Rep. Rick Brattin, R-District 124, has proposed a new house bill that would require all members of the Missouri General Assembly to submit to random drug testing during each legislative session.
The bill, HB1225, states “Every member of the general assembly shall be subject to random chemical testing of their urine during the legislative session for the purpose of determining drug content.”
The normal legislative session in Missouri runs from the first Wednesday in January until the legislature’s adjournment, which is midnight May 30, according to the Missouri constitution.
During this time, any elected official could be called upon to submit to a random drug test and would be required to do so during that legislative session.
Also according to the bill is the stipulation that each test, when administered, would be paid for by the respective politician whom is being tested.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing any politician’s drug use and to hold elected officials to the same standards they expect from the general public, Brattin said.
He also said since taxpayers pay elected officials’ paychecks, it is an acceptable position to assume the taxpayers should be assured drug free members are representing them.
The random drug testing would not be conducted outside the legislative session, according to the bill, and would have to be done by a licensed professional at a drug testing facility.
If an elected official tests positive for any substance deemed illegal including marijuana, that individual would be subject to immediate removal from office and be barred from running for office for two years.
This type of random drug testing could be deemed unconstitutional, as the United States Supreme Court struck down similar legislation in Georgia in 1997 that required all candidates of public office to submit to a drug test as part of the election process, according to the case Chandler v. Miller.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that this type of legislation, as in Georgia, violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unlawful search and seizure, according to the court case.
“This restraint on government conduct generally bars officials from undertaking a search or seizure absent individualized suspicion,” Justice Ruth Ginsburg said in the court documents. “Searches conducted without grounds for suspicion of particular individuals have been upheld, however, in ‘certain limited circumstances.’”
The “certain limited circumstances” refer to things like sobriety checkpoints and required drug testing of train conductors, pilots and other professions where a person is directly in charge of the safety of the public. In those cases, she argued that encroachment of the Fourth Amendment was necessary but testing politicians offered no direct protection to the public.
The total cost a legislator would expect to incur if this bill becomes reality could be around $40 to $50, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s website.
Brattin said this new legislation would put legislators on the same level of accountability as welfare recipients, who also must submit to random drug testing in certain circumstances.
Last year, Gov. Jay Nixon signed a bill that makes welfare recipients submit to a drug test and if they test positive, they must go through a drug treatment program to continue receiving benefits, according to the bill.
Also last year, a Florida judge ruled a similar law unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect. In that law, anyone applying for state assistance had to pay for and pass a drug screen, according to the ACLU, who initiated the legal challenge.
The judge cited “violations of the Fourth Amendment” in his decision, according to the ACLU’s website.
