The Missouri Constitution is an outdated mess. Outside big money would make it worse

Missouri voters will face an unusual question in November. “Shall there be a convention,” the ballot will ask, “to revise and amend the (state) constitution?”

It’s a close call, but the correct answer is no.

The question may surprise many voters. It wasn’t put on the ballot by the Legislature, or by a petition from an unknown fringe group. Instead, the Missouri Constitution itself requires a referendum every 20 years to decide if the state’s governing blueprint should be revised or rewritten.

The last vote came in — you guessed it — 2002. By a nearly 2-1 margin, voters rejected the idea. They also said no in 1962 and 1982.

This time might be more interesting.

Revising or replacing Missouri’s long and unwieldy constitution has a certain appeal. It’s more than 200 pages long. The document has been amended more than 120 times, including dozens of changes submitted by petition. The constitution is a wobbly battleship covered in barnacles.

Did you know Missouri’s Constitution allows women to exempt themselves from jury duty? The U.S. Supreme Court discarded that provision in 1979, but the language is still in the document.

The Missouri Constitution still says the only valid marriage is one between a man and a woman, Obergefell notwithstanding. It establishes term limits for members of Congress, which also ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Water pollution control bonds are in the constitution. So is bingo. Fuel taxes. Pensions for the blind. There’s a whole section on St. Louis government. It’s clear the Missouri Constitution could use some careful editing.

But there are fundamental changes that might make sense, too. There are 163 members in the Missouri House, making it one of the largest Houses of all the states. It’s too big. A constitutional convention could recommend a smaller legislature.

“Anything could be changed!” said Elad Gross, a St. Louis attorney and state government analyst in an email. “I think we’re overdue for a constitutional convention.” (The last convention was held in 1943.)

If the convention could be limited to tightening the document, discarding old language while adding important reforms, it might be a worthwhile exercise. Sadly, it’s possible — perhaps likely — that rewriting the Missouri Constitution would make it worse, not better.

The convention would consist of two elected delegates from each of Missouri’s 34 Senate districts. Because of the way nominees are chosen, each district would almost certainly elect one Republican and one Democrat.

But 15 additional delegates would be elected statewide, potentially upsetting the partisan balance of the convention. “If they’re slanted more toward one ideology, you may get a lot of partisan proposals,” Gross said.

“I’d think there would be a massive influx of money into those statewide campaigns from folks with particular interests,” he said. That could jeopardize critical programs endorsed by Missourians over the years -- and invite wealthy donors to try to manipulate the process.

And important ideas might be threatened. It wasn’t a great idea to put Medicaid expansion in the constitution, for example, or medical marijuana, or gambling, but they were put there to make sure legislators couldn’t routinely amend or gut them. A convention might recommend repeal of all three.

Some Republicans are bitterly opposed to petition rights and referendums. Those parts of the Missouri Constitution might be jeopardized by a convention. Gun rights, protected in the document today, could be dropped, or increased. The government-limiting Hancock Amendment might fall. And so on.

“The journey to edit is fraught with danger,” said Mark Anthony Jones, chairman of the Jackson County Republican Party.

There are some protections if the state constitution is revised. The convention must be open to the press and public, and Missourians would get the final vote on whatever recommendations the group makes.

But it isn’t enough. An unbounded convention could wreak havoc on important parts of the state constitution, then present it to voters as an up-or-down proposal. The Missouri Constitution is a mess, but wholesale changes are too risky. Just vote no.