Where does writing law go so awry when the requirements are plainly written down in book form for all to read? It is called the Missouri Constitution and is available to all by simply requesting it from your state representative, state senator, or the Secretary of State’s office.
Let’s take an in-depth look at HB2062 from 2024 and walk through the process of introducing the bill, from the judicial system’s opinions to determine what —and how — the wheels fell off the cart.
HB2062 was introduced by Representative Brown (16) and the original title of the legislation was as follows: “AN ACT To amend chapter 535, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to a moratorium on eviction proceedings”. The purpose of the legislation was as follows: 535.012. No county, municipality, or other political subdivision shall impose or enforce a moratorium on eviction proceedings unless specifically authorized by state law. As worded, it prohibits a political subdivision in the state from enforcing a moratorium on eviction proceedings unless it has been granted such authority by state law.
*The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a temporary national moratorium on most evictions for nonpayment of rent in September 2020 to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, citing public health concerns related to housing instability and virus transmission. The initial order was set to last through December 31, 2020, and applied to eligible renters who submitted a sworn declaration stating they qualified for protection under the moratorium. It did not relieve tenants of their obligation to pay rent, and landlords could still charge fees or penalties.*
*The CDC extended the eviction moratorium several times, with the final extension set to expire on July 31, 2021, which the CDC described as the “intended to be the final extension”. However, legal challenges arose over the CDC’s authority to issue such an order under the Public Health Service Act, with some courts ruling it exceeded federal power. On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court ended the federal eviction moratorium, effectively invalidating the CDC’s order and removing the last significant federal protection against evictions during the pandemic. This decision followed a lower court ruling that the CDC lacked the statutory authority to impose a nationwide eviction ban.*
So it appears the purpose of HB2062 was to use the state’s sovereignty to prevent federal agencies from usurping the state’s authority; however, it seems the state is also attempting to override the property owner’s authority, but that would only be factual if the state had a law to which they determined they had the authority to create laws and prevent evictions from occurring like the CDC attampted to do under the Covid-19 regulations.
The first question you might ask is where such authority came from to enact, or request such an enactment of law, so I point you to Article Three of the state constitution, known as Legislative Proceedings. I’ll also point out that the legislature can’t grant itself an authority not expressly delegated by the people; this is written in Article One, Section One of the state constitution, and would violate a principle that goes back to the beginning of time known as the non-delegatory doctrine. In other words, you can’t allow someone else to live in your neighbors’ house simply because they allowed you permission to watch over the place while they are on vacation.
Section 1. Legislative power—general assembly.—The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and house of representatives to be styled “The General Assembly of the State of Missouri.”
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. IV, Sec. 1.
What is legislative power, you might ask? Well, Legislative power is the authority to make, alter, and repeal laws within a political entity, such as a country or city.
The state constitution, therefore, the people of the state of Missouri give to the general assembly the authority to legislate (all laws are to be constitutional). What people have not done in the vast majority of the state is to grant legislative power to lesser political subdivisions, such as cities and counties. Still, they did provide for this in Article Six.
So the legislation goes through a committee hearing, is voted out of the committee, heads to the floor of the house after a couple of other committee hurdles, passes as written, and heads to the state senate. Once in the state senate, the legislation becomes a transformer, amended away from its original purpose and topic. Several provisions are added, such as REAL PROPERTY,
PROTECTING MISSOURI’S SMALL BUSINESSES ACT,
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE,
LAND BANKS,
PUBLIC SEWER DISTRICT LIENS,
HISTORIC, RURAL REVITALIZATION, AND REGULATORY STREAMLINING ACT,
HOME INSPECTION,
PASTURING OF CHICKENS,
UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY,
MORATORIUM ON EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, and lastly HYDRANT TESTING.
The original purpose of the legislation was a *moratorium on eviction proceedings* and the legislation was appropriately titled; however, the transformed Senate legislation amended the title to: *and to enact in lieu thereof fifty-four new sections relating to the use of real property, with penalty provisions.* The legislation went from three lines on a piece of paper and ballooned to ninety-eight pages of legal jargon, none of which had any semblance to the original title or original scope. The failure to remain in compliance with the state constitution was even pointed out in a letter (page 12 of the link) from Senator Mike Moon. This is important because Article Three, Sections Twenty-One and Twenty-Three of the people’s law require it.
Section 21. Style of laws—bills—limitation on amendments—power of each house to originate and amend bills—reading of bills.—The style of the laws of this state shall be: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows.” No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose. Bills may originate in either house and may be amended or rejected by the other. Every bill shall be read by title on three different days in each house.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. IV, Secs. 24, 25, 26.
Section 23. Limitation of scope of bills—contents of titles—exceptions.—No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except bills enacted under the third exception in section 37 of this article and general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts for which moneys are appropriated.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. IV, Sec. 28.
It doesn’t get any clearer that the Senate substitute for HB2062 is a constitutional violation, so then why did it get passed in the Senate chamber and get sent back to the House chamber? Worse yet, why did the House chamber agree to the unconstitutional provisions? They also passed the legislation, sent it to the governor, who signed it, and every provision in it then became law. It is called a constitutional crisis, and we’ve been in one for more decades than I have been alive.
