In November 2024, Missouri voters approved two polarizing measures: Amendment 3, expanding abortion rights (52% statewide), and Proposition A, raising the minimum wage to $15 and mandating paid sick leave (57%). Both passed on strong urban turnout and heavy campaign funding while losing decisively in many rural districts.
Now, less than a year later, lawmakers have proposed House Joint Resolution 3 (HJR 3), which would require any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to win a majority statewide and majorities in each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. Proponents pitch this as protection for the state’s republican form of government; critics counter it risks entrenching measures rural Missourians rejected and further limiting rural influence.
As of early September 2025 the proposal is advancing quickly in a special session called by Gov. Mike Kehoe. Paired with concurrent redistricting legislation (HB 1), the changes could reshape how Missourians use the initiative process and who effectively controls future constitutional changes.
A Special Session with Big Stakes
Gov. Mike Kehoe called lawmakers back to Jefferson City on September 3, 2025, citing urgent needs for congressional redistricting and initiative reform. With Republicans holding supermajorities in both chambers, leadership moved rapidly; HJR 3 cleared the House Elections Committee on a party-line vote within 24 hours.
Missouri’s initiative process has been in place since 1908. Supporters once praised it as a way for citizens to check government, but in recent years it has been the vehicle for some of the state’s most controversial amendments. Medicaid expansion in 2020, marijuana legalization in 2022, abortion rights in 2024, and the wage-and-leave package of 2024 all originated as petitions. Each campaign relied heavily on urban turnout and millions in outside funding, leaving many rural voters feeling sidelined.
Consider Medicaid expansion: the measure passed with 53% support statewide but was opposed in much of rural Missouri, where hospital closures have long been a concern. Yet the funding battles that followed in Jefferson City left many rural residents disillusioned, convinced that the initiative process had been hijacked by interest groups rather than reflecting broad consensus.
By tying initiative reform to redistricting, Republicans are setting the stage for a deeper shift in Missouri’s political balance. HB 1, also under debate this session, could pack urban voters into fewer districts, amplifying rural representation in Congress. Combined with HJR 3’s requirements, the strategy reshapes not only how districts look but how Missourians wield constitutional power.
What HJR 3 Would Do
HJR 3, sponsored by Rep. Ed Lewis (R-Moberly), requires voter-initiated constitutional amendments to achieve two hurdles: a statewide majority and a majority in each of the eight congressional districts. Legislative referrals and statutory initiatives are exempt, preserving legislative authority.
Signature requirements for getting on the ballot would not change. But the path to passage would become dramatically steeper. If applied retroactively, neither Amendment 3 nor Proposition A would have passed—both failed badly in the 7th and 8th districts, where support barely reached 30–35%.
The design reflects a common frustration among rural lawmakers: that dense urban centers like St. Louis and Kansas City, which together hold less than half the state’s population, can swing statewide outcomes by turning out in large numbers. District-level requirements, they argue, would force urban campaigns to engage with voters in places like Kirksville, Cape Girardeau, or Rolla, rather than ignoring them entirely.
Supporters’ Arguments
Proponents argue HJR 3 ensures “broad support across Missouri.” They point to lopsided urban margins, such as St. Louis’s 75% support for Amendment 3, as evidence that cities can override rural votes under the current system. Requiring district-level majorities, they say, restores balance.
Supporters also frame the measure as a shield against out-of-state money. Amendment 3 drew roughly $20 million from Planned Parenthood affiliates; Proposition A received $15 million from national labor groups. By making passage more difficult, they argue, HJR 3 protects Missouri’s constitution from becoming a vehicle for national activist agendas.
Conservative groups have echoed that argument, calling the amendment necessary to preserve Missouri’s identity. To them, the state’s constitution should not be rewritten every two years by ballot campaigns funded out of Washington or New York.
Critics’ Concerns
Opponents, including some rural conservatives, worry the measure backfires. While it might prevent new urban-driven amendments, it also makes it virtually impossible to repeal ones already on the books. Rural districts that voted 60–70% against Amendment 3 would still need the consent of urban districts like St. Louis or Kansas City to undo it.
For skeptics, HJR 3 tilts power toward urban centers by giving them an effective veto. Once an amendment passes with strong city support, rural voters are stuck—even if they remain overwhelmingly opposed. That dynamic, they argue, undercuts the very republican balance the resolution claims to defend.
Some conservatives also see legislative overreach. The initiative process may be imperfect, but it remains one of the only tools available to voters outside Jefferson City to challenge the legislature. By raising new barriers, HJR 3 strengthens politicians at the expense of ordinary citizens.
