Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Missouri to require Jackson County to have an elected assessor
Summary
HJR23 proposes a constitutional amendment for Missouri voters that would revise Article VI, Section 18(b) governing county charters. The measure would remove existing constitutional language that allows an exception for certain large charter counties and instead require every county charter to provide that the county assessor is an elected officer and must meet all training requirements established by general law. In practical terms, the resolution is aimed at changing how assessors are selected in charter counties and at standardizing assessor qualifications statewide.
Because this is a joint resolution, it does not itself change state law immediately; it places the proposed constitutional amendment before the voters at the next general election or a special election called for that purpose. If approved, it would alter the Missouri Constitution and override any conflicting county charter provisions, especially in counties that currently use a different method for selecting the assessor. The bill is framed as a constitutional election question rather than a statutory change, but it would have direct effects on county governance and local election structures if adopted.
Impact
If adopted by voters, the amendment would require charter counties to elect their assessors and to comply with statewide training standards for that office, limiting local flexibility in county charter design. It would amend the Missouri Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 18(b), and would affect county governments, county officers, and any county charter provisions inconsistent with the new requirement. The measure is especially relevant to Jackson County, which is identified in the bill caption as the county targeted by the proposal.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests strong legislative support for the proposal. The House advanced the measure by a wide margin, and the Senate third-reading vote was unanimous. Subsequent House votes on Senate amendments were also unanimous, indicating broad bipartisan agreement or at least little recorded opposition in the chambers. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support through votes rather than detailed debate.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be local control versus statewide uniformity. Supporters of the measure appear to favor requiring an elected assessor and uniform training standards, while the constitutional language indicates the change would remove an exception that may currently apply to a large charter county. The bill’s caption specifically references Jackson County, suggesting the practical dispute centers on whether that county should be required to elect its assessor rather than use another selection method. The absence of recorded committee debate limits the ability to identify additional arguments, but the structure of the amendment indicates concern over county charter autonomy and assessor accountability.