Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020)

Missouri Amendment 3
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Elections and campaigns
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Missouri measuresMissouri Amendment 1Missouri Amendment 2Missouri Amendment 3Submit

Missouri Amendment 3, the Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment was on the ballot in Missouri as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Amendment 3 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the Missouri Constitution to enact the following changes: eliminate the nonpartisan state demographer and use a bipartisan commission appointed by the governor again for legislative redistricting, alter the criteria used to draw district maps, change the threshold of lobbyists' gifts from $5 to $0, and lower the campaign contribution limit for state senate campaigns from $2,500 to $2,400.

A "no" vote opposed amending the Missouri Constitution, thereby maintaining: the state's use of a nonpartisan state demographer for legislative redistricting,  the existing criteria used to draw legislative districts, and  the existing campaign finance and lobbying limits.

Amendment 3 amended Article III of the Missouri Constitution to change certain provisions of Missouri Amendment 1 passed in 2018 with 62% of the vote.

Election results

Missouri Amendment 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,489,503	51.01%
No		1,430,358	48.99%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Amendment 3 change about redistricting, lobbying, and campaign finance in Missouri?

See also: Measure design

Amendment 3 returned the state to the use of bipartisan commissions appointed by the governor for legislative redistricting and eliminated the nonpartisan state demographer, which was created by the approval of Amendment 1 (2018). The bipartisan commissions were renamed the House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission and the Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission and consisted of 20 members each. The amendment also changed the criteria used to draw district maps. It also changed the threshold of lobbyists' gifts from $5 to $0 and lowered the campaign contribution limit for state Senate campaigns from $2,500 to $2,400.

How did Amendment 3 relate to Amendment 1 (2018)?

See also: Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018)

Amendment 1 was approved in 2018 with 62 percent of the vote. The amendment created the nonpartisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 1 also prohibited the Missouri State Legislature from passing laws allowing for unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for the state legislature and set campaign contribution limits for legislative candidates and candidate committees at $2,500 from one person to elect an individual to the state Senate and $2,000 from one person to elect an individual to the state House.

Amendment 3 returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions and lowered the campaign contribution limits and lobbyist's gift threshold established by the 2018 amendment. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Amendment 3?

See also: Support and Opposition

Amendment 3 was sponsored by Senator Dan Hegeman (R). One ballot measure committee, Fair Missouri, was registered in support of the amendment. As of December 3, 2020, the committee had raised $308,815.

Clean Missouri led the campaign in opposition to the amendment. The committee had raised $7.6 million for this election cycle. Clean Missouri was the committee that sponsored Amendment 1 (2018). In 2018, Clean Missouri and an allied committee raised $5.6 million, including $1.0 million from the Action Now Initiative and $1.0 million from the National Education Association.

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Missouri Amendment 3.

Redistricting process and criteria comparison: Table comparing Amendment 3 (2020), Amendment 1 (2018), and the constitution prior to 2018

The following table describes the redistricting process and criteria proposed by Amendment 3, enacted by Amendment 1 (2018), and in use prior to 2018:

Process and criteria prior to 2018	Process and criteria enacted by Amendment 1 (2018)	Process and criteria proposed by Amendment 3 (2020)
House bipartisan commission (18 members) and senate bipartisan commission (10 members) appointed to draw state legislative districts	Non-partisan state demographer hired by the state auditor to draw state legislative districts and submit plans to house and senate apportionment commissions	House and senate bipartisan commissions (20 members each) appointed by state and congressional district committees from each party to draw state legislative districts
70 percent of the commissioners approve the map to adopt it	Demographer's map adopted as is unless 70 percent of the commissioners approve changes	70 percent of the commissioners approve the map to adopt it
Considered population, other political subdivisions, and contiguous districts	Added partisan fairness and competitiveness, which is calculated using the electoral performance index, to the criteria	Population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, and simple shapes are given higher priority than partisan fairness and competitiveness
Did not consider partisan fairness and competitiveness	The percent of wasted votes calculated to determine partisan fairness and competitiveness must be as close to 0% as practicable	The percent of wasted votes calculated to determine partisan fairness and competitiveness cannot be greater than 15%

Redistricting commissions: Changes to the house and senate redistricting commissions

Amendment 3 returned the state to the use of bipartisan commissions appointed by the governor for legislative redistricting and eliminated the nonpartisan state demographer, which was created by the approval of Amendment 1 (2018). The bipartisan commissions were renamed the House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission and the Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission and consist of 20 members each. Prior to Amendment 1 (2018), the house apportionment commission had 18 governor-appointed members and the senate apportionment commission had 10 governor-appointed members.

Under Amendment 3, the commissions were formed from appointed nominees proposed by state and congressional district committees of each party. Congressional district committees would each elect two nominees, and state committees would elect five nominees to submit to the governor. The governor would then appoint one nominee from each congressional district committee list and two nominees from each state committee list to each commission. Five months after their appointment, the commissions must submit redistricting plans and maps to the Missouri Secretary of State. After submission, the plans and maps will be subject to public hearings. At least 70 percent of the commission must approve the final map within six months after the commission is appointed.

Redistricting criteria and process: Changes to the criteria and process used to draw the redistricting plan

Amendment 3 also changed the criteria used to draw district maps by requiring that no district deviates by more than one percent from the ideal population of the district, except when it is necessary to follow political subdivision lines it may deviate by three percentage points. The criteria also changed for including and dividing districts into counties. The amendment maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority.

Amendment 3 removed the requirement that districts are based on the total population of the state and replaces it with the requirement that districts are "drawn on the basis of one person, one vote" and are as equal in population as possible.

Amendment 3 required the commission to use the electoral performance index to simulate hypothetical statewide elections to determine competitiveness. The index would also be used to calculate wasted votes, which are "votes cast for a losing candidate or for a winning candidate in excess of the threshold needed for victory." Amendment 3 required the difference between the two parties' total wasted votes, divided by the total votes cast for the two parties to not exceed 15%. Amendment 1 (2018) required the difference between the two parties' total wasted votes to be as close to 0% as possible.

Legal challenges to the redistricting plan: Criteria for filing a legal challenge against the enacted redistricting plan

Amendment 3 allows eligible Missouri voters to challenge the redistricting plan if the individual sustains an injury from residing in a district drawn in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, or federal or state law that would be remedied with a differently drawn district. Legal challenges to redistricting plans must be filed in the circuit court of Cole County. If the court rules that there is a violation, the ruling would be able to adjust only the districts or district boundaries that would make the redistricting plan compliant.

Amendment 1 (2018) did not limit who would have standing to file a legal challenge against the redistricting plan drafted by the non-partisan demographer and did not limit the judge from ordering the whole redistricting plan to be redrawn.

Lobbying and campaign finance: Changes to lobbying and campaign finance policies

Amendment 3 also changed the threshold of lobbyists' gifts from $5 to $0 and lowered the campaign contribution limit for state senate campaigns from $2,500 to $2,400.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees; Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits; Change the redistricting process voters approved in 2018 by: (i) transferring responsibility for drawing state legislative districts from the Nonpartisan State Demographer to Governor-appointed bipartisan commissions; (ii) modifying and reordering the redistricting criteria. State governmental entities expect no cost or savings. Individual local governmental entities expect significant decreased revenues of a total unknown amount.

