Missouri House initiative petition bills vary from Senate proposal
Both chambers that make up the Missouri General Assembly are considering legislation that would make it harder to pass citizen-led ballot initiatives — but the approach taken in the bills differs.
The Missouri Senate hopes to enact a concurrent majority system, meaning that a majority of voters, 50% plus one, and a majority of Congressional districts, five out of eight, must approve of a citizen-led initiative petition in order for it to pass.
If passed by the legislature and later by voters at the ballot box, this would apply to constitutional amendments, while statutory amendments would still need just a simple majority of votes to pass. The downside of statutory amendments is the ease with which they can be changed or even repealed by the legislature, such as what happened with a voter-approved petition banning puppy mills in 2010.
Republican lawmakers in the Missouri House have proposed changes to the initiative petition process that would impact the way that signature gatherers are compensated and where those signatures would have to be gathered.
Missouri Senate committee hears House IP bill
Legislation from Rep. Mike Haffner, HB 1749, would rewrite several of the rules pertaining to placing an initiative petition on the ballot, including a requirement that signature gatherers be Missouri residents.
Haffner’s legislation would also prohibit practices that pay signature gatherers per signature collected, which he thinks will reduce the incentive to enter fraudulent signatures. Under the bill, only a Missouri voter can bring legal challenges against petitions.
“Missourians deserve a constitution shaped by their voices, not swayed by out-of-state influences or deep pockets. Initiative petition reform is a crucial step in ensuring that the power to shape our state’s future remains firmly in the hands of its people, free from undue external pressures,” Haffner said in a release. “This proposal, if passed, will put Missourians in control of their destiny, safeguarding the integrity of our democratic process through thoughtful and necessary reforms.”
Additionally, Haffner’s legislation would invalidate signatures collected under ballot summary language that is later changed by the court. Last year, ballot initiatives seeking to legalize abortion disputed ballot language in a lengthy legal battle.
The now-defunct petition from Jamie Corley collected signatures while the case was ongoing, but Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind the petition to legalize abortion that is currently collecting signatures, waited to do so until the legal battle was behind them.
Haffner’s legislation passed the House on Feb. 22 with a vote of 104-41, and was heard by the Senate Local Government and Elections committee on Monday. House Speaker Dean Plocher praised Haffner’s bill when it passed the House.
“Initiative petition reform is essential to uphold the integrity of our electoral process. Representative Haffner’s
commitment to prioritizing Missouri’s interests resonates with the need for clearer standards, ensuring that our citizens, not external forces, drive the decisions that shape our great state,” Plocher said.
In the Senate hearing, Trish Vincent, deputy secretary of state for Missouri, praised Haffner’s legislation. Haffner worked closely with the secretary of state’s office for more than a year to ensure that his legislation met legal standards before filing it.
Many of the details in Haffner’s legislation create more efficient methods for the office to process initiative petitions, including the introduction of “Standardized Petition Signature Pages.”
“These efficiencies in this bill would really, really help the secretary of state’s office and our county clerks,” Vincent said.
However, some public witnesses took issue with the bill, including Denise Lieberman, director and general counsel of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, who said that limiting signature collection positions to only Missouri residents is unconstitutional.
“Limiting who can circulate petitions for support or disseminate ideas has been found by courts all over this country to infringe on rights of free expression, barring circulators from engaging in political speech,” Lieberman said. “That does violate both the Missouri and federal constitutions.”
Jeff Smith, a lobbyist for the ACLU, was concerned with the expansion of powers to review petitions that this legislation would give to both the Missouri attorney general and secretary of state.
“This is far beyond review for form and we fear that it would install partisan politicians as essential gatekeepers to the initiative petition process, giving them the power to grant or deny access to what should be a right of the people,” Smith said.
Last year, the state’s attorney general refused to certify ballot language on an abortion ballot initiative, resulting in a lengthy legal battle that ate into the time that petitioners could gather signatures. On another abortion proposal, the attorney general estimated it would cost the state $21 million because he would refuse to defend any cases brought about the issue, requiring outside counsel to be hired.
