This brings us to the recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling on whether or not counties can collect the sales tax on marijuana in incorporated parts of a county. The court ruled that counties can only collect the tax in the unincorporated parts of a county. This is what the state constitutional amendment said, so in that respect the court’s decision makes sense. However, the way the constitutional amendment was written had a different definition of “local government” than was previously used and generally understood in Missouri. Do you think most (or any) voters read to page 19 of a 38-page ballot description to see that, in this case, the definition of a county only applied to unincorporated areas?

Longtime former Missouri State Senator Clifford Jones used to say (I’m paraphrasing here), “You can pass any bill you want. Just let me write the definitions.” That is what the ruling by the Supreme Court is rewarding, and perhaps it had no other choice in the matter. We let initiative petition writers create a major change regarding how local governments operate, which very few people will see or understand, and then that change becomes law.

To be clear, county taxes are almost always collected countywide, not just within unincorporated areas. Yes, there are a few other exceptions, such as utility taxes, but that doesn’t justify initiative petition writers using obscurity as their ally, as in this case. (I am not disputing that a majority of Missourians wanted legalized marijuana. My concern is with the use of legal minutiae in initiative petitions to get other changes made at the same time.)

Missouri needs to reform initiative petition rules to make amending the Constitution more difficult. (In a future post, I will go into more detail about the specific reforms we need.) Otherwise, we will be subject to more well-funded, out-of-state efforts to change Missouri laws using seemingly popular ideas as cover for making major legal changes via obscure and unread ballot language. Did you read the 38-page document that accompanied the marijuana vote and described all of the legal changes? I doubt it.

Robert Moses would be proud of efforts to get what you want by secrecy. We are a republic, not a direct democracy, and we should act like it. Missouri needs initiative petition reforms.

The post “Just Let Me Write the Definitions” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Regarding the courts, a coalition of Missouri business groups, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, has filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition A.

The plaintiffs argue that combining wage increases with sick leave provisions violates the state constitution’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives. Proposition A, which passed with 58% of the vote, would incrementally increase the minimum wage from $12.30 to $15 by 2026 and provide workers up to seven paid sick days annually starting in May 2025. Supporters contend that wages and benefits are integral to overall compensation and thus constitute a single subject. The Missouri Supreme Court has yet to schedule hearings for the case.

As for the legislature, because the proposition was a statute, the legislature may act to overturn it. One Missouri legislator introduced the Entrepreneur Rights Act, which would exempt some small and seasonal businesses from minimum wage increases.

Supporters may point to California’s recent mandate elevating the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 per hour as a triumph for labor rights. However, a closer examination reveals that the anticipated benefits, particularly in job creation, have not materialized. A study from the University of California, Berkeley, initially suggested that the wage hike did not adversely affect employment levels. Yet, upon scrutinizing the data, it becomes evident that fast-food employment in California has grown at a slower pace compared to the national average. In fact, since the law’s implementation, California’s fast-food employment increased by only 1.85%, while the national rate rose by 3.22%. This discrepancy indicates that the wage increase may have hindered job growth within the state. Such outcomes underscore the complexities of implementing blanket wage policies without fully accounting for market dynamics and the potential unintended consequences on employment opportunities.

Show-Me analysts have consistently been critical of the arguments for, and the claimed benefits of, increases in the minimum wage. Minimum wage hikes just don’t deliver on their promises—even if academic studies twist themselves into knots trying to demonstrate otherwise.

The post No, California’s Minimum Wage Hike Did Not Create Jobs 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.

• Nuclear War
• Total Surrender
• Recommended State Department policy

The understanding of the joke is that whatever policy or ideas elected officials want to enact, it is the government employees—the bureaucrats—who have to carry it out. Too often, the bureaucrats carry it out in a manner that benefits them, not the elected officials or the public. (I care more about the latter.)

The City of St. Louis is experiencing a problem like that right now, with its efforts to combine its three 911 systems into one. Consolidating 911 centers should be one of the low-hanging fruits for service sharing among local governments. There are numerous examples of it benefitting communities in Missouri. Unfortunately, while many efforts have succeeded, a few have been stalled due to resistance from local bureaucrats.

The problems in St. Louis are all the more confusing because this effort is entirely within the same city government. In theory, it should be easier to implement service sharing in one government rather than sharing 911 services across different governments (which isn’t really that hard, either.) But, shockingly, the various city employee unions have thus far been able to stall the reform efforts. The mayor’s plans to consolidate and improve the 911 system have been blocked, thus far, by the unions representing the dispatchers who are currently within different departments. From the article:

One union represents police dispatchers, and another represents EMS and fire dispatchers. The unions have demanded bargaining over any dispatcher cross-training. Uncertainty about which union would represent a combined dispatcher position slowed attempts by Mayor Tishaura Jones and her former public safety director, Dan Isom, to allow dispatchers to handle all types of emergency calls.

