SJR 78 is a proposed constitutional amendment for Missouri that would substantially revise Article III, which governs the General Assembly. The resolution would submit the changes to voters at the 2026 general election or a special election called by the governor. Its central feature is a major overhaul of legislative redistricting: it replaces the current process with an independent bipartisan citizens commission for both the House and Senate, and it sets detailed criteria for drawing districts, including population equality, compliance with federal law and the Voting Rights Act, compactness, preservation of political subdivisions and communities, and partisan fairness/competitiveness standards.
The measure also changes the size and structure of the House of Representatives, increasing it from 163 to 170 members beginning with the 107th General Assembly. It revises term limits for legislators, generally allowing service for eight consecutive years in one chamber and sixteen consecutive years across both chambers, with waiting periods before returning. In addition, it updates legislative pay and expense provisions, requires legislators to devote full time to their duties, changes the General Assembly’s convening and adjournment dates, and modifies procedures for bill enrollment, gubernatorial veto consideration, and veto override sessions. The resolution also removes or replaces several existing constitutional provisions governing redistricting, referendum limits, and special-session procedures.
If adopted, the proposal would directly amend the Missouri Constitution and alter how legislative districts are drawn, who draws them, and how challenges to redistricting plans are handled. It would also affect the composition and operation of the General Assembly, including member eligibility, compensation, session timing, and the governor’s role in the legislative process. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would not change ordinary statutes by itself, but it would supersede any conflicting state constitutional provisions and require future laws and legislative practices to conform to the new framework.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so no formal legislative debate or recorded sentiment is available here. Based on the text alone, the proposal appears aimed at reforming redistricting and legislative operations in a more structured, independent, and transparency-focused way. The absence of votes or hearing records means there is no documented support or opposition in the supplied context.
The main points of contention likely center on the shift away from legislative control over redistricting to an independent commission, the use of partisan-fairness metrics and wasted-vote calculations, the increase in House membership, and the changes to term limits and legislative compensation. The detailed redistricting standards and judicial fallback procedures could also be controversial because they constrain discretion and introduce technical criteria that may be difficult to administer or litigate. Supporters would likely favor the anti-gerrymandering and transparency provisions, while critics may object to the complexity, the commission structure, or the broader restructuring of legislative power.
SJR 78 would amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution by repealing and replacing multiple sections governing legislative apportionment, term limits, compensation, sessions, veto procedures, and special sessions. Its most significant legal effect is to create an independent bipartisan citizens commission, with a judicial fallback, to redraw both House and Senate districts under detailed constitutional standards. It would also increase House membership to 170, revise legislative term limits, and alter constitutional rules on adjournment, veto overrides, and bill processing, thereby changing the framework that governs the General Assembly and related election administration.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the supplied history. From the bill text, the measure reads as a reform-oriented proposal focused on redistricting independence, transparency, and partisan fairness, suggesting likely support from advocates of anti-gerrymandering reforms. At the same time, the breadth of the changes and the technical redistricting standards suggest it could draw skepticism from those concerned about commission design, judicial involvement, or the impact on legislative control and operations.
The most likely areas of contention are the replacement of legislative redistricting with an independent bipartisan commission, the partisan-fairness and competitiveness requirements, and the detailed wasted-vote formula used to evaluate maps. The increase in House size, the revised term-limit structure, and the changes to legislative pay and session timing may also be disputed. Supporters would likely emphasize fairer maps, compliance with federal voting law, and transparency, while opponents may argue that the proposal is overly complex, reduces elected lawmakers’ authority, or creates new litigation and administrative burdens.