”

The ballot title was rewritten by the Missouri Court of Appeals due to a lawsuit brought against the original title written by the Missouri General Assembly. Click here to read about the lawsuit and the original title.

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

A 'yes' vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to reduce the limits on campaign contributions that candidates for state senator can accept from individuals or entities by $100 per election. There is no change for candidates for state representative. The amendment prohibits state legislators and their employees from accepting a gift of any value (which is currently $5) from paid lobbyists or the lobbyists’ clients. The amendment modifies the criteria for redrawing legislative districts and changes the process for redrawing state legislative district boundaries during redistricting by giving redistricting responsibility to a bipartisan commission, renames them, and increases membership to 20 by adding four commissioners appointed by the Governor from nominations by the two major political party's state committees. A 'no' vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding campaign contributions, lobbyist gifts, and the process and criteria for redistricting. If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article III, Missouri Constitution

The measure amended sections 2, 3, and 7 of Article III of the state constitution. The following underlined text was added , and struck-through text was deleted : Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 2:

After December 6, 2018, no person serving as a member of or employed by the General Assembly shall act or serve as a paid lobbyist, register as a paid lobbyist, or solicit prospective employers or clients to represent as a paid lobbyist during the time of such service until the expiration of two calendar years after the conclusion of the session of the general assembly in which the member or employee last sewed and where such service was after the effective date of this section.

(a) No serving as a member of or employed by the General Assembly shall accept directly or indirectly a gift of any tangible or intangible item, service, or thing of value from any paid lobbyist or lobbyist principal in excess of five dollars per occurrence. This Article shall not prevent Candidates for the General Assembly, including candidates for reelection, or candidates for offices within the senate or house from accepting campaign contributions consistent with this Article and applicable campaign finance law. Nothing in this section shall prevent individuals from receiving gifts, family support or anything of value from those related to them within the fourth degree by blood or marriage. The dollar limitations of this section shall be increased or decreased each year by the percentage of increase or decrease from the end of the previous calendar year of the Consumer Price Index, or successor index as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or its successor agency and rounded to the nearest dollar amount.

(c) The General Assembly shall make no law authorizing unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for the General Assembly, nor any law that circumvents the contribution limits contained in this Constitution. In addition to other campaign contribution limitations or restrictions provided for by law. The amount of contributions made to or accepted by any candidate or candidate committee from any other than the candidate in any one election for the General Assembly to the office of state representative or state senator shall not exceed the following:

(1) To elect an individual to the office of state senator, two thousand five four hundred dollars: and

(2) To elect an individual to the office of state representative, two thousand dollars.

The contribution limits and other restrictions of this section shall also apply to any person exploring a candidacy for a public office listed in this subsection the office of state representative or state senator.

For purposes of this subsection, "base year amount" shall be the contribution limits prescribed in this section. Contribution limits set forth herein shall be adjusted on the first day of January in each even-numbered year hereafter by multiplying the base year amount by the cumulative consumer price index and rounded to the nearest dollar amount for all years after 2018.

(d) No contribution to a candidate for legislative office shall be made or accepted, directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, in the name of another person, or by or through another person in such a manner as to, or with the intent to, conceal the identity of the actual source of the contribution. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a contribution to a candidate for public office is made or accepted with the intent to circumvent the limitations on contributions imposed in this section when a contribution is received from a committee or organization that is primarily funded by a single person, individual, or other committee that has already reached its contribution limit under any law relating to contribution limitations. A committee or organization shall be deemed to be primarily funded by a single person), individual, or other committee when the committee or organization receives more than fifty percent of its annual funding from that single person, individual, or other committee.

(e) In no circumstance shall a candidate be found to have violated limits on acceptance of contributions if the Missouri Ethics Commission, its successor agency, or a court determines that a candidate has taken no action to indicate acceptance of or acquiescence to the making of an expenditure that is deemed a contribution pursuant to this section.

(f) No candidate shall accept contributions from any federal political action committee unless the committee has filed the same financial disclosure reports that would be required of a Missouri political action committee.

Section 3

(a)There is hereby established the post of "non-partisan state demographer.” The non-partisan state demographer shall acquire appropriate information to develop non-procedures in preparation for drawing legislative redistricting maps on the basis of each federal census for presentation to the house apportionment commission and the senatorial apportionment commission.

(b) The non-partisan state demographer shall be selected through the following process. First, state residents may apply for selection to the state auditor using an application developed by the state auditor to determine an applicant's qualifications and expertise relevant to the position. Second, the state auditor shall deliver to the majority leader and minority leader of the senate a list of at least three applicants with sufficient experience and qualifications, as determined by the state auditor, to perform the duties of the non-partisan state demographer. Third, if the majority leader and minority leader of the senate together agree that a specific applicant should be selected to be the non-partisan state demographer, that applicant shall be selected and the selection process shall cease. Fourth, if the majority leader and minority leader of the senate cannot together agree on an applicant, they may each remove a number of applicants on the state auditor's list equal to one-third of the total number of applicants on that list, rounded down to the next integer, and the state auditor shall then conduct a random lottery of the applicants remaining after removal to select the non-partisan state demographer. The state auditor shall prescribe a time frame and deadlines for this application and selection process that both encourages numerous qualified applicants and avoids delay in selection. The non-partisan state demographer shall serve a term of five years and may be reappointed. To be eligible for the non-partisan state demographer position an individual shall not have served in a partisan, elected position for four years prior to the appointment. The non-partisan state demographer shall be disqualified from holding office as a member of the general assembly for four years following the date of the presentation of his or her most recent legislative redistricting map to the house apportionment commission or the senatorial apportionment commission.

(c)The house of representatives shall consist of one hundred sixty-three members elected at each general election and apportioned redistricted as provided in this section.

(1)(b)Within ten days after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States or, in the event that a reapportionment has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, within ten days after such a ruling has been made, the non-partisan state demographerThe house independent bipartisan citizens commission shall begin the preparation of legislative districting plans and maps redistrict the house of representatives using the following methods, listed in order of priority:

(a) (1) Districts shall be established on the basis of total as nearly equal as practicable in population. Legislative districts shall each have a total population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population for such districts, determined by dividing the number of districts to be established into the total population of the state reported in the federal decennial census., and shall be drawn on the basis of one person, one vote. Districts are as nearly equal as practicable in population if no district deviates by more than one percent from the ideal population of the district, as measured by dividing the number of districts into the statewide population data being used, except that a district may deviate by up to three percent if necessary to follow political subdivision lines consistent with subdivision (4) of this subsection;

(b) (2) Districts shall be established in a manner so as to comply with all requirements of the United States Constitution and applicable federal laws, including, but not limited to, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminishing their ability to elect representatives of their choice, whether by themselves or by voting in concert with other persons. The following principles shall take precedence over any other part of this constitution: no district shall be drawn in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color; and no district shall be drawn such that members of any community of citizens protected by the preceding clause have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice;

Districts shall be designed in a manner that achieves both partisan fairness and, secondarily, competitiveness. Partisan fairness means that parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legislative representation with approximately equal efficiency. Competitiveness means that parties' legislative representation shall be substantially and similarly responsive to shifts in the electorate's preferences.

