Modifies requirements for votes required to pass constitutional amendments
If enacted, HJR19 will significantly impact the legislative landscape in Missouri by removing the governor's veto power over measures referred to voters. This change is expected to facilitate a more direct democratic process, allowing citizens to have a greater say in constitutional amendments. The resolution would lead to an increase in the responsibility placed on voters, as it requires majority support not only statewide but also across numerous senate districts to pass amendments. This dual level of support is intended to ensure that a broad consensus is reached before changes are made to the state's fundamental laws.
HJR19 is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Missouri Constitution which seeks to modify the requirements for passing constitutional amendments. The key change proposed is to repeal Section 52(b) of Article III, which currently allows the governor to veto measures referred to the people. Under the proposed new section, any measure referred to the people would take effect upon receiving a majority of the votes cast statewide, as well as a majority in each of more than half of the state’s senate districts. This alteration aims to streamline the process for constitutional amendments and reduce the governor's influence over voter-referred measures.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding HJR19 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that it empowers voters by eliminating potential executive interference and enhances the democratic process. They believe that allowing voters to make decisions without the risk of a gubernatorial veto fosters greater engagement and accountability. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the potential for rapid changes to the constitution without adequate checks and balances, fearing that it may lead to poorly conceived amendments being easily passed if they gain momentary popular support.
The contention around HJR19 primarily revolves around the debate between enhancing direct democracy versus maintaining some level of check on voter initiatives through the governor's veto. Supporters of the resolution argue that it strengthens the role of the electorate, while critics argue that the lack of a veto power may lead to hasty and potentially detrimental constitutional changes. This highlights a critical tension in governance regarding the balance between giving voice to the populace and protecting the integrity of the legal framework from transient political whims.