New push at state capitol to merge St. Louis City and County
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – After the failure of an organization that sought to merge St. Louis City with St. Louis County, a Democratic lawmaker from the county is seeking to once again bring the issue of St. Louis regionalism back to the agenda of legislators at the Missouri Capitol.
State Rep. Ian Mackey, D-St. Louis County, introduced House Joint Resolution 27 earlier this session. The bill, which mirrors the approach taken by the now-inactive Better Together organization that fought to unite the county and its close to 90 municipalities with the independent city of St. Louis.
Similar to the Civil War-era policies surrounding the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the great divorce between the two St. Louis governmental bodies is another example of old-time practices that have been debated without much action for as long as people reading this have been alive.
It was St. Louis City, then a much more vibrant economy, which broke away from the County in a narrow vote in 1876. Since then, St. Louis has been an independent city. Outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are only two other independent cities in the United States: Baltimore and Carson City, Nevada.
At a Wednesday House hearing, Chairman Rep. Brad Christ, a Republican also from St. Louis County, reiterated that he was not going to pass this bill out of committee this year. However, he acknowledged that he is always willing to have conversations about the future of the St. Louis region.
'You're O-U-T, out!' says legal expert in FOX 2's findings on St. Louis Sheriff
Mackey, serving his last term in a district that includes Clayton, Ladue, Warson Woods, and Olivette, said St. Louis is the economic driver of the state, but it's not one municipality that drives it—it's the region.
'Indianapolis and Louisville are common examples of cities in our region that have done this,' Mackey said. 'And it's a large state involvement.'
While no one testified in favor of Mackey's bill, Wednesday's hearing did bring out opponents, including at least one mayor.
'I think what Webster Groves would say [is that] we are very closely tied to the future of the metropolitan area,' Mayor Laura Arnold said.
The Webster Groves mayor said, at the end of the day, the devil is in the details.
'And I'm not sure what those details are at this point, because we have not really taken time to go back and look at the criticism of Better Together and see what a new framework would look like,' she said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain. jmeisner@
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration urges court not to dismiss case against Wisconsin judge
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Trump administration argued Monday that charges should not be dropped against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted for allegedly helping a man who is in the country evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice urged a federal judge to reject a motion filed by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan seeking to dismiss the charges against her, saying doing so would be 'unprecedented" and allow judges to be above the law. Dugan faces a July 21 trial in the case that escalated a clash between Trump's administration and opponents over the Republican president's sweeping immigration crackdown. Trump critics contend that Dugan's arrest went too far and that the administration is trying to make an example out of her to discourage judicial opposition to the crackdown. The accusations against Dugan Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country illegally. She could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts. Her attorneys say she's innocent. They filed a motion last month to dismiss the case, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. They also maintain that the federal government violated Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. Trump administration response Justice Department attorneys responded in a court filing Monday, saying dismissing the charges against the judge on the grounds that she is immune would be unprecedented and would ignore 'well-established law that has long permitted judges to be prosecuted for crimes they commit.' 'Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond,' Justice Department attorneys argued. 'Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.' Dugan's attorney, Craig Mastantuono, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. In her motion to dismiss, Dugan argued that her conduct amounted to directing people's movement in and around her courtroom, and that she enjoys legal immunity for official acts she performs as a judge. She also accused the federal government of violating Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. Dugan's case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed. The case background According to prosecutors, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2013. He was charged in March with misdemeanor domestic violence in Milwaukee County and was in Dugan's courtroom for a hearing in that case on April 18. Dugan's clerk alerted her that immigration agents were in the courthouse looking to arrest Flores-Ruiz, prosecutors allege in court documents. According to an affidavit, Dugan became visibly angry at the agents' arrival and called the situation 'absurd.' After discussing the warrant for Flores-Ruiz's arrest with the agents, Dugan demanded that they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom. She then returned to the courtroom, was heard saying something to the effect of 'wait, come with me,' and then showed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a back door, the affidavit says. The immigration agents eventually detained Flores-Ruiz outside the building following a foot chase. Dugan, 66, was arrested by the FBI on April 25 at the courthouse. A grand jury indicted Dugan on May 13 and she pleaded not guilty on May 15. Dugan defense fund A legal defense fund created by Dugan supporters to help pay for her high-profile defense attorneys has raised more than $137,000 in three weeks from more than 2,800 donors. Her legal team includes former U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. Both were appointed by Republican presidents. She has also hired prominent attorneys in Milwaukee and Madison. 'This is an impressive show of support for the defense fund, highlighting that the public believes in protecting a fair and independent judiciary,' former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, the fund's trustee, said Monday. 'The fund will continue to raise grassroots donations and uphold strict guidelines to ensure transparency and accountability.' Dugan is not required to list the donor names until she submits her annual financial disclosure form, which is due in April. Numerous people are prohibited from donating, including Milwaukee County residents; attorneys who practice in the county; lobbyists; judges; parties with pending matters before any Milwaukee County judge; and county employees.