The lone constitutional vote in the House chamber —meaning she opposed this atrocity —was Representative Ingrid Burnett. The bill passed with 145 AYES, so 145 elected representatives thumbed their noses at the people’s law and violated the solemn oath they had taken to do what is constitutional in their elected capacity. The Governor signed the legislation so that it would become law; he also decided that the state constitution need not be followed, as the Senate did much better in percentage terms, with nine members voting in opposition to the legislation, thus they are the constitutionally voting members for this piece of legislation. They are as follows: Senators Arthur (no longer serving), Carter, Coleman, Fitzwater, McCreery, Moon, Mosley, Rizzo (no longer serving), and Washington. As for the twenty-one AYE votes, I can only say they determined that the people’s law need not be followed because it might only be a guide, not a requirement. Anyone who has watched the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl remembers the scene when Elizabeth Swann invokes parley after being threatened by Pintel and Ragetti, leading to her being taken aboard the Black Pearl to meet Captain Barbossa. Barbossa acknowledges the right but later treats the code as “guidelines” rather than strict rules, keeping Elizabeth captive despite the agreement. It appears the pirates are in Jefferson City, and they much prefer to deflect to the judicial branch as the arbiter of constitutionalism, a complete failure on the part of everyone who voted AYE. Now it is up to Barbossa to determine whether the parley (the constitution) is a strict rule or just a guideline. Often, it matters just who the Barbossa is that is hearing the case, if there is a challenge.
Stepping up to challenge the constitutionality is the Four Seasons Lakesites Property Owners Association, which appears to have a contention with the validity of the pasturing of chickens (RsMO 442.404) provision codified in the newly signed law. Our Barbossa is Cole County Circuit Judge Brian Stumpe, who will hear the case presented by the plaintiff and the state. From the beginning of this filing, the state sought to have the case dismissed under sovereign immunity, and to credit Judge Stumpe, he was having none of it.
Whether we agree with the generalized purpose of the reasoning behind the suit, prohibiting the pasturing of chickens in any Four Season’s controlled HOA area isn’t essential. I will state that I am an advocate of the rights of the people. I don’t agree with any HOA creating a covenant that prohibits property owners from having a self-regulated food source, but I am thankful they brought suit to challenge the constitutional validity of 2024 HB2062. I also fully understand that living in an HOA covenant area is voluntary, not mandatory, which is why I avoid them when purchasing homes.
So the plaintiff and the defendant square off before the 19th Circuit Court in Cole County, and after much deliberation, Judge Stumpe determined the following.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. HB 2062 violates the Missouri Constitution’s Clear Title mandate in Article III, Section 23;
2. HB 2062 violates the Missouri Constitution’s Single Subject prohibition in Article III, Section 23;
3. HB 2062 violates the Missouri Constitution’s directive concerning a bill’s original purpose in Article III, Section 21;
4. HB 2062 violates the Missouri and Federal Constitution’s Contract Clause;
5. HB 2062 is invalidated in its entirety; and
6. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on all counts.
7. All other pending motions or claims are denied as moot.
I included a link to the case above; however, I will credit Judge Stumpe for pointing out and using Senator Mike Moon’s challenge letters to the Governor as to why the various provisions were a complete bastardization of the state constitution. We often proclaim that we have a representative government, but if the representation is going to completely ignore the state constitution, then what good are they? People like Senator Moon have consistently railed against these violations throughout his entire tenure in the MO House and the MO Senate. Once he is term-limited out under the state constitution, the Senate Chamber will be without a voice on constitutionality. Likewise, when Representative Moon left the House Chamber, the house was void of an individual who would stand up and make the constitutional arguments that should be being made by every elected individual in the General Assembly. Currently, he was not serving during this piece of legislation; the state has Representative Bryant Wolfin as the defender of the state constitution. Now, on occasion, others appear, but none are as consistent as Representative Wolfin or Senator Moon when he was a representative. The problem with some of this is that the majority of the population in the state doesn’t follow whether the elected are implementing tyranny by avoiding following the state constitution, and the elected themselves have zero incentive to be constitutional because they know very few people are paying attention.
There are people across the state, and groups that were created specifically to follow the processes of the elected in Jefferson City. Some of these groups and people do tremendous things. Still, they require open ears and open minds to pass along information, which is seen as counterproductive to the legislative process and to those sitting in the seats, making the case that they are representing the people of their district. You don’t represent someone by ignoring the very governing document that prohibits the implementation of the tyranny of the elected.
It is a rarity that I have high praise for an individual in a black robe, as they often seem to defer to the government and not the people to which the government is to abide, but Judge Stumpe used the very document that he also swore an oath to, to highlight the areas of contentions in HB2062, too bad the legislative body didn’t take their position more seriously as the courts could’ve avoided the time spent on such a blantant constitutional violation.
The people were victorious in this instance, but it required a lawsuit to compel the government to comply with the state constitution. It was also the very same government that attempted to circumvent the process by having the case dismissed. I believe this case clearly shows that the elected at every level of governance do NOT work for the people. The people have a couple who see this as extremely important, but not enough for constitutional compliance.
People need to do a better job of electing individuals who see the state and federal constitutions as documents that require adherence, not merely as guides on how the government should operate. After all, we aren’t pirates, so parley isn’t in our vernacular, nor are we the revolutionaries who founded this nation residing under an unwritten constitution, like they believed they were.
I hope that every resident of the state takes more than just a passing interest in how the government functions, rather than in the manner it is supposed to function. Men and women are both fallible and succumb to authority and power once they believe they’ve been granted a little. The state constitution, when followed, eliminates much of that if the people in elected capacity have principles not to implement the tyranny of the elected and not to usurp the authority of the people. A good place to start your journey, for the elected, is the very document by which you are governed —the state constitution. Read Article One and commit the first three provisions to memory so they aren’t easily forgotten.
