This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 16, 2011 - In the midst of the legislative jockeying over what to do with Proposition B, state Rep. Scott Sifton is proposing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the Missouri General Assembly's ability to repeal or amend a law that had been approved by voters.
Sifton, D-Affton and a lawyer, is proposing House Joint Resolution 21 in the wake of a legislative efforts to change or repeal Proposition B, which imposes restrictions on dog breeders and was approved by Missouri voters last fall.
But Sifton emphasized in an interview that Prop B isn't the key reason he is proposing the restriction. He cited "a myriad of ballot issues'' that have faced legislative opposition, including:
- Proposition A (the measure restricting earnings taxes) that some legislatives want to revise to require votes in St Louis and Kansas City every 20 years, instead of the five-year mandate in the new law;
- The current legislative effort to repeal or restrict the minimum-wage hikes required under an initiative-petition measure approved by Missouri voters in 2006.
"I don't want this particular idea to get bogged down in Prop B,'' Sifton said. "I think it's an issue that we need to discuss."
He acknowledged that it's unclear what chance his proposal would have during the current session, since Democrats are heavily outnumbered in the state House and Senate.
"When Missouri voters approve a ballot measure, they expect and deserve that their will be respected," said Sifton. "My amendment will help protect the expressed will of the people from legislative encroachment by requiring more than a simple majority vote to amend or repeal."
Sifton's House Joint Resolution 21 would require the General Assembly to wait four years after voter approval of a state law before it could repeal or amend the measure with the usual simple majority vote.
In those first four years, under HJR 21, legislators would need to come up with super-majorities to make any changes: "Attempted changes in the first two years after the vote would require two-thirds majority support, while changes in the third and fourth years after the vote would require four-seventh majorities."
"Getting a supermajority would require broad consensus that there is a legitimate problem with a voter-approved law that needs fixing," Sifton said. "That should serve as a barrier in situations in which the only 'problem' with a law is that some legislators simply don't like what the voters approved."
Contact Beacon political reporter Jo Mannies.
Jo Mannies Beacon political reporter
