Proposes a constitutional amendment that requires a majority vote in each of 3/4 of the counties in the state to pass any constitutional measure submitted to the people
Summary
House Joint Resolution 85 proposes a constitutional amendment to change how Missouri constitutional amendments and statutory measures referred to voters are approved and take effect. The resolution repeals and replaces Sections 51 and 52(b) of Article III of the Missouri Constitution. Under the proposal, statutory measures approved by voters would take effect by a simple majority of votes cast, while constitutional amendments would require not only a majority of votes cast statewide but also approval in at least three-fourths of Missouri’s counties.
The measure also states that the governor’s veto power would not apply to measures referred to the people, and that such measures would generally be voted on at general elections unless the General Assembly orders a special election. If conflicting measures are approved at the same election, the one receiving the larger affirmative vote would prevail. The resolution preserves the legislature’s ability to introduce measures while changing the constitutional threshold for voter-approved amendments.
Impact
If adopted, HJR85 would significantly alter Missouri’s initiative and referendum process by making constitutional amendments much harder to enact, while leaving statutory ballot measures subject to a statewide majority vote. It would amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution and affect how ballot measures are submitted, approved, and become effective, especially by imposing a county-based supermajority-style requirement for constitutional amendments. This would likely affect citizen initiatives, legislatively referred amendments, election administration, and groups that campaign for statewide ballot measures.
Sentiment
Based on the bill caption and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a structural election-law proposal rather than a partisan policy measure with documented debate in this record. The text suggests an intent to tighten the rules for constitutional change, which typically appeals to those favoring broader geographic consensus and more difficult amendment procedures. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to show support or opposition levels.
Contention
The main point of contention is the proposed county-based approval requirement for constitutional amendments, which would make passage dependent on support in three-fourths of Missouri counties rather than only a statewide majority. Supporters would likely argue this protects rural and regional interests and prevents densely populated areas from dominating constitutional change, while opponents would likely view it as an anti-majoritarian barrier that weakens direct democracy and makes constitutional amendments disproportionately difficult to pass. The bill also raises procedural questions about the balance between voter-approved measures, legislative referral, and the governor’s role, though the text expressly limits the governor’s veto power over referred measures.