The unions complained Jones and Isom’s plans for consolidation were made without consulting them and that the changes in job duties were clearly something that should be covered in contract negotiations. [emphasis mine]

Missouri attempted major public-sector union reforms a few years ago. While some reforms were passed into law, a lawsuit unfortunately led to the reforms being overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court.

St. Louis has public sector unions delaying improvements to a system that would improve the city’s currently terrible 911 system and spend tax dollars more efficiently. But hey, fiefdoms have to be protected, right?

FDR was right about public sector unions. They shouldn’t exist.

The post Looking For Bureaucratic Efficiencies in All the Wrong Places 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.

Over the past few years, my colleagues and I have written a lot about Medicaid expansion and the problems it presents for Missouri. Before voters approved the Medicaid expansion ballot measure in 2020, I wrote repeatedly about how costly expanding eligibility would be for our state, despite the ballot language suggesting the measure could somehow save money. In addition, I discussed how administratively difficult it would be to grow an already oversized program, and what that could mean for other state funding priorities.

After expansion passed, there was a long legal battle about whether the ballot initiative required the legislature to fund Medicaid expansion. In short, some legislators argued that since the expansion initiative failed to include a way to pay for the costs incurred by expansion, it was their prerogative to decide whether to pay for expansion at all (because the constitution gives the legislature exclusive authority to approve all state spending). The state supreme court disagreed and ruled that the legislature was required to find the money necessary to cover the cost of expansion. Administering the state’s largest program is more difficult than just writing a check, so the legislature now appears ready to ask voters for additional input on how they think Medicaid should be run—thus a new ballot initiative.

So far, the legislative effort is focused on three separate Medicaid issues. First, should Missouri impose work requirements for able-bodied enrollees in the expansion population? Second, should Missouri continue paying medical bills for individuals who live outside of our state boundaries? And third, should the legislature have the flexibility to decide how much money can be spent on Medicaid expansion annually, or does the program really have a “blank check”?

Since Medicaid is a partnership with the federal government, it’s not clear how easy each of these changes would be to implement, as they’d likely require federal approval as well. But I do believe additional flexibility would represent a major step forward for Missouri’s Medicaid program. And as far as I know, Missouri voters have never weighed in on these three issues before, so it will be interesting to see if they agree.

The post Another Crack at Expansion? 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.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

The post Podcast: Wayfair is Signed, More Sunshine and Nearly $2 Billion for Education 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.

The Cole County Circuit Court struck down the provisions for violating the state constitution because they singled out municipalities in St. Louis County, and in 2017 the Missouri Supreme Court agreed.

The Institute’s Joseph Miller argued at the time the reforms were good news and lamented court rulings throwing them out. He wrote:

This is a disappointing outcome for those hoping that the state’s actions last year might rein in those small cities keeping themselves afloat by turning law enforcement into tax collection. On a hopeful note, the state plans to appeal, and the governor indicated a willingness to work with the legislature on a bill that will pass constitutional muster.

However, there’s now reason to believe the Missouri Supreme Court has reversed its thinking. Per the Post-Dispatch article: “[T]he high court ruled in December in a separate case that the logic underlying its previous decision ‘should no longer be followed.’” As a result, the attorney general is asking the circuit court to partially vacate its prior decision and grant relief from the court’s previous permanent injunction. In other words, the attorney general wants to be able to enforce the caps on raising municipal revenues through citations as envisioned by the 2015 law.

Fees and fines are not the only examples where Missouri’s municipalities have taken advantage of taxpayers. Cities and towns also misuse economic development incentives and special taxing districts, to the detriment of us all. It is good that the legislature acted to protect Missourians in 2015. Hopefully their work then will soon bear fruit.

The post Reining in Missouri’s Municipalities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As Graham Renz and I discussed in our paper, “Overgrown and Noxious: The Abuse of Special Taxing Districts in Missouri,” CIDs allow business owners the ability to levy a sales tax on their customers—and sometimes spend the revenue generated on explicitly private purposes. CIDs are often unknown to shoppers and are notoriously easy to set up. What’s more, if business owners are clever, they can construct a district in a way that evades the need for any public vote.

This brings us back to the Columbia Business Loop CID. The businesses likely meant to draw a district without any residents, allowing only business owners to vote to approve. The Tribune reported on August 25, 2015 that a single resident, 23-year-old Jen Henderson, was living within the proposed district and would be the sole voter. Eventually 14 more voters living within the district were identified. The vote on the CID was 4 to 3 in favor, but Henderson filed a lawsuit claiming that Missouri election law was not followed.

The details of the case are themselves mystifying. The presiding judge decided to dismiss the case in March 2016, but refused to issue and sign an actual ruling—and in doing so denied Henderson the ability to appeal—until ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court in February 2019, over 1,000 days later. The CID has been collecting the sales tax all the while.

