Missouri Constitution Archives

November ballot measure would impose two-term restriction on all Missouri statewide elected officials

September 29, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

Missourians will be heading to the polls in November, to cast ballots on a measure imposing term limits on all statewide elected officials.

You’ll be voting in November on Amendment One, which would amend the Missouri Constitution to extend the two-term restriction that currently applies to the governor and treasurer to the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and state auditor.

A “yes” vote would amend the Missouri Constitution to impose a two-term restriction on all statewide elected officials. A “no” vote would leave the terms that statewide elected officials may serve unchanged.

The Secretary of State’s fair ballot language says that if passed, Amendment One will have no impact on taxes. State Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville, sponsored the legislation in the Missouri General Assembly.

Members of both major parties have previously served more than two terms in Missouri statewide office, in recent history.

Democrat James Kirkpatrick served five terms as secretary of state, from 1965 to 1985. Kirkpatrick, who died in 1997, established Missouri’s current record for tenure of an elected statewide officeholder. Democrat Jay Nixon served four terms as attorney general, serving from 1993-2009, when he was sworn-in as governor.

Republican Peter Kinder served three terms as lieutenant governor, from 2005-2016. And Republican Margaret Kelly, who was appointed as state auditor by Governor Kit Bond in 1984, was elected to a full term in 1986 and was re-elected auditor in 1990 and in 1994. She retired in January 1999.

Missouri House to tackle state budget on Monday; they’re being encouraged to wear masks

April 26, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

The 163-member Missouri House and its staff members will be encouraged to wear masks when they return to the Statehouse in Jefferson City on Monday.

Missouri House Majority Floor Leader Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold, (left) discusses the $6.2 billion supplemental budget with House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, R-Carthage, on April 8, 2020 in Jefferson City (file photo courtesy of Tim Bommel at House Communications)

The House will gavel-in Monday at noon, and will be debating the budget.

“We have supplied all members and staff with cloth masks. They are cotton and washable,” Missouri House Chief Clerk Dana Rademan Miller tells Missourinet. “All are encouraged, but not required, to wear them and to continue to practice social/physical distancing protocols when we return for session on Monday.”

The House hasn’t met since April 8, when they approved a historic $6.2 billion supplemental budget to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The April 8 debate with unlike anything that’s ever happened in the chamber, with House Speaker Elijah Haahr, R-Springfield, wearing a mask and the chamber limited to ten people at one time. There were no visitors that day in the upper galleries, which are normally full of lobbyists, schoolchildren and the general public.

House Majority Floor Leader Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold, tells Missourinet the House has scheduled six hours of budget debate on Monday.

House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, R-Carthage, tells Missourinet he expects the House to perfect the budget on Monday, and give it final approval on Wednesday.

Speaker Haahr and Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, R-Sullivan, have said the decision to have lawmakers return on April 27 was not an easy one, but that “it’s absolutely critical for the people of Missouri that we keep the state government funded and services operating without interruption.”

Under the state Constitution, Missouri lawmakers are required to approve a balanced state operating budget by May 8.

Haahr and Schatz note committee hearings and legislative proceedings will remain open to the public. They are urging you to follow social distancing guidelines and to participate in the legislative process electronically, when possible.

Schatz says people entering the Missouri Capitol will go through a health screening process, like we saw earlier this month during the supplemental budget debate.

The last day of the 2020 legislative session is Friday, May 15.

St. Louis sets up test to Missouri’s constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

June 26, 2014 By Mike Lear

The City of St. Louis has set up a challenge to Missouri’s constitutional ban on gay marriage by issuing marriage licenses to four same-sex couples in a ceremony Wednesday night at City Hall. The four couples were then married by a municipal judge in the office of Mayor Francis Slay.

St. Louis Recorder Sharon Quinn Carpenter and the four couples married in the office of Mayor Francis Slay on Wednesday. (courtesy; St. Louis Recorder’s Twitter feed)

The city says it will voluntarily stop issuing any more same-sex marriage licenses as it expects to defend the first four, in a challenge to the constitutional ban. City officials tell the St. Louis Post-Dispatch they will take the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Slay said the ceremony made him proud. “St. Louis is a city that doesn’t tolerate discrimination. We are sending a message on what’s right, and I can’t think of anything more right than this.”

