Susan Pendergrass and Patrick Tuohey join Zach Lawhorn to discuss their new report, The Public Safety Climate in the City of St. Louis. They explore what the data actually show about crime trends over the past two decades, how St. Louis compares to similar cities like Cincinnati and Memphis, why crime perception lags so far behind the data, the challenges facing the 911 system and police staffing, why public disorder in high-traffic neighborhoods may be doing as much damage to the city’s reputation as violent crime itself, what it would take to make residents actually feel safer, and more.

Download a copy of the report.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00) Welcome to the Show Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show Me Opportunity, and today I’m joined by Susan Pendergrass and Patrick Tuohey from the Show Me Institute. Today we’re going to be talking about some work that the two of you have done on public safety and crime, specifically in the city of St. Louis. But before we get into the project, I want to talk to you both about your perception of crime as people who have both lived in and frequently visit the city of St. Louis. So Susan, I want to start with you. Before you started this project, before you started looking at the data, when someone said “Is the city of St. Louis dangerous?” what was your perception before you started this project?

Susan Pendergrass (00:38) I only moved to the city of St. Louis in 2015, so there’s a long period of time before I lived there. I was in D.C. for part of that, and my perception before I moved there was that it was dangerous. The Ferguson incident had just happened and I knew that there was a lot of crime. But then when I moved to St. Louis, my husband and I decided to live in the city itself and we loved our neighborhood. It was the coolest with this super cool house built around the time of the World’s Fair. It was amazing. But I never felt really safe. We started leaving our car doors unlocked because our cars would get rifled through. We had a smash-and-grab right within two weeks. I called to report the smash-and-grab and was told that they don’t take reports on them. That was new for me. We had to keep a lot of lights on outside. We didn’t really walk our dogs after dark. I felt like lots of times I would go by police cars sitting on corners idling, but it didn’t necessarily make me feel safer because I wasn’t sure how much they were doing. I also realized people run stoplights, run stop signs, use the right parking lane to pass, and that was all new for me. So I got this feeling that the rule of law wasn’t enforced very well in the city, and that just doesn’t feel good as somebody who has bought a house there and lives there.

Zach Lawhorn (02:06) Patrick, as someone who lives in Kansas City across the state, two questions. What do you think the perception is over there on the western half of the state? And then as someone who comes into St. Louis regularly, what was your perception of the safety situation in the city?

Patrick Tuohey (02:22) A lot of the issues that Susan and I explored in this paper bore out here in Kansas City. I’ve lived in cities my whole life. I understand that every city is going to have the parts you don’t want to go to, the parts that are rougher than others. Kansas City certainly has that. I’ve had my car broken into here in my driveway a number of times, no real damage, and it’s not something I reported to the police. As far as traveling to St. Louis, I’ve been going to St. Louis since the late nineties. Before I lived in Kansas City, I was in Washington, D.C. And I loved St. Louis. I still do. I would visit Creve Coeur, the Central West End, sometimes stay at the Westin downtown. But living in D.C. and growing up in D.C., I understood that every city is going to have the places that you don’t want to go. I understood that St. Louis often gets ranked higher than it should because the city’s footprint is so small. But it never felt to me that what was going on in St. Louis was way outside the normal limits of what we see in U.S. cities. There are those dangerous parts and you generally know not to go there. There is kind of an urban decline, which can be seen in a lack of services, graffiti, uncut grass. But I didn’t navigate St. Louis or think of St. Louis any differently than I thought of Kansas City, Washington D.C., Boston, or any other place I had been.

Zach Lawhorn (04:03) Yeah, and I’m glad you brought up the population of the city, the MSA. It seems like when there are national or even local news stories written on crime statistics in St. Louis, people will point out that if you’re not talking about the larger metropolitan area, you get down to actually a pretty small population number for U.S. cities. So for this work that we’re going to be talking about, can you define what area you guys looked at? When we say murders are a certain number, what area are we specifically talking about?

Patrick Tuohey (04:38) We looked at the city of St. Louis specifically, just those few square miles. We did not look at the metropolitan area and we did not look at the county. It is fair to want to combine all that data into one region, but oftentimes I think people want to do that to mask the seriousness of homicide and violent crime and property crime in the city. And that’s what we wanted to talk about. What is true in St. Louis is not unique to St. Louis. Kansas City has a crime problem that is not reflected in our metropolitan area. That’s true in Washington D.C., Atlanta, Los Angeles, everywhere. So I understand why people who live in St. Louis feel that you can cook the numbers by just looking at the city, but that’s true in every urban environment.

Susan Pendergrass (05:30) We also compared St. Louis to four other cities, and one of them in particular, Cincinnati, ended up being very similar. We wrote a paper and at the back of the paper there’s a table with variables on which we compared them. Similar size, similar poverty, similar median income, very similar. So to say that St. Louis is this very unique outlier and is the only city in the United States that has this situation where, essentially 100-plus years ago, St. Louis was so much better and more metropolitan and forward-thinking than the rest of the state of Missouri, and safer and wealthier, that they drew a line around the city of St. Louis and said we are going to be our own thing and we’re going to have our own police. It was called the Great Divorce. Now that line, the arrows are sort of pointing different ways, where St. Louis County isn’t necessarily excited to absorb the city of St. Louis and its services, systems, police departments, and 911 systems, because it is a uniquely crime-ridden area in parts. So while it would be nice to, as Patrick mentioned, just water down all the numbers by mixing them into a safer pot, it would really mask what’s going on.

