Editorial: Lawmakers should raise vote threshold, not signature requirement to amend Constitution

One of the top priorities this legislative session in the Missouri General Assembly is to reevaluate how the state amends its Constitution.

Missouri passed Amendment 3 with 53% of the vote in November, legalizing the use and sale of recreational marijuana. The state's Constitution is now 253 pages long, of which 39 pages are dedicated to marijuana. Whether you agreed with the main point of the amendment, it was poorly written, murky and full of problematic clauses.

This is not the only ill-considered topic that has come before voters through the initiative petition amendment process. Some of these petitions emerged because the legislature refused to take on the difficult issues. But ultimately, the inaction was an action.

There's good reason to have a process that allows for citizen-led ballot initiatives, even if sometimes we may not agree with the outcomes. But when you're making changes to a foundational document like the state's Constitution, should a simple majority vote be enough?

Amendment 3 should be the poster child for what not to do. Adding 39 pages of vague and confusing language to the state Constitution is not good government.

State Rep. Jamie Burger (R-148), the assistant majority floor leader, told the Southeast Missourian that Missouri's Constitution has been amended 60 times since 1945 whereas the U.S. Constitution has only been amended 17 times since 1791. He said the outside influences on the state affecting the initiative petition process are "alarming".

So how do we move forward?

Current law requires signatures equal to 8% of votes cast for governor in Missouri's eight congressional districts to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. To change a state law, 5% in six districts is required. Only a simply majority is needed to pass.

Some have suggested there should be a more stringent requirement to get an initiative on the ballot. This is not a good approach, because it would in effect suppress citizen engagement and diminish important deliberation. While we believe most things should be done through our elected representatives, there should be a reasonable process for citizens to place issues before voters. The current requirement for getting amendments on the ballot is fair.

A more thoughtful option appears to be a proposal from House Speaker Pro Tem Mike Henderson (R-117), which would keep the current signature levels in place but increases the vote requirement for passage to 60%.

A simple majority vote is too low of a threshold to change the state Constitution. We believe there should be more consensus to warrant a change of our state's most important document.

We're still early in the process and much is to be debated. Ultimately, voters will have the final say on this issue. Should the General Assembly come to an agreement this legislative session, the issue will face voters in 2024.

We hope lawmakers take a measured approach to this issue that allows for important citizen engagement while raising the standard for changing the state's Constitution.