Author: KMIZ

Mitchell Kaminski

COLUMBIA, Mo. (KMIZ)

Supporters of a voter-passed proposition rejoiced after a court’s decision on Tuesday.

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Proposition A, which raised the state’s minimum wage and requires employers to offer paid sick leave, rejecting arguments from business groups that the ballot measure was misleading and unconstitutional.

The court’s majority ruled that the Missouri Chamber of Commerce failed to prove voters were misled. It also said it lacked jurisdiction to rule on claims the initiative petition used to get Prop A on the ballot violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirement, leaving that issue open to further challenges in local circuit courts.

Proposition A passed in November 2024 with support from more than 57% of Missouri voters. The law raises the minimum wage to $13.75 per hour in 2025, then to $15 by 2026, and ties future increases to inflation. It also guarantees workers one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Legislative Republicans are working on a bill to overturn Proposition A or get a ballot measure to overturn it before voters. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in a news release that the ballot measure contained multiple subjects, in violation of Missouri law.

“We are deeply disappointed by the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision regarding Proposition A,” the chamber wrote. “While we respect the Court’s authority, we believe today’s decision fails to address critical concerns regarding election irregularities and constitutional violations that occurred.”

Supporters say the measure is a victory for working Missourians and small businesses alike.

“Everyone in Missouri gets sick through no fault of our own, but currently sick leave is a benefit that’s often enjoyed by managers and wealthy and white collar professionals, but not by a lot of the essential workers who do drive our economy forward,” said Richard von Glahn, policy director at Missouri Jobs With Justice.

“We are disappointed to see that business groups would seek to ask the Supreme Court to undermine the vote of so many Missourians. And we’re obviously very pleased that the Supreme Court has rejected to do so,” he said.

Von Glahn added that the campaign for Proposition A earned support from more than 500 businesses statewide, many of them small employers who already offer similar benefits.

“When we talked to a lot of business owners, they would say that a worker earns one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours that they work. You know, for a lot of small businesses that maybe people don’t work full time. They understand it could take two months for someone to earn one full day off work,” von Glahn said. “Oftentimes, small business owners are ones who actually already sort of recognize and treat their employees as family because they see them every day.”

However, he added that the bulk of opposition to the law was from larger corporations.  

“What we are finding is larger corporations that always try to extract as much from their employees as possible are the ones leading the pushback,” von Glahn said.

Dave Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, said the court was clear that claims about voter confusion need to be backed by strong evidence.

“If you are claiming that voters were confused in some way, or if there was some problem in the process that might call into question the result of the election, you’ve got to be able to point to the evidence that supports your claim,” Roland said. “You can’t just make the argument and then hope that the courts follow along. You got to show your work.”

The lawsuit against Prop A included two main claims: Voters were misled and there was a structural flaw in the initiative petition used to get Prop A on the ballot. The court ruled against the first and declined jurisdiction over the second.

“One of the primary arguments that was being made is that the Supreme Court should not even hear post-election challenges to these election disputes,” Roland said. “And one of the things that the majority opinion hammered home very emphatically is, look, they’ve decided this issue several times since 2015. They have very clearly concluded that the Supreme Court does indeed get to hear these challenges and the not so subtly suggested that litigants should stop making this argument.”

Still, Roland emphasized that the initiative process is vital in Missouri politics.

“Missourians adopted the right to initiative and referendum for a reason. From hard experience, they saw that there are frequently issues that matter to the people that the legislature simply is not willing to deal with. And it is crucial that we leave open the opportunity for citizens to put these issues on the ballot,” he said.

Kara Corches of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that the group remains concerned about the initiative’s legality.

“Prop A, and how it’s written, is unconstitutional. It violates the single-subject provision. Voters were misled. The Constitution was not complied with,” she said.

Despite the legal challenges, businesses and workers are now preparing for implementation. Paid sick leave provisions take effect May 1, and employers must notify workers of their rights under the law.