Zach Lawhorn (06:47) Susan, you used the word “unique” there to describe the setup. Patrick, does that genuinely make it harder to talk about this topic? In the last few months you’ve had some public events, and we’re going to talk about those in a minute. But as you’ve gone through this process, do you think the unique setup has made it harder? Is there more throat-clearing and definitional work that goes into it?

Patrick Tuohey (07:12) I don’t know that what St. Louis is dealing with is unique. Yes, the city has a particularly small footprint. It is as if you drew a line around just the bad neighborhood in your community and tried to use that small footprint to describe the whole area. I get that argument. But if it’s true by a matter of degree, it’s not uniquely true of St. Louis. And it’s something that the city needs to deal with and understand rather than try to paper over. As Susan said, there are real problems in the city. Their population decline is only exacerbating those problems because there’s less revenue. And frankly, the history of the city going back decades has been that the image of the city is dysfunctional, and not just on public safety, on lots of issues. So although I understand that people say they don’t just want to talk about the city when it comes to crime, St. Louis, while it’s got lots of opportunities and strengths, doesn’t do itself any favors by combining all this stuff and whistling past the graveyard. People in this country know that St. Louis has a crime problem. You don’t solve it by redirecting people.

Zach Lawhorn (08:30) Okay, and let’s talk about that crime problem. Susan, when we use the word “crime” in this context, what are we talking about? Murders? Car break-ins? Lay it out for us.

Susan Pendergrass (08:42) We have violent crime and property crime. Violent crime is murders, aggravated assault, and robbery. Property crimes are larceny and motor vehicle thefts. In our report, we break them all out separately. Murders are the one crime area that the media likes to focus on: how many murders, which city is the murder capital, did we have 150, did we have 200, are they down? They are certainly down in the last two years, to be clear. Murder rates are down. Aggravated assault rates are not down by as much. And sometimes the difference between aggravated assault and murder is how fast the ambulance drives. We still have a lot of violent crimes against people happening. We certainly have a lot of motor vehicle thefts. That’s an area of crime that spiked during COVID, particularly for Kias and Hyundais, and it’s come down, but it’s still a very high number. While it is wonderful that crime has come down across these areas in many cases, the numbers are still pretty high, particularly on a per capita basis, which is how we translate all the crime rates so we can compare them with other cities.

Zach Lawhorn (10:00) So you said crime is down. Is it fair to classify it as it was really bad and now it’s just bad? It was terrible, now it’s just bad. How would you summarize what you found with the drop in crime?

Susan Pendergrass (10:13) Crime’s been dropping since the 80s, so we had much worse crime decades ago. It’s been dropping, it spiked during the pandemic, and it is continuing basically down. Now, when you look at the murder rate per capita in the city of St. Louis, it is still on a slightly upward trend, the number of murders per people, and that could be driven by the fact that Missouri is losing population at a pretty good clip. We have more deaths than births. So on a per capita basis maybe not quite the same, but in terms of actual numbers, crime has been coming down for some time. Crime overall peaked in the late 80s and 90s.

Zach Lawhorn (10:58) Patrick, we talked about your perception and the relevance of many other cities. Did that surprise you, the finding that crime is down? Or was that kind of what you expected?

Patrick Tuohey (11:09) No, the data showing that crime in St. Louis was down wasn’t a surprise. It’s certainly been nice to see that it’s been down year after year. This doesn’t appear to be just a one-off good year. And I’ve known that the mayor and the police chief have been talking about these positive numbers for a while. What I was really interested in with this paper was perception of crime. That’s what I’ve really wrestled with, both at events in the city and in the county. It is a difficult problem to overcome because you can have good numbers like St. Louis has and yet people still rely on that decades-old impression. That’s not something you can address just by waving away the numbers downtown. You have to wrestle with it. You have to admit it, and you have to figure out how do you get people to accept good news, and then how do you make them confident that that good news is going to continue? It’s so easy these days, especially with cities, to just be a pessimist and to say that things are down and won’t ever continue to go down. It is a problem that St. Louis has, but St. Louis isn’t alone in having it. The news on crime is good all over the country, yet perceptions about crime all over the country are still very much with us.

Susan Pendergrass (12:43) There’s a survey question that’s often asked: do you feel safe walking outside alone at night? And those numbers aren’t down. As Patrick mentioned, you have graffiti and trash not being picked up and panhandling and homelessness. Those numbers aren’t necessarily down. But we did look at St. Louis on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, and it is true that out of 16 neighborhoods, four or five have basically no crime, they’re crime-free. But then there are some other pockets that have most of the murders concentrated in one neighborhood. So it isn’t equal across all the neighborhoods. There are some that have very little crime, but it’s hard to convince folks of that when they drive through the ones that have public disorder and still don’t feel safe.

Zach Lawhorn (13:29) Susan, as a researcher trying to ultimately figure out why things happen, you mentioned that crime is down across the country. Would it be easier if it was just a few select cities, so you could actually go and say what is Boston doing different, what is Memphis doing? Does it make it harder to find the “why” since it seems like it’s kind of across the board?

