Opinion | Calzone: Amendment 4 was my idea, but I am voting against it

Amendment 4 was my idea, but I am voting against it.

Well, actually, Amendment 4 is an adulteration of a concept I introduced to the Missouri legislature in 2022 – a “new” idea that brought most of the legislators together after years of gridlock on “IP reform.”  Up until 2022 the only ideas on the floor gutted the initiative petition process for regular people but did little to actually protect the Constitution.

The “new” idea changed the focus from “Initiative Petition Reform” to “Ratification Reform” because most everyone agreed that the Missouri Constitution was too easy to amend, particularly in light of the fact that 50% + 1 of the vote can come from just the urban areas. On the other hand, most also knew that Missourians jealously guard their right to the petition process as a way to rein in government and protect their liberty.

The “new” idea is called Concurrent Majority Ratification and it’s actually an idea as old as our republic. It applies the same principles as those applied to amending the U.S. Constitution, and electing the President, and every bill that’s passed by Congress or state legislatures. The idea is to require a broad consensus before imposing laws on the People. The idea is to prevent what the Founders called Tyranny of the Majority.

The first Concurrent Majority Ratification legislation was Representative Bill Kidd’s HJR 132 in 2022. It proposed a constitutional amendment that would require two metrics be met before a proposed amendment could be ratified (approved).  (1) It needed a statewide majority vote, just like is currently required, and (2) it also had to get a majority vote in each of more than half of the state’s 163 House districts. That would ensure a broader concurrence before changing the fundamental law of the land.

Well, doesn’t that all sound a lot like Amendment 4?

It does, except for three MAJOR differences.

FIRST – The Double Standard

Representative Kidd’s proposal would apply to ANY and ALL amendments to our state Constitution, but Amendment 4 ONLY applies to amendments proposed by the People through a petition,  That’s right, the politicians in Jefferson City want to create a double standard that gives them an easier path to amend the Constitution than We the People would have.

If that sounds arrogant, it’s because it is arrogant.

The fact is, over 80% of the amendments to the Missouri Constitution since 1910 were proposed by the legislature. Yes, the bloated Constitution the politicians are complaining about is the result of their own excess to a much greater degree than petitions.

SECOND – Disarms the People

Making matters worse is the fact that Amendment 4 doesn’t just require a majority vote in more than half the state House districts, it requires a majority vote in each of ALL eight of the congressional districts – an almost impossible task.

For all intents and purposes, Amendment 4 confiscates the petition process, leaving the People practically politically unarmed. Amendment 4 is political gun control.

The Constitution is the People’s “fence” around government – especially the legislature – and using Amendment 4 the legislature wants to tear down part of that fence.

THIRD – Power Shift to Government

Most other states actually make it harder for their legislatures to propose amendments. All but Missouri and twelve other states require a 2/3, or ¾, or other higher hurdle than a simple majority vote. The politicians in Jefferson City want to make the balance of power even more lopsided with the double standard in Amendment 4.

Article III, Section 49 of the Missouri Constitution says, “The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided.”

Amendment 4 turns that upside down by making the People dependent on the legislature when the People want to build a taller fence around the power of the legislature.

WHAT IS A REPUBLIC?

Supporters of Amendment 4 say, “We have a republic, not a democracy, and that means the law-making should be done through representatives.”

That’s a very juvenile understanding of our Constitutional Republic. In fact, the core principle of our system of governance is the commitment to keeping We the People, not a ruling class, in charge. It’s what the Declaration of Independence calls “consent of the governed.”

Amendment 4 flies in the face of those principles.

We need ratification reform. We need to protect the Constitution, but we need to protect it from ALL threats, including the current legislature and whatever the legislature might become 10 or 20 or 50 years from now. If Amendment 4 is approved, don’t hold your breath waiting for the politicians to propose an amendment that will limit their own power.

Let’s hold out for a real solution – vote “no” on Amendment 4.