Mike Draper, owner of RAYGUN, a Kansas City-based apparel company, welcomed the court’s decision in a statement. 

“The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold Prop A is welcome news. They reaffirm what we all saw on election night in November: The vast majority of Missourians want workers to have a living wage and paid sick leave,” Draper said. “More than 500 businesses across the state endorsed Prop A. The voters, and now the Court, have spoken. It’s time to fully implement Prop A.”

Terrence Wise, a fast food worker and leader with Stand Up KC and the Missouri Workers Center, called the decision a long-awaited win.

“The ruling today affirms the will of over 57% of Missouri voters who approved Proposition A in November,” Wise said. “Workers like me have spent over a decade fighting across race and place to strengthen our rights, and the Supreme Court decision today proves that when we fight, we win.”

Click here to follow the original article.

Jessica Hafner

The ABC 17 Stormtrack Weather team tracked severe storms that left quite a bit of damage across southern and southwest Missouri on Tuesday morning as a Weather Alert Day was in effect.

Storms moved in from the Joplin area after 8:00 a.m., overturning tractor trailers on I-44 near Joplin. As the line of storms intensified, it brought damaging winds of up to 91 mph at the Springfield Airport, leaving damage across the city.

Power outages were still being reported on Tuesday evening, with almost 50,000 residents still in the dark.

As the storms pressed on to the east, tornado warnings were issued as circulations developed along the line. Heavy damage to a roof was reported at an elementary school in Potosi, southwest of St. Louis. Dangerous flash flooding was also reported in the same area into late afternoon.

Click here to follow the original article.

Ryan Shiner

COLUMBIA, Mo. (KMIZ)

A basketball prospect for the University of Missouri has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman during a campus visit in September.

Keiner Asprilla, 18, was charged in Boone County as an adult on Tuesday with first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy and second-degree kidnapping. A petition was filed in juvenile court on Jan. 3, according to a Jan. 24 email from Boone County’s chief juvenile officer. He is listed on the Boone County Jail roster.

ABC 17 News requested records for police reports involving Keiner Asprilla from Sept. 1, 2024 to Jan. 24, 2025. A police report from the Columbia Police Department indicates that a report was made at 11:43 a.m. Oct. 8, 2024, about “a report of a sexual assault at an unknown location within the City of Columbia.”

The offense code on the report indicates that he has been accused of forcible rape.

The assault allegedly occurred on Sept. 20, 2024, according to the report. Asprilla’s 247 profile – which is a website that tracks recruiting for college athletics – says he visited MU’s campus on Sept. 20. He also shared a photo on Instagram on Sept. 23 of himself wearing an MU uniform.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by K.MONEY ‘’34”🤑💰 (@keiner_asprillatv)

“The safety of our campus community is of great importance. We are deeply concerned about these serious allegations. This alleged off-campus incident did not involve any of our students, and it was reported to the Columbia Police Department,” MU spokesman Christopher Ave wrote in a statement on Jan. 24.

Apsprilla attends St. Peter’s Prep in New Jersey and has 12 scholarship offers from universities around the country. 247 claims MU has been his only campus visit. St. Peter’s athletic website lists Apsprilla as a junior.

According to the probable cause statement, Columbia detectives were notified by the Boone County Children’s Division on Oct. 8, 2024, of a sexual assault investigation where Asprilla was the suspect.

The victim allegedly called their mother on Sept. 22 about having a friend take them to an area hospital, but the mother was not told about the assault until Sept. 25, the statement says. The mother was then contacted by the Boone County Children’s Division and Ashland Police Department at a later date.

Police spoke with a school counselor, who told police that the victim requested to speak with them after the weekend of Sept. 22, court documents say. The victim told them that she was drunk in Downtown Columbia when she and friends met a group of males and her friends “went to do something else,” the statement says. The victim then went to the Tiger Hotel with Asprilla and his “group,” court documents indicate.

