Public Comment

Missouri Amendment 6 would place additional constitutional protection around the initiative and referendum process. Among other provisions, it would characterize those powers as a fundamental right and generally require approval from at least 80% of each chamber of the General Assembly before lawmakers could change or repeal laws enacted through initiative, or pass laws similar to those voters rejected through referendum. Existing majority-vote and petition-signature requirements would remain. The central institutional tradeoff is between protecting voter decisions from legislative reversal and retaining lawmakers' ability to correct, update or respond to consequences of voter-enacted statutes. Direct democracy loses meaning if lawmakers can casually undo what voters just decided. But ordinary statutes also need maintenance as facts change and unintended effects appear. The threshold determines how durable a voter decision should be compared with a law passed through the Legislature.

How difficult should it be for Missouri lawmakers to change a law voters enacted—or revive one voters rejected?

Overall results

1
59% support · excluded by 9%
7

Some supermajority protection is reasonable, but 80% can make even widely recognized fixes nearly impossible in a polarized chamber.

2
53% support · excluded by 6%
6

If citizens complete the petition process and win a statewide vote, a temporary legislative majority should face a very high bar before substituting its judgment.

5

The initiative exists partly because voters may disagree with the Legislature. Letting the Legislature easily undo it defeats that purpose.

3
50% support · excluded by 6%
7

If lawmakers want to reverse the substance of a direct public vote, returning that question to voters preserves democratic legitimacy.

7

A distinction between technical maintenance and substantive reversal can protect the voters' core decision without freezing statutory mistakes into place.

4
33% support · excluded by 11%
7

Legislation often needs adjustment as courts, budgets and implementation reveal problems. One election should not prevent future elected representatives from governing through the normal process.

About the author