When Courts Rewrite Ballot Language, Who Decides?
This week, a Cole County Judge ordered revisions to the ballot language for Missouri Amendment 4, the measure designed to strengthen constitutional protections against foreign funding and reform the initiative petition process.
The ruling did not remove the measure from the ballot. Instead, the court objected to parts of the summary language and required that it be rewritten.
That may sound technical. It is not.
Why Constitutional Status Matters for Missouri Amendment 4
The court took issue with language stating that Amendment 4 would stop foreign nationals from influencing Missouri’s Constitution and punish initiative petition signature fraud as a crime. The reasoning was that these prohibitions already exist in statute.
But constitutional status matters.
Statutes can be changed or repealed by a simple majority vote of the legislature. Constitutional provisions cannot.
Supporters of the pro-abortion Amendment 3 in 2024 organized under the name Missourians for Constitutional Freedom. That name suggests an understanding that what goes into the Constitution carries a different weight than what remains in statute.
The debate is whether protections against foreign spending in Missouri ballot measure campaigns belong in the Constitution.
Who Gets to Decide What Matters Most in Missouri Amendment 4?
The court also raised concerns about emphasis, suggesting that certain provisions were highlighted over others.
But deciding which part of a multi-section amendment is “most important” is inherently subjective.
Some voters will care most about stopping foreign influence. Others will focus on petition fraud. Others may focus on changes to the approval process.
That judgment belongs to voters.
Ballot language disputes often reflect political disagreement. Supporters and opponents naturally describe a measure differently because they disagree about its merits.
In our system, elected representatives make those political determinations and answer to voters for them. If Missourians disagree with how something is described, they can hold lawmakers accountable at the ballot box.
Judges, though, are not directly accountable to voters.
The Way Forward for Missouri Amendment 4
If the concern is clarity, there is already a model the courts have accepted.
In 2024, Amendment 7 was summarized in part as “Mak[ing] the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote.”
That language acknowledged the distinction between statute and constitutional placement without treating the elevation of protections as insignificant.
If the same standard were applied here, Amendment 4’s summary could simply clarify that it makes the Constitution consistent with existing law by elevating protections against foreign influence and petition fraud to constitutional status.
If constitutional placement is meaningful in one context, it is meaningful in another.
Courts should ensure clarity. They should not decide which policy provisions deserve emphasis or how voters ought to weigh them. That responsibility belongs to the people.
Missourians are fully capable of deciding for themselves what matters most. The judiciary’s role is to ensure the rules are followed, not to reshape the debate.
If our judges want to be involved in the political process so badly, they should be subject to elections and accountable to the people. Under our current system of judicial selection by commission, they’re accountable only to their peers and the Bar Association.
Andy Bakker
Executive Director
Liberty Alliance USA