Tony Lovasco's Voting Record

Vote explanations will be listed below for recorded "roll call" votes made on pertinent matters (amendments, bill passage, etc). Roll call votes on routine procedural actions such as approving the daily House journal are not generally listed. If a particular action is notable for special or unusual reasons, it may be included in this list despite falling into a category not normally documented.

Click here to view a single page with all my votes listed by date.


votingboard.jpg


rss-feed2.png


04/11/19 -- HB 65 -- Adds powdered alcohol to the MO liquor regulations

Bill Number: 
HB 65
Bill Purpose: 
Adds powdered alcohol to the MO liquor regulations
Date of Vote: 
04/11/19
My Vote: 
No
Explanation: 

HB 65, introduced by Representative Patricia Pike (Republican - District 126) adds powdered alcohol to the list of Missouri's liquor regulations.

I take issue with most of our existing liquor laws, as they are far too strict and bureaucratic for the purposes they serve.  As such, I am not inclined to add additional products to the list subject to regulations.

I was definitely in the minority on this one, being one of only 4 House members to vote against this bill.

04/11/19 -- HCS HB 1127 -- Provides a definition for Missouri bourbon whiskey

Bill Number: 
HCS HB 1127
Bill Purpose: 
Provides a definition for Missouri bourbon whiskey
Date of Vote: 
04/11/19
My Vote: 
Yes
Explanation: 

HCS HB 1127, introduced by Representative Jeff Porter (Republican - District 42) provides a definition for Missouri bourbon whiskey.  While I don't think this is particularly necessary to do, I can see the validity of the argument that having an "official" definition would allow businesses to market themselves as being compliant with this standard.  That would allow for a bit of a local trademark that local businesses might use to help promote the area and industry.  This seems fairly harmless to me -- the bill contains no mandates or similar coercive requirements, and simply serves to provide a definition so that those who wish to use the term can do so uniformly.

04/11/19 -- HB 873 -- Establishes the Jake Beckley Memorial Highway in Marion County

Bill Number: 
HB 873
Bill Purpose: 
Establishes the Jake Beckley Memorial Highway in Marion County
Date of Vote: 
04/11/19
My Vote: 
Yes
Explanation: 

Provided that there is no cost to the state, and unless special circumstances apply, it is my policy to vote yes on measures such as this out of courtesy to the bill sponsor.  Accordingly, I voted yes on this bill.

04/10/19 -- HB 435 -- Prohibits public colleges from requiring students to live on campus

Bill Number: 
HB 435
Bill Purpose: 
Prohibits public colleges from requiring students to live on campus
Date of Vote: 
04/10/19
My Vote: 
Yes
Explanation: 

HB 435, introduced by Representative Jason Chipman (Republican - District 120) prohibits public colleges from requiring students to live on campus after their first year.

I have always thought that the requirement to live on campus is a stupid rule, and I wish this bill eliminated it entirely.  Students of higher education are adults, and paying customers who should be able to decide for themselves where to live.  While I understand why they are encouraged to live on campus (less distraction, etc), it should be no means be required.

While this bill doesn't go as far as I'd like, it's a good start.

04/08/19 -- HB 584 -- Increases fees charged by Department of Revenue contractor license offices

Bill Number: 
HB 584
Bill Purpose: 
Increases fees charged by Department of Revenue contractor license offices
Date of Vote: 
04/08/19
My Vote: 
No
Explanation: 

HB 584, introduced by Representative Jeff Knight (Republican - District 129) increases fees charged by the Department of Revenue contractor license offices.  It is a widely held belief that DOR license offices (which are private companies that bid for the right to run an office) are in desperate need of new revenue.  Proponents of this bill argue that by increasing the fees that these offices are allowed to charge the public, we will prevent more license offices from closing down when no one bids to run them (ostensibly due to the low profit margins).

I am not sympathetic to this argument.  While there are Constitutional complications associated with making major changes to the fee structure and disposition, if it is determined that these license offices really need more revenue, the State should simply take a smaller cut of the existing fee to make room for the increase - we should not increase fees charged to the public.  Additionally, I am not convinced that there is a need for additional revenue by these license offices at all -- the ones located in more populated areas take in large sums of money on a regular basis.  The ones that struggle are the ones in more rural areas that simply don't have as many customers.

While it is unfortunate that people in rural areas might have to drive a bit further to a different office if the on in their area closes, the solution isn't to raise fees for everyone statewide.  There are many ways we could possibly make things better for these rural residents (expand online license renewals, develop kiosks, etc - both of which are subjects of another bill we heard this year).  Raising fees should always be a last resort, and I'm not convinced we are at that point.

04/08/19 -- HCS HB 346 -- Modifies the MO Works Program to allow qualification of some military projects

Bill Number: 
HCS HB 346
Bill Purpose: 
Modifies the MO Works Program to allow qualification of some military projects
Date of Vote: 
04/08/19
My Vote: 
No
Explanation: 

HCS HB 346, introduced by Representative Steve Lynch (Republican - District 122) modifies the "Missouri Works" program to allow the qualification of certain military projects within the incentive system. 

This bill is likely well intentioned, but it makes no sense to me.  Why would we incentivize companies to work on military projects (such as bases, etc) in Missouri?  The details and location of such projects is determined by the Federal government, and would happen with or without any incentives.  Also, I am not a fan of the "Missouri Works" program at all, and this bill expands it.

Incidentally, I was only one of only 8 people to vote no on this.

 

Pages