Missouri's Stadium Funding Battle: When Legislators Are Told They Can't Challenge Laws

The Facts of the Case

In a concerning development for democratic accountability, attorneys representing the Missouri General Assembly argued in Cole County Circuit Court that legislators who oppose a bill becoming law have no right to sue simply because they dislike the outcome. Marc Ellinger, representing the legislature, contended that recognizing such “legislative standing” would flood the court system with lawsuits. He was joined by Assistant Attorney General Sean McDowell in seeking dismissal of a lawsuit filed by State Senator Mike Moon, State Representative Bryant Wolfin, and conservative activist Ron Calzone.

The lawsuit challenges a special session measure that provides state support for professional sports stadiums through tax credits. The plaintiffs argue the law violates Missouri’s constitutional single-subject requirement because it also includes provisions for tax credits for home repairs after natural disasters and property-tax restrictions for some counties. They claim the legislation provides unconstitutional aid to private interests and goes beyond the bill’s original subject.

The state’s motion to dismiss hinges on the argument that plaintiffs lack taxpayer standing since the bill operates through tax credits and is “subject to appropriation,” meaning there’s no direct cost to taxpayers. However, attorney Bevis Schock, representing the challengers, countered that there are up-front costs, including an estimated $10,000 expense to create the tax-credit application. Schock warned that if these plaintiffs have no standing, “we might as well pitch the constitution in there with it.”

The core purpose of the lawsuit, according to Schock, is to challenge bills with multiple subjects that prevent voters from understanding what specific items their legislators support or oppose. If the circuit court dismisses the case, Schock has indicated he will appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Why This Threatens Democratic Principles

This case represents a fundamental assault on the checks and balances that form the bedrock of our democratic system. The argument that legislators cannot challenge laws they believe to be unconstitutional simply because they were on the losing side of a vote is dangerously anti-democratic and threatens the very concept of judicial review.

When attorneys argue that courts would be “flooded” with legitimate constitutional challenges, they reveal a disturbing preference for bureaucratic convenience over constitutional integrity. The judicial system exists precisely to handle such challenges - to serve as the ultimate arbiter of whether laws comply with constitutional principles. Dismissing these concerns as mere dissatisfaction with legislative outcomes fundamentally misunderstands the role of courts in our system of government.

The single-subject requirement exists for excellent reason: to prevent legislative logrolling and ensure transparency in lawmaking. When bills contain multiple unrelated subjects, voters cannot hold their representatives accountable for specific provisions, and legislators cannot exercise meaningful oversight. This practice undermines democratic accountability and represents exactly the kind of government opacity that erodes public trust.

What’s particularly alarming is the state’s narrow interpretation of taxpayer standing. By arguing that tax credits don’t represent direct expenditures, the attorneys create a loophole that could shield countless questionable appropriations from judicial scrutiny. This technical argument ignores the reality that tax credits represent foregone revenue that otherwise would have benefited public services.

The plaintiffs’ warning that we might “pitch the constitution in there with it” if this case is dismissed should resonate with every American who values constitutional governance. When citizens - including elected officials - cannot challenge potentially unconstitutional laws, we risk creating a system where bad legislation goes unchallenged and constitutional principles become mere suggestions rather than binding requirements.

This case transcends the specific issue of stadium funding. It touches on fundamental questions about who gets to challenge government actions, what constitutes appropriate judicial review, and how we maintain the integrity of our legislative process. The outcome will signal whether Missouri values constitutional principles over political convenience - a decision with implications far beyond sports stadiums or tax credits.