Proposes a Constitutional amendment prohibiting a statutory initiative measure approved by the voters to be amended or repealed by the General Assembly, except under certain conditions
Summary
HJR38 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article III of the Missouri Constitution that would restrict the General Assembly’s ability to amend or repeal statutory initiative measures after voters have approved them. Under the proposed language, a voter-approved initiative statute could not be changed by the legislature unless one of three conditions is met: more than six years have passed since the measure’s passage, both chambers approve the change by a three-fourths supermajority, or the legislature refers the change to voters and it is approved at the next general election.
The resolution would place this question before Missouri voters at the next general election in 2026, or at a special election called by the governor. If adopted, it would strengthen the durability of citizen-initiated statutes by making post-enactment legislative changes much harder, while preserving limited pathways for amendment or repeal through time, supermajority legislative action, or direct voter approval.
Impact
If approved, HJR38 would amend the Missouri Constitution and directly affect the balance of power between the electorate and the General Assembly. It would not itself change any substantive statute, but it would alter the rules governing how voter-approved initiative laws can later be modified, repealed, or overridden. The practical effect would be to protect initiative measures from ordinary legislative revision and to require either a waiting period, a supermajority vote, or another statewide vote before changes could take effect.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a voter-protection and initiative-integrity proposal, with no recorded committee discussion or vote history provided. The overall sentiment suggested by the caption and language is supportive of preserving the force of citizen-enacted laws and limiting legislative interference. Because there are no transcripts or votes in the available record, there is no documented opposition or support from specific legislators or stakeholders in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the degree to which the General Assembly should be constrained after voters approve an initiative. Supporters would likely argue that the amendment protects direct democracy and prevents lawmakers from weakening voter-approved laws too easily. Opponents would likely argue that it unduly ties the hands of elected legislators, especially if a voter-approved measure needs technical fixes, policy adjustments, or repeal in response to unintended consequences. The supermajority requirement and the six-year waiting period are the key features that would draw debate.