Proposes a constitutional amendment that requires the full text of initiative petitions to appear on the ballot and limits initiative petitions to 75 words, including existing language
Impact
The impact of HJR92 on state laws would be substantial as it seeks to change how initiative petitions are crafted and presented. By requiring the full text to be displayed on the ballot, the bill aims to bolster voter understanding and engagement. However, by restricting the length of these petitions to seventy-five words, the bill raises concerns about whether complex constitutional issues can be adequately addressed within such a stringent word limit. This could hinder grassroots movements that depend on succinct yet effective language to bridge complex legal ideas with the general electorate.
Summary
House Joint Resolution 92 (HJR92) proposes an amendment to Article III of the Missouri Constitution concerning initiative petitions for constitutional amendments. The resolution stipulates that the full text of any constitutional amendment submitted via initiative petitions must be presented on the ballot for voters. A significant aspect of this resolution is its limitation that no initiative petition shall contain more than seventy-five words, which includes both existing language and any language intended to be repealed. This measure aims to enhance transparency for voters by ensuring they are fully informed about the implications of any proposed constitutional changes.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding HJR92 include concerns about the feasibility and implications of the seventy-five-word limit. Critics argue that this drastic reduction could minimize the ability of proponents to convey essential information about the amendments, ultimately leading to voter confusion rather than clarity. Supporters of the measure contend that this will force drafters to prioritize key points, thereby enhancing clarity. Nonetheless, the debate touches on broader issues of voter engagement and the balance between access to information and the necessity of brevity in legal language.