Proposes a constitutional amendment allowing retrospective laws to be enacted if the laws involve civil childhood sexual abuse claims
Summary
HJR79 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article I of the Missouri Constitution that would revise the state’s prohibition on retrospective laws. Under current constitutional language, Missouri bars ex post facto laws, laws impairing contracts, and laws that are retrospective in operation, along with irrevocable grants of special privileges or immunities. The resolution would repeal Section 13 and replace it with new language that keeps the general prohibition but creates a specific exception allowing retrospective laws when they involve civil childhood sexual abuse claims.
If approved by voters, the measure would submit the amendment at the next general election in 2026, or at a special election called by the governor. The practical effect would be to permit the General Assembly to enact laws that apply retroactively in this narrow category, which could affect civil claims arising from childhood sexual abuse and potentially alter limitations or procedural rules tied to those claims.
Impact
The resolution would change the Missouri Constitution by narrowing the existing ban on retrospective legislation. It would preserve the general rule against ex post facto and retrospective laws, but carve out an express constitutional exception for civil childhood sexual abuse claims. This would give lawmakers authority to pass retroactive measures in that area without violating Article I, Section 13, and could affect survivors, defendants, insurers, and courts handling such civil cases.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest the bill is framed in a supportive, remedial way, with the stated purpose of allowing civil childhood sexual abuse claims to be addressed through retrospective legislation. There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or bipartisan support in the record supplied. Based on the caption and text alone, the measure appears intended to expand legal remedies for survivors rather than to make a broad constitutional change.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the constitutional exception itself: whether Missouri should relax its longstanding prohibition on retrospective laws, even in a limited context. Supporters would likely emphasize access to justice for survivors of childhood sexual abuse and the need to permit retroactive civil remedies, while opponents may worry about due process, settled expectations, and the broader precedent of allowing retroactive legislation. Because no transcripts or votes are included, specific legislators or stakeholder positions cannot be identified from the provided record.