It is a paradox: in trying to prevent cities from dominating rural areas, HJR 3 may cement the very dominance rural voters oppose. A 65% “no” vote in the 8th District on abortion rights means little if the measure passed in urban districts. HJR 3 makes it nearly impossible to reverse that outcome, leaving rural communities without recourse.
District-Level Examples
The numbers tell the story. In the 7th District, covering much of the Ozarks, only about 35% of voters supported Amendment 3. In the 8th District, spanning the Bootheel and southeast Missouri, support was closer to 30%. These figures stand in stark contrast to the 75% approval rate in the 1st District (St. Louis) and nearly 70% in the 5th (Kansas City).
Under current rules, the statewide tally decides the outcome, meaning rural votes can be outweighed by urban margins. Under HJR 3, urban voters would effectively gain veto power over rural repeal attempts, since district-level majorities would be required across the board.
That leaves rural Missourians in a bind: they lack the population to win statewide on controversial social issues, and under HJR 3 they would lack the mechanism to reverse urban victories.
Potential Impacts
HJR 3 could lock in progressive amendments already approved, frustrating efforts to repeal them. Rural voters may find themselves permanently sidelined on issues like abortion, marijuana, or wage policy, with urban districts holding the deciding power.
Imagine a future repeal effort on Proposition A. Even if rural districts opposed the $15 wage by 65%, urban areas like St. Louis and Kansas City would still hold the final say. That dynamic risks creating a permanent imbalance where urban approval is required for any statewide change—whether adopting a new amendment or repealing an old one.
The measure may also trigger lawsuits. Legal experts have questioned whether district-based majority requirements violate the principle of “one person, one vote,” since a single district could block the will of hundreds of thousands statewide. Courts could be asked to decide whether the system unfairly dilutes the weight of a statewide majority.
Organizers on both sides anticipate new campaign challenges. To pass an amendment under HJR 3, a group would need to win competitive margins not just in St. Louis or Kansas City but also in swing districts like the 6th (north Missouri) or the 4th (central Missouri). That makes campaigns more expensive, more complicated, and more reliant on building broad coalitions.
Where Things Stand
As of September 8, 2025, HJR 3 had advanced from committee and awaits floor debate in the House. If it clears both chambers, voters would see it on the 2026 ballot. That means the same electorate that approved abortion rights and higher wages could soon decide whether to make passing future amendments far more difficult.
Gov. Kehoe has not committed publicly to campaigning for HJR 3, but his decision to call the session indicates support. Democrats have criticized the proposal as a direct response to Amendment 3’s abortion rights victory, framing it as a way to shield lawmakers from voter backlash. Republicans insist the resolution is about process, not policy.
Broader Implications
Missouri has seen 30 constitutional amendments passed by voters since 1908, compared to 159 referred by lawmakers. If HJR 3 succeeds, that balance could shift dramatically, with citizen-driven changes becoming rare. Some experts warn that could depress turnout in future elections, especially among younger and urban voters who have driven recent petition campaigns.
Nationally, Missouri is not alone. Ohio’s Issue 1 in 2023 sought to raise the threshold for passing initiatives to 60%; voters rejected it, but only narrowly. Arkansas tightened its signature requirements in 2024. Mississippi eliminated most initiatives after a marijuana legalization vote in 2021. Florida has repeatedly raised ballot thresholds to protect its constitution from frequent changes. Missouri’s debate fits squarely within this pattern of states rethinking direct democracy after a wave of socially divisive votes.
The deeper question is whether these moves protect or undermine republican government. Advocates say they safeguard stability by ensuring only broadly supported amendments pass. Critics say they strip citizens of meaningful power, leaving them dependent on legislatures that may not reflect popular opinion.
For Missouri, the stakes are heightened by the state’s stark geographic divide. Rural voters often view cities as culturally and politically alien, while urban voters see themselves as the drivers of statewide progress. HJR 3 risks turning that divide into a permanent structural barrier within the constitution itself.
Conclusion
Whether seen as necessary reform or political overreach, HJR 3 represents one of the most significant changes to Missouri’s constitution in decades. It is not merely about abortion, wages, or marijuana—it is about who truly holds power in the state’s republican system.
The coming months will determine whether Missourians are ready to alter that balance again, and whether rural voices will find themselves stronger or weaker in the process.
Contact Information
For readers who want to follow the debate more closely or share their views with their elected officials:
State Senator Rusty Black (R-Chillicothe)
Phone: 573-751-1415
Email:
State Representative Tim Taylor (R-Speed)
Phone: 573-751-1468
Email:
