Democrats' Bold Move: How 7 Key Appointments Are Stalling Missouri's Future—You Won't Believe the Consequences!

Missouri Senate Democrats are taking a stand against what they perceive as a hurried legislative process, effectively bringing the chamber to a standstill on Thursday by blocking debates on over a dozen gubernatorial appointments. This move is part of a broader strategy to slow down legislative actions throughout the year, reflecting Democrats' frustrations over the Republican majority's past practices.

The Democratic filibuster lasted two hours and led to the Senate adjourning for the week without a vote on appointments made by Governor Mike Kehoe. The party, which holds only 10 out of the Senate’s 34 seats, justified their tactics by emphasizing the importance of a deliberative legislative process, arguing that the Senate should not simply rubber-stamp measures.

“It’s probably more important than ever that there is at least one entity in this government that serves as a speed check,” said state Sen. Stephen Webber, a Columbia Democrat. “If we do, we’ll get better public policy.”

This filibuster was not a spontaneous action but rather a fulfillment of a threat made prior to the legislative session. Democrats expressed their anger at the Republican majority, which had invoked a rarely-used rule to cut off debate four times in the previous year to advance controversial measures, including an abortion ban amendment and changes to initiative petition processes.

Interestingly, the Senate initially proceeded without dramatic conflict during the first two weeks of the session, which focused mainly on ceremonial business. However, the situation shifted when the chamber attempted to address Governor Kehoe's appointments, prompting the Democrats to take action.

During the filibuster, Democrats highlighted specific legislation that they believe should have undergone more rigorous scrutiny. For instance, state Sen. Tracy McCreery, representing Olivette, pointed out that last year’s capital gains tax cut was passed despite significant concerns regarding an estimated $111 million annual revenue reduction. Current assessments from the state budget director now suggest that the revenue loss could potentially escalate to $500 million in the first year and $360 million annually thereafter.

Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding the expedited approval of a gerrymandered congressional map, which has been subjected to legal challenges. Webber noted that one Kansas City precinct was allegedly placed in two different districts, a problem that could have been avoided with a more thorough vetting process.

“If we’d spent some time drawing it ourselves,” Webber explained, “that wouldn’t have happened.”

In addition to legislative concerns, the Democrats also questioned the adequacy of the Senate’s process for vetting gubernatorial appointments. Sen. Steven Roberts of St. Louis expressed surprise at the lack of background information provided for nominees, particularly for those expected to serve reappointments that could last for six years.

“Somewhere along the way, it feels like senators have slowly been removed from the process,” McCreery stated.

Roberts highlighted his astonishment at the closed meetings of the state Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners, where O’Laughlin is sponsoring two nominees. He questioned the absence of public hearings, which he felt compromised transparency.

In contrast, state Sen. Jason Bean, a Republican from Holcomb, remarked that while the filibuster was anticipated due to last year's contentious session, the Senate had previously operated smoothly. As the legislative session continues, the unfolding dynamics may see more procedural battles as Democrats seek to slow the pace of governance.

Despite the stalled appointments, Democrats have no intention of blocking them permanently. However, Webber indicated that this filibuster might signal a larger trend for the year, with Democrats committed to demanding more thorough legislative oversight and a deceleration of the legislative process. “I’ve had Republicans come to me,” he shared, “and say they want to get back to the way the Senate has been in the past.”