The Attorney General’s Office Thursday morning sought a temporary restraining order blocking the city’s Recorder of Deeds from issuing further marriage licenses. Circuit Judge Rex Burlison denied that motion, noting that Recorder Sharon Quigley Carpenter agreed that while the case is going on she would issue such licenses only after giving the Attorney General’s Office and the Court two business days’ notification. A spokeswoman for the Attorney General says a hearing will be held at a later date on preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Missouri voters in 2004 approved an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

Federal appeals courts on Wednesday issued rulings against same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Indiana.

Advocates rally opposition to exclusion of bicycling from transportation tax proposal

April 7, 2014 By Mike Lear

The Executive Director of the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation says a move to keep proceeds from a proposed transportation sales tax from going to bicycle paths was a “total blindside.”

During House debate of the proposed constitutional amendment, an amendment was offered that in part would pull the word “bicycle” from the forms of transportation the tax money could support.

Executive Director Brent Hugh says in meetings throughout the state Missourians have supported a comprehensive approach to transportation infrastructure improvements, including for bicycles.

He says the need for more transportation money in Missouri is clear and his group has been a part of a multi-year process to develop the transportation tax proposal.

“It’s like a punch to the gut,” says Hugh of the amendment, offered by Representative Paul Curtman (R-Pacific). He says it sends a message to his group of, “‘Well thanks for helping us all through here but now, you know, see ya.'”

Curtman says he doesn’t want language in the state Constitution that would allow Missouri tax dollars to support bicycle infrastructure.

The amendment earned rebuke from lawmakers who said pulling the word “bicycle” from the tax proposal would seal its defeat. Many legislators say roughly 40 percent of voters are expected to be opposed to any tax increase proposal, and losing the support of alternative transportation backers would cost enough votes to spell certain failure.

Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) says the mounting of opposition by bicycle supporters started almost immediately.

“Monday is bike day at the Capitol,” notes Kelly, referring to the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation’s lobbying day. Support for bicycling in the transportation funding plan is one of the issues participants are urged to ask lawmakers to support during the day. A statement from the Federation is also urging citizens to contact representatives and voice opinions on social media about the issue.

See the other issue bicycle lobbiers are being asked to speak against to lawmakers

Kelly says he is only “barely supportive” of the transportation tax proposal, but he doesn’t like what he calls a “sneak attack” on bicycles.

“I don’t like that as the method,” says Kelly of Curtman’s amendment, “and I also don’t like the public policy of taking alternative transportation out of the package.”

Kelly offered a motion to divide Curtman’s amendment into two pieces so that lawmakers could vote on them separately. Debate of the transportation tax was then suspended, leaving the issue to be settled when it is taken back up. Majority Floor Leader John Diehl (R-Town and Country) says that will happen Tuesday.

Legislator files proposed amendment to allow same-sex marriage in Missouri (VIDEO)

March 27, 2014 By Mike Lear

A state representative has filed a proposal that would revisit the 2004 decision by Missouri voters to define marriage in the state Constitution as being between a man and a woman.

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) has filed HJR 85, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ask voters to add language saying that a marriage may exist between a man and a woman and a same-sex couple.

71 percent of Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 2 in 2004 that said to be valid and recognized in Missouri, “a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

Colona says he thinks the time is right to put the issue back before Missourians.

“That’s a different question than do I think it will happen,” Colona tells Missourinet.

Colona, who is openly gay, says he doesn’t think the proposal could clear the legislature and reach a ballot this year.

“But if we don’t start some time,” says Colona, it’s never going to happen, and I think now is the time with two cases pending in our court system dealing with marriage equality for the General Assembly to return and address this issue again.”

He says before courts rule on the language currently in the Constitution he wants to use his position as a state representative to call attention to the issue.

See the language of HJR 85

He notes other recent events that have kept it in the public mind, such as Governor Jay Nixon (D)’s in his State of the State Address calling for passage of the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act and statements that the General Assembly should give voters the chance to reconsider same-sex marriage.

“My thoughts are,” says Colona, “ten years after the passage of that marriage ban, we very well could have a much different outcome.”

