HB1685 would amend Missouri law to establish that the state’s standard time is Central Standard Time, defined as the solar time of the 90th meridian west of Greenwich. The bill expressly states that Missouri would reject daylight saving time and remain on standard time year-round, notwithstanding any contrary federal policy allowing states to adopt daylight saving time.
The bill also includes a savings clause clarifying that it would not affect federal law governing interstate carriers or the timing of actions required of federal officers or departments. In practical terms, the measure is a state-level declaration that Missouri would not observe the seasonal time change and would instead keep clocks on standard time permanently.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Chapter 1 of the Missouri Revised Statutes and change state law on timekeeping by formally rejecting daylight saving time. It would affect state agencies, residents, businesses, schools, and other parties that rely on Missouri time conventions, while preserving federal time rules for interstate commerce and federal functions. The bill’s caption indicates it would eliminate daylight saving time in Missouri.
Sentiment
The available legislative record shows little direct debate or recorded vote activity, so there is no detailed committee or floor sentiment to assess. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to reflect a straightforward policy preference to end the biannual clock change and keep Missouri on standard time. Its referral to the Emerging Issues committee suggests it was being considered as a policy question rather than as a routine technical change.
Contention
The main point of contention is the state’s relationship to federal daylight saving time policy and whether Missouri can unilaterally opt out. Supporters would likely favor permanent standard time for consistency and simplicity, while opponents may raise concerns about coordination with neighboring states, interstate commerce, and compatibility with federal law. The bill’s explicit carve-out for federal carriers and federal officers indicates awareness of those legal limits and potential conflicts.