In Defense of Constitutional Review in Missouri’s Initiative Process
State Rep. Emily Weber warned this week that recent court rulings could “effectively nullify” Missouri’s nearly 120-year-old initiative process. She argued that challenges to a ballot measure’s constitutionality can be considered only after voters approve it.
The petition at issue is being pushed by the Liberal group “Respect MO Voters.”
Secretary of State Denny Hoskins refused to certify a proposed amendment and a referendum. Judge Green of Cole County upheld his action and agreed with him on several other points. Opponents appealed.
The hyperbolic reaction raises a basic question: Who checks whether an initiative petition complies with the Missouri Constitution before it reaches the ballot?
Missouri law assigns the initial review to the secretary of state, with courts deciding whether he got it right. That process is now unfolding before us.
Missouri law requires constitutional review
The Missouri Constitution gives citizens the power to propose laws and constitutional amendments by initiative petition, subject to rules for exercising that power.
Under Article III, Section 50, a petition proposing a constitutional amendment must contain one amended and revised article or one new article containing one subject and matters properly connected with it. These requirements protect voters from proposals that bundle separate constitutional changes into one vote.
Someone must apply those rules before election officials print the ballots.
Section 116.120 assigns the initial responsibility to the secretary of state. When a signed initiative or referendum petition is submitted, the secretary “shall examine the petition” to determine whether it complies with the Missouri Constitution and Chapter 116.
The statute expressly includes the Missouri Constitution within that examination and also authorizes signature verification.
Missouri’s initiative process also includes an earlier form review. Before collecting signatures, proponents submit a sample petition to the secretary of state. Section 116.332 requires the secretary of state and attorney general to review whether it is sufficient as to form.
Early form review allows proponents to correct defects before beginning an expensive signature campaign. Once the petition returns with signatures, Section 116.120 requires the broader compliance examination.
The Missouri Supreme Court described Chapter 116’s detailed certification process in its May decision in Maggard v. Hoskins. The process ends with the secretary issuing a certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency.
Courts review the secretary’s decision
A certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency can be challenged immediately in court.
Under Section 116.200, any citizen may ask the Cole County Circuit Court to reverse the secretary’s decision. The court may order a petition certified or prevent an insufficient petition from appearing on the ballot. The law also provides for an appeal.
Proposed Amendment 6 has followed that path. After Hoskins concluded that the petition violated the single-subject and single-article requirements, its proponents sued and Green agreed with Hoskins.
The Missouri Supreme Court will hear the appeal on September 2, reviewing the merits of Hoskins’s determination and Green’s judgment before the September 8 deadline for court-ordered ballot changes.
Ballot eligibility is a constitutional question
Weber claimed pre-election challenges traditionally have been limited to procedural requirements, with constitutional challenges occurring only after voters approve a measure.
The single-subject and single-article rules are constitutional requirements governing the procedure for placing an initiative before voters. In Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, the Missouri Supreme Court listed them among the constitutional prerequisites for an initiative petition. The court applied the single-subject rule again during pre-election review in its 2024 Coleman v. Ashcroft decision.
The current dispute concerns whether Amendment 6 satisfies the constitutional rules for reaching the ballot.
The Supreme Court could conclude that Amendment 6’s provisions relate to one subject and properly belong in one constitutional article. Such a ruling would reverse his decision while preserving the review required by Section 116.120.
The consequences of removing the review
Weber wrote that Green’s rulings would empower the secretary of state to “unilaterally block petitions he opposes.” Her account leaves out the immediate court review now occurring in the Amendment 6 case.
Furthermore, in Weber’s world, any ballot measure that was able to collect enough signatures should be put in front of the voters. That would mean waiting until after adoption to challenge even a measure that plainly violated the Missouri Constitution by bundling unrelated changes across multiple constitutional articles.
A sufficient signature count establishes public support. Compliance with the Constitution determines whether the petition is legally eligible for the ballot.
Missouri’s initiative power comes from the state Constitution, along with the requirements governing its use. Section 116.120 assigns the first decision to the Secretary of State, and Section 116.200 gives courts the final say.
This is another case of Liberals losing their minds when the Secretary of State performs the basic functions of his office.
Andy Bakker
Executive Director
Liberty Alliance USA