Henderson did appeal once the ruling was issued, and that was the case heard by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District on Wednesday. In short, Henderson alleges that the CID did not follow Missouri voting procedure requiring a secret ballot. The defendants argue that the statute setting up CIDs does not specify any election guidelines, so they can do as they please.

Whatever the outcome of the case, any attention brought to Missouri’s permissive special taxing district laws is welcome. Voters and taxpayers ought to be better respected and those granted the power to tax should be held accountable.

The post That Crazy CID Vote in Columbia Goes Back to Court 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.

Specifically, the bill reduces the individual income tax rate by four-tenths of a percent (from 5.9% to 5.5%), paying for that reduction by removing some of the federal tax deductibility that Missouri currently permits. That’s progress, but the bill would have been even stronger if language that created a non-refundable earned income tax credit could have been retained. Unfortunately that provision was stripped out late in the Senate debate of the bill after a trigger provision that would have paid for it (pending a Supreme Court case) was put on the chopping block.

Still, the bill as passed is an important one that continues the downward trajectory of the state’s individual income tax rate. In truth, it is but another step toward eliminating growth-destroying income taxes in this state, with many steps to go. But that long-term trend doesn’t detract from the importance of HB2540’s enactment, now and in the future. Congratulations to all the legislative leaders involved in this effort.

The post Lawmakers Give Missourians a Tax Break appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The fact that Missouri has not fully funded the formula has been a rallying cry for more education spending. Indeed, educators across the state have claimed that we are “underfunding public education.” This new budget proposal has me wondering what will happen to those calls for increased spending when the state finally does fully fund the formula. Will they die down, or will they persist? To answer this question, it is important to define “underfunding” public education. Below, I explain three ways to think about education spending.

Constitutional Obligations

State constitutions vary in what they require in terms of education spending. Some state constitutions say very little. Others call education a “paramount duty” of the state. In Missouri, the constitution explicitly requires the state to spend 25 percent of state revenue on public education, which the state regularly does. The Missouri Supreme Court has upheld the funding system as recently as 2009.

Formula Obligations

The legislature is responsible for creating a formula to fund public schools. Missouri uses a foundation formula, which calculates exactly how much the state should spend on each student in the state. The Show-Me Institute recently released an updated version of my paper, “A Primer on Missouri’s Foundation Formula for K-12 Public Education,” which explains exactly how schools are funded by the state.

In creating the formula, the state creates what may be seen as another form of obligation—a stated obligation of adequacy. This obligation may be separate from a constitutional requirement, but it nevertheless creates an expectation among public school officials. They expect lawmakers to fully fund the formula they created. As we have seen failure to do so creates a useful talking point for advocates of higher education spending—we are underfunding the formula.

Now, it seems that argument may disappear.

Moral Obligations

What happens when Missouri fulfills its constitutional and formula obligations to fully fund public education? This will take some of the wind out of the sails of advocates for higher education spending, but it certainly will not end calls to increase funding. The truth is that individuals have their own views on education. These views may or may not be informed by research, but ultimately they flow from our own personal values, beliefs, and morals. I call this the moral obligation to fund schools. The level of this obligation is not universal; rather, it varies from individual to individual.

I applaud the legislature’s effort to fully satisfy both constitutional and formula obligations in funding Missouri’s schools. Nevertheless, we should anticipate continued calls for increased spending. Those calls, however, will be easier for lawmakers to address when they can point to a fully funded formula. 

The post What Does It Mean for the State to “Underfund” Education? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state minimum wage is currently $7.65. In 2015, the City of Saint Louis sought to raise the minimum wage on businesses within its borders. This initial attempt was struck down by a circuit court judge in 2015, but Tuesday’s ruling reversed that decision. As a result, the minimum wage that applies to businesses within Saint Louis proper (not the county or surrounding areas) will rise to $10 this year and $11 in 2018.

Saint Louis businesses will face higher labor costs, putting them at a competitive disadvantage against businesses located just across the city–county boundary. If I were an entrepreneur or business owner unsure of where to locate or expand, this minimum wage increase helped make the decision for me.

Show-Me Institute analysts have written many times about the effects of minimum wages hikes; see here and here for two examples. There are two main effects from this wrongheaded action.

First, and most obvious, raising the minimum wage imposes higher costs on businesses. Some of those businesses simply will not be able to maintain current operations: they will reduce the number of workers they employ, close up shop, or move. Why is it that supporters of the minimum wage hike have so much disdain for small business owners? After all, not every employer is McDonald’s.

