The Missouri Senate is once again tackling Initiative Petition (IP) Reform this session, aiming to reshape how citizens can propose laws or constitutional amendments directly through petitions. This democratic mechanism has long been a point of contention, with lawmakers seeking to balance accessibility with safeguards against misuse. This year, several Senate Joint Resolutions (SJRs)—SJR 11, SJR 10, SJR 30, and SJR 47—are under consideration, each proposing distinct changes to the process. Among them, Senator Mike Moon’s SJR 10 is being hailed as the standout solution. Yet, as Missouri enters its eighth year of promised IP Reform, the legislature’s history of unfulfilled commitments—including the failure of SJR 74 in the 2024 session—raises doubts about whether meaningful change is on the horizon.
SJR 11: Tightening the Signature Collection Process
SJR 11 zeroes in on the signature collection process, a foundational step in getting an initiative petition onto the ballot. Under the current system, proponents of a constitutional amendment must collect signatures from 8% of legal voters in two-thirds of Missouri’s congressional districts, while statutory changes require 5%. SJR 11 proposes a significant overhaul, raising these thresholds to 15% for amendments and 10% for laws. This increase is designed to ensure that only initiatives with substantial, widespread support advance, filtering out proposals that lack broad appeal.
Beyond raising the bar, SJR 11 introduces stricter verification measures. It mandates cross-checking signatures against voter registration databases and imposes harsher penalties for fraudulent submissions. These changes will bolster the integrity of the process, preventing manipulation and ensuring that signatures reflect genuine voter intent.
SJR 10, SJR 30, and SJR 47: Shared Goals, Divergent Paths
SJR 10, SJR 30, and SJR 47 all aim to reform the initiative petition process, particularly for constitutional amendments, but their approaches diverge in key ways. Understanding their similarities and differences sheds light on the broader debate within the Missouri Senate.
Similarities
At their core, these resolutions share a common objective: making it harder to amend the Missouri Constitution via initiative petitions. Currently, a simple statewide majority is enough to pass an amendment. SJR 10, SJR 30, and SJR 47 reject this, proposing a dual-majority system that requires both a statewide majority and approval across a specified number of districts. This shift reflects a belief that the state’s foundational document should only change with broad, geographically diverse support, preventing urban areas from dominating the process at the expense of rural regions.
Differences
SJR 10 (Senator Mike Moon): This resolution requires a statewide majority plus approval in more than half of Missouri’s 163 state House of Representatives districts. It also restricts voting on constitutional amendments to legal Missouri residents who are U.S. citizens, emphasizing local control and sovereignty.
SJR 30(Senator Ben Brown (26)): SJR 30 calls for a statewide majority and approval in more than half of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. It adds safeguards against external influence, banning foreign governments or political parties from sponsoring or funding petitions, and mandates a public review period to increase transparency.
SJR 47 (Senator Jill Carter): This proposal sets the highest bar, requiring a statewide majority and approval in three-quarters of the congressional districts. It focuses on campaign finance, prohibiting foreign entities from contributing to campaign committees involved in initiative petitions.
These differences highlight varied priorities: SJR 10 emphasizes localized consensus, SJR 30 targets foreign interference and transparency, and SJR 47 prioritizes an exceptionally high approval threshold and financial oversight.
Senator Mike Moon’s SJR 10: The Best Solution?
Among the proposals, Senator Mike Moon’s SJR 10 stands out as the strongest contender. Its requirement for approval in over half of the state House districts—smaller, more numerous units than congressional districts—ensures that constitutional changes reflect the will of diverse communities across Missouri, not just its urban hubs. This granular approach addresses a persistent criticism of the current system: that rural voices are often drowned out by concentrated urban support.
Additionally, SJR 10’s citizenship provision, limiting voting on amendments to Missouri residents who are U.S. citizens, reinforces the idea that only those directly invested in the state should shape its constitution. This combination of widespread geographic support and a focus on local sovereignty makes SJR 10 a robust solution, striking a balance that neither overcomplicates the process (like SJR 47) nor overlooks critical safeguards (like some broader proposals). It’s a practical, Missouri-centric fix to a system many see as too easily exploited.
Eight Years of Promises, Year After Year of Disappointment
This session marks the eighth year that the Missouri Legislature has vowed to deliver IP Reform, yet history suggests caution. Year after year, reform efforts have faltered, leaving advocates frustrated and skeptical. The 2024 legislative session exemplifies this trend with the fate of SJR 74, a resolution that aimed to require a majority in more than half of the congressional districts for constitutional amendments.
SJR 74 gained early momentum but unraveled in the session’s final days. Senate Democrats filibustered the measure, and though Republicans had the votes to break it, internal divisions and a surprise early adjournment by leadership killed the bill. The collapse was blamed on GOP infighting, with some lawmakers prioritizing other issues or wary of the political risks of reform. This pattern of gridlock and missed opportunities has become all too familiar, casting a long shadow over this year’s efforts. Will the Senate finally overcome its inertia, or will 2025 join the list of letdowns?
Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Missouri
The Missouri Senate’s push for IP Reform this session—through SJR 11, SJR 10, SJR 30, and SJR 47—offers a chance to redefine how citizens engage with their government. SJR 11’s focus on signature collection, the trio of SJR 10, SJR 30, and SJR 47’s varied approaches to approval thresholds, and Senator Mike Moon’s standout SJR 10 all signal a serious intent to address longstanding concerns. Yet, the legislature’s eight-year track record of broken promises, punctuated by the failure of SJR 74 in 2024, looms large.
For Missourians, this is more than a procedural debate—it’s about the future of direct democracy. SJR 10, with its blend of local accountability and voter sovereignty, offers a promising path forward. Whether the Senate can muster the will to enact it remains the million-dollar question in Jefferson City.