To this end, the non-partisan state demographer shall calculate the average electoral performance of the two parties receiving the most votes in the three preceding elections for governor, for United States Senate, and for President of the United States. This index shall be defined as the total votes received by each party in the three preceding elections for governor. for United States Senate, and for President of the United States, divided by the total votes cast for both parties in these elections. Using this index, the non-partisan state demographer shall calculate the total number of wasted votes for each party, summing across all of the districts in the plan. Wasted votes are votes cast for a losing candidate or for a winning candidate in excess of the fifty percent threshold needed for victory. In any plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts submitted to the respective apportionment commission, the non-partisan state demographer shall ensure the difference between the two parties' total wasted votes, divided by the total votes cast for the two parties, is as close to zero as practicable.

To promote competitiveness: the non-partisan state demographer shall use the electoral performance index to simulate elections in which the hypothetical statewide vote shifts by one percent, two percent, three percent, four percent, and five percent in favor of each party. The vote in each individual district shall be assumed to shift by the same amount as the statewide vote. The non-partisan state demographer shall ensure that in each of these simulated the difference between the two parties' total wasted votes divided by the total votes cast for the two parties, is as close to zero as practicable.

(c) (3) Subject to the requirements of subdivisions (1)(a) and (1)(2) subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection, Districts shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact as may be. Areas which meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous.In general, compact districts are those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape to the extent permitted by natural or political boundaries;

(d) (4) To the extent consistent with subdivisions (1)(a)—(1)(c) of this subsection, district boundaries shall coincide with the boundaries of political subdivisions of the state. The number of counties and cities divided among more than one district shall be as small as possible. When there is a choice between dividing local political subdivisions, the more populous subdivisions shall be divided before the less populous, but this preference shall not be drawn along a county line which passes through a city that lies in more than one county subdivisions (1) to (3) of this subsection, communities shall be preserved. Districts shall satisfy this requirement if district lines follow political subdivision lines to the extent possible, using the following criteria, in order of priority. First, each county shall wholly contain as many districts as its population allows. Second, if a county wholly contains one or more districts, the remaining population shall be wholly joined in a single district made up of population from outside the county. If a county does not wholly contain a district, then no more than two segments of a county shall be combined with an adjoining county. Third, split counties and county segments, defined as any part of the county that is in a district not wholly within that county, shall each be as few as possible. Fourth, as few municipal lines shall be crossed as possible;

(e) Preference shall be that districts are compact in form, but the standards established by subdivisions (1)(a)—(1)(d) of this subsection take precedence over compactness where a conflict arises between compactness and these standards. In general, compact districts are those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape to the extent permitted by natural or political boundaries.

(5) Districts shall be drawn in a manner that achieves both partisan fairness and, secondarily, competitiveness, but the standards established by subdivisions (1) to (4) of this subsection shall take precedence over partisan fairness and competitiveness. "Partisan fairness" means that parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legislative representation with approximately equal efficiency. "Competitiveness" means that parties' legislative representation shall be substantially and similarly responsive to shifts in the electorate's preferences.

To this end, the average electoral performance of the two political parties receiving the most votes in the three preceding general elections for governor, for United States Senate, and for President of the United States shall be calculated. This index shall be defined as the total votes received by each party in the three preceding general elections for governor, for United States Senate, and for President of the United States, divided by the total votes cast for both parties in these elections. Using this index, the total number of wasted votes for each party, summing across all of the districts in the plan shall be calculated. "Wasted votes" are votes cast for a losing candidate or for a winning candidate in excess of the threshold needed for victory. In any redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts, the difference between the two parties' total wasted votes, divided by the total votes cast for the two parties, shall not exceed fifteen percent.

To promote competitiveness, the electoral performance index shall be used to simulate elections in which the hypothetical statewide vote shifts by one percent, two percent, three percent, four percent, and five percent in favor of each party. The vote in each individual district shall be assumed to shift by the same amount as the statewide vote. In each of these simulated elections, the difference between the two parties' total wasted votes, divided by the total votes cast for the two parties, shall not exceed fifteen percent.

(2)(c) Within sixty days after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States or, in the event that a reapportionment redistricting plan has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, within sixty days that such a ruling has been made, the state committee and the congressional district committee committees of each of the two political parties casting the highest vote for governor at the last preceding general election shall meet and the members of the each committee shall nominate, by a majority vote of the elected members of the committee present, provided that a majority of the elected members is present, two members of their party, residents in that district, in the case of a congressional district committee, as nominees for reapportionment commissioners the house independent bipartisan citizens commission. NeitherNo party shall select more than one nominee from any one state legislative district. The congressional district committees shall each submit to the governor their list of two elected nominees. The state committees shall each submit to the governor their list of five elected nominees. Within thirty days thereafter the governor shall appoint a house independent bipartisan citizens commission consisting of one name nominee from each list submitted by each congressional district committee and two nominees from each list submitted by each state committee to reapportion redistrict the state into one hundred and sixty-three representative districts and to establish the numbers and boundaries of said districts. No person shall be appointed to both the house independent bipartisan citizens commission and the senate independent bipartisan citizens commission during the same redistricting cycle.

If any of the congressional committees committees fails to submit a list within such time the governor shall appoint a member of his or her own choice from that district and from the political party of the committee failing to make the appointment submit a list, provided that in the case of a congressional district committee failing to submit a list, the person appointed to the commission by the governor shall reside in the congressional district of such committee.

Members of the commission shall be disqualified from holding office as members of the general assembly for four years following the date of the filing by the commission of its final statement of apportionment redistricting plan.

For the purposes of this article, the term congressional district committee or congressional district refers to the congressional district committee or the congressional district from which a congressman was last elected, or, in the event members of congress from this state have been elected at large, the term congressional district committee refers to those persons who last served as the congressional district committee for those districts from which congressmen were last elected, and the term congressional district refers to those districts from which congressmen were last elected. Any action pursuant to this section by the congressional district committee shall take place only at duly called meetings, shall be recorded in their official minutes and only members present in person shall be permitted to vote.

(3) Within six months after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States or, in the event that a reapportionment has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, within six months after such a ruling has been made, the non-partisan state demographer shall make public and file with the secretary of state and with the house apportionment commission a tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts, as well as all demographic and partisan data used in the creation of the plan and map.

(d)The commissioners so selected shall,within ten days of receiving the tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts, on the fifteenth day, excluding Sundays and state holidays, after all members have been appointed, meet in the capitol building and proceed to organize by electing from their number a chairman, vice chairman and secretary. The commission shall adopt an agenda establishing at least three hearing dates on which hearings open to the public shall be held to hear objections or testimony from interested persons. A copy of the agenda shall be filed with the clerk of the house of representatives within twenty-four hours after its adoption. Executive meetings may be scheduled and held as often as the commission deems advisable.

The commission may make changes to the tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts received from the non-partisan state demographer provided that such changes are consistent with this section and approved by a vote of at least seven-tenths of the commissioners. If no changes made or approved as provided for in this subsection, the tentative plan of apportionment and map of proposed districts shall become final. Not later than two months of receiving the tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts. The commission shall file with the secretary of state a final statement of the numbers and the boundaries of the districts together with a map of the districts.

(e) Not later than five months after the appointment of the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a tentative redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts and during the ensuing fifteen days shall hold such public hearings as may be necessary to hear objections or testimony of interested persons. The commission shall make public the tentative redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts, as well as all demographic and partisan data used in the creation of the plan and map.

