET in order for new creative options to be able to come fruition. Abolishing the Certificate of Need (CON) will help.
two ways to help
1. Tell your story in person at the Downsizing State Government Committee hearing. The hearing is taking place on Wednesday, January 26th at Noon in the Capitol. If you'd like to testify in person, please email wtpmoleg@protonmail.com to let Angelique know you'll be coming.
2. Submit your testimony online in support of the bill. EVERYONE should submit a testimony to let our legislators know your position on this bill. Keep it short and to the point, but be clear that you SUPPORT the bill and want to see the CON removed and the healthcare market FREED. Be sure that you check the box for HB1616.
THis bill needs more co-sponsors
take action
1. If you don't know who your representative is or you need contact information, use this online look up tool.
2. Look on the Bill Page using the link above. Click on the Co-Sponsor tab. Look for your representative listed. If your rep is already listed, you need to take no further action.
3. If your rep is not listed as a co-sponsor, please call and/or send an email to request they add their name to the co-sponsor list.
Example:
I'd like to request that you co-sponsor HB2009, sponsored by Suzie Pollock, to help support parental rights in regard to our children's healthcare.
