Modifies provisions relating to constitutional amendments
Summary
SJR 1 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would revise Missouri’s rules for constitutional amendments and conventions. It repeals and replaces portions of Article XII to change how initiative and legislatively referred amendments are approved, and it adds new restrictions aimed at preventing foreign influence in the amendment process.
Under the proposal, amendments proposed by the General Assembly would still be submitted to voters at a general or special election and would take effect 30 days after approval by a simple statewide majority. For citizen-initiated amendments, however, the measure would require not only a statewide majority but also a majority in more than half of Missouri’s congressional districts. The resolution also requires separate voting on each amendment and preserves existing publication requirements for proposed amendments.
Impact
If adopted, SJR 1 would directly amend the Missouri Constitution and change the legal standard for ratifying initiative constitutional amendments, making approval more difficult by adding a congressional-district majority requirement. It would also create new constitutional prohibitions on foreign nationals and entities connected to foreign nationals sponsoring initiative petitions or contributing to ballot-measure campaigns, and it would void an initiative amendment if the proponent or associated committee knowingly violated those restrictions. The measure would affect initiative petition sponsors, political committees, donors, and election administrators responsible for ballot-measure compliance and certification.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented debate history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears to reflect a reform-oriented, election-integrity framing, emphasizing limits on foreign influence and tighter ratification rules for constitutional amendments. The official summary statement presented to voters is similarly neutral and concise, focusing on those two changes.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern the added hurdle for citizen-initiated amendments and the scope of the foreign-influence restrictions. Supporters would likely view the measure as protecting the constitution from outside money and ensuring broader geographic support for amendments, while opponents may argue that the district-majority requirement makes it harder for statewide majorities to enact citizen-led changes and could dilute the effect of the popular vote. The definition of a “source connected to a foreign national” and the penalty of voiding an otherwise approved amendment may also be controversial because they could raise enforcement, compliance, and constitutional-law questions.
Proposes temporary constitutional amendment allowing State constitutional convention convened to reform system of property taxation to propose statutory changes.
Proposes temporary constitutional amendment allowing State constitutional convention convened to reform system of property taxation to propose statutory changes.
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides for the election of constitutional convention delegates and vote requirements necessary for the adoption of a new constitution (RR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
(Constitutional Amendment) Modifies disposition of certain state revenues through repeal of the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund and deposits of certain revenue streams into the Budget Stabilization Fund (RRF INCREASE GF RV See Note)
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides relative to the application of state monies to the unfunded accrued liability of the Teachers' Retirement System of La. (EN DECREASE SD RV See Note)
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.