(f) Not later than six months after the appointment of the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a final statement of the numbers and the boundaries of the districts together with a map of the districts, and no statement shall be valid unless approved by at least seven-tenths of the members.

(g) After the final statement is filed, members of the house of representatives shall be elected according to such districts until a new redistricting plan is made as provided in this section, except that if the final statement is not filed within six months of the time fixed for the appointment of the commission, the commission shall stand discharged and the house of representatives shall be redistricted using the same methods and criteria as described in subsection (b) of this section by a commission of six members appointed from among the judges of the appellate courts of the state of Missouri by the state supreme court, a majority of whom shall sign and file its redistricting plan and map with the secretary of state within ninety days of the date of the discharge of the house independent bipartisan citizens commission. The judicial commission shall make public the tentative redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts, as well as all demographic and partisan data used in the creation of the plan and map. Thereafter, members of the house of representatives shall be elected according to such districts until a redistricting plan is made as provided in this section.

(h)Each member of the commission shall receive as compensation fifteen dollars a day for each day the commission is in session but not more than one thousand dollars, and, in addition, shall be reimbursed for his or her actual and necessary expenses incurred while serving as a member of the commission.

(i)No reapportionment redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum.

(j)Any action expressly or implicitly alleging that a redistricting plan violates this Constitution, federal law, or the United States Constitution shall be filed in the circuit court of Cole County and shall name the body that approved the challenged redistricting plan as a defendant. Only an eligible Missouri voter who sustains an individual injury by virtue of residing in a district that exhibits the alleged violation, and whose injury is remedied by a differently drawn district, shall have standing. If the court renders a judgment in which it finds that a completed redistricting plan exhibits the alleged violation, its judgment shall adjust only those districts, and only those parts of district boundaries, necessary to bring the map into compliance. The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal within ten days after the judgment has become final.

Section 7

(a) Within ten days after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States or, in the made, the non-partisan state demographer authorized in Article Ill Section shall begin the preparation of senatorial districting plans and maps using the same methods and criteria as those by Article Ill. Section 3 for the establishment of districts for the House of Representatives.

(b) Within sixty days after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States, and or within sixty days after that a reapportionment redistricting plan has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the state committee and the congressional district committees of each of the two political parties casting the highest vote for governor at the last preceding general election shall, at a committee meeting duly called, select by a vote of the individual committee members, and thereafter submit to the governor a list of ten persons, and meet and the members of each committee shall nominate, by a majority vote of the elected members of the committee present, provided that a majority of the elected members is present, members of their party, residents in that district, in the case of a congressional district committee, as nominees for the senate independent bipartisan citizens commission. No party shall select more than one nominee from any one state legislative district. The congressional district committees shall each submit to the governor their list of two elected nominees. The state committees shall each submit to the governor their list of five elected nominees. Within thirty days thereafter the governor shall appoint a senate independent bipartisan citizens commission consisting of ten members, five two nominees from each list submitted by each state committee and one nominee from each list submitted by each congressional district committee, to reapportion redistrict the thirty-four senatorial districts and to establish the numbers and boundaries of said districts. No person shall be appointed to both the house independent bipartisan citizens commission and the senate independent bipartisan citizens commission during the same redistricting cycle.

If either of the party committees any committee fails to submit a list within such time, the governor shall appoint five members a member of his or her own choice from the political party of the committee so failing to act submit a list, provided that in the case of a congressional district committee failing to submit a list, the person appointed to the commission by the governor shall reside in the congressional district of such committee.

Members of the commission shall be disqualified from holding office as members of the general assembly for four years following the date of the filing by the commission of its final statement of apportionment redistricting plan.

(c) Within six months after the population of this state is reported to the President for each decennial census of the United States or in the event that a reapportionment has been invalidated by a court of competent within six months after such a ruling has been made, the non-partisan state demographer shall file with the secretary of state and with the senatorial apportionment commission a tentative plan of apportionment and map of the districts.

(b)The commissioners so selected shall within ten days of receiving the tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts required by this subsection, on the fifteenth day, excluding Sundays and state holidays, after all members have been appointed, meet in the capitol building and proceed to organize by electing from their number a chairman, vice chairman and secretary. The commission shall adopt an agenda establishing at least three hearing dates on which hearings open to the public shall be held to hear objections or testimony from interested persons. A copy of the agenda shall be filed with the secretary of the senate within twenty-four hours after its adoption. Executive meetings may be scheduled and held as often as the commission deems advisable. The commission may make changes to the tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts received from the non-partisan state demographer provided that such changes consistent with this Section and the methods and criteria required by Section 3 of this Article for the establishment of districts for the House of Representatives and approved by a vote of at least seven-tenths of the commissioners. If no changes are made or approved as provided for in this subsection, the tentative plan of apportionment and map of proposed districts shall become final. Not later than two months after receiving the tentative plan of apportionment and map of the proposed districts. The commission shall file with the secretary of state a final statement of the numbers and the boundaries of the districts together with a map of the districts.

(c) The senate independent bipartisan citizens commission shall redistrict the senate using the same methods and criteria as those required by subsection (b), section 3 of this article for the redistricting of the house of representatives.

(d) Not later than five months after the appointment of the senate independent bipartisan citizens commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a tentative redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts and during the ensuing fifteen days shall hold such public hearings as may be necessary to hear objections or testimony of interested persons. The commission shall make public the tentative redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts, as well as all demographic and partisan data used in the creation of the plan and map.

(e) Not later than six months after the appointment of the commission, the commission shall file with the secretary of state a final statement of the numbers and the boundaries of the districts together with a map of the districts, and no statement shall be valid unless approved by at least seven-tenths of the members.

(f) After the final statement is filed, senators shall be elected according to such districts until a new redistricting plan is made as provided in this section, except that if the final statement is not filed within six months of the time fixed for the appointment of the commission, the commission shall stand discharged and the senate shall be redistricted using the same methods and criteria as described in subsection (b) of section 3 of this article by a commission of six members appointed from among the judges of the appellate courts of the state of Missouri by the state supreme court, a majority of whom shall sign and file its redistricting plan and map with the secretary of state within ninety days of the date of the discharge of the senate independent bipartisan citizens commission. The judicial commission shall make public the tentative redistricting plan and map of the proposed districts, as well as all demographic and partisan data used in the creation of the plan and map. Thereafter, senators shall be elected according to such districts until a redistricting plan is made as provided in this section.

(g) Each member of the commission shall receive as compensation fifteen dollars a day for each day the commission is in session, but not more than one thousand dollars, and, in addition, shall be reimbursed for his or her actual and necessary expenses incurred while serving as a member of the commission.

(h)No reapportionment redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum.

(i) Any action expressly or implicitly alleging that a redistricting plan violates this Constitution, federal law, or the United States Constitution shall be filed in the circuit court of Cole County and shall name the body that approved the challenged redistricting plan as a defendant. Only an eligible Missouri voter who sustains an individual injury by virtue of residing in a district that exhibits the alleged violation, and whose injury is remedied by a differently drawn district, shall have standing. If the court renders a judgment in which it finds that a completed redistricting plan exhibits the alleged violation, its judgment shall adjust only those districts, and only those parts of district boundaries, necessary to bring the map into compliance. The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal within ten days after the judgment has become final.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Missouri Court of Appeals wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 14, and the FRE is 7. The word count for the ballot title is 76, and the estimated reading time is 20 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 17, and the FRE is 18. The word count for the ballot summary is 147, and the estimated reading time is 39 seconds.