Susan Pendergrass (13:45) Yeah. There have been other periods of time when crime has gone down and then gone back up again. I personally believe, and this is not based on any research I’ve done, that cameras being absolutely everywhere makes it harder to commit crimes. You cannot basically travel through the world anymore without being on a camera somewhere. Police body cams probably make it harder to commit crimes too. I feel like we’re getting into more of a surveillance state, and maybe that’s what’s bringing crime down. I’ve heard that Detroit has brought crime down faster than other cities, that Pittsburgh is feeling safer, Chattanooga is feeling safer, Memphis feeling less safe. So it would be worthwhile to look into some of these differences. But I don’t think our research has yet pointed to a clear reason why it’s happening.

Patrick Tuohey (14:41) Let me follow up on that because Susan’s exactly right, and I think your question gets to that point. Crime is down nationwide, down in all cities if I remember correctly, and we don’t really know why. And it’s not just Susan and I that don’t know why. Susan has spoken with public safety and crime experts from all over the country, and that’s really frustrating from a public policy research point of view, because you would love to have that outlier, that one city, maybe Boston or Omaha, that tried something novel and got results unlike everybody else. But crime is so difficult because there are so many contributors. Some people want to point to the availability of guns. Some people want to talk about root causes. Some people want to talk about the number of police, the severity of crime, the clearance rate, population growth, new development, basic services like picking up the trash and making sure the streetlights work. And all of those things are right, all those things contribute. So it’s really difficult to figure out which one is driving the change. And sometimes, as Susan pointed out, you may just get a dip and there’s no explaining it. In 2014, in Kansas City, our mayor and police chief at the time came out and had a press conference because they were so proud of the homicide drop the previous year. There was a lot of back-slapping and self-congratulation. Then when the homicide rate went back up the next year, you couldn’t get those guys to answer a basic question. Policymakers are, and maybe rightly so, really shy about claiming credit, because they don’t want to be called to task a year later when the numbers reverse. The good news is that the numbers are trending down, and that’s always good. The frustration is it’s very difficult to figure out why and then make recommendations. We’re all kind of scratching our heads. Although again, this is a good problem to have. The numbers are heading in the right direction and we ought to be happy about that.

Zach Lawhorn (16:58) Patrick, to get a better idea of the perception side, you did the hard work of going to the people. In January and February you moderated events. We had one in the city of St. Louis and one in St. Louis County. There are full recordings of the events available at showmeinstitute.org. You had a panel of experts and spent a lot of time getting feedback from attendees who lived in the city and the county. What were your takeaways? Are they buying that crime is getting better?

Patrick Tuohey (17:33) No, in a word, they don’t. We gave them a short survey before the event. A lot of them believed that crime was important, certainly, but they didn’t necessarily believe that crime was getting better. They weren’t necessarily optimistic that crime was going to be better in St. Louis City in the next five years, and that was certainly true in the county. I wanted to press these audience members: what would it take for you to believe this good news? And I think sometimes they just didn’t want to believe anything. We got the frustrating line: “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” That’s a cute thing to say, but it really doesn’t help you explain your own view. If you’re just going to say you believe it’s bad and always going to be bad, that doesn’t get us anywhere. We were happy to have representatives from the Circuit Attorney’s office at both events, and they struggle with this too. They can do a better job. They can prosecute more and different cases, they can do it faster. The police can certainly improve their clearance rate. But public policymakers in those cities, in every city, are going to have to realize that they may have to continue that grind, doing the hard work of lowering crime, and they’re not going to get the attaboys from the people in their city or the communities around them. That’s just a reality. One of the panelists talked about how perception of crime is often a lagging indicator. When crime goes up, people feel it immediately. But when crime goes down, it may take a few years. The tough news for the people who lead St. Louis City is you may have to keep doing this for another 10 years before you get any credit for being successful. And that’s really tough in politics because people want that immediate payoff, that immediate

Susan Pendergrass (19:15) You

Patrick Tuohey (19:31) applause, that immediate press conference and support.

Susan Pendergrass (19:34) Patrick and I have been thinking about the things that could happen that could make a difference, that could maybe make people feel safer. Number one: when you see a crime happening, you need to be able to have faith that you can report it and somebody will respond. And that is not happening right now in the city of St. Louis. We’ve called several times about crimes and nobody showed up. You need to have faith in the 911 system, and the 911 system needs to function. We have about 28 different systems in the county. They’re building a new 911 center in the city that’s going to consolidate services, but it’s not finished. It’s going to be some time before it’s fully functioning. We also need to know that the police will be able to solve these crimes. They need resources. They need to be able to do DNA testing and rape kits and DNA. They need money to do those things. They need detectives. We need to know that these crimes can get solved, and then we need to know that the crimes are prosecuted. I think if these pieces on the front end, not just the “lock them up” approach, but on the front end, people would feel safer if they felt like they could call somebody and somebody would respond and something would happen. I’m not sure that’s happening right now. And until it does, people, especially when they start having small children, are probably going to move out.

