Missouri House backs return to presidential primary
The Missouri House on Monday advanced legislation that would reinstate state-run presidential preference primaries and extend the no-excuse absentee voting period from two to six weeks.
Supporters of House Bill 126 cited a widespread positive response to the recently enacted no-excuse voting period as a motivating factor. They also noted negative feedback on the 2024 party-run caucuses, which replaced the state-run primaries after they were eliminated as part of a law passed in 2022.
The no-excuse absentee voting period has been in effect since August 2022 and allows voters to cast their ballot in elections in person or by mail starting two weeks before Election Day.
Supporters of the bill said they hoped that extending the no-excuse voting period would further alleviate stress on election workers and encourage voters to cast their ballot.
The state of Missouri ran March presidential primaries from 2000 until 2020. A 2022 law signed by former Gov. Mike Parson eliminated them. In 2024, the Republican Party held in-person caucuses in Missouri to select their delegates, while Democrats opted for a hybrid caucus with in-person voting and a mail-in ballot.
Low participation in these caucuses, alongside vocal blowback from residents who preferred the state-run primaries, were cited as motivators for reinstating the primaries.
'I believe it's a lot simpler for our residents of our state going to cast a ballot like they do it in every other way for their preference for the presidential primary,' said state Rep. Brad Banderman, a Republican St. Clair.
Under the bill primaries would be held on the first Tuesday of March during presidential election years. The estimated cost to the state for conducting the primaries is $8 million.
The bill's supporters also noted that unlike previous years, where the primary results have not been binding to party delegates, both political parties have agreed to adhere to the results for the first ballot at their respective party conventions.
The House needs to approve the legislation one more time before it heads to the Senate.
This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
22 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why 17-year-olds are exempt from new Indy youth curfew passed after mass shooting
Indianapolis officials have made the youth curfew two hours earlier for all children younger than 17 for at least the rest of this year. About a month after a July 5 mass shooting left two teenagers dead, the Indianapolis City-County Council voted Aug. 11 to make the youth curfew stricter effective immediately. An initial proposal that included 17-year-olds was amended at the last minute by Democratic councilors who felt that older teens should be granted more independence. The new rules mean that children ages 15 and 16 won't be allowed in public unsupervised past 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and past 9 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. Children under 15 will face a 9 p.m. curfew every day. The city's emergency curfew will remain in place for 120 days, which means the council must decide in early December whether to extend or relax the policy. Teens who are 17 will still be subject to the state curfew of 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays. The 25-person council's Democratic majority passed the amendment that excluded 17-year-olds from the new curfew despite the opposition of all six Republican councilors. "The sun doesn't even go down in the summer until near 10 p.m., and I don't think we're putting ourselves in a good position pushing 17-year-olds to break curfew at 10-10:30 p.m.," said Councilor Jared Evans, who introduced the amendment at Monday's council meeting. Republicans like Councilor Joshua Bain said that excluding 17-year-olds from the new policy weakens the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to keep people safe. "It is not the goal of IMPD to go around arresting every 17-year-old that's out at night," Bain said. "This is a targeted way for them to get in between a 17-year-old that's about to make a really bad decision and possibly ruin the rest of their life." The ordinance doesn't create a criminal offense for children who break curfew, but it does grant police the authority to detain them. The policy carves out several exceptions for kids who are returning home from work, a school activity, a religious event or activities protected by the First Amendment such as political protests, among others. IMPD Chief Christopher Bailey said he was unbothered by the change exempting 17-year-olds from a stricter curfew. (He mentioned in jest that his daughter, who is nearly 17 and has been criticizing her father at home over the new curfew, would be "very pleased.") "My direction to the officers is not some sweep of everyone that's out," Bailey said. "It's really behavioral-based." Democratic Councilor Dan Boots spoke bluntly in support of more leniency for 17-year-olds. "Seventeen-year-olds are rising seniors in high school, a step away from being able to vote and be drafted and killed for our country," Boots said. "I think they have a right to stay out past 9 to go to a movie and come back." Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, who also voted against the last-minute change, introduced a new proposal Monday night that would fine parents whose children violate curfew. State law allows the city to impose thousands of dollars in fines, according to city attorney Brandon Beeler, but it's unclear how harshly violators would be prosecuted. Hart's proposal would give parents one written warning for a first violation, followed by a $500 fine for a second time and a $1,500 fine for each subsequent occurrence. Councilors will consider the proposal in committee later this month before a likely vote in September. The harsher curfew change comes after hundreds of unsupervised teens lingered downtown in the hours following the Fourth of July fireworks show, culminating in a mass shooting after midnight that killed Xavion Jackson, 16, and Azareaon S. Cole, 15. Two other teens and three adults were also injured. Four teenagers ranging from 13 to 17 years old have been charged in connection with the shooting for illegally carrying guns.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Likely Pennsylvania gov candidate slams Shapiro over rumored presidential ambitions
Shapiro is considered a top potential presidential candidate in 2028, but has not said whether he will run for the White House. The video seemed intended to signal that Garrity would mount a more aggressive campaign against Shapiro than his past rivals. Far-right state Sen. Doug Mastriano lost to Shapiro by 15 points in 2022, after raising little money and airing few TV ads. Mastriano is considering another gubernatorial bid and remains popular with the MAGA base. 'I can tell you on the record that this may be both the first ad of 2026 and 2028,' Garrity adviser John Brabender told POLITICO. 'And that it's just a start.' The battleground state of Pennsylvania will host a gubernatorial race and as many as five competitive House races as Democrats grasp for control over the lower chamber in the midterms next year. Garrity, a combat veteran in her second term as treasurer, is seen by state GOP insiders as the best Republican candidate to challenge Shapiro. Mastriano's potential bid has alarmed President Donald Trump's advisers and Pennsylvania Republicans .
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Trump's tax law will mostly benefit the rich, while leaving poorer Americans with less, CBO says
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump 's tax and spending law will result in less income for the poorest Americans while sending money to the richest, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday. The CBO estimates that the 10% of poorest Americans will lose roughly $1,200 a year as they experience restrictions on government programs like Medicaid and food assistance, while the richest 10% of Americans will see their income increase by $13,600 from tax cuts. Overall, American households will see more income from the tax cuts in the legislation, including middle income households, but the largest benefit will go to the top 10% of earners. The CBO's report comes as lawmakers are away from Washington, many taking their messages about the bill to voters. Republicans muscled the legislation — deemed 'the big, beautiful bill' by Trump — through Congress in July. Democrats all vehemently opposed the legislation, warning that its tax cuts and spending priorities would come at the expense of vital government aid programs and a ballooning national debt. 'This really is a big, beautiful bill for billionaires, but for the poor and the working class in this country, you are actually poorer,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, in an MSNBC interview on Monday. Changes to eligibility for government food assistance under the law will impact millions of Americans, the CBO found. Roughly 2.4 million people won't be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under new work requirements for many recipients. Low-income Americans could also see their income reduced through further restrictions on food aid and other types of assistance included in the law. Already, more than 10 million Americans are expected to be without health insurance by 2034 due to changes to Medicaid under the law. Following release of the report, Rep. Jason Smith, the Republican chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he took issue with CBO's methodology, repeating criticism he has made in the past. 'CBO has a troubled track record of getting its estimates incorrect and, like Democrats, is biased in favor of more federal spending and higher taxes,' Smith said on social media. 'Don't buy it.' Republicans have been eager to sell the upsides of the legislation — arguing that the tax cuts will spur economic growth — while they are on a monthlong summer break from Washington. But those who have held townhalls in their home districts have often been greeted by an earful from voters and activists. 'Tax the rich,' the crowd in Lincoln, Neb. chanted last week as Republican Rep. Michael Flood attempted to defend the bill. Still, Trump has been undeterred.
