ST. LOUIS — The governor of Missouri signed a long list of bills into law Thursday. A veto shut down a public safety bill that was expected to increase penalties for certain gun crimes.
The signings mark the end of the 2023 Legislative Session in Missouri. New laws usually go into effect at the end of August.
Governor Mike Parson thanked the Missouri Senators and Representatives for their work.
Signed into law
Texting and driving: On August 28, Missouri's texting and driving ban will take effect. Missouri was one of two states without a ban on the books.
Tax break for seniors: Stops property tax increases for seniors who are eligible for Social Security.
Sales tax payments: This allows people to pay the sales tax on their cars at the dealership.
Medicaid for new moms: Coverage for new mothers is increased from 60 days to one year following the end of the pregnancy.
Vetoed
Parson vetoed SB 189. The public safety law included provisions called "Blair's Law" about shooting bullets into the air, and "Max's Law" about increasing penalties for killing police K-9 officers.
Parson cited concerns with specific sections of the bill, saying the bad outweighed the good.
Parson said a provision of the bill could allow people convicted of sexual offenses could have their records expunged and be removed from the sex offender registry.
Parson also objected to the expansion of restitution for people wrongfully convicted.
"This provision requires the State to pay the expanded and increased restitution requirements; however, Governor Parson does not believe every taxpayer across the State should be responsible for prosecutorial errors made at the local level," the news release read.
Full list of signed laws
Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 7 - America 250 Missouri Commission
Senate Bill (SB) 20 - modifies provisions related to retirement
SB 24 - creates new provisions relating to vulnerable persons
SB 28 - modifies provisions relating to access to public records of the Missouri State Highway Patrol
SB 34 - allows Missouri school districts and charter schools to offer elective social studies courses on Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament
SB 35 - modifies provisions relating to child custody and child support enforcement
SB 40 - modifies provisions relating to background check requirements for employment in certain fields
SB 45 - modifies provisions relating to health care
SB 63 - creates new provisions relating to financial institutions
SB 70 - modifies license reciprocity provisions and adopts the Counseling Interstate Compact for professional counselors
SB 75 - modifies provisions relating to retirement systems
SB 94 - establishes tax credits for the production of certain entertainment
SB 101 - enacts provisions relating to property and casualty insurance
SB 103 - modifies judicial proceedings
SB 106 - modifies provisions relating to public health
SB 109 - modifies provisions relating to mining
SB 116 - modifies provisions relating to the disposition of the dead
SB 127 - enacts state designations marked by the Missouri Department of Transportation
SB 138 - modifies and creates new provisions relating to agriculture
SB 139 - enacts provisions relating to state designations
SB 157 - modifies provisions relating to professions requiring licensure
SB 186 - modifies provisions relating to public safety
SB 190 - modifies provisions relating to tax relief for seniors
SB 227 - modifies provisions relating to the culpable mental state necessary for a homicide offense
SB 398 - enacts provisions relating to motor vehicles
House Bill (HB) 115 - modifies provisions relating to licensing of health care professionals
HB 202 - modifies provisions relating to environmental regulation
HB 402 - modifies provisions relating to health care
HB 417 - provides incentives for certain individuals to obtain employment-related skills
HB 447 - modifies the duties of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
HB 802 - authorizes the conveyance of certain state property
Parson's full veto letter
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
Herewith I return to you Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Nos. 189, 36 & 37 entitled:
AN ACT
To repeal sections 67.145, 70.631, 84.344, 84.480, 84.510, 170.310, 190.091, 211.031,211.071, 217.345, 217.690, 285.040, 287.067, 287.245, 320.400, 488.650, 509.520, 547.031, 552.020, 556.021, 558.016, 558.019, 558.031, 565.240, 568.045, 571.015, 571.070, 575.010, 575.353, 578.007, 578.022, 579.065, 579.068, 590.192, 590.653, 595.209, 600.042, 610.140, 650.058, 650.320, 650.330, and 650.340, RSMO, and to enact in lieu thereof fifty-seven new sections relating to public safety, with penalty provisions and an emergency clause for certain sections.
I disapprove of Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Nos. 189, 36 & 37. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:
While I recognize and applaud the General Assembly in its effort to improve public safety for Missourians and all who visit our great state, I cannot approve this bill as presented to me as there are two notably problematic sections in this bill.
First, Section 610.140, dealing with expungements, will have significant consequences that I believe were unintended. Specifically, Subdivision (3) of Subsection 3 allows for expungements of sex offenses that did not require registration at the time of conviction. This change would allow for some serious offenses to be expunged. For example, House Bill 1055 (2004) added sexual exploitation of a minor and promoting child pornography to the offenses requiring registration, but those offenses did not require registration when enacted. See § 573.023, RSMO (2000); § 573.025, RSMO (1985). Accordingly, individuals who were convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor or promotion of child pornography prior to 2004 would be eligible for an expungement under this bill, and could be removed from the state's sex offender registry. Although I understand that this issue is an unintended consequence of the proposed change, I am deeply concerned that someone could have committed and been convicted of such heinous offenses, only later to receive a pass under the provisions of this bill.
Further, Subdivision (3) of Subsection 2 does not include specific standards of proof that the court is required to use in evaluating certain expungement requests, allowing anyone to allege broad past extenuating circumstances in order to expunge a large timeframe of offenses. While I am generally supportive of efforts to give individuals a second chance, I worry this language permits sweeping expungements without sufficient safeguards for past-or potential future--victims.
Finally, I am concerned that the changes to Section 610.140 making more offenses eligible for expungement will inevitably subject more victims of crime to additional court testimony and potential revictimization.
Second, Section 650.058 expands the qualifications for restitution from those who are exonerated based on DNA evidence to those who were later determined to be innocent through a habeas corpus proceeding and those whose convictions are set aside per a prosecutor's motion to vacate the judgment. This section also increases the restitution amount by more than 75% for eligible individuals. With very few exceptions, criminal cases are tried by local governments (counties or municipalities). The underlying offense, elected prosecutor, elected or retained judge, and community-drawn jury all come from the local jurisdiction, not the state as a whole. However, the burden of paying restitution under these provisions falls on all Missouri taxpayers. The local component in this process is cemented by the proposed language compensating people released under Section 547.031, which allows a local prosecutor to revisit past crimes in his or her jurisdiction. Missourians from every part of the state should not have to foot the bill for a local decision. Local governments should bear the financial cost of their own actions.
Moreover, the changes to Subdivision (4) of Subsection 1 make compensation available to anyone released after an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding that "demonstrates a person's innocence." However, the vagueness of the language could allow anyone released from prison this way who simply claimed innocence to receive compensation. I am opposed to subjecting taxpayers to such a nebulous standard.
Unfortunately, this bill includes many other public safety proposals that I do support. Some of these provisions include Blair's Law, Max's Law, increased penalties for violent repeat offenders and gun crimes, and the creation of a separate fund for the public defender system. It is my hope that the General Assembly will pass these provisions again in the next legislative session.
In accordance with the above-stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Bill Nos. 189, 36 & 37 without my approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael L. Parson
Governor