Testimony in Opposition to HJR 92

As the largest and oldest anti-poverty non-profit in our state, Empower Missouri is committed to improving the quality of life for all Missouri residents through advocacy. Since our inception, Empower Missouri has focused on the criminal justice system and its impacts. Our Community Justice Coalition consists of community advocates and organizations from across the state who work with those who have been impacted by the criminal justice system. Many coalition members are formerly incarcerated or have currently incarcerated loved ones, and all are connected by a vision for a future without mass incarceration. 

HJR 92 proposes a constitutional amendment that, upon voter approval, would provide for the levying of costs and fees as part of the “administration of justice” to be used specifically to support salaries and benefits of law enforcement personnel, including sheriffs and former sheriffs and current and former prosecutors. Research shows that fines and fees are not the most effective way to fund law enforcement, for multiple reasons outlined below. Low-income individuals and families are already overburdened by court costs, and we are wary of imposing any additional fees that would disproportionately impact this population. For these reasons, we urge the committee to oppose HJR 92. We should look to alternative funding sources instead, including the existing retirement plans in place for other local and county government employees, such as Missouri LAGERS and Missouri CERF. Sheriffs and prosecutors aren’t currently included in these local pension plans.

• Missouri law enforcement deserves adequate, reliable funding. Yet, fees are extremely difficult to collect, making them an unreliable and improper source of law enforcement funding. Because the majority of people in the system are low-income, these fees are primarily levied on people who lack the financial resources to pay them. Research has shown that states spend a huge amount of money trying to collect fees, and still collection rates are often very low. In some cases, states spend more on collections than the amount collected, meaning they lose money trying to pursue this revenue source.

• Higher fees are linked with higher recidivism. When people lack the money to pay their fees, they may commit new crimes to find the money in order to avoid being arrested or incarcerated for not paying fees. A survey of more than 900 people with court debt found nearly 2 in 5 people admitted to engaging in criminal behavior for purposes of paying their court debt, including selling drugs, theft, sex work, writing bad checks, and dealing in stolen goods. Research has shown increased fees were linked to both increases in both recidivism and the severity of reoffending.

• Fee elimination is a commonsense reform that conservatives across the country have supported. States like Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma have recently passed bills to eliminate fees, recognizing the harm that fees do to public safety and the need for more reliable funding for essential government services like law enforcement and courts. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Criminal Justice Task Force recently recognized the public safety harm that comes from reliance on fees in their Resolution in Support of Effective Strategies to Support Law Enforcement and  Reduce Violent Crime. The ALEC policy encourages state policymakers to adequately fund law enforcement and to “stop forcing law enforcement to fund significant percentages of their budgets through fines, fees, and forfeitures and [to] instead fund them through a consistent and transparent budgetary process.”

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.