Why did the GOP-led Missouri Senate oppose preventing noncitizens from amending their constitution
Missouri Republicans have complete control over the state’s government, making it difficult for Democrats to oppose conservative policies. However, the GOP-controlled Senate recently removed language from a measure aimed at preventing noncitizens from voting to amend the Missouri Constitution.
After the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade and the subsequent enactment of pro-life laws in states like Missouri, Democrat activists have strategically used the ballot amendment process to push their radical agenda. They have successfully embedded pro-choice measures in Ohio’s constitution and are now targeting Missouri for a similar proposal in 2024.
In anticipation of this ballot measure, SJR 74 aims to raise the threshold for amending the Missouri Constitution through initiative petitions. It would require a majority of voters in more than half of the state’s congressional districts to ratify any proposed amendment. Currently, a majority of support from the electorate is sufficient for ratification.
However, the current version of SJR 74 is missing crucial language that was originally included. The original version stated that only legal residents of Missouri and citizens of the United States would be eligible to vote on constitutional amendments. During the Senate’s deliberation, Republican Sen. Mike Cierpiot introduced an amendment to remove the ban on noncitizen voting, which was ultimately adopted.
Senate President Pro Tempore Caleb Rowden, who opposed bringing the resolution to the Senate floor, supported Cierpiot’s amendment. This decision has faced criticism from members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus (MOFC), who believe it undermines the state’s republican form of government. They argue that Democrats are using the ballot amendment process to bypass the will of the people.
How the Sausage Is Made
While Cierpiot introduced the amendment, it was Senate President Pro Tempore Caleb Rowden who fought against bringing the resolution to the Senate floor. Rowden supported Cierpiot’s amendment, which removed the language prohibiting noncitizens from voting on constitutional ballot measures.
In response to these actions, MOFC members staged a filibuster and were subsequently punished by Rowden, who stripped them of their committee chairs and assigned them parking spots far from the Missouri Capitol building.
MOFC chair and GOP Sen. Rick Brattin described the Senate GOP leadership’s efforts to undermine constitutional ratification reform as “nefarious” and emphasized the seriousness of Democrats’ attempts to manipulate the system.
The Road Ahead
The Republican-controlled House is now working to address the Senate’s weak resolution. HJR 86 includes provisions from SJR 74, raising the threshold for ratifying amendments, and specifies that only “legal voters” can vote on such proposals. The measure also prohibits foreign entities from sponsoring and contributing to state initiative petitions.
HJR 86 has passed a House committee and has the support of Speaker Dean Plocher. The House will proceed with this legislation, and the Senate will have the opportunity to consider it.
MOFC member and Republican Rep. Doug Richey believes there is an appetite among the House GOP to include language prohibiting noncitizens from voting on ballot measures in the final resolution. He emphasizes the importance of clear messaging to Missourians about the amendment process and the need to protect the state constitution from manipulation.
It is evident that many “red states” are controlled by establishment Republicans who do not always align with conservative values. Efforts to reform the system and preserve the integrity of the constitution are crucial in countering outside interests.
House Majority Floor Leader Jonathan Patterson did not respond to inquiries about his stance on including a provision prohibiting noncitizens from voting in SJR 74.
rnrn
How has the recent removal of the ban on noncitizen voting in Missouri been criticized as undemocratic and retaliatory
F their committee assignments. The move has been widely criticized as retaliatory and undemocratic.
The debate over noncitizen voting rights is not a new one. Advocates argue that everyone residing within a country’s borders should have a say in its governance, regardless of their citizenship status. They believe that excluding noncitizens from the electoral process is unfair and undermines the principles of democracy.
Opponents, on the other hand, believe that voting is a fundamental right reserved for citizens. They argue that allowing noncitizens to vote would dilute the voice of citizens and potentially influence the outcome of elections. They also raise concerns about the potential for fraud and abuse in the electoral process.
In the case of Missouri, Democrats see an opportunity to push their pro-choice agenda by targeting the state’s constitution. By embedding pro-choice measures in the constitution, they hope to make it more difficult for conservative lawmakers to enact pro-life legislation in the future. This tactic, while strategic, has drawn criticism from Republicans who argue that it undermines the democratic process.
The current version of SJR 74, the measure aimed at raising the threshold for amending the Missouri Constitution, is missing language that would have limited voting on constitutional amendments to legal residents and citizens of the United States. This omission has been met with concern from Republicans who argue that it opens the door for noncitizen voting.
The decision to remove the ban on noncitizen voting has faced backlash from members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, who believe it undermines the state’s republican form of government. They argue that allowing noncitizens to vote on constitutional amendments is a breach of the democratic process and bypasses the will of the people.
The actions of Senate President Pro Tempore Caleb Rowden in supporting the amendment and punishing MOFC members who staged a filibuster have been met with widespread criticism. Many view these actions as undemocratic and retaliatory, further undermining the principles of democratic governance and open debate.
In conclusion, the debate over noncitizen voting rights in Missouri highlights the ongoing tensions between Democrats and Republicans in the state. While Democrats strategically use the ballot amendment process to push their agenda, Republicans argue that it undermines the will of the people and bypasses the democratic process. The recent removal of language banning noncitizen voting from SJR 74 has sparked controversy and drawn criticism from both sides. The ultimate impact of these actions on Missouri’s democratic processes remains to be seen.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
