“Dollar amounts in an appropriations bill mean something. They are not randomly drawn from a hat,” the brief notes.
In addition, the brief warns the court that it should be wary of forcing another branch of government to spend money.
“The bigger problem, from the perspective of separation of powers, is that plaintiffs invite this court to order the political branches, in perhaps unprecedented fashion, to appropriate money,” the brief notes.
Democrats who favor expansion have raised concerns about the decision by House leaders to file the brief, saying the act should have been voted on by the full chamber.
“For the House to take an official position on anything requires a majority vote of its elected members, and there has been no vote on a resolution authorizing involvement in this case. Republican leadership’s attempt to misrepresent the House’s position before Missouri’s highest court demonstrates contempt for another branch of government, and the court should disregard it,” said House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield.
“I don’t remember voting on, or even discussing, an Amicus brief, and I am not aware of any rule authorizing any member to file such brief on behalf of the whole House,” said Rep. Sarah Unsicker, D-Shrewsbury, in a Twitter post.