Proposed change to governors’ budget powers gets bipartisan committee approval

February 5, 2014 By Mike Lear

The House Committee on General Laws has given its approval to a proposed change to Missouri’s Constitution regarding the power of a governor to restrict money in the state budget.

Representative Todd Richardson (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The committee passed the proposal that would ask voters to give the legislature the power to review the withholding of money in the budget by a governor. It is offered by Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff), who told colleagues it was inspired by budget scenarios like what he says is happening now.

“The governor is still withholding $147-million dollars that we as a legislature appropriated,” says Richardson. “There’s no financial justification for that and the legislature ought to have some say in whether the governor can continue to withhold that money.”

The resolution would have a governor issue a proclamation when he or she restricts expenditure of or reduces the amount of money appropriated in the budget because actual revenues are less than the revenue estimate an appropriation was based on. The legislature could then reconsider that appropriation.

“This is a power that I expect would be rarely used,” Richardson tells the committee. “It’s no different than the power that we have over the governor making a line-item veto in the budget.”

Representatives Mike Colona (left) and Jeremy LaFaver confer before voting on the resolution. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, House Communications)

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) told Richardson he was concerned the proposal would have unintended consequences. He asked Richardson what would happen if a legislature appropriates money based on projections that turn out to be too high.

“How does this address that,” Colona asks, “Because what I envision is … I gotta call a special session of the legislature to come in and in essence to a supplemental budget to fix it.”

Richardson told Colona the proposal would not take away any of a governor’s authority to withhold money in a budget.

“In the situation that you describe,” he tells Colona, “I would trust that there would not be a two-thirds majority of the general assembly that would override the governor’s decision in that case.”

Colona remains unconvinced. He tells Missourinet, “We’ve had a budgetary process that has worked for decades. If we throw a monkey wrench in there, who knows about the unintended consequences? I’m not about to take that risk.”

The resolution did get one “yes” vote from a Democrat. Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D-Kansas City) told the committee he liked the idea.

“The legislative branch is where I think the power should be,” he told Richardson.

The proposal would also stipulate that the governor could not reduce appropriations for the payment of public debt.

If approved by the legislature it would go on the November ballot.

Right to farm amendment goes to the people (AUDIO)

May 15, 2013 By [email protected]

Missourians will have a chance to decide if farmers should have a constitutional right to do what they’re doing. The legislature has sent them the so-called “Right to Farm” amendment.

Representative Bill Reiboldt (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Bill Reiboldt has carried a right to farm proposal for three years in the House. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The movement to create the amendment was triggered by the “Puppy Mill” petition campaign putting limits on pet breeders. Voters approved the puppy breeding law but the legislature immediately changed it, saying it needed to be more practical. Regulation of pet breeders is handled by the state agriculture department.

The original proposals would have prohibited petition efforts such as Proposition B creating agricultural laws, but that idea has been removed. St. Louis Senator Scott Sifton thinks that’s the most important change made in the three years of work on the bill.

“What’s most important to me is…that the power of the people to check the legislature on that subject matter and any other agriculture subject matter is not something I do not want to see taken away from them,” he says.

The proposal also retains the right of local governments to pass ordinances on zoning, health, and environmental issues., The original proposal would have eliminated that local government authority.

Early versions of the proposal also dealt with the abilities of local governments to pass ordinances and laws restricting farming. The legislature finally agreed on a compromise that says the amendment would not interfere with rights afforded local governments elsewhere in the Constitution.

Desloge Representative Linda Black says what is going to voters deals more directly with the right to farm.

“We had kind of gotten bogged down in the House on petition issues, trying to put protective language in that resolution … I think that the compromise that was struck leaves out any language for petitions but it does kind of soften the ability for local municipalities and counties to implement ordinances that enforce any kind of laws that have to do with livestock or agriculture.”

Black says the proposal will also extend protection to urban farming.

The Missouri Farm Bureau is one of the groups that has pushed for a right to farm amendment. President Blake Hurst says his group was comfortable with the language dealing with local control issues being removed, but they still want the state’s initiative petition process to be addressed.

AUDIO: Senate Debate 31:04