JEFFERSON CITY — A Republican-led effort to alter the state’s map-making system for legislative districts is “likely†headed to the Missouri Supreme Court after an appeals court said a question on the Nov. 3 ballot was flawed.
In a ruling Monday, there were “major problems†in the summary of the proposed constitutional amendment and said the measure must be rewritten in order to not mislead voters.
It marked the second courtroom victory for supporters of the 2018 “Clean Missouri†initiative, which sought to rewrite how the state’s once-per-decade redistricting process is conducted. A Cole County judge earlier sided with opponents of Amendment 3, also saying the proposed ballot language needed to be rewritten.
People are also reading…
A spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schmitt said the decision “likely†will be appealed to the high court.
Amendment 3 would nix the nonpartisan state demographer system, which 62% of voters approved two years ago, and replace it with bipartisan commissions that would control the process.
The redistricting change was the most controversial among a package of changes pushed by the “Clean Missouri†campaign in 2018.
Many Republicans believe the nonpartisan state demographer system would result in more Democrats serving in the Legislature.
The GOP currently holds a two-thirds majority in the Legislature despite statewide races routinely being decided by fewer than 10 percentage points.
The nonpartisan state demographer is to emphasize partisan fairness and competitiveness in new maps.
In response to the GOP-led attempt to replace the new system, the No on Amendment 3 campaign sued Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, amendment sponsor Sen. Dan Hegeman and House Speaker Elijah Haahr.
Sean Nicholson, director of the No on Amendment 3 campaign, said the appeals court ruling shows Republicans were illegally trying to deceive voters about their redistricting intentions.
“The fact is that the politicians pushing this incumbent-protection plan know voters will hate what’s in the fine print, so they tried to trick voters with dishonest ballot language. And now two courts have ruled that they broke the law with their deception,†Nicholson said. “Voters are smart enough to see what politicians are up to, and will vote no.â€
A “yes†vote on Amendment 3 in November would support the Legislature’s bipartisan commission; a “no†vote would oppose it.
