St. Louis is one of many cities hitting roadblocks at statehouses

He pointed to House Speaker Todd Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, and paraphrased Exodus 9:1: “This is the second or third time this session that we’re going to do something that affects something only in St. Louis,” he said. “Pharoah, let my people go.”

Most of the chamber ignored the invocation, voting 118-36 to nix the ordinance.

But the desperation of Butler’s message reflects a growing trend among liberal cities yearning to push progressive ideas, only to find themselves bound to red-state lawmakers.

With Republicans in full control of nearly two-thirds of state legislatures, both houses of Congress and now the White House, city halls have become the last bulwark of Democratic power in many places between the coasts.

And with little hope for cooperation with pro-business and socially conservative state lawmakers, mayors and city councils have adopted their own rules raising minimum wages, decriminalizing marijuana and extending discrimination protections for LGBT residents.

Statehouses are fighting back.

At least 12 states, including Missouri, have passed legislation preempting local minimum wage laws in the past four years. Fifteen states bar cities from mandating employers to provide paid leave. Missouri is looking to join 32 others banning local rules on ride-hailing companies such as Uber and three others blocking anti-discrimination laws.

Some states offer protections for their big industries, as Texas and Oklahoma have for fracking. Thirteen states keep municipalities from setting rules on agricultural operations.

And in Arizona, any state legislator can freeze funding to a city he or she believes is getting out of line with state law.

Cities’ frustration

Preemption has precedent in many states. The National Rifle Association began working on statehouses to eliminate local gun control laws in the 1970s and now has legislation passed in 43 states. The tobacco industry got laws passed preempting smoke-free policies in more than a dozen states.

But the recent rebukes have frustrated municipal officials who feel they’re the ones who know the needs of their city and its people best.

Charlotte’s ordinance establishing legal protections for LGBT residents drew nationwide attention last year when an outraged North Carolina legislature overruled it and barred transgender people from using the restroom matching their gender identity for nearly a year. The ordinance’s opponents said Charlotte’s liberal idealism was going to end up giving sexual predators access to women’s restrooms.

But Charlotte City Councilwoman LaWana Mayfield said the ordinance was a carefully considered response to transgender residents’ complaints about harassment in restaurants and other public places. Council members found similar protections in more than 200 other cities, including nearby economic competitor Charleston, S.C., and at major area employers such as Bank of America.

“We have the right to protect our citizens and welcome the people who come here to visit,” Mayfield said, “and it is our duty to take a stand for our community and say we don’t tolerate hate here.”

In St. Louis, Alderman Megan Green, 15th Ward, had similar reasons for supporting a minimum wage increase and pushing protections for women who have had an abortion, use contraceptives or are pregnant.

“St. Louis is a progressive city, and people move here and work here because of that,” she said. “We have a bigger, more diverse population that has different needs, and those need to be respected.”

A patchwork of rules

But where city officials see pragmatic policy, state lawmakers and business interests find rebellion.

They say their economic intervention keeps cities from creating a patchwork of rules that are confusing and unfair to businesses and their employees.

“When cities enact these unilateral wage laws, they’re making things more expensive for businesses who aren’t seeing any additional revenue,” said Ray McCarty, a lobbyist for the business group Associated Industries of Missouri. “That means businesses may not be able to afford as many jobs.”

As for overriding social justice policies, lawmakers say they’re protecting the rights of residents threatened by unchecked liberal activists.

“There are some municipalities who feel they’re not very well represented in the state,” said Rep. Jason Chipman, R-Steelville, who is sponsoring a bill to block St. Louis’ minimum wage increase. “But it’s the state’s job to protect all of its citizens, not just the ones outside where they want to create their little bubbles.”

That kind of rhetoric often confirms for local officials that their capitols do not care what they think, despite the outsize contributions their cities make to state economies.

“Tennessee couldn’t pay the bills in this state without Nashville and Memphis,” said Dave Rosenberg, a Nashville metro councilman. And yet the state legislature forbade local tobacco ordinances, a rule against guns in parks and a minimum wage increase — and now has Rosenberg’s marijuana decriminalization ordinance in its crosshairs.

“It tells the people in here that their opinions don’t matter because it’s not something a legislator wants in their community,” he said.

But Chipman is legally correct. The U.S. Constitution recognizes only the states and federal government; cities are created, chartered and governed by the states.

“If the state wanted to abolish all political subdivisions and govern everything directly, it could,” University of Missouri law professor Richard Ruben said.

St. Louis has expansive home rule powers that allow it to effectively govern itself, Ruben added. But that doesn’t mean it can ignore state law.

Hypocrisy or politics?

Even as they deny local control to cities, Missouri Republicans have endorsed the idea of local control when it suits them — especially when it involves the federal government.

They’ve called measures that would bring Missouri drivers licenses in line with federal standards “capitulation bills.” Rep. Robert Ross, R-Yukon, tried to attach an amendment to the House proposal requiring any elected official who voted for them to declare on election documents: “I would rather kneel to the federal government than stand strong protecting my constituents’ right to privacy.”

When then-President Barack Obama issued an order directing schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom matching their gender identity, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, Mo., told former education secretary John King that “Local school boards should be responsible for making decisions on access to restrooms, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington.”

City Democrats see hypocrisy, but Ken Warren, a political scientist at St. Louis University, sees typical politics.

“Politics is inherently a hypocritical profession,” he said. “Republicans pushed for a lot of measures to centralize federal control when they were in power so liberal states couldn’t have flexibility; Democrats did the same thing, and Republicans would object.”

Now that Republicans control nearly all of the upper two levels of government, he continued, they can enforce their will and block efforts they don’t like.

“But that’s just the way our democracy works,” he said.

The political divide is likely to continue, said Brooks Rainwater, director of the Center for City Solutions at the National League of Cities.

“And that’s unfortunate, because we’re all dealing with the same problems of poverty, opioid addiction, affordable housing and making a living wage,” he said. “But instead of having leaders over here working with leaders other there, we’re just pitting them against each other.”