Proposes a constitutional amendment that modifies term limits for members of the general assembly
Summary
House Joint Resolution 67 proposes a constitutional amendment to change Missouri’s legislative term-limit rules. It would repeal the current Section 8 of Article III and replace it with new limits on how long a person may serve in the Missouri General Assembly and in certain leadership roles.
Under the proposed amendment, before December 5, 2030, a person could not be elected to serve more than eight total years in one chamber or more than sixteen total years across both chambers, with certain prior service and short partial-term service excluded from the calculation. Beginning December 5, 2030, the measure would allow no more than sixteen total years of legislative service in both houses combined, counting service from elections before that date. It would also limit service as Speaker of the House to two terms and as President Pro Tempore of the Senate to one term. The resolution places the question before voters at the next general election or a special election called for that purpose.
Impact
If approved by voters, the resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution and directly change the eligibility rules for members of the General Assembly. It would alter how legislative service is counted, extend the total service cap structure into a single sixteen-year statewide limit after 2030, and impose new limits on how long a legislator may hold the top leadership posts in each chamber. The measure would affect current and future legislators, especially those nearing existing term-limit thresholds, and would require election officials and the legislature to apply the new constitutional rules when determining candidate eligibility and service credit.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a formal, policy-driven proposal with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The general tone is neutral and procedural, as it simply submits a constitutional amendment to the voters. Because no transcripts or votes are available, there is no documented public or legislative sentiment in the supplied record beyond the fact that the proposal advanced as a joint resolution.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns term limits themselves: whether Missouri legislators should face stricter or more flexible service caps, and whether leadership positions should be separately limited. Supporters would likely view the amendment as promoting turnover and limiting entrenched power, while opponents could argue it reduces institutional experience and voter choice. The transition rule—especially the change in counting service before and after December 5, 2030—could also be a source of dispute because it affects how existing lawmakers’ prior service is treated.