The Missouri Supreme Court Building in Jefferson City on Wednesday (Clara Bates/Missouri Independent).
Months after Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a minimum wage increase and paid sick leave requirements, the new laws face challenges this week in court and the state legislature.
On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court Court heard arguments in a lawsuit seeking to strike down Proposition A, which guarantees sick leave for hundreds of thousands of workers and gradually hikes the minimum wage to $15.
A day earlier, the Missouri House gave initial approval to a bill repealing the sick leave law and modifying the minimum wage.
“This is a one-two punch to businesses, and it creates a one size fits all approach,” said Republican state Rep. Sherri Gallick of Belton, who is sponsoring the legislation targeting the paid sick leave law.
A coalition of business groups and individuals argued Wednesday morning to the Missouri Supreme Court that the minimum wage and paid sick leave laws should be thrown out for violating constitutional rules on ballot initiatives.
“Both on the statutory side and the constitutional side, voters were misled,” Marc Ellinger, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told the court. “The constitution was not complied with.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
The lawsuit, filed late last year, argues the election results should be overturned because of several alleged constitutional violations, including violations of the state constitution’s single-subject requirement and a lack of a clear title.
It also contends that sick time and minimum wage are distinct issues that violate the single-subject rule, which should result in the election outcome being invalidated. It requests a new election be held, alleging the ballot title, which includes a summary of the proposition and its potential cost to the state, was misleading.
“This case is an example of where all of those procedures have been ignored,” Ellinger said.
A lawyer for Missouri Jobs with Justice, which led the campaign in support of Proposition A, said the court should uphold the law if at all possible, since voters approved it.
“The challengers ask you to overturn the will of the voters who exercised their fundamental right of the initiative,” said attorney Loretta Haggard, “based on technical issues that were not raised before the election.”
The measure won by a margin of over 400,000 votes. Haggard and other attorneys representing the responding parties wrote in a recent filing that the plaintiffs are asking the court “to tell these voters that their votes do not matter, and the court, not the people, will decide whether Proposition A should stay in effect,” calling it an “extraordinary request.”
Andrew Crane, an assistant attorney general representing the Secretary of State on Wednesday, defended the single subject of employee compensation, saying sick leave and pay “logically relate together… these are the kind things that employees and lawyers consider in any hiring decision.”
Robert Tillman, representing the auditor’s office, defended the fiscal note summary and said the plaintiffs didn’t prove any alleged irregularities that would have impacted the election.
“Even if contestants could establish election irregularities, they must then demonstrate that such irregularity sufficiently cast doubt for the entire election, to justify a new election.” Tillman said. “…As you can see from the record, contestants have offered no such evidence.”
The judges asked a few questions about whether they have jurisdiction to review the case, or whether a lower court would be the more appropriate venue.
Prop A passed with 58% of the vote and had the support of numerous unions, workers’ advocacy groups, social justice and civil rights organizations, as well as over 500 business owners. A group of businesses filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case defending the proposition.
Under the law, beginning May 1, the law requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide at least one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 workers must allow workers to earn at least 40 hours per year, with larger employers mandated to allow at least 56 hours.
Legislature
On Tuesday, a bill in Missouri’s House to overturn the sick leave provisions and modify the minimum wage provisions was given initial approval. It needs to be approved one more time in the House before heading to the Senate for consideration.
Because the measure changed state law and not the constitution, the legislature can modify or overturn it without returning for a new vote of the people.
Gallick’s bill would repeal the paid sick leave provisions approved by voters.
It would also modify the minimum wage increase by no longer indexing it to inflation, a policy that has been in place since 2007. The minimum wage would still increase to $15 per hour in 2026, as voters approved, but it would not be adjusted for inflation thereafter.
Gallick has argued employees will “abuse” the sick leave.
In states that have adopted sick leave mandates, employees take, on average, two more sick days a year than prior to the law going into effect, a National Bureau of Economic Research report found.
Studies have found that offering paid sick time can increase workers’ productivity and reduce illness, and generally adds little or nothing to business expenses.
Republican state Rep. Scott Miller from St. Charles said “just because 57% of the people that voted that day, voted in favor of something, that doesn’t make it right. “They’re taking away the choice of businesses to engage in free market.”
Businesses are not equipped to handle the additional expenses from the proposition, said Republican state Rep. Jeff Vernetti of from Camdenton.
“I know that the will of the people will be brought up several times in this and I think that we’ve also got to represent the 87 counties that did not vote for this,” Vernetti said. “I think it’s our duty to respect the will of the people, but also at the same time, safeguard the long term prosperity of Missouri.”
Rep. Eric Woods, a Democrat from Kansas City, pointed out that Prop A passed in rural counties as well, including Clark, Adair, Mississippi and Henry.
“This isn’t a situation where Proposition A just passed in the cities,” he said, “this was a broad acceptance percentage wise.”
Lawmakers are wrong to treat voters as having been oblivious to what they were voting on, said state Rep. Keri Ingle, a Democrat from Lee’s Summit.
“The part that irks me is that you guys repeatedly call your constituents dumb,” Ingle said.“You say that they’re too stupid to understand what they voted for,” Ingle said. “I mean, you don’t use those words, but they hear you loud and clear, and they continue to vote for these policies.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.