Patrick Tuohey (20:59) What we’ve known since at least 1961, when Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities, is that you sometimes just need eyes on the street. Shop owners, pedestrians, people walking around. Cameras can reduce crime, but they’re kind of abstract and tucked in corners. When a street is vibrant, when it’s got people living there, when you’ve got kids playing in the street and families on the porch, there’s that sense of being watched, being seen. But because St. Louis has been in this population spiral, how do you bring people back into the city? The city talks about economic development subsidies all the time, but that’s about bringing in amenities and employers. Maybe what the city needs to do is figure out how to bring in people. And oftentimes it’s the non-crime-related policies, the housing policies, the regulations, the tax structure, that keep people out. Crime is one of those, but the city could open itself up to urban homesteaders who want to come in and rehab these old houses. What has struck me about St. Louis for the decades I’ve been going there is just the absolutely beautiful old neighborhoods, the incredible housing stock. Susan talked about living in a house that was built for the World’s Fair. There are gorgeous neighborhoods in St. Louis, and it’s the barriers to entry, red tape and government regulation, that are keeping people out, I have to believe. Crime is one of them, to be sure. But I am confident there are people who would love to move into those old houses and revitalize those old neighborhoods, because they’re just so gorgeous and so walkable. And it’s been done in other cities. DuPont Circle in Washington D.C. was a slow process of rehabbing neighborhoods block by block, and now 30 years later it is a vibrant community.

Zach Lawhorn (23:03) Susan, you mentioned the 911 system. I know in the report you don’t get into specific solutions, and I know we’re still kind of in the measuring-the-problem stage and trying to figure out next steps, but beyond the 911 system, are there any areas you’d consider low-hanging fruit worth considering moving forward?

Susan Pendergrass (23:25) The legislature passed and the governor signed a violent crime clearance grant program last year that cities like St. Louis could apply for, funding to hire detectives, do DNA testing, collect data, and other activities directly focused on solving crimes. The legislature has not appropriated any money for that program. If they did, St. Louis could apply for those funds. We also have, and I don’t know the exact number as I say this, but at least 100 open police positions in the department. Those are hard to fill. The policies that have been tried, like no longer requiring officers to live within the city and across-the-board raises, none of those have really made a difference. So we need recruitment and retention policies that could actually work. And as I mentioned with the 911 system, triaging calls and making sure the correct agency responds when a crime has been committed. There are community violence intervention programs that have been tried in some places, and using neighborhood-by-neighborhood data to focus in on where crimes are really happening. Those are all things we’d like to explore further: what is the cost of these programs, what is the likelihood that they’ll improve things, and what are some feasible ways to get them done.

Zach Lawhorn (24:54) So there’s the PR part of it. The city’s got a PR problem. There’s the need for more cops. We need people to be able to call 911. We need people to actually be prosecuted for crimes. That all seems doable.

Susan Pendergrass (24:58) Yeah.

Zach Lawhorn (25:06) Where do you think the city of St. Louis is at right now? Are we in a good place? Are we in just an improved place where it could still be a few years? How are you feeling about public safety in the city of St. Louis right now?

Susan Pendergrass (25:21) I don’t want to be a wet blanket. I love the city of St. Louis and I want it to succeed wildly. But I’m concerned that they’re going to say murders are down and these other crimes are down, but people are still running stop signs and stoplights, there are still panhandlers, and trash still isn’t being picked up. They’re not really fixing the small things that make people feel safe. They’re sort of focused on these big numbers. It could be like a school improving ACT scores. You have to be really careful if you’re just focusing on one aspect, because these big crime numbers being down could be hiding a lot of other stuff that really needs to be done and focused on. So I’m cautiously optimistic, I guess.

Patrick Tuohey (26:05) I’m optimistic because crime is going down everywhere, and I think it will probably continue to go down at least for the next few years, for reasons that may have nothing to do with the management of St. Louis. Part of it is because Susan and I have been reviewing the research for the last few months, and there is so much out there, primary research on crime and secondary, that talks about exactly the things Susan hit upon: the environment, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, fixing sidewalks, making sure the streetlights are lit. We know so much more about what drives crime, or at least what can ameliorate it, that even if we don’t know the specifics of what’s going on now, city leaders and state leaders are much more aware of what they can do to make communities not just safer but feel safe. And again, it is frustrating because you can say the numbers are down, but until people feel safe and want to go downtown and take advantage of what the city has to offer, we’re not going to see that public perception change. So yes, I think the public perception is accurate in as much as that is what people feel, but I don’t think it reflects what’s actually going on in St. Louis or in the county.

Zach Lawhorn (27:20) And we will leave it there. The report, The Public Safety Climate in the City of St. Louis, is available at showmeinstitute.org. If you want to watch the full recordings of the events that Patrick moderated, those are available right now at showmeinstitute.org. Susan, Patrick, thank you very much.

Susan Pendergrass (27:36) Thank you.

Patrick Tuohey (27:36) Thank you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Public Safety Climate in the City of St. Louis with Susan Pendergrass and Patrick Tuohey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On January 21, 2026, the Show-Me Institute hosted an in-depth discussion on crime and public safety trends in the City of St. Louis at the Knight Center at Washington University. Patrick Tuohey, Senior Fellow at the Show-Me Institute, was joined by local experts Gabe Gore, St. Louis Circuit Attorney; Janet Lauritsen, Curators’ Distinguished Professor Emerita in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis; and Pernell Witherspoon, Senior Professor of Criminal Justice at Lindenwood University.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Watch: The Public Safety Climate in the City of St Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that could reshape the debate over faith-based charter schools. They explore the constitutional questions at the heart of the case, including the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and why a 4–4 split leaves the door open for future challenges. The conversation covers the potential role of religious organizations in public education, the importance of accountability in school choice programs, recent legal battles in Missouri and Wyoming, and how shifting public opinion may change the K–12 landscape in the years ahead.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Charter Schools and Supreme Court Case
02:40 Constitutional Implications of Faith-Based Charter Schools
05:37 State vs. Federal Authority in Education
08:18 The Role of Accountability in School Choice
11:12 Recent Legal Developments in Education Funding
13:53 The Future of Faith-Based Charter Schools
16:47 The Rise of School Choice and Its Implications
19:34 Conclusion: The Evolving Landscape of Education

