Provides that retrospective laws may be enacted for civil childhood sexual abuse claims
Summary
SJR 51 is a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment that would revise Article I, Section 13, which currently prohibits ex post facto laws and laws that are retrospective in operation. The resolution would keep that general prohibition in place but create a specific exception allowing retrospective laws for civil childhood sexual abuse claims. In practical terms, it asks voters to authorize the General Assembly to enact laws that revive or extend civil claims arising from childhood sexual abuse, even if those claims would otherwise be barred by existing time limits or retroactivity rules.
The measure would be placed before Missouri voters at the 2026 general election, or at a special election called for that purpose. The ballot summary states that the amendment is intended to protect children by allowing retrospective laws for civil childhood sexual abuse claims. Because it is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it does not itself change statutory law immediately; instead, it would change the state constitution if approved by voters, and then enable future legislation affecting civil remedies and limitations periods for these claims.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution to carve out a narrow exception to the state’s ban on retrospective laws. That change would affect civil litigation involving childhood sexual abuse by allowing the legislature to enact laws that apply retroactively to those claims, potentially reopening or extending civil causes of action that might otherwise be time-barred. The primary parties affected would be survivors of childhood sexual abuse, alleged abusers, institutions facing civil liability, and courts handling revived or newly authorized claims.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest a strongly supportive framing around the bill, with the official ballot language emphasizing child protection and access to civil remedies for survivors. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or detailed floor debate in the supplied record. Based on the text alone, the proposal appears to be presented as a remedial measure aimed at helping survivors pursue civil claims.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the constitutional and retroactivity issue: the proposal would create a specific exception to Missouri’s general prohibition on retrospective laws. Supporters would view this as necessary to protect survivors and allow civil accountability, while critics may argue that retroactive civil liability undermines settled expectations, due process, or finality for defendants and institutions. Because no discussion transcripts or votes were included, the record does not identify specific legislators or stakeholder groups taking those positions, but the tension is inherent in the amendment’s design.