Missouri Supreme Court
ST. LOUIS—A statewide conservative group is criticizing a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision placing Amendment 6 on the Nov. 3 ballot, arguing that the measure raises constitutional and election-integrity concerns.
Freedom Principle MO issued its statement Sept. 2 in St. Louis following the court’s decision to overturn Cole Circuit Judge Daniel Green and reject the constitutional objections that Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins had relied upon in keeping the proposed amendment off the ballot.
Green had previously determined that the initiative petition violated the Missouri Constitution because it addressed more than one subject, made changes affecting multiple constitutional provisions and threatened the republican form of government guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The Missouri Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Judge Ginger Gooch, however, ordered Amendment 6 onto the November ballot.
According to Freedom Principle MO, Gooch concluded that Hoskins’ Aug. 4 certificate of insufficiency, which was based on constitutional violations identified in an opinion letter from Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, did not identify a reason the petition was insufficient under the Missouri Constitution.
The court also determined that challenges concerning the measure’s single-article and single-subject requirements lacked merit.
The court dismissed the remaining constitutional objections as hypothetical claims that were not ripe for review until after an election, according to the release.
Keelin
Byron Keelin, president of Freedom Principle MO, said the organization was disappointed by the decision but not surprised by it. He characterized the ruling as another example of what he described as judicial overreach and accused the court of legislating from the bench.
Keelin also argued that Amendment 6 would make significant structural changes to the way laws adopted through citizen initiatives could later be changed.
Under the proposal as described in the release, the Missouri General Assembly would need approval from 80% of both the House and Senate, followed by another statewide vote, to change a citizen-initiative law.
The organization contends that such a requirement would make laws adopted through initiatives difficult to amend or repeal. Keelin said the provision could allow a campaign with sufficient funding to establish a policy through a single statewide vote and make subsequent changes substantially more difficult.
The release also pointed to Judge Green’s findings regarding the scope of the proposed amendment. According to the organization, Green determined that the petition made sweeping changes affecting multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
The release said Green also found that backward-looking language in the measure could affect initiatives dating to 2010, including measures concerning Medicaid expansion, right-to-work and marijuana, without specifically alerting voters to those changes.
Green further concluded that the measure would improperly restrict voters’ ability to reconsider laws and constitutional amendments adopted through the initiative process.
Freedom Principle MO said the Supreme Court did not address those concerns on their merits but instead determined that some of the issues were not yet ready for judicial review.
The organization also raised concerns about the potential effects of Amendment 6 on firearms laws, education policy and homeschooling, as well as taxes, energy, agriculture, religious liberty and local control.
Keelin argued that the proposed system could make future initiatives addressing those subjects difficult for the legislature to modify.
The release specifically warned that future initiatives could establish firearms restrictions, including red-flag laws or waiting-period requirements, that could become difficult for lawmakers to change.
It also raised the possibility of future initiatives involving curriculum requirements, school-choice restrictions or homeschooling regulations.
Freedom Principle MO is urging Missouri voters to reject Amendment 6 in November. The organization also called on the Missouri General Assembly to make repeal of the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan a legislative priority in 2027.
Keelin argued that the court’s decision demonstrates the need for greater accountability within Missouri’s judiciary.
He said the Missouri Plan, which governs the state’s judicial selection process, helped create the current court and argued that legislative action is necessary to change how judicial accountability operates.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means Amendment 6 will appear before Missouri voters on the Nov. 3 ballot.