Download Episode Transcript

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Faith-Based Charter Schools and the Future of School Choice with Andy Smarick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

RSVP for This Complimentary Event Here

Thursday, April 10, 2025

12:00 noon

Washington University in St. Louis Law School

Anheuser-Busch Hall, Room 305

One Brookings Drive

St. Louis, MO 63130

About the Book – Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites

Law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect oppo­nents. Now those students cannot tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. Rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will soon:

• Be America’s judges, DAs, and prosecutors
• File and fight constitutional lawsuits
• Advise Fortune 500 companies
• Hire other left-wing diversity candidates to staff law firms and government offices
• Run for higher office with an agenda of only enforcing laws that suit left-wing whims

Ilya Shapiro will discuss how we got here and what we can do about it. The problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty—it’s institu­tional weakness.

About the Speaker

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Previously he was executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, and before that a vice president of the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

Read full bio here.

This event is brought to you by: Show-Me Institute, WashULaw Federalist Society, Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity.

The post Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites with Ilya Shapiro on April 10 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Bryan C. McCannon, Dean of the School of Business and Economics and Robert S. Eckley Endowed Professor of Economics at Illinois Wesleyan University, and data analyst with Sicuro Data Analytics, LLC.

They discuss a new report written for the Show-Me Institute titled “Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Policies in Missouri’s Largest Cities”. The report examines the rise in violent crime and homicides in Missouri since 2015. Bryan breaks down how the report compares Missouri’s crime trends with other similar cities, explains how certain policies may have contributed to the increase, highlights some issues with crime data, and more.

Read the full report here

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Crime Trends in Missouri’s Largest Cities with Bryan McCannon appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Among the many things that Missourians will vote on in November is Amendment 6, which if passed would reinstitute a fee on court filings in Missouri to fund a larger pension for sheriffs and prosecutors in Missouri. (The fee was previously $3 before it was overturned by Missouri courts.) There are many troubling aspects of Amendment 6 that I hope Missourians consider before they vote, because the proposed amendment would have effects that go beyond the understandable desire to support law enforcement.

Locally, this amendment is especially bad public policy for St. Louis County residents. St. Louis County has by far the largest number of court filings due to its status as the largest county by population in Missouri and the presence of CT Corporation Systems in Clayton, which is the largest registered agent company in Missouri. What’s more, the St. Louis County sheriff is not a law enforcement agent and is therefore the only sheriff in Missouri who does not participate in the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System in the first place. So, to be clear, St. Louis County residents would pay the largest amount of fees into the fund—probably several hundred thousand dollars a year—while at the same time receiving the least benefit of any county. Coincidence? Perhaps. Fair? Definitely not.

Every person in St. Louis County who seeks redress in court, who files for a domestic order of protection, who has to pay a traffic fine, or is in court for any other reason, would have to pay this reinstituted fee to increase the pensions of primarily rural sheriffs and prosecutors. (The St. Louis County prosecutor might be included in this plan, so that’s one person in a million, for a position that is already well-compensated with a generous pension.)

The ballot language for Amendment 6, as is so often the case, is highly misleading. A typical voter will read the language proposing to “levy costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys . . .” and understand that to include the many dedicated deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors around the state. It doesn’t. This new fee will only benefit the elected sheriff and prosecutor in each county (and not even the sheriff in St. Louis County). That’s two people per county. Deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors have their pensions funded separately and are not affected by this proposal.

As if the misleading language and targeting of one county wasn’t enough to object to, the fact is that funding pensions by court fees is a bad policy. That is why previous attempts to fund a sheriff’s pension in this manner were thrown out as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. Imposing court fees that make it harder to seek justice in court, or harder to pay fines ordered by court—especially when those fees financially benefit the law enforcement officials who impose some of them—creates a perverse incentive. Funding for the salaries and benefits of sheriffs and prosecutors should come from general local taxation, and there should be no financial incentive for increased fines, arrests, and so on. But instead of trying change their proposals to address these constitutional objections by judges and others, supporters of Amendment 6 are attempting to do an end-run around the law by changing the constitution. Supporting law enforcement by going around the law is an ironic way to accomplish their goals.

Furthermore, any increase in the retirement benefits of elected sheriffs and prosecutors should be accomplished by an expansion of defined-contribution plans available to them rather than an increase in their defined-benefit pensions. Expanding the opportunities for these well-compensated elected officials to participate in 457 retirement plans [which are like 401(k) accounts but for public employees] or similar alternatives is a better way to allow them to save for retirement without further burdening taxpayers.

Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors deserve our support, but Amendment 6 is not the way to show it. There are several good reasons for all Missourians to reconsider their typical support for law enforcement in this case, and for the people of St. Louis County, this choice should be easier than rooting against Stan Kroenke’s Rams in the Super Bowl.

The post Court Fee Increase Would Negatively Impact St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Missouri Ballot Issues and the Return of Three Mile Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On May 29, David Stokes joined Mike Ferguson in the Morning on NewsTalkSTL to discuss a Missouri appeals court decision exempting remote workers from St. Louis’ 1% earnings tax, ruling that the tax doesn’t apply to work performed outside the city.