Elizabeth Franklin, a veteran and rural resident of Northern Missouri, raised concerns about the residency requirement in Haffner’s bill, pointing to the need of military spouses to find quick employment when relocating to new states.
“Active military and families transferring to Missouri is common,” Franklin said. “Spouses need immediate ability to find part time work. Petition work is ideal. It’s flexible. It allows for childcare, running kids to and from school while they look for full time work. This bill refuses their participation for 30 days. As a veteran, that concerns me.”
The Senate committee took no action on the bill in this hearing.
Missouri House approves initiative petition package similar to Senate bill
On Tuesday, the Missouri House passed Rep. John Black’s HJR 86 with a voice vote. It would also enact a concurrent majority like that proposed in the Senate’s initiative petition bill, requiring a majority of voters, 50% plus one, and a majority of Congressional districts, five out of eight, to approve of a citizen-led initiative petition in order for it to pass.
It includes the “ballot candy” stripped from the Senate initiative petition package that says only citizens can vote and prohibits foreign interference in ballot initiatives, two items that are already protected by state or federal law.
One notable inclusion in the bill is the requirement that any citizen-led initiatives seeking a statutory change, not a change to the state constitution, can only be altered by an affirming vote from four-sevenths of both the Missouri House and Senate, provided that a court has not deemed the statute invalid.
This could serve as an incentive to enact more statutory changes than constitutional changes, if it was harder for the General Assembly to change them. However, with the Republican supermajority in both chambers, gaining a four-sevenths majority would not be a very daunting task, if the statutory change was something conservative members opposed.
This legislation would require signature gatherers to collect valid signatures equal to 8% of legal voters in all of the state’s eight Congressional districts in order for a petition to make the ballot. Currently, petitioners must gather signatures equal to 8% of legal voters in six of the eight Congressional districts.
It would also enact a period of public review for constitutional amendments that must be moderated by the secretary of state’s office.
During floor debate on the bill, Rep. Darin Chappell spoke in support of the bill. He used the country’s founding documents to show what he interprets as the founders’ intentions that the country be set up as a republic, not a democracy. He then challenged the assertions that this is “undemocratic.”
“I keep hearing the word undemocratic. It threatens our democracy,” Chappell said. “I threaten democracy because we are not a democracy.”
“The simple fact of the matter is in all of the foundational writings of this great nation, there is one word that is glaringly absent, because the Founding Fathers considered it and found it wanting in every example throughout the entirety of human history where it was employed,” Chappell said. “Democracy is found nowhere in our original writings, except in derision. We are a republican form of government.”
This drew sharp criticism from Democratic House members, including Rep. Keri Ingle, who said the legislation was unfairly weighting the votes of rural Missourians, negating the concept of one person, one vote.
“If I’m understanding you correctly, your view is that some urban and suburban centers shouldn’t inflict their will upon rural areas, but rural areas should absolutely be able to inflict their will upon the suburban and urban centers,” Ingle asked.
This is an argument that was echoed in debate about the Senate’s initiative petition legislation. Many Republicans feel that the more populous urban areas carry ballot initiatives to victory, while rural residents don’t always agree with the constitutional changes. Democrats contend that one person has the power of their one vote, regardless of where they live.
Ingle summed up her statement by saying, “Land does not vote. People vote.”
Following the House vote, the group Conservatives Against Corruption issued a release containing their opposition to the measure. Fred Steinbach, former Mayor of Chesterfield and Finance Director for former Governor John Ashcroft, spoke on previous attempts to alter the initiative petition process in 1992, when Democrats were upset about the passage of the Hancock Amendment. At that time, Ashcroft vetoed efforts to change initiative petitions.
“In his veto statement, Ashcroft said that ‘the General Assembly should be reluctant … to enact legislation which places any impediments on the initiative power which are inconsistent with the reservation found in the Constitution.’ I ask that this legislature listen to the advice from our former Governor when considering further legislative action on this political power grab,” Steinbach said in the release.