Proposes a constitutional amendment relating to certain criminal offenses
Summary
House Joint Resolution 53 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article III of the Missouri Constitution that would expressly state that nothing in the state constitution or Missouri law creates a right to possess or distribute child pornography or to engage in criminal racketeering activity as defined by federal law. The measure also affirms that the state and local governments retain authority to prohibit and punish those activities, regardless of any other constitutional or statutory provision.
In addition, the resolution would authorize any person to bring a lawsuit to enjoin individuals or entities that violate federal laws prohibiting child pornography or criminal racketeering, or that knowingly aid and abet such violations. Courts would be required to grant injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff. If approved by voters, the amendment would be submitted at the next general election or a special election called for that purpose.
Impact
If adopted, HJR53 would amend the Missouri Constitution by adding a new section to Article III, making clear that state constitutional protections cannot be interpreted to shield child pornography or criminal racketeering. It would reinforce state and local enforcement authority over those offenses and create a private right of action for injunctions against violators or those who knowingly assist them, with mandatory attorney’s fees for successful plaintiffs. The proposal would not itself define the underlying federal crimes, but would incorporate them by reference and expand enforcement mechanisms under Missouri law.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a law-and-order proposal with a strong punitive and enforcement-oriented posture. Its focus on child pornography and racketeering suggests likely broad support for the underlying policy goals, since it targets conduct already prohibited under federal law. However, there is no available discussion or voting history in the provided materials to show whether any legislators raised concerns or opposition.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the use of federal-law definitions in a state constitutional amendment and the creation of a broad private enforcement mechanism allowing “any person” to sue. Critics could question whether the amendment is necessary given existing criminal laws, whether it could invite litigation by private parties, and how the attorney’s-fee provision might affect enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize that the amendment simply reinforces the state’s authority to prohibit and punish serious criminal conduct and ensures no constitutional argument can be used to protect it.