Asprilla asked the other men in the group to leave so he could be alone with the victim, court documents say. The victim rejected multiple advances and actions, but Asprilla sexually assaulted them more than once, court documents say.

Investigators reviewed bodycam footage from the Ashland Police Department showing the victim speaking with a children’s division investigator.

Court documents say the victim told investigators that they went to Downtown Columbia with three friends and met with a male whose name they could not pronounce – Asprilla. Asprilla allegedly told the victim he was from New Jersey and was visiting for a college scholarship opportunity.

The victim gave the Columbia Police Department the same details when interviewed on Oct. 8, court documents say.

Police spoke with a receptionist at the Tiger Hotel on Oct. 9 about an incident in September and – in the heavily redacted statement – the receptionist described an incident where a woman gave clothes to another inebriated woman wearing a towel. Police contacted that woman, who told police on Oct. 9 that her friend was raped.

Police also reviewed text messages between the victim and Asprilla, the statement says.

Click here to follow the original article.

Matthew Sanders

COLUMBIA, Mo. (KMIZ)

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a voter-approved law that increases the minimum wage and requires employers to provide paid leave.

Chief Justice Mary Russell wrote the majority opinion, joined by five of the court’s seven judges. The remaining judge wrote in a separate opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

The lawsuit challenged whether Proposition A, which changes Missouri statutes to increase the minimum wage to $13.75 on Jan. 1 and by another $1.25 in 2026 to reach $15 per hour. After that, minimum wage increases would be pegged to inflation.

The law also requires all employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and allows the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to oversee and enforce compliance.

Proposition A decisionDownload

The minimum wage hikes started Jan. 1, and the paid leave requirements are set to start May 1. Business leaders challenged the approval, saying the ballot measure and fiscal note were misleading. Opponents claimed that Prop A’s ballot title broke the same subject rule, since increasing minimum wage and expanding paid leave were separate issues.

Supporters of the ballot claimed both topics were a package deal under employee compensation. Those who brought the lawsuit didn’t meet the burden of proof to show that the statement and fiscal note misled voters.

Legislative Republicans are also working on a bill to overturn Proposition A or get a ballot measure to overturn it before voters.

“We are disappointed the courts didn’t consider multi-subject as a reason and we’ll continue to save businesses in the state of Missouri,” Director of the Missouri Grocers Association Dan Shaul said in a statement.

Missouri Business for a Healthy Economy, a business group that supported Proposition A, praised the decision. The group’s release quotes Joseph Chevalier, owner of Columbia’s Yellow Dog Bookshop.

“If a small bookstore like ours can provide paid sick time to employees, so can other businesses,” Chevalier said, according to the release. “No one should have to work sick in order to keep a roof overhead and food on the table. That’s just wrong. And it’s counterproductive for businesses.” 

The state Chamber of Commerce also mentioned in a statement House Bill 567 that was filed in response to Prop A. If passed, the bill will remove the expanded sick leave provision.

“This bill will provide much-needed clarity for business owners struggling with the onerous paid sick leave requirements and give employers the flexibility to tailor workplace policies to meet the needs of their workforce,” the chamber of commerce wrote. “We urge the Missouri Senate to take immediate action on HB 567 and ensure Missouri’s economic climate is not adversely impacted by Proposition A’s implementation.”

Before the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision, state Sen. Brian Williams (D-St. Louis County) filibustered from 10 a.m. to around noon at the start of Tuesday’s Senate session by reading an excerpt from a book written by NBA trainer Drew Hanlen.

“There are so many people in our state that would benefit from this body operating again in good faith, upholding the will of their very vote,” Williams said at the beginning of his filibuster. “This isn’t about anything other than the fact of ensuring that voters feel heard in the very body that they elected every single one of us to serve.”

Williams added after that the background of the filibuster was to bring attention to the concerns of voters who were opposed to “the state government rolling back the will of the people.”

HB 567 is on the Senate’s informal calendar for its third reading.

Click here to follow the original article.