Support

Vote Yes on 3 For a Cleanner Missouri led the campaign in support of Amendment 3.

Supporters

Officials

• Missouri State Senator Mike Cierpiot (R)
• Missouri State Senator Ed Emery (R)
• Missouri State Senator Dan Hegeman (R)
• Missouri State Senator Denny Hoskins (R)
• Missouri State Senator Cindy O'Laughlin (R)
• Missouri State Senator Bob Onder (R)
• Missouri State Senator Dave Schatz (R)
• Missouri State Senator Bill White (R)
• Missouri State Representative Sonya Anderson (R)
• Missouri State Representative Allen Andrews (R)
• Missouri State Representative Ben Baker (R)
• Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin (R)
• Missouri State Representative Jeff Coleman (R)
• Missouri State Representative Dirk Deaton (R)
• Missouri State Representative Chris Dinkins (R)
• Missouri State Representative Hannah Kelly (R)
• Missouri State Representative Don Mayhew (R)
• Missouri State Representative Holly Rehder (R)
• Missouri State Representative Sara Walsh (R)
• Missouri State Representative David Wood (R)
• Missouri State Representative Dale Wright (R)
• Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick (R)

Candidates

• Ryan Derks (R) - Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Missouri

Unions

• Missouri Cattlemen's Association
• Missouri Corn Growers Association

Organizations

• Missouri Farm Bureau
• Missouri Right to Life PAC

Arguments

• Missouri Senator Dan Hegeman (R): "This would give the voters another opportunity to weigh in on this monumental change that could have ramifications for years, if not generations."
• FAIR Missouri: The campaign's website said: "To ensure that the process is not controlled by one political party or politician, FAIR will create a bipartisan commission of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans to lead redistricting, which will significantly decrease the chance of corruption."
• Missouri State Representative Sara Walsh (R): "Partisan fairness/equal efficiency/competitiveness is where the 50/50 districts generalization is derived from. I visited at length with representatives from urban communities on the freshman tour, and they were equally concerned (as are representatives of rural communities) about losing the voice of the people they represent in the Legislature if urban and rural communities are sliced up to equalize districts statewide."
• Missouri State Senator Jeanie Riddle (R): "Over the past two years, I have heard numerous concerns from my constituents regarding the redistricting aspect of Clean Missouri. If enacted, I fear the new redistricting process outlined in Clean Missouri will have a drastic effect on the residents of the 10th Senatorial District. If my district was redrawn under the guidelines of Clean Missouri, I believe the composition of the 10th Senatorial District would change in a way that would result in my rural and suburban constituents losing representation in the state Capitol that reflects their views and concerns."
• State Senator Dan Hegeman (R): "Nothing in Amendment 3 prohibits the counting of children. Instead, it mandates that the principle of one person, one vote, should apply. The question then becomes which ‘population’ must be equal. Is it the population of those who can actually vote, or every person who can be found in a district? That choice is left to the General Assembly."
• Missouri State Senator Dave Schatz (R): "I believe Amendment 3 restores competency and integrity to the redistricting process, replacing the all-powerful, appointed demographer with bipartisan, citizen-led commissions. Under Amendment 3, districts drawn by those commissions will be compact, contiguous and more sensitive to partisan competitiveness — all while protecting minorities and distinct community voices. In my opinion, a 'yes' vote on Amendment 3 will deliver stronger ethics laws and, most importantly, a cleaner, carefully vetted redistricting process that all Missourians can trust and scrutinize."
• Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau: "Vote yes on Amendment 3. Do it for your town, your neighborhood and for the chance to keep local representation in Jefferson City. Vote yes to keep legislative districts compact, to respect political boundaries and to preserve the importance of communities. The opponents of Amendment 3, who all seem to be from somewhere outside of Missouri, will tell you that Amendment 3 will protect incumbent politicians. If these folks were from Missouri, they’d know that we have term limits. Whatever you think of our present crop of elected leaders, most of them will be gone before Amendment 3 will take effect."
• Jasper Logan of the Jackson County Republican Committee: "Amendment 3 is a necessary fix that, contrary to the claims of opponents, does NOT reverse the will of the voters. It keeps and strengthens the popular ethics reform provisions of 'Clean Missouri'. It even keeps the 'partisan fairness' criteria that voters passed- the difference is, the desired partisan outcome would take a backseat to the requirement that communities be kept together. By the way, that boogeyman 'politician' has a name- it’s our own Senator, Dan Hegeman, who authored Amendment 3 and has nothing to gain from its outcome- he’ll be termed out of both houses of the legislature by the time the new districts are drawn."

Opposition

Clean Missouri led the No on 3 campaign in opposition to Amendment 3. Click here to view a full list of the campaign's endorsements.

Opponents

Officials

• Former U.S. Senator John Danforth
• U.S. Representative William Lacy Clay (D)
• U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D)
• Missouri State Senator Lauren Arthur (D)
• Missouri State Senator Lincoln Hough (R)
• Missouri State Senator Karla May (D)
• Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed (D)
• Missouri State Senator John Rizzo (D)
• Missouri State Senator Jill Schupp (D)
• Missouri State Senator Scott Sifton (D)
• Missouri State Senator Gina Walsh (D)
• Missouri State Senator Brian Williams (D)
• Missouri State Representative Rasheen Aldridge (Nonpartisan)
• Missouri State Representative LaDonna Appelbaum (D)
• Missouri State Representative Gretchen Bangert (D)
• Missouri State Representative Donna Baringer (Nonpartisan)
• Missouri State Representative Jerome Barnes (D)
• Missouri State Representative Chuck Basye (R)
• Missouri State Representative Doug Beck (D)
• Missouri State Representative Ashley Bland Manlove (D)
• Missouri State Representative LaKeySha Bosley (D)
• Missouri State Representative Paula Brown (D)
• Missouri State Representative Richard Brown (D)
• Missouri State Representative Ingrid Burnett (D)
• Missouri State Representative Steve Butz (D)
• Missouri State Representative Jon Carpenter (Nonpartisan)
• Missouri State Representative Doug Clemens (D)
• Missouri State Representative Mark Ellebracht (D)
• Missouri State Representative Alan Gray (D)
• Missouri State Representative Alan Green (D)
• Missouri State Representative Dave Griffith (R)
• Missouri State Representative Trish Gunby (D)
• Missouri State Representative Tom Hannegan (R)
• Missouri State Representative Steve Helms (R)
• Missouri State Representative Tom Hurst (R)
• Missouri State Representative Keri Ingle (D)
• Missouri State Representative Kip Kendrick (D)
• Missouri State Representative Bill Kidd (R)
• Missouri State Representative Deb Lavender (D)
• Missouri State Representative Tony Lovasco (R)
• Missouri State Representative Ian Mackey (D)
• Missouri State Representative Tracy McCreery (D)
• Missouri State Representative Peter Merideth (D)
• Missouri State Representative Rocky Miller (R)
• Missouri State Representative Gina Mitten (D)
• Missouri State Representative Judy Morgan (D)
• Missouri State Representative Jay Mosley (D)
• Missouri State Representative James Neely (R)
• Missouri State Representative Michael Arthur Person
• Missouri State Representative Tommie Pierson Jr. (D)
• Missouri State Representative Jeff Pogue (R)
• Missouri State Representative Wiley Price (D)
• Missouri State Representative Crystal Quade (D)
• Missouri State Representative Greg Razer (D)
• Missouri State Representative Steven Roberts (R)
• Missouri State Representative Wes Rogers (Nonpartisan)
• Missouri State Representative Rory Rowland (D)
• Missouri State Representative Joe Runions (D)
• Missouri State Representative Matt Sain (D)
• Missouri State Representative Robert Sauls (D)
• Missouri State Representative Mark Sharp (D)
• Missouri State Representative John Simmons (R)
• Missouri State Representative Martha Stevens (D)
• Missouri State Representative Sarah Unsicker (D)
• Missouri State Representative Rudy Veit (R)
• Missouri State Representative Barbara Anne Washington (D)
• Missouri State Representative Kevin Windham Jr. (D)
• Missouri State Representative Yolanda Young (D)
• St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson (D)
• Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas
• Columbia Mayor Brian Treece
• St. Louis County Executive Sam Page (D)

Candidates

• Craig O'Dear (Independent) - Former candidate for U.S. senate

Former Officials

• Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
• Former Kansas City Mayor Sly James

Corporations

• AARP MIssouri

Unions

• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
• Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
• Coalition of Labor Union Women
• SEIU Missouri

Organizations

• American Association of University Women
• Common Cause
• Democracy for America
• Empower Missouri
• Fair Count
• Heartland Alliance for Progress
• Indivisible Kansas City
• League of Women Voters of Missouri
• Missouri AFL-CIO
• Missouri Association for Trial Attorneys
• Missouri NAACP State Conference
• Missouri National Education Association
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri
• Sierra Club Political Committee

Individuals

• John Bowman (Independent) - St. Louis County NAACP President
• Louise Wilkerson -

Arguments

• Former U.S. Senator John C. Danforth (R): "I will vote no on the legislators’ gerrymandering amendment and encourage every Missouri voter to do the same. The integrity of Missouri’s democracy is at stake."
• George P. Smith, professor emeritus of biological science at the University of Missouri: "Amendment 3′s most troubling change is that it would put map-drawing in the hands of “bipartisan commissions” rather than a nonpartisan demographer. It’s true, as Amendment 3′s apologists argue, that bipartisanship entails some safeguards against partisan bias, but voters might ask themselves this question: What is the rationale for replacing nonpartisanship with bipartisanship if not to preserve some space for partisan redistricting?"
• Lyda Krewson (D), mayor of St. Louis: In a letter to the state auditor, Mayor Krewson said, "[Amendment 3] would have a significant fiscal impact on local governments and small businesses in Missouri if the population standard for state legislative maps is changed from using total population to a citizen voting-age population or eligible voter standard. ... We should expect a significant impact on Missouri's small businesses, the local economy, local sales taxes, local lodging taxes, and state income taxes if maps are drawn in discriminatory way that disproportionately impacts Missourians of color."

Campaign advertisements

The following campaign advertisements were produced by Clean Missouri and ACLU of Missouri:

No on Amendment 3 advertisement

Vote No On Amendment 3 advertisement

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 3, 2020.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Missouri ballot measures

There are two ballot measure committees, Fair Missouri and Missouri Farm Bureau Fund for Real Representation, registered in support of Amendment 3 that have raised over $308,815. One ballot measure committee, Clean Missouri, registered in opposition to Amendment 3. It reported $7.6 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$237,672.26	$71,142.74	$308,815.00	$238,978.82	$310,121.56
Oppose	$7,221,299.24	$360,093.76	$7,581,393.00	$7,178,611.78	$7,538,705.54
Total	$7,458,971.50	$431,236.50	$7,890,208.00	$7,417,590.60	$7,848,827.10

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Amendment 3.

Committees in support of Amendment 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Fair Missouri	$205,691.36	$40,978.36	$246,669.72	$201,076.64	$242,055.00
Missouri Farm Bureau Fund for Real Representation	$31,980.90	$30,164.38	$62,145.28	$37,902.18	$68,066.56
Total	$237,672.26	$71,142.74	$308,815.00	$238,978.82	$310,121.56

In addition to the committees formed to campaign in support of Amendment 3, six other political action committees made a combined $36,977.91 in expenditures supporting the measure. They are listed below:

• Missouri Right to Life PAC: $2,325.26
• Republicans of Pike County: $131.66
• Missouri Farm Bureau Federation State PAC: $9,961.50
• Don't Tread on MO PAC: $18,758.00
• Missouri Federation of College Republicans: $325.00
• Northwest Missouri Conservatives PAC: $5,476.49

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of Amendment 3.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Republican State Committee	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Missouri Alliance for Freedom	$0.00	$40,978.36	$40,978.36

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Amendment 3.

Committees in opposition to Amendment 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Clean Missouri	$7,221,299.24	$360,093.76	$7,581,393.00	$7,178,611.78	$7,538,705.54
Total	$7,221,299.24	$360,093.76	$7,581,393.00	$7,178,611.78	$7,538,705.54

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
National Education Association	$1,500,000.00	$0.00	$1,500,000.00
Action Now Initiative	$1,337,500.00	$0.00	$1,337,500.00
North Fund	$1,024,500.00	$138,000.00	$1,162,500.00
Open Society	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Strategic Victory Fund	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Amendment 3. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.

Opposition

• St. Louis American Editorial Board: "The November 2018 initiative, popularly known as Clean Missouri, was a lobbying, campaign finance and redistricting initiative that was designed to provide major reform and oversight to Missouri politics. The most important element of the initiative was redistricting reform. It changed the process for how Missouri legislative districts are to be redrawn after every census. It created a less partisan process, using more objective criteria that reduces the ability of right-wing Republicans to gerrymander the legislature to their advantage. ... The American strongly recommends a vote of NO ON AMENDMENT 3."
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board: "Legislators hated the 2018 amendment because, unless reversed, it will impose an independent state demographer on them to redraw their districts in ways to ensure more equal partisan representation. The Clean Missouri measure would take away their ability to draw districts to protect a given party’s control, thus keeping representation lopsided and unrepresentative of the voters who live there. Democrats get to keep their districts, and Republicans get to keep theirs, almost in perpetuity. ... Don’t let lawmakers reverse this already-decided matter. Vote no on Amendment 3."
• The Joplin Globe Editorial Board: "Amendment 3 would kill the demographer system, restore bipartisan commissions appointed by the governor for legislative redistricting and de-emphasize competitiveness and partisan fairness in favor of compactness, equivalent voter populations and existing boundaries. ... We voters knew what we were doing when we passed Clean Missouri in 2018, but lawmakers think they know better. It is time to remind legislators that the ultimate authority lies with the people they are supposed to represent. We can do that by voting no on Amendment 3."

Background

Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018)

See also:Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018)

Amendment 1 created a position called the nonpartisan state demographer, which was tasked with drawing state legislative districts. The state demographer was to be selected from a pool of applicants, with the state auditor, state Senate majority leader, and state Senate minority leader involved in the selection process. The state demographer was required to file the proposed map with the existing commissions, which were allowed to amend the demographer's map via a 70 percent vote of the commissioners, provided that amendments met Amendment 1's redistricting criteria. If the commissions made no changes or could not approve changes to the demographer's map, then Amendment 1 required that the demographer's map be enacted. Amendment 1 required the state demographer and commissions to consider specific criteria, including what the initiative calls partisan fairness and competitiveness, contiguousness, compactness, and the boundaries of political subdivisions.

Amendment 1 prohibited the Missouri State Legislature from passing laws allowing for unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for the state legislature. Amendment 1 established campaign contribution limits for legislative candidates and their committees for a single election cycle to $2,500 per person to a state Senate candidate and $2,000 per person to a state House candidate. The measure prohibited making or accepting contributions using a fake name, using the name of another person, or through another person to conceal the actual donor's identity. Amendment 1 required legislators and legislative employees to wait two years after the conclusion of the legislative session in which the legislator or employee served to become a paid lobbyist. Amendment 1 also prohibited legislators and legislative employees from accepting gifts from paid lobbyists in excess of $5.

Methods of redistricting in U.S.

In general, states vest one of the following three entities with redistricting authority:

1. State legislatures: In 37 of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, state legislatures have the final authority to draft and implement congressional district maps. Likewise, in 37 of the 50 states, state legislatures are primarily responsible for state legislative redistricting. In these states, legislatures typically adopt district lines by a simple majority vote in each chamber. A state's governor may usually veto the legislature's redistricting plan.
2. Independent commissions: The composition of independent redistricting commissions varies from state to state. However, in all cases, the direct participation of elected officials is limited. Independent redistricting commissions exist in six states (in four of these states, independent commissions draw congressional and state legislative boundaries; in two, independent commissions draw only state legislative district boundaries).
3. Politician commissions: The composition of politician redistricting commissions varies from state to state. For example, in some states, specific officials (e.g., governors, secretaries of state, etc.) are de facto commission members; in others, legislative leaders appoint other legislators to serve as commissioners. In all cases, elected officials may participate directly by sitting on the commissions. In two of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, politician commissions are responsible for drawing the maps. In seven states, politician commissions are responsible for state legislative redistricting.

Procedures for state legislative redistricting in U.S.

In 34 of the 50 states, state legislatures play the dominant role in state legislative redistricting. Commissions draw state legislative district lines in 14 states. In two states, hybrid systems are used, in which state legislature share redistricting authority with commissions. See the map and table below for further details.

Campaign finance ballot measures in Missouri

See also: Campaign finance on the ballot

Voters in Missouri had approved two ballot measures related to campaign finance between 1990 and 2018.

Proposition A (1994)

See also: Missouri Campaign Contribution Limits, Proposition A (1994)

In 1994, voters approved Proposition A, which limited campaign contributions from one person or committee to another person or committee to $100 or $200 per election cycle, depending on the population of the legislative district. Proposition A also required individuals who contributed more than $25 to disclose their employer or occupation. The Missouri State Legislature voted to repeal Proposition A in 2008. Gov. Matt Blunt (R) signed the repeal legislation.

Amendment 2 (2016)

See also: Missouri State and Judicial Campaign Contribution Limits, Constitutional Amendment 2 (2016)

Voters approved a campaign finance ballot measure, titled Amendment 2, in 2016. Amendment 2 limited campaign contributions to candidates in state and judicial elections. The measure was designed to do the following:

• prohibit candidates for state and judicial offices from receiving more than $2,600 from any one individual, other than the candidate himself or herself, per election.
• cap contributions from any one individual or committee to a political party at $25,000 per election.
• prohibit corporations and labor unions from making direct contributions, although they could still form continuing committees.
• prohibit one candidate's committee from contributing to another candidate's committee.
• prohibit candidates from accepting funds from out-of-state committees.
• ban committees and parties from accepting contributions from non-citizens, foreign governments, and foreign corporations not permitted to do business in the state.
• permit contributions under $25 to remain anonymous.
• mandate that limits on campaign contributions be adjusted every four years relative to inflation.

On May 5, 2017, Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court of Western Missouri ruled that sections of Amendment 1, but not the entire amendment, were unconstitutional. The sections of the amendment ruled unconstitutional were:

• cap on the contributions amount from any one individual to candidates for state or judicial offices at $2,600.
• ban corporations and unions from making contributions to campaign, candidate, and party committees.
• ban political action committees from receiving contributions from entities other than those formed under chapters 347 to 360 of Missouri Revised Statutes.
• ban political action committees from receiving contributions from other political action committees.
• ban committees from accepting contributions from foreign corporations.

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Campaign finance See also: Campaign finance on the ballot a Oregon Measure 107: Measure 107 authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them. Going into the election, Oregon was one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Election dates a New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment allowed the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjusting office terms according to those date changes. Under the measure, laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot. Election systems a Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Ballot Measure 2 replaced the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and established ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates. Ballot Measure 2 also required persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources, as defined in the law, of the political contributions. Colorado Proposition 113: In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill to add Colorado to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC member states have agreed to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, provided the NPVIC goes into effect. The NPVIC was designed to go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes join the NPVIC. The campaign Protect Colorado's Vote filed a veto referendum to overturn the law, which resulted in Proposition 113. On November 3, voters upheld the law and voted in favor of adding Colorado to the NPVIC. d Florida Amendment 3: Amendment 3 would have replaced Florida's closed primaries with top-two open primaries for elected state offices. Under Amendment 3, all candidates would have run in the same primary election. The top-two candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, would have moved on to the general election under Amendment 3. d Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. As of 2020, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system. a Mississippi Ballot Measure 2: As of 2020, Mississippi required that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 state House of Representatives districts (known as the electoral vote requirement). Ballot Measure 2 repealed this requirement. Instead, Ballot Measure 2 provided that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote to win and that a runoff election would be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote. Redistricting See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot a Missouri Amendment 3: In 2018, Missouri voters approved Amendment 1, the Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative, which created the nonpartisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 3 repealed the nonpartisan state demographer and returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions, with changes to the number and selection of commissioners. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it loosened the partisan fairness requirement and required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority. a New Jersey Public Question 3: As of 2020, the New Jersey Constitution required the state legislative redistricting commission to pass a redistricting plan within a month of receiving the official census data. Question 3 postponed state legislative redistricting until after the election on November 2, 2021, should the state receive federal census data after February 15, 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau asked Congress to extend the deadline to deliver census data from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to delays related to the coronavirus pandemic. a Virginia Question 1: Question 1 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens. Going into 2020, the Virginia General Assembly was responsible for drawing the state's congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The redistricting plans were passed as legislation and subject to the governor's veto power. Suffrage See also: Suffrage on the ballot a Alabama Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Alabama Constitution to state that "only a citizen of the United States," rather than "every citizen of the United States," who is 18 years old or older has the right to vote in Alabama. a California Proposition 17: Proposition 17 amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but removed parole status. Going into 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until the completion of their imprisonment and parole. d California Proposition 18: Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. a Colorado Amendment 76: Amendment 76 amended the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen”, instead of "every citizen", of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado. Under the Colorado Votes Act, which went into effect in August 2019, individuals who are 17 years of age at the time of a primary election but who will be 18 years of age at the time of a general election were allowed to register to vote and vote in the primary election. According to the Colorado Blue Book, prevents 17-year-olds from voting. a Florida Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Florida Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida instead of saying that "every citizen" of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida. Term limits and term lengths See also: Term limits on the ballot a Arkansas Issue 2: Issue 2 changed term limits of state legislators to twelve consecutive years with the opportunity to return after a four-year break. The 12-year limit applied to anyone elected in 2021 or after. Going into 2020, Arkansas legislators could serve up to 16 years throughout their lifetimes in the House or Senate. d Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment would have increased the office terms of commonwealth's attorneys from six years to eight years starting in 2030; increased the office terms of district judges from four years to eight years starting in 2022; and changed attorney licensing requirements for district judges from two years to eight years beginning in 2022. d Missouri Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would have limited the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general to two terms of office in a lifetime. Going into 2020, the state constitution limited the governor and state treasurer to two terms of office in a lifetime but not the other executive offices.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Missouri Constitution

In Missouri, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment must be passed by a simple majority vote in each house of the Missouri State Legislature.

