Special session was just completed. I know the governor indicated you cannot expect a home run every time, but I believe we could have done better.
I do not expect anyone to compromise their principles nor do I want them to. There were bills that we could have passed that are good for our society and government. I hope we will start passing those bills instead of holding them hostage for some other purpose.
Having said that, there were some good bills that came out of this session, and this week highlighted the role COVID-19 could play in our next session. We had various representatives who were out because of having COVID; some who had already had COVID; and some who were abstaining because they had been exposed to COVID. It also shows we can have a session if people will properly distance, wear masks and take preventative actions to reduce the effect of COVID on the session.
We passed House Bill No. 46 dealing with the residency requirements of police officers in St. Louis. This was important because they are approximately 140 policemen short of what they need, and they are having an extremely hard time recruiting new officers. On the Judiciary Committee, we heard from many officers who told us that because of family issues, spouse's employment, etc., it was extremely hard for them to live within the city limits. Therefore, they were taking jobs in other law enforcement agencies.
We cannot expect the St. Louis Police Department to be able to fully investigate and prosecute crimes or count on their presence to prevent crimes when they are 140 officers short. When you have that extreme of a shortage and that hard of a time recruiting, it also affects their ability to retain experienced officers. This shortage only adds to the crime problem in St. Louis that needs to be addressed.
I am a strong believer in local rule, however, this is a minimal intrusion upon their operation and was requested by the police departments, mayor, various city councilmen and will help curtail their crime problem.
House Bill No. 66 also was passed with the witness protection program. This bill is very important because we are constantly seeing situations in our state where there are murders and other crimes, and witnesses are not willing to testify because of fear. While this bill does not solve that problem completely, it does provide another tool to help mitigate the problem. We cannot have criminals continue to commit crimes and use threats and violence to prevent anyone from testifying against them.
House Bill No. 2 was a bill that would codify the requirements for an out-of-court witness statement be admissible into evidence when a witness has been threatened and refuses to testify. While I believe the case law already supports this, by codifying what is already the law, we take away ambiguity that might exist between certain cases and greatly reduce the chance for a court to misinterpret the law, since it can easily be found in a statute.
To the extent that we can, certainty and clarity in the law is important, and this certainly clarified when these statements would be admissible and when they would not be admissible so that different courts within the state would consistently reach the same conclusions.
The Senate did not change the provisions of this bill but added an amendment to it resulting in the House not taking the bill up. The bill ultimately did not pass. The underlying bill is good, and I believe it will be passed next session so the work on it will hopefully not be in vain.
House Bill No. 16 dealt with the furnishing of guns to minors, but it was mainly limited to transfers that were for or in furtherance of criminal behavior such as giving a minor a gun to enable them to engage in criminal activity, such as being a drug runner, or to prevent criminals from being arrested for it, etc. This bill passed and went to the Senate, and they made a modification requiring it to come back to the House. That bill was not taken up, though it is a good bill. The amendment would have had to be vetted thoroughly. The original bill had the approval of all bipartisan support and from all spectrums of the Republican Party. That bill also will be passed, I believe, next session. Therefore, the work done on the bill was not wasted.
Two other bills, concurrent jurisdiction over crimes in St. Louis City and modification of the juvenile code, in particular relating to certification of juveniles as adults, are both very controversial, and if modifications are going to be made, it is going to take a lot of vetting that we cannot do in a special session.
I have been asked whether I thought the governor would call another special session. As I have indicated to others, that answer would have to come from someone with a higher pay grade than mine. My only hope that is if we do it, we have House leadership, Senate leadership and the Governor's Office on board - and also that the issues addressed are needed and cannot wait until regular session. Once they all agree upon a concept or idea, I believe then jointly we could pass legislation to implement that idea if it is necessary legislation.
Thank you for your support. I have already seen this year my role is changing as I am becoming a more experienced legislator. I am glad that I have this opportunity to use the skills I obtained from my public education from when I was a child until I graduated law school to repay the state by making it better for all of us. I always appreciate your calls and emails, so please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for that opportunity.
State Rep. Rudy Veit, R-Jefferson City, represents Missouri's 59th District and shares his perspective on statehouse issues twice a month.