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
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump tax law could trigger about $500B in Medicare cuts over decade without fix: CBO
Recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare spending would see steep cuts over roughly the next decade absent congressional action, following passage of President Trump's major tax law last month. The nonpartisan budget scorekeeper crunched the numbers of potential across-the-board cuts that federal programs could see under the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 as a result of the enactment of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' — which it estimates could cost trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. The 2010 law, enacted under the Obama administration, seeks to require Congress to ensure new legislation is budget-neutral and can be enforced with the threat of automatic cuts, also known as 'sequestration,' to counter excess costs. But Congress has often enacted legislation over the years to avoid those cuts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. CBO noted in a June letter that sequestration has never been triggered under the law since its enactment in 2010. However, in its analysis, conducted at the request of Democrats, CBO estimated the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would be required to issue a 'sequestration order not more than 14 days after the end of the current session of Congress' to cut fiscal 2026 spending by $415 billion, if Congress does not act. The office estimated that reductions in Medicare spending would be limited to about $45 billion for fiscal year 2026 under the 2010 law, leaving '$370 billion to be sequestered from the federal budget's remaining direct spending accounts in that year.' CBO also noted that the law exempts large accounts that fund programs like Social Security, while further estimating that the OMB would 'have roughly $120 billion in budgetary resources available for cancellation in 2026 — less than the remaining amount that would be required to be sequestered.' CBO's analysis included a closer breakdown of how Medicare spending would fare under such circumstances. 'The 4 percent maximum reduction in Medicare spending would continue to apply to sequestration orders for years after 2026,' it said. 'If OMB ordered a sequestration of $415 billion for each year through 2029 and $339 billion each year from 2030 through 2034, the ordered reductions in Medicare spending would increase to $76 billion in 2034 and would total $491 billion over the 2027–2034 period.' When factoring in fiscal 2026, the estimated spending reductions in store for Medicare would total more than $500 billion. 'After accounting for the reduction in Medicare spending, the required reduction in spending for other programs would exceed the estimated amount of resources available to those programs in each year over the 2027–2034 period,' CBO said. It added that, if the OMB 'sequestered all of the funding for those programs, the total amounts would be less than the reductions required by' the 2010 law. The Hill has reached out to OMB for comment. The CBO has estimated Trump's major tax package will add nearly $3.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over roughly the next decade, not factoring in macroeconomic and debt-service effects. However, Republicans have largely downplayed the cost of the tax cuts and argue the overall plan will help boost the economy.
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Representative Katherine Clark calls Israel-Hamas war in Gaza ‘genocide'
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The comments, first 'a nonpartisan Quaker organization that lobbies Congress and the administration to advance peace, justice, and environmental stewardship.' Clark made the comments in a discussion hosted by Bridget Moix, the organization's secretary general, at the Friends Meeting at Cambridge Meetinghouse. Advertisement Clark was responding to protestors at the event in her district, said Joy Lee, a spokesperson for her office, who denied that the comment amounted to a new position on the war. 'The Israeli and Palestinian people deserve security and peace. It can only be achieved through a permanent cease-fire, the immediate return of the remaining hostages, and a surge of humanitarian aid to Gaza,' Lee said. 'It should not be controversial to say that Israeli children did not deserve to be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas, nor should it be controversial to say that Palestinian children, who bear no responsibility for Hamas's atrocities, do not deserve to be killed by war or starvation. Advertisement But only a handful of congressional Democrats, and none in top leadership roles, have called the Gaza war a genocide despite mounting pressure from progressive activists as the situation there deteriorates. The death toll in the war, which began after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, The UN defines genocide as 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group' and there is a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel pending at the International Court of Justice. Israel has denied it is committing genocide, arguing that it is in a war with Hamas provoked by the terrorist group's 2023 attack, in which about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage. The term genocide weighs heavily over Israel's history because of the Holocaust, a genocide in which Nazi Germany murdered six million Jews during World War II. Jim Puzzanghera can be reached at
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Liberty University faces second lawsuit accusing it of mishandling sexual assault cases
A former Liberty University employee says she was terminated in part for cooperating with a federal investigation of the school's handling of sexual assault, according to recently filed court documents. In her suit against the private Christian university, Erika Woolfolk stated she was paid less, required to work more, and the subject of a hostile work environment while employed in the university's office of Equity and Compliance and Title IX. Woolfolk's work involved investigating cases of sexual violence on campus, of which she alleged her bosses would improperly predetermine their outcomes, according to her lawsuit. She claimed in the filing that she shared that information and more about the university's 'systemic violations of federal law' with the U.S. Department of Education. She also claims she was fired for it. She is now the second former Liberty University employee who has alleged in lawsuits that they reported the university's improper and unethical investigations into sexual assault and were later terminated. Most recently, Peter Brake sued the university along similar grounds and his firing was cited in Woolfolk's filing. Both suits also name as a defendant Ashley Reich, a former top administrator at the university who oversaw the Title IX office. In a statement to USA TODAY, Liberty University declined to respond to all the allegations but disagreed with Woolfolk's claims. It stated that her termination did not have to do with her race or her interactions with the federal government. Instead, her firing was tied to "legitimate business reasons" related to Title IX investigations. USA TODAY reached out to Reich for comment but received no response prior to publication. The Biden-era Education Department in 2024 found that the university had created a culture where students and others were afraid to report sexual violence. The university was penalized $16 million as a result. It also remains on federal monitoring through April 2026. Liberty has previously said it believed it was treated unfairly by the Biden administration, while agreeing 'there were numerous deficiencies that existed in the past' with its compliance with the Clery Act. That regulation includes requirements for how universities respond to and report sexual assault and other crimes on their campuses. More: Liberty to pay Jerry Falwell Jr. $15 million settlement after high-profile sex scandal The government's final report found that college administrators overlooked and failed to track repeat cases of sexual violence on campus, and that it failed to warn students of potential danger. It laid out how university officials tried to cover their tracks by seeking technology staff to delete hard drives. Liberty, based in Lynchburg, Virginia, is among the nation's largest and most prominent Christian universities. The school is also hugely popular among Republican politicians. Jerry Falwell, a televangelist and conservative figure, started the school in 1971. The university has grown thanks to online students – about 124,000 combined in the 2023-24 academic year, according to the school – and it took nearly $880 million in federal financial aid for its students in the 2022-2023 academic year, according to the Department of Education. What did Woolfolk allege? In her lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Virginia, Woolfolk stated she earned undergraduate and master's degrees at the school and had been working there since 2014. She initially produced content for the Liberty Flames Sports Network, before transferring to the Office of Equity and Compliance/Title IX in 2018. In that office, she was the only Black employee and faced a hostile work environment, the suit states. She alleged she was paid less than her more inexperienced peers and was asked to work longer hours on more arduous tasks. She said she was denied promotions and accommodations, like remote work, while Reich routinely stayed home, according to the lawsuit. She also described facing racial comments from her colleagues, like one who stereotyped 'Blacks as either 'black-black' or 'white-black'' with more positive connotations for the latter, according to the lawsuit. The suit also included screenshots from Microsoft Teams chats where her peers joked about naming a coworker's new dog after Confederate generals. Woolfolk's suit also states that Reich regularly influenced the findings of Title IX cases, either directly or through another employee. In another instance, Woolfolk learned details of a confidential case were improperly shared throughout the office, which 'posed significant risks of prejudice to complainants and respondents.' That was because members of her team would sometimes have to serve as neutral deciders in cases other than their own. In 2022, Woolfolk spoke to Education Department investigators. Her suit states she told them about numerous violations of Title IX, which included 'systematic efforts to minimize and downplay sexual assault reports; and predetermined case outcomes before investigations were completed.' She also alleged that Reich was aware of her actions. By June 2024, Woolfolk said she had filed an internal complaint against Reich related to workplace discrimination and retaliation for cooperating with the federal government. She was assigned to work virtually, but was fired days later. The suit stated that the university fired her for unspecified compliance issues. She was terminated on the same day as two other investigators, including Peter Brake, who had also raised complaints about Reich. Reich now works at the Education Department where she'll be recused from matters involving the school. In a statement to USA TODAY, a department official praised her nearly two decades of working in higher education, policy development and government affairs, and said that she'll help advance President Donald Trump's agenda but didn't offer more details about her is seeking legal fees and an unspecified amount of Quintana is an investigative reporter at USA TODAY. He can be reached at cquintana@ or via Signal at 202-308-9021. He is on X at @CQuintanaDC