The post Missouri Court Rules in Favor of Remote Workers Against St. Louis Earnings Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post State of the State, School Spending and the STL Earnings Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recorded on December 1, 2022 at the World Chess Hall of Fame in St. Louis, Missouri

Tony Woodlief is Executive Vice President at the State Policy Network. He helps oversee SPN operations, supports SPN’s president in her guidance of the leadership team, and helps ensure the organization’s projects and programs measure success, evolve as SPN grows, and maintain alignment with our vision and mission.

Tony previously served as president of the Bill of Rights Institute, and before that the Market-Based Management Institute. He has also served as president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. An alumnus of the University of North Carolina, he has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Michigan, and an MFA from Wichita State University. Tony has appeared in media outlets including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, National Review, and C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.

Tony is also the author of I, Citizen: A Blueprint for Reclaiming American Self-Governance. In writing I, Citizen, Tony conducted extensive research on American public opinion to find out what Americans believe and uncover the source of their political animosities. Through his research, Tony discovered that America is more united than divided, despite what the pundits tell us, and traced the source of our perceived animosity to a small minority of dedicated partisans within the political establishment of Washington, DC. I, Citizen tells the story of how these partisans have created the myth of a divided America and how they’ve concentrated power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and partisan elites, and offers practical solutions for how we can reclaim our right to self-governance by focusing on solutions and commonalities closer to home.

The post WATCH: The Red Vs Blue Myth and the Real Threat to American Stability appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, buried at the end of an uneventful year for U.S. Supreme Court Rulings is a little case called West Virginia v. EPA. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Obama administration wanted to comprehensively regulate “greenhouse gases” at American power plants under the Clean Air Act, so it adopted what it called the “Clean Power Plan rule.” The rule put pressure on dirtier coal power plants to shutter and promoted alternative energy plants. The problem with that is the Clean Air Act had only ever been used to enable the regulation and oversight of individual power-generating facilities; Congress had not authorized the EPA to unilaterally reorganize all power-generating capacity of the United States at the grid level.

After seven years of legislative wrangling, constant litigation, and a couple of presidential administrations, the Supreme Court affirmed that the EPA had indeed exceeded its mandate under the Clean Air Act. The court found that when a “major question” like nationwide energy generation is to be decided, Congress must render its decision directly or clearly authorize an agency to act on its behalf, consistent with the law. Here, Congress had not spoken directly or made such a clear delegation to the EPA to give it such expansive powers, and because it had not, the EPA’s dramatic rulemaking was invalid.

To be clear, the court’s ruling doesn’t suggest that the federal government can’t regulate “greenhouse gases,” but it does make clear that if the federal government is going to regulate them, Congress needs to clearly authorize it. That’s a win for small and accountable government; this ruling preserves the constitutional norms of our republican form of government. Each of the three branches is constrained by the Constitution; new laws must be passed through Congress, not by bureaucratic fiat.

How do you stop out-of-control regulations like this? Ideally, by requiring some form of legislative action for them to continue. Regulatory reform is a dense and oftentimes boring policy area, but if I were to suggest one change consistent with state and federal constitutional divisions of power, I think it’d be appropriate for every regulation enacted by an agency to come with a sunset date. The sunset provision would wipe the regulation clean if not adopted and passed into law by Congress or a legislature. That way, every regulation would eventually have to get an up or down vote by the people’s representatives, or else disappear.

Regardless, the Supreme Court’s finding in West Virginia is an important one that hopefully will remind lawmakers that they alone should be making “the law”—and that they can, and should, be held accountable for both the laws they pass directly and any regulations that descend from the statutes they enact.

The post Supreme Court Reins in Federal Bureaucracy in EPA Case appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“With the assistance of Missouri’s Court Automation Committee, a statutory entity comprised of members from all three branches of government, the judiciary has been working toward this goal for a number of years,” Chief Justice Paul C. Wilson said. “Today’s orders will ensure court documents that are currently open to the public will be truly accessible to the public. These improvements will fundamentally change the way individuals access public court documents, while balancing the need to protect confidential information and ensure the overall security and reliability of our underlying case management system.”

The rule changes will not go into effect until July 1, 2023, partially due to the constitutionally required waiting period for certain court rules. The waiting period also gives the Court the opportunity to work with The Missouri Bar to educate attorneys, court staff, parties or anyone else offering documents for filing in any Missouri state court to keep unnecessary confidential information out of otherwise public documents and, when confidential information must be included, to redact that information to protect it from disclosure.

Giving the public access to the actual documents filed in Missouri courts may seem like a narrow transparency victory, and in some respects, it is. The average Missourian will probably only take advantage of the new document transparency system a handful of times in their lives; for example, they might want to closely monitor a local court case that may impact their own lives, but may not get the scrutiny or news coverage of higher-profile litigation.

Yet enabling robust oversight of government functions, even if used intermittently at the individual level, is a key good government reform. The purpose of transparency initiatives like this one isn’t to push every Missourian to constantly watch every function of government; ain’t nobody got time for that. But such reforms empower individuals and communities with the opportunity to oversee the governing system that serves them when they do have concerns.

In general, government should have to demonstrate why certain documents can’t automatically be made public rather than require the public to ask first, as is generally required under the state’s Sunshine Law. The state court system’s shift in policy is a positive step in this rethink of what government transparency should really look like.