Liberals and conservatives alike recognize that increases in the minimum wage will negatively affect exactly those workers for whom proponents claim to be champions; namely, the least skilled, entry level workers whom this higher wage will make even more unemployable. This is perhaps the most pernicious (there’s that word again) effect of all: Of the city’s estimated 69,000 individuals earning less than $11 an hour, how many will lose their jobs or face reduced hours? Can proponents claim success if the number of employed individuals declines by 6, or 600, or 6,000? It is bad policy that claims success on the backs of those made worse off.

And how many of those who are harmed by this latest minimum wage increase will we see interviewed so that the public understands how they were put out of a job by this unwise intervention? My guess is that the answer is zero. Out of sight, out of mind.

Lawmakers and union leaders will now sing their own praises and pat themselves on the back for the “good” they have done—no matter how much harm is done to workers and business owners.

The post Pernicious: St. Louis Goes Forward with Minimum Wage Hike appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas is not alone. At the end of its session this year, the Texas Supreme Court came down with a decision on the constitutionality of its school finance system. Not long ago, the Missouri Supreme Court was asked the same question, and given the changes to the school funding formula this legislative session, it is entirely possible that the state might be taken to court again.

Years of lawsuits and millions of dollars in legal fees have been devoted to 15 words in Article Six of the Kansas constitution “The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” In Texas, it’s a few more, but conveys the same message. In Missouri, our Constitution at least gives some benchmark, saying that we can spend no less than 25% of state revenue on our public schools, but even that has been challenged over the years.

These cases have well-compensated lawyers, expert witnesses, and consultants trying to force courts to read minute detail into constitutional language. Complicated studies are conducted to place an exact dollar amount on what constitutes “suitable provision,” so that a penny less is seen as violating the constitution.

This is not how we should determine what to spend on our schools, for two reasons.

First, no one really knows exactly how much we should be spending on education. Costing out the precise dollar value of a quality education is beyond the knowledge base of social science today. We simply do not know that spending X amount of money will yield Y level of achievement. What’s more, we have a belief that low-income students, students with special needs, and students who have to learn the English language cost more to educate—but how much more? We simply don’t know.

Second, for all of its faults, the legislature is better qualified to make funding decisions than the courts are. Courts are not in a good position to weigh the complicated tradeoffs that legislatures must make when they appropriate state tax dollars. We don’t live in a world of unlimited resources. As a result, legislators have to weigh the needs of schools against other needs, like roads, healthcare, and everything else that the state supports. Courts are rarely, if ever, asked to determine how their decisions might affect these other priorities. And depending on whether judges are appointed or elected, they may be harder to hold accountable than legislators, who must run for re-election.

Not everyone is going to agree with the decisions that the legislature makes, and their complaints will be justified in some cases. But that is why we have elections. Calling on the courts should be an absolute last resort, reserved for the most egregious cases. In most instances, the only thing that will be accomplished by including the courts will be to make lawyers and consultants richer, not improve educational outcomes for children.

The post The Never-Ending School Finance Wars appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court expanded its jurisdiction by reading a duty of “good faith” collective bargaining into the state constitution. The words “good faith” do not appear in the text of the constitution, but the supreme court has spoken and lower courts will follow the supreme court’s lead. As a result, courts throughout the state may now intervene in government labor relations if they determine this duty is not being honored.

The new “good faith” standard could affect the labor situation at Columbia Public Schools. The union and the school board met several times this year but did not come to a final agreement by the last scheduled bargaining session. Oddly enough, even though there are no more bargaining sessions scheduled this year, CMNEA is showing up to the school’s administrative building and “waiting” for a CPS bargaining team to arrive. In the Columbia Daily Tribune, one union official described the district’s refusal to continue negotiating after the last scheduled bargaining session as a failure to negotiate in good faith.

If the courts get involved here, it would be bad news for Columbia citizens. Columbia voters elected a school board to manage their public schools. Not a union. Not the courts. If a court steps in and forces a binding labor agreement that the duly elected school board didn’t agree to, the court would be setting school district policy against the will of the people.

The post Courts Should Avoid Setting Policy in Columbia Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In June of 2013, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a state law that allowed students in unaccredited school districts to transfer to nearby accredited districts. The student’s home district would be responsible for making tuition payments and providing transportation. Using data, firsthand accounts, and structured interviews with school district superintendents, this paper examines what happened in response to the transfer program. Specifically, it examines how the districts responded. In all, more than 2,000 students transferred from the unaccredited Normandy and Riverview Gardens school districts, roughly a quarter of the total student population. These students transferred to two dozen area school districts. Except in isolated cases, evidence suggests that these students were largely absorbed into receiving school districts without causing much disruption. For the unaccredited school districts, however, the transfer program had a profound impact on school finances.

Read James Shuls’s recent paper on this subject: 

The post Video: Interdistrict Choice for Students in Failing Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the full essay:

The post Interdistrict Choice for Students in Failing Schools: Burden or Boon? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.