Will Missouri voters be able to protect direct democracy? Judge to decide

Jack Harvel, The Kansas City Star on Aug 18, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Missouri judge is poised to decide whether an effort to strengthen the state’s most prominent form of direct democracy can reach the November ballot.

The high-stakes decision comes after Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, rejected the ballot measure earlier this month, declaring it unconstitutional. The campaign, called Respect MO Voters, sued days later, calling Hoskins’ move illegal.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green heard arguments on Tuesday over whether Hoskins overstepped his authority at a hearing in Jefferson City. He did not immediately issue a ruling and said he would release his decision no later than Wednesday.

At the core of the case is the state’s initiative petition process, a century-old mechanism in which residents can collect signatures to put policy measures on the ballot. Voters have used petitions to legalize abortion, marijuana and other high-profile issues in recent years.

The measure, which would be called Amendment 6 if placed on the ballot, would raise the bar for lawmakers to overturn voter-approved laws enacted through the initiative petition process. It would require the support of at least 80% of lawmakers to overturn laws passed through direct democracy.

Additionally, it would allow courts to immediately rewrite ballot language deemed misleading and prohibit the legislature from weakening initiative petitions or referendums in the future.

Arguments in court

In court, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, which represented Hoskins, argued that the proposal violated a state-level requirement that laws only deal with one subject.

“The most straightforward path of getting the question on the ballot for the people is to have the legislature put it to a vote,” said Kathleen Hunker, the state’s principal deputy solicitor general. “Amendment 6 curtails that number in some cases and it bans it outright in others.”

Hunker also took issue with the proposal’s protections for direct democracy and argued that the 80% bar for lawmakers to overturn voter-approved laws interfered with citizens’ right to a representative form of government.

She pointed to the U.S. Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, which mandates that states have a republican form of government. She said that the proposed amendment would contravene that clause.

“Amendment 6 undermines the distinguishing feature of a republican form of government, and that is a representative government,” Hunker said .

A group called Respect MO Voters is pursuing the amendment. The group’s attorney, Chuck Hatfield, argued that there would still be a path for the General Assembly to overturn laws passed through direct democracy, it would just raise the bar. Further, citizens could overturn laws through the same process they passed them or a constitutional convention could be called to draft a new constitution.

Green asked the attorneys about an “anti-entrenchment theory,” which attorneys for Hoskins argued would preempt future lawmakers from revisiting laws passed by future lawmakers. He noted that there is not Missouri case law on the subject.

Hatfield rebutted that the provision is about legislative authority, not that of a constitution.

“A legislature can, of course, not prohibit a future legislature from changing the law, but the Constitution can,” Hatfield said.

Hatfield said he’s prepared to appeal the case to an appellate court if the judge decides in favor of Hoskins. Representatives from the Secretary of State’s Office didn’t immediately respond to an email asking if they will appeal a ruling in favor of Respect MO Voters.

Ballot language challenged

Attorneys for Hoskins also challenged the ballot language for the measure, which he wrote. That contention was extraordinary, Hatfield later told reporters.

“I guess he’s saying that he violated the law, when he drafted the first one, I was surprised to hear them say that,” Hatfield said.

The decision could pave the way for voters to bolster the state’s form of direct democracy in a year where voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have substantially weakened the same process.

Missouri Republicans this year pursued a measure, called Amendment 4,that would have required any proposed change to the constitution submitted by residents to pass in all eight congressional districts. It would have meant as few as 5% of voters statewide could block a constitutional amendment.

The ballot question was a stunning failure, receiving less than 20% of the vote.

_____