Missouri’s Constitution is the backbone of our state’s governance, meant to echo the will of all its people—not just those in the biggest cities. Yet, the current process for amending this vital document is stacked against rural Missouri, amplifying urban voices while rural counties get trampled. A draft bill—An Act to Amend Article XII of the Constitution of Missouri to Require Ratification by Two-Thirds of Counties for the Approval of Constitutional Amendments—offers a fix. It’s been sent to state lawmakers, including Representative Tim Taylor of House District 48, among others. But the response? Dead silence. Nowhere is this more infuriating than among rural senators and representatives. Why don’t these lawmakers, elected to fight for rural Missouri, want their constituents to have a louder voice in shaping constitutional amendments—especially after urban-driven changes like last year’s radical abortion amendment?
The Urban Stranglehold on Missouri’s System
Missouri’s constitutional amendment process is a raw numbers game—a democracy, not a republic. Amendments, whether proposed by initiative petition or the General Assembly, go to a statewide vote, and the majority wins. Sounds fair until you see that over half of Missouri’s 5.9 million residents are packed into a few urban counties, per U.S. Census Bureau data. The state’s 114 other counties—mostly rural and less populated—get drowned out.
History shows it plain as day. In 2020, Amendment 2 (Medicaid expansion) scraped by with 53% of the statewide vote, pushed over the line by urban counties while rural Missouri voted no. Then came 2024’s Amendment 3, the radical abortion measure that enshrined some of the nation’s most extreme abortion rights into our Constitution. It passed narrowly statewide but won in just nine counties—urban enclaves like St. Louis and Jackson Counties—while failing in 105 others, the vast rural majority. Rural Missouri roared its opposition, but the statewide tally let urban votes steamroll the rest. This isn’t a republican form of government—it’s urban tyranny by population.
A republican system, as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, balances power across regions, not just headcounts. The proposed bill brings that to Missouri: it requires two-thirds of the state’s counties (77 out of 114, plus St. Louis City) to ratify amendments, alongside the statewide vote. It’s a chance to stop urban overreach and give rural Missouri the say it deserves—a chance rural lawmakers should grab with both hands. So why aren’t they?
How the Bill Fights for Rural Missouri
The draft bill amends Article XII of Missouri’s Constitution with a county-ratification requirement:
- Amendments can still be proposed by initiative (8% of voters in two-thirds of congressional districts) or the General Assembly.
- After a statewide vote, an amendment must win a majority in at least two-thirds of Missouri’s counties.
- The Secretary of State certifies county results to confirm the two-thirds threshold. If it’s not met, the amendment dies—even if it wins the popular vote.
This mirrors the U.S. Constitution’s amendment process, where three-fourths of states must ratify changes. It doesn’t silence urban voters; it ensures rural counties have a fighting chance. The bill also updates the Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo 116) for county certification and includes voter education to ease the shift.
For rural Missouri—land of farmers, small towns, and bedrock values—this is a lifeline. Take Chariton County, home to The Chariton Beacon. With about 7,400 residents, its vote is a whisper against urban noise. Under this bill, Chariton and dozens of rural counties would matter. Amendments like Medicaid expansion or the abortion radicalism of Amendment 3 couldn’t pass without broad support across Missouri’s 114 counties, forcing urban proponents to face rural realities.
Rural Lawmakers’ Deafening Silence
The bill has reached lawmakers statewide, including Representative Tim Taylor of District 48—a rural district that got steamrolled by Amendment 3. Yet, Taylor and his rural colleagues in the Senate and House have offered nothing—no support, no debate, no outrage. This silence burns hottest from those representing rural Missouri, the very folks elected to shield their districts from urban domination.
Why isn’t Representative Tim Taylor sounding the alarm for his rural constituents, who rejected Amendment 3 in droves? Why aren’t rural senators and other House members—representing counties that stood united against urban-driven changes—demanding a process that gives their voters real power? These lawmakers run on promises to protect rural Missouri’s way of life. A two-thirds county ratification requirement delivers that power. So why the cowardice?
Are they scared of urban backlash? Cities hold big voting blocs, and rural lawmakers might shrink from the fight. But their oath is to their districts, not urban elites. Or do they like the current system, where amendments can pass without rural consent, letting them dodge the hard work of rallying their base? Maybe they fear the pushback—that this reform might be called “undemocratic” or accused of snubbing cities. Nonsense. Urban voters keep their voice; rural Missouri just gets its due.
A Republic, Not a Democracy
Missouri wasn’t built as a pure democracy. The word “democracy” isn’t in the U.S. Constitution or Missouri’s. We’re a republic, where power balances regions, not just populations. The current amendment process spits on that, letting urban density override rural Missouri’s will—Amendment 3 being the latest slap.
The U.S. Constitution requires 38 states to ratify amendments, ensuring no region rules alone. Missouri’s 114 counties deserve the same dignity. A two-thirds threshold (77 counties) is tough but fair, stopping urban pet projects like Amendment 3 while demanding amendments with true statewide backing—rural and urban. Rural lawmakers should be leading this charge. Why aren’t they?
Facing the Critics
Critics will howl, so let’s shut them down:
- “Urban areas lose influence!” No—they keep their votes. But amendments need rural support too. If 105 counties reject something like Amendment 3, it shouldn’t pass.
- “It’s too complex!” The U.S. manages state ratification; Missouri can handle 114 counties. Training and updates are simple.
- “It’ll stall progress!” Perfect. Constitutional changes should be hard-won, not urban whims. Rural lawmakers should cheer that.
- “It’s costly!” Pocket change compared to the cost of urban overreach—like Amendment 3’s fallout.
These are strengths, not flaws. Rural senators and reps should see this. Their constituents demand it.
The Rural Stakes
Picture it. With two-thirds county ratification, Missouri’s constitutional amendments would:
- Honor rural strength: Counties that rejected Amendment 3 would have veto power.
- Protect stability: No more urban-driven upheavals like abortion radicalism.
- Fire up voters: Rural debates would ignite turnout.
- Stop urban overreach: City agendas couldn’t ignore 105 counties.
This is a battle cry for rural Missouri—folks who watched Amendment 3 shred their values despite near-universal rural rejection. So why aren’t their lawmakers swinging?
A Call to Rural Fury
Missouri’s rural senators and representatives, including Representative Tim Taylor, owe answers. Why won’t they back a bill that hands rural Missouri a weapon against urban amendments like Medicaid expansion and Amendment 3? Why are they okay with a system that lets nine counties dictate to 105? If they believe in a republican government, they’d fight for this.
Rural readers, get mad. Call your state senator or rep—like Tim Taylor in District 48. Demand to know why they’re silent while urban votes gut your values. Share this article—tag rural lawmakers, light the fuse. Follow The Chariton Beacon for updates. Missouri’s Constitution is yours, not just the cities’. Rural lawmakers should act like it.
The current system isn’t a republic—it’s a democracy rigged by urban numbers, and rural Missouri bleeds for it. This bill offers justice: two-thirds county ratification. It’s fair, it’s overdue, and it’s your fight. Rural lawmakers, why won’t you let your people win?
