Committee questions scope of venue change in House Bill 3,054 aimed at Cole County

The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony and sustained questioning on House Bill 3,054, a measure from Representative Ben Keithley that would (1) place Cole County within the Eastern District of the appellate circuit to rebalance caseloads and (2) direct that civil actions alleging procedural defects in enactment or the validity of a Missouri constitutional provision, statute or regulation originate in Cole County.

Representative Ben Keithley said the bill is intended to "rebalance the workload" of appellate districts and to "discourage" forum shopping by establishing a standard forum for suits that attack the validity or procedural enactment of laws. He told the committee the proposal is aimed at procedural or validity challenges — such as single‑subject (Hammerschmidt) claims or agency‑authority disputes — rather than run‑of‑the‑mill, fact‑driven injury litigation.

Committee members seized on the bill's draft language, particularly the "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause at lines 26–29, and pressed Keithley on scope and consequences. Ranking member Tyson Smith asked whether the change had political motives or would meaningfully affect outcomes; Keithley said he did not frame the bill around partisan advantage and that many such appeals are ultimately resolved at the Supreme Court level. Representative Jamieson repeatedly asked whether ordinary personal‑injury or malpractice suits could be transferred to Cole County if a pleading included a constitutional or procedural count; Keithley said the bill was intended to be limited to counts challenging the validity or procedure behind a law but acknowledged the committee may need to tighten the language and noted existing venue statutes for certain injury claims could remain controlling.

Opposition witnesses urged narrower drafting. Sharon Goway Jones, representing the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, said plaintiff lawyers commonly include constitutional counts in automobile and uninsured‑motorist cases and warned the bill "as written now ... applies to all cases and potentially including the criminal cases because of the notwithstanding clause, and we think it's overly broad." David Claridge, speaking for the Missouri Circuit Judges Association, told the committee judges in rural counties fear losing matters that would ordinarily be heard by locally elected circuit judges because the bill's wording could move them to Jefferson City (Cole County). Claridge asked whether venue would transfer automatically or only upon motion and urged clarification so local courts retain expected jurisdiction.

Eric Chinings, legislative liaison for the Judicial Conference of Missouri, offered to provide case‑count data from the judiciary's annual report to help the committee measure how many appeals and procedural challenges actually originate in Cole County and other districts.

The committee took no final vote on HB 3,054. Members asked the bill sponsor to consider redrafting the language and to provide numerical data on where these cases originate so the committee can weigh the bill's intended goal against potential burdens on litigants and local courts. The public hearing concluded and the committee adjourned.