Amendment 3 was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 38 on January 8, 2020. On February 10, 2020, the state Senate passed SJR 38 in a vote of 22-9. Of the 23 Republicans in the Senate, 22 voted in favor of SJR 38, one voted against it. All eight Democrats voted against it. On May 13, 2020, the state House passed SJR 38 in a vote of 98-56 with eight absent. There was one seat vacant at the time of the vote.

Vote in the Missouri State Senate February 10, 2020
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 17  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	22	9	0
Total percent	70.97%	29.03%	0.00%
Democrat	0	8
Republican	22	1	0

Vote in the Missouri House of Representatives May 13, 2020
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 82  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	98	56	8
Total percent	60.49%	34.57%	4.94%
Democrat	1	40	5
Republican	97	16	3

Pippens et al. v. Ashcroft

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot title; Whether the ballot title accurately explains the amendment and its effects
Court: Cole County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Barbara Pippens, John Bohney, Cheryl Hibbeler, Rebecca Shaw, Bob Minor, James Harmon, Gene Davison, and Pat McBride	Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft, Senator Dave Schatz (R), Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr (R), and Senator Dan Hegeman (R)
Plaintiff argument: The ballot title drafted by the Missouri General Assembly does not accurately describe the effects of the amendment because it does not mention the nonpartisan demographer and is therefore misleading to voters.	Defendant argument: The ballot title of Missouri Amendment 1 (2018) did not mention the nonpartisan demographer.

  Source: U.S. News

On May 18, 2020, petition circulators for Clean Missouri, the campaign that sponsored Missouri Amendment 1 (2018), filed a lawsuit arguing that the ballot title of the proposed amendment is misleading because it does not mention the elimination of the nonpartisan demographer, which was the office established by Amendment 1 to conduct legislative redistricting in the state. Plaintiffs argued, "The General Assembly’s proposed summary statement fails to disclose that [the amendment] would eliminate the Nonpartisan State Demographer authorized to draw redistricting maps—the key mechanism voters approved to remedy partisan gerrymandering." The plaintiffs also argued that the ballot summary falsely represented that SJR 38 would create independent commissions. The lawsuit asked the Cole County circuit judge to rewrite the ballot title or order the General Assembly to do so. Senator Dan Hegeman (R), the sponsor of the amendment, said that he was confident the ballot title would be held up in court.

On August 17, 2020, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia S. Joyce ruled in favor of the petitioners and rewrote the ballot title originally drafted by the Missouri General Assembly. In her ruling, Joyce argued that "While SJR 38 proposes several other changes to Article Ill of the Constitution, all of them pale in comparison to the scope and magnitude of undoing a recent voter mandate to change Missouri's legislative redistricting rules. The 'central purpose' or 'primary objective' of SJR 38 is to effectively repeal Amendment 1. Accordingly, the summary statement must alert voters to that change in some fashion. Instead, the General Assembly's statement does not mention the change at all. It is insufficient, unfair, and must be rewritten." State officials requested an appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals.

On August 31, 2020, the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that "certain aspects of the official summary statement are unfair or insufficient and require revision." Judge Alok Ahuja, who wrote the opinion on behalf of the appellate court panel, said, "We believe that voters need to be informed that they are being asked to reconsider, and substantially modify, a measure which they only recently approved." The panel drafted a new ballot title for the initiative. The state did not appeal the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The original ballot title written by the state legislature, the title written by Judge Joyce, and the title written by the appellate court are below:

Written by state legislature	Written by Judge Joyce	Written by Missouri Court of Appeals
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban all lobbyist gifts to legislators and their employees; Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits; and Create citizen-led independent bipartisan commissions to draw state legislative districts based on one person, one vote, minority voter protection, compactness, competitiveness, fairness and other criteria?	Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Repeal rules for drawing state legislative districts approved by voters in November 2018 and replace them with rules proposed by the legislature; Lower the campaign contribution limit for senate candidates by $100; and Lower legislative gift limits from $5 to $0, with exemptions for some lobbyists?	Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees; Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits; Change the redistricting process voters approved in 2018 by: (i) transferring responsibility for drawing state legislative districts from the Nonpartisan State Demographer to Governor-appointed bipartisan commissions; (ii) modifying and reordering the redistricting criteria.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Missouri

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Missouri.

How to cast a vote in Missouri

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Missouri, all polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in Missouri, one must be 18 years old, a United States citizen, and Missouri resident. An applicant may print an application, pick one up from a county clerk's office, or request that an application be mailed. The completed application must be returned by mail. All returned applications must be postmarked at least 27 days prior to Election Day in order to be processed. An applicant may also register to vote online. Automatic registration Missouri does not practice automatic voter registration. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Missouri has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Missouri does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in Missouri, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify the length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Voters may file change-of-address forms after the registration deadline, up to and including Election Day, provided that they can present photo identification upon doing so. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Missouri does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The Missouri Secretary of State's office allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Missouri requires voters to present photo identification while voting. The following were accepted forms of identification as of April 2023. Click here for the Missouri Secretary of State's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. Voters can present the following forms of information: A nonexpired Missouri driver or non-driver license; A nonexpired military ID, including a veteran’s ID card; A nonexpired United States passport; or Another photo ID issued by the United States or the state of Missouri which is either not expired or expired after the date of the most recent general election. If a voter does not have an ID, he or she can obtain one for free by filling out this form.

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a report or analysis to be considered for inclusion in this section, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Racial impact of redistricting changes

The Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit law and policy institute, released a report on how the change in redistricting procedures proposed by Amendment 3 would impact different races. The report studied how the change from counting the total population of Missouri to counting citizens over the age of 18 would affect redistricting. The report estimated that 1.5 million Missourians would not be considered in the count used for redistricting under Amendment 3. The report estimated that 21% of Missouri's white population would not be counted, 28% of the Black population, 54% of the Asian population, and 54% of the Latino population. The report concluded, "Missouri’s Black communities have endured a long and unbroken legacy of discrimination and face disparities in income, education, housing, health, and other key equity indicators when compared to their white counterparts. Limiting representation to adult citizens would likely compound and exacerbate these inequalities, deepening existing divisions."

The full text of the report can be found here.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• Redistricting measures on the ballot

Missouri

• Missouri ballot measures
• Missouri ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Full Text of SJR 38

Support

• Fair Missouri campaign website

Opposition

• Clean Missouri campaign website
• Clean Missouri Facebook page
• Clean Missouri Twitter page