Gov. Mike Kehoe’s $1 billion stadium package, approved in a special session in June, violates the state constitution and needs to be blocked by the court, a trio of stadium subsidy skeptics say in a lawsuit filed earlier today.
The suit, filed by St. Louis-area attorneys Bevis Schock and Erich Vieth, alleges numerous potential problems with Senate Bill 3, including that it lacks a clear title (required in Missouri), covers more than one subject (forbidden in Missouri), and gives money to pro sports teams, which the attorneys believe violates the state’s ban on giving public money to private entities.
Get a fresh take on the day’s top news
Subscribe to the St. Louis Daily newsletter for a smart, succinct guide to local news from award-winning journalists Sarah Fenske and Ryan Krull.
“The appropriations described in the bill are a direct gift or bribe to the owners of the Chiefs and the Royals to stay in Missouri,” the suit says. “Just as those who find burlesque shows immoral, those who find pro ball uninteresting should not have to subsidize the citizens who are delighted to pay for such amusements.”
The suit was brought by Ron Calzone, standing in on behalf of Missouri taxpayers, and two lawmakers who opposed the bill: State Senator Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) and state Rep. Bryant Wolfin (R-Ste Genevieve).
“I think there’s some very clear constitutional issues with this bill,” Wolfin said at a press conference yesterday. “Obviously, we wouldn’t be doing this if we didn’t think there was. And I think if we can get the courts to decide in our favor, I think it would set a precedent for hopefully promoting good government in the future.”
The litigation is being paid for by Calzone’s Article 3 Institute, a new grassroots 501c4 nonprofit designed to challenge acts that he believes are unconstitutional. This is the group’s second lawsuit.
A conservative and frequent gadfly in Jefferson City, Calzone said that he’d grown frustrated with the way the legislature violated the limits of the state constitution. “By and large, over the past three decades, the legislature is ignoring those limitations, and the reason that they ignored them is they know that they can get away with it the vast majority of the time,” he said. “Why? Because there’s not very often someone that wants to foot the bill to challenge these unconstitutional bills. That’s what we’re changing.”
Senate Bill 3 would cover about half the cost of upgrades being contemplated at Arrowhead Stadium, as well as a new stadium for the Royals. It would also allow the Cardinals to avail themselves of up to half the cost of any stadium project worth $500 million or more.
The fact that it’s written expressly to benefit those teams was part of Wolfin’s objection. “We’re picking winners and losers, and we’re saying that the Chiefs and the Royals and, technically, the Cardinals are the only ones who can benefit from this, whereas the MLS teams and Battlehawks and the Blues, they get nothing,” Wolfin said.
The suit, however, may be most likely to succeed on the fact that Senate Bill 3 does, in fact, include provisions utterly unrelated to stadiums: One is a tax credit for people living in areas where a federal disaster declaration has been requested. Another would renew a tax credit program supporting amateur sporting events, as the Missouri Independent reported. Missouri law holds that bills can only have a single topic, and wrangling about what constitutes one topic has been the focus of numerous legal challenges over the years—some successful, others not.
Schock said at the press conference that the attorneys hope to win summary judgment in the circuit court, but if not, will be able to appeal directly to the Missouri Supreme Court, where they seek to have the legislation declared unconstitutional.
Schock says that, as a libertarian, he opposes stadium subsidies as a rule. But he noted that there are myriad other reasons the bill was deficient and should be tossed out.
“This bill is about the failure of the legislature to follow the constitution,” he says.
