Lipke explains how wording was removed

By Scott A. Lipke

Over the past few weeks, many people have asked me about the circumstances surrounding my dismissal as chairman of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee in the Missouri House of Representatives. Initially, I was reluctant to respond. However, after Speaker Rod Jetton attacked my character and integrity with a series of misstatements, I felt a response from me regarding the facts surrounding the passage of Jessica's Law was necessary.

Last year, I was proud to play my part as chairman of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee to gain passage of Missouri's version of Jessica's Law. The bill that was passed and signed into law included the removal of language that had been ruled unconstitutional by a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. I personally disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say on the matter, and as a state representative I took an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of Missouri. So I felt it was necessary for Missouri's criminal statutes, when possible, to reflect the current U.S. Supreme Court standards.

Speaker Jetton has alleged that I acted deceitfully in making this change and that I somehow secretly inserted this 14-word change into the bill. The facts tell a different story.

House Bill 1698 was assigned to the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee for hearing by Speaker Jetton and included the removal of the unconstitutional language. The full committee conducted a hearing on HB 1698, and it ultimately passed out of the committee on March 14, 2006. However, on March 1, 2006, prior to the committee vote, I sent an e-mail to the elected prosecutors and judges in the state asking them to review the bill and give me any feedback. During the hearing and after the March 1 e-mail, no one raised any objection to this provision's being removed. This includes members of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee.

Next, before the bill was scheduled to be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, I sent an additional e-mail to all of the prosecutors and judges on March 30, 2006, asking for further input. Once again, I did not hear any objection from them or any of my colleagues in the House. At this point, well over 500 people had the opportunity to review the bill and express to me any concerns. The bill was published and distributed to Speaker Jetton and all House members. The bill was debated on the floor of the House, and no objection was raised to the removal of the unconstitutional language.

The House bill then worked its way through the Missouri Senate and was eventually passed. However, since the House and Senate versions were different, a conference was required to work out the differences. Following Speaker Jetton's longstanding wishes, I went into the conference trying to maintain as much of the House language as possible. By compromise, several items were added. A summary of the differences between the House and Senate bills and the proposed final bill was prepared by me, as chairman. The four-and-one-half-page summary providing a side-by-side comparison of the Senate version and the House version and which position was taken in the conference committee report was prepared and distributed to the conference committee members. The summary clearly indicated in bold print that the conference committee report would be taking the House position on the removal of the unconstitutional language in question.

The decision to remove the language in question was not taken lightly. Prior to agreeing to the deletion, I confirmed that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 2003 that these laws were unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable. I had specific conversations with prosecutors, judges and varying staff members as I went line by line through the bill and always asked them if they had any objection to anything in the bill. In regard to the deletion of this language, the answer was always the same: no. There is not a law-enforcement official in the state who could arrest anyone for violating this section either before the language was removed or after. The same holds true of any prosecutor being able to prosecute an individual either before or after this bill passed. The removal of the language had no impact whatsoever. Speaker Jetton implies that this somehow makes it easier for gay couples to adopt children in our state. However, legal experts have indicated that this is not the case.

As is apparent, I certainly did not do anything to hide this provision of the bill from anyone. In fact, it was in the original bill, and many additional steps were taken, as described above, that would in fact provide for greater transparency. No one has ever attacked my conservative credentials or my character and integrity in this fashion before. I wish that it had not come to this, because it doesn't benefit anyone. My hope is that we can put all of this behind us now that the facts are out, and move on to more important things like serving the people of Missouri.

Scott A. Lipke of Jackson represents the 157th District in the Missouri House of Representatives.