Measure to boost Missouri direct democracy to be withheld from ballot, judge rules

Jack Harvel, The Kansas City Star on Aug 19, 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 ruled that a ballot measure strengthening Missouri’s most visible form of direct democracy will not be on November ballots, siding with Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins.

In a decision on Wednesday, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green agreed with Hoskins’ arguments that the proposal violated Missouri laws limiting legislation to a single subject and that it violated the U.S. Constitution.

The measure, which would appear on ballots as Amendment 6, would set a higher bar for lawmakers to overturn voter-approved laws passed via the initiative petition process. It would require the support of at least 80% of lawmakers to overturn laws passed through direct democracy.

An attorney representing Respect MO Voters, the campaign in favor of Amendment 6, said the group plans to appeal the decision.

Green agreed with Hoskins that the proposal contained more than one subject and affected more than one article of the Missouri Constitution.

“Instead of addressing a single subject, tied to a single article in the Missouri Constitution, (Amendment 6) makes sweeping reforms affecting multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution,” Green said.

Green also agreed with Hoskins’ contention that the amendment violated the single-subject rule because it retroactively protects laws passed through initiative petitions since 2010. They argued that those laws include several unrelated constitutional amendments.

“That backward-looking provision regulates a wide range of subjects-including Medicaid expansion, right to work, marijuana, and others. The text of the measure does not even alert voters to these substantial changes,” Green said.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, attorneys for Hoskins argued that strengthening direct democracy to the degree proposed could violate a clause of the U.S. Constitution that mandates states have a republican form of government.

“Amendment 6 undermines the distinguishing feature of a republican form of government, and that is a representative government,” Kathleen Hunker, the state’s principal deputy solicitor general, said in court.

Green was sympathetic to the argument and said the measure violated a clause requiring states to have republican forms of government and the “anti-entrenchment rule,” which prohibits laws that prevent reconsideration policies.

“(Amendment 6) impermissibly constricts the people’s ability to reconsider laws and amendments passed by initiative or vetoed by referendum,” Green said. “Today’s voters have the right to consider amendments proposed by the General Assembly; today’s voters cannot strip that right from future voters to insulate the current majority’s policy preferences from future reconsideration.”

Respect MO Voters responds

Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for Respect MO Voters, argued in court that the measure wouldn’t prohibit reconsideration of laws but would simply raise the threshold. He also argued that while lawmakers couldn’t put guardrails on future lawmakers’ ability to reconsider laws, constitutions can.

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

Former Republican state Senator Bob Johnson, a spokesperson for Respect MO Voters, said he’s confident a higher court will ultimately side with them.

“We are appealing and are confident that the courts will ultimately uphold the voices of more than 367,000 Missourians and let the people decide,” Johnson said in a statement. “Those Missourians signed a petition, followed Missouri’s initiative petition process, and deserve the opportunity to decide the measure for themselves to make it harder for politicians to overturn what voters decided.”

Green’s ruling didn’t touch on another issue brought up in court on Tuesday: whether Hoskins could challenge the ballot language for the measure. Hoskins, who wrote the language himself, argued that it was misleading and must be rewritten.

The decision continues the legal battle over the petition. Courts must make a final determination by Sept. 8, which is the deadline for court-ordered changes to the ballot.

_____