Dem
54
GOP
46
Measures on the ballots in Missouri and Montana will strengthen direct citizen democracy if they pass. In Missouri, the measure is called Amendment 6; in Montana, it is called CI-133. This is a rejoinder to the many attempts by state legislatures to thwart citizen initiatives. Their view is: The people have no business making laws. We have a monopoly on that.
In both states, ballot measures have protected abortion and legalized marijuana, something the Republican-controlled and highly gerrymandered state legislatures wildly oppose. So naturally the legislatures want to silence the people. They just get in the way of governing. Dani Hess, a spokesperson for the group that organized the Montana initiative on initiatives, said: "People are really frustrated with the government right now, and it is a really important time to protect the ways that voters can have a more direct say on the laws that impact their lives."
Montana has allowed citizen initiatives since 1906, but the new initiative would amend the state's Declaration of Rights to add a clause stating: "The people have a fundamental right to exercise their powers of initiative and referendum." The Missouri Amendment 6 would add to the state Constitution wording that the "rights of initiative and referendum set forth in this Constitution are fundamental rights."
In addition to making the initiative process a fundamental right, the initiatives have other provisions. The Missouri one states that the legislature cannot roll back an initiative unless that law gets an 80% superduper majority, and even then, it has to go to the voters for approval. This matters. For example, Missouri voters approved a paid sick leave reform and then the legislature erased it. Under the proposed amendment, the legislature's vote would have failed. The Montana initiative has provisions to prevent the state AG from stalling or killing initiatives he doesn't happen to like.
These changes would give popular initiatives the highest level of constitutional protection. Initiative campaigns could then use this to challenge state hurdles, antagonistic attorneys general, and restrictive laws. Courts are expected to be very skeptical about anything that impinges on a fundamental right and the specific provisions will also hinder state officials who don't like some proposed measure. (V)