The post Missouri Supreme Court Takes Solid Step Toward Greater Transparency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Similarly to the Trinity Lutheran Church case in Missouri and the Espinoza case in Montana, the court held that allowing students to take their public dollars to a religious school of their choice does not establish an official state religion any more than using a Pell grant at a religious university does. The ruling does not require states to fund school choice. But, if they have a school choice program, they may not exclude religious schools from participating.

Beginning this fall, qualified Missouri families can apply for an Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) to be used to pay for, among other things, tuition at a private school. Five of the six approved Education Assistance Organizations (EAOs) that will be disbursing the scholarships are religious. The latest Supreme Court ruling should put to bed any questions as to whether anyone should take issue with that.

The post A SCOTUS Victory for Private School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In last month’s lower court ruling, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem found the initiative expanding Medicaid unconstitutional because it failed to include a funding mechanism. As I’ve written before, a constitutional amendment that requires new state expenditures should include measures for funding the expenditures. In my opinion, absent such a requirement, an amendment would infringe on the constitutionally delegated power of Missouri’s legislative branch to appropriate state spending. The state supreme court disagreed, but with one huge caveat.

The court ruled that the amendment doesn’t violate the constitution because it doesn’t specifically appropriate funds. In other words: Missouri’s constitutional amendment can require the state’s Medicaid program to enroll those eligible under expansion, but it can’t compel the legislature to appropriate the funds necessary to cover their costs.

If this sounds confusing, that’s because it is. Missouri’s highest court in the land drew a fine line to determine constitutionality but left obvious and important questions unanswered. The legislature thought its refusal to include expansion funding in this year’s budget meant the policy wouldn’t be implemented, but Missouri’s Medicaid budget lines do not include language indicating who the funds cover. As a result, the court concluded the budgeted funds are available to all who are eligible and that would include those covered by the expansion. The decision means that Missouri must start incurring new costs despite not having a plan to pay for them. Until the legislature acts, the cost of covering new enrollees will need to be paid for out of funds specifically set aside for those currently enrolled in Missouri’s program. If this occurs, the Medicaid program will run out of budgeted funds much sooner than anticipated.

So, what should the legislature do? The supreme court’s decision appears to give legislators the authority to continue refusing to provide funding for expansion. Not providing funding for new enrollees would likely require amending the current budget to make clear that the already approved Medicaid budget lines do not apply to expansion enrollees. This action could lead to another court challenge. Lawmakers could also choose to approve expansion funding. But where will the money come from? That’s the multibillion-dollar question. Even though the federal government has currently agreed to pick up 90 percent of the billions in expected expansion costs, all spending needs to be appropriated, and Missouri’s share would still be significant.

It will be interesting to see what our elected officials decide regarding funding the state’s Medicaid program going forward. It seems safe to say there won’t be any easy answers.

The post Missouri Supreme Court Revives Medicaid Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Beetem’s decision was in response to a lawsuit from the initiative’s supporters, which was filed after Missouri’s legislature decided against appropriating funding for Medicaid expansion. Governor Parson then halted all state implementation efforts.

As I explained last month, Missouri’s constitution gives the state legislature the responsibility of appropriating all state spending. It also provides that amendments cannot impose new costs without providing a mechanism to pay for them. Yesterday’s ruling holds that the expansion initiative failed to include a funding mechanism, and that growing the state’s Medicaid program by an estimated 275,000 enrollees will cost the state money. (The decision mentions that expansion would cost $1.8 million per year which is almost surely a typo; it should be $1.8 billion, as projections from Missouri’s Medicaid agency show.)

Prior to last August’s election, a different lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the expansion petition on the same legal grounds. As Beetem’s decision explains, the courts at the time decided against removing the initiative from the ballot in part because the fiscal estimates showed a wide range of potential outcomes, from enormous savings to extraordinary costs. If the amendment did end up saving the state money, it wouldn’t need a funding mechanism. As I wrote repeatedly last year, the promise of savings was always illusory Once the true cost of expansion was presented to the legislature, legislators refused to appropriate funding citing their sole constitutional authority on the issue.

The plaintiffs certainly disagree with the circuit court’s ruling and have already filed their appeal. While it may be weeks or months until this issue is ultimately resolved, Judge Beetem’s decision is an important one with implications beyond this particular fight. If a petition to amend our state’s constitution violates the constitutionally defined rules for amending the constitution, it should not stand. It’s really that simple. Time will tell if the Missouri Supreme Court agrees as well.

The post Judge Strikes Down Medicaid Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s an issue we don’t talk a great deal about, but it’s one that we’ve had a clear and long-standing stance on. Back in 2012, my colleague Michael Rathbone wrote about the problems with a proposal that would have further limited vertical integration of alcohol distribution in the state, and in 2013, my colleague David Stokes testified on the matter before the Missouri Legislature. It was logical, then, that we would have a stance on litigation that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on yesterday, and for which we submitted an amicus brief in collaboration with the Washington Legal Foundation in 2018.

