Proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting a statutory initiative measure approved by the voters to be amended or repealed by the General Assembly except under certain conditions
If HJR65 is adopted, it could have a profound impact on the legislative framework within Missouri. The amendment would empower voters significantly, ensuring that laws enacted through the initiative process remain largely protected from legislative alterations unless specified conditions are met. This could lead to a decrease in the ability of lawmakers to respond swiftly to changing circumstances, potentially making the ballot initiative process more prominent in state governance.
HJR65 proposes a significant change to the Missouri Constitution regarding the legislative process for statutory measures. The resolution seeks to repeal existing sections of Article III and replace them with new provisions that would limit the ability of the General Assembly to amend or repeal initiative measures that have been approved by voters. Specifically, the bill stipulates that such measures can only be modified or removed under certain circumstances, which are outlined in the newly proposed sections.
The sentiment surrounding HJR65 appears to be one of cautious approval among proponents who view it as a necessary measure to protect voter-approved laws from being easily overturned or modified by subsequent legislative agendas. However, there are concerns among opponents who argue that this could create gridlock, as legislative bodies may become less flexible in addressing the evolving needs of the state. The debate encapsulates a broader conflict between direct democracy and legislative discretion.
Notably, the bill raises questions about the balance of power between the state legislature and the electorate. Supporters view the amendment as a safeguard for direct democracy, asserting that it prevents the General Assembly from disregarding the will of the people. Critics, however, contend that the restrictions placed on legislative flexibility may hinder effective governance. A critical point of contention involves the specific conditions under which initiative laws could be amended or repealed, with debates likely focusing on the implications for future legislative functions.