SB 1119 creates a new Missouri statute governing how the state would select and direct commissioners if an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution is ever called. The bill sets the number of Missouri commissioners and alternates at one per congressional district, requires them to be Missouri residents who meet the qualifications for the Missouri House, and bars certain federal officials, federal employees, federal contractors, and statewide elected officials from serving. It also requires that at least one-third of commissioners and alternates be non-legislators and subjects them to ethics rules similar to those applying to lawmakers.
The bill gives the General Assembly primary control over Missouri’s participation in the convention. Commissioners must be selected by concurrent resolution from nominees recommended by a joint legislative committee, and they must take an oath to follow legislative instructions and stay within the scope of Missouri’s convention application. The General Assembly is directed to adopt instructions on what commissioners may consider and vote on, including a requirement that Missouri support the one-state, one-vote rule and that a simple majority of Missouri commissioners determines the state’s vote. Any vote outside those instructions or outside the state’s application is void.
SB 1119 also creates a joint legislative committee to recommend eligible commissioners and alternates, propose commissioner instructions, investigate alleged unauthorized votes, and recall commissioners who exceed their authority. The committee is bipartisan, with five senators and five representatives split between majority and minority parties, and it may operate by telephone or electronic communication. The General Assembly retains the power to override committee actions, recall or replace commissioners, and revise instructions by concurrent resolution.
The bill’s impact on state law is to establish a detailed statutory framework for Missouri’s role in any future Article V convention, including appointment procedures, eligibility rules, voting authority, oversight, and recall mechanisms. It does not itself call for a convention, but it would govern Missouri’s conduct if one occurs and would constrain commissioners to act as agents of the legislature rather than independent delegates.
The available discussion and voting history suggest the bill moved with substantial support, passing the Senate 24-8 and the House 103-24. The limited committee transcript does not show substantive debate, but the structure of the bill indicates a strong emphasis on legislative control and constitutional caution. Likely points of contention include whether the legislature should be able to bind commissioners so tightly, whether the one-state, one-vote instruction should be mandatory, and whether the recall and voiding provisions could conflict with how an Article V convention is ultimately organized.
SB 1119 adds section 21.950 to Missouri law to regulate the selection, instruction, oversight, and recall of commissioners and alternates for any future Article V constitutional convention. It affects the General Assembly, a newly authorized joint legislative committee, and any Missouri commissioners participating in such a convention by making their authority contingent on legislative instructions and by declaring unauthorized votes void.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in both chambers, as reflected by strong floor vote margins in the Senate and House. The sparse committee record does not show detailed objections or endorsements, but the bill’s passage suggests broad support for a framework that keeps Missouri’s convention delegation under close legislative supervision.
The main areas of potential disagreement are institutional and constitutional rather than partisan. Supporters likely favor legislative control, eligibility restrictions, and recall authority as safeguards against unauthorized action at a convention. Critics may object that the bill gives the General Assembly too much power over commissioners, attempts to predetermine convention procedure, and could be difficult to reconcile with the rules of an Article V convention or with broader constitutional questions about delegate independence.