The case, Missouri Broadcasters Association v. Dorothy Taylor, centered on a very specific aspect of Missouri’s three-tier law that prevents producers and distributors from providing certain advertising materials to retailers. Although there are many policy problems with the three-tier law, the First Amendment issue here is particularly egregious. Even though commercial speech has historically been subject to greater regulation, courts are generally reticent to impose or enforce content restrictions and burdens on commercial speakers. And as our amicus brief notes, these content impositions are substantial:

In § 311.070.1, Missouri prohibits alcohol manufacturers and distributors from “directly or indirectly, loan[ing], giv[ing] away or furnish[ing] equipment, money, credit or property of any kind” to “retail dealers.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 311.070.1. This blanket ban prohibits manufacturers and distributors from giving any advertising-related support to retailers. In § 311.070.4(10), however, Missouri allows manufacturers and distributors to advertise on behalf of retailers, so long as the advertisement (1) excludes any mention of retail price, (2) lists “two or more unaffiliated retailers,” (3) does so only once, and (4) displays the retailers’ names inconspicuously. Mo. Rev. Stat. 4 § 311.070.4(10). But this “exception” is just an unconstitutional condition on exercising First Amendment rights.

And yesterday, the court of appeals agreed. Readers can find the ruling and our full amicus brief attached at the bottom of this page. We may have more to say on this matter in the future, but for now, suffice it to say that we are pleased with this outcome and hope that policymakers will, separately, consider doing more to dismantle Missouri’s antiquated alcohol regulatory regime in the future.

The post Raise a Toast: Missouri Three-Tier Speech Prohibition Struck Down appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the legislation was held up almost from the beginning. On August 27, 2018, a cavalcade of labor interests, including the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, filed suit against to state to block the implementation of the law, and on March 8, 2019, its motion for a preliminary injunction against the law was granted. This meant that even though the law had already been subject to enforcement for about six months, HB 1413’s reforms are no longer in effect, pending litigation. Currently, the court is considering an order of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, meaning that the judge could soon conclude that the facts and law weigh so heavily in their favor that a full trial would be unnecessary. Your guess is as good as mine on how the judge will rule on that motion.

To be plain, it’s terribly disappointing that HB 1413’s reforms were blocked at all by the courts. As Show-Me Institute researchers have noted in the past, court rulings have made substantive reforms in this area nearly impossible. In the last 20 years, Missouri courts have established new constitutional rights for organized labor from old constitutional language, upending decades of precedent in favor of state judicial activism. That HB 1413’s credible reforms have been tied up in this legal environment at the lower court level is unfortunate for Missouri taxpayers and government employees alike.

Perhaps more disappointing, however, is the stasis that the litigation has imposed on legislative action in these areas, suffocating opportunities to tweak legislative language or otherwise accommodate the courts in effectuating the will of the people. Keep in mind that this was a law passed to protect taxpayers and workers alike by updating the state’s government labor framework. That litigation surrounding this case could continue for years, and will come at the cost of workers’ rights and taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

The post Missouri’s Government Union Reforms Still Tied Up in the Courts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While persons are legally responsible for the costs of their board bills under section 221.070, if such responsibilities fall delinquent, the debts cannot be taxed as court costs and the failure to pay that debt cannot result in another incarceration.

We previously wrote about the plight of “pay to stay” debtors prisons. In short, courts were locking people up for not adequately paying the fees associated with their previous incarceration, triggering an awful cycle. The Show-Me Institute joined in filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of George Richey. We are grateful to Mr. Richey, among others, who chose to challenge this practice. We look forward to more victories in our search for sensible criminal justice reforms.

The post Missouri to End Debtors Prisons appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In effect, the counties are operating debtor’s prisons.

George Richey is one person who has had a run in with these board bills. According to the Missourian,

Of the $3,226 assessed to Richey in 2015, $3,150 is for board at $35 a day.

Almost 2 1/2 years later, Richey is still paying for that bill, with a balance of around $1,600 left as of May. That is, until he was hit with a new board bill in 2016 of an additional $2,275—the result of being jailed because he couldn’t fully pay the first bill.

Missouri is not alone in this practice. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, “as of 2015, at least 43 states authorize room and board fees and at least 35 states authorize medical fees to be charged to inmates in either state or county correctional facilities.”

Through his public defender, Richey filed suit against the state of Missouri seeking to end the practice, and Missouri’s Attorney General lent support to Richey’s effort, noting in an amicus brief filed with the Missouri Supreme Court, “De facto debtors’ prisons have no place in Missouri, and I am proud to stand up against a system that seeks to treat its poorer citizens as ATMs.”

Last week, the Show-Me Institute joined the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, the Fines & Fees Justice Center, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Fair and Just Prosecution in submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Missouri Supreme Court. The brief notes that the current system burdens both the individuals being fined as well as the courts, and that there are other, more effective ways to collect debt. The filing concludes:

Jail debt, when imposed on indigent individuals like Mr. Richey, is irrational, unjust, counterproductive, and likely unconstitutional.  This Court should reverse the trial court’s denial of Mr. Richey’s motion to retax costs.

There are plenty of opportunities for criminal justice reform in Missouri, and we have written about many of them in the past. Often such reforms focus on how to maintain public safety while reducing costs to taxpayers. This effort, however, focuses on protecting the liberty of individuals from pernicious government. We hope the courts will agree.

The post Show-Me Institute Issues Brief Regarding “Pay to Stay” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Not only is this policy good for Missouri’s youth, it is also a more effective use of tax dollars. According to Dr. David Mitchell from Missouri State University, compared to teens who are incarcerated in adult prisons, teens that go through the juvenile system have better earning potential and are much less likely to return to crime. Embracing this policy is a step in the right direction for Missouri’s teens and communities. Congratulations to the General Assembly for a job well done.

The post Missouri Poised to Raise the Age appeared first on Show-Me Institute.