Photo Credit: Philip Oroni / Unsplash
Not much attention is on Amendment 7 in Missouri as millions of dollars have gone into ads for and against other proposals that deal with abortion, online sports betting, and a new casino. However, the amendment affects the voting rights of every Missouri citizen.
Amendment 7 does the following:
One, it requires that only US citizens 18 years or older can vote in state elections. Two, it prohibits the use of ranked choice voting in the state. Three, it requires plurality primary elections that advance a single winner to the general election
The last thing, in particular, does not get much attention at all. What it means is that the Missouri Constitution would prohibit the use of nonpartisan open primaries, whether it be a top two system like in California or a top four system like in Alaska.
Under a nonpartisan system, all voters and candidates participate on a single ballot -- regardless of party - -and at least two of the top vote-getters move on to the general election.
In other words, more than one candidate advances from a single primary election as citizens narrow the options to the candidates determined by all voters to be the most viable, instead of selecting party nominees.
Requiring primaries to advance only a single candidate means that an election system in which Republicans and Democrats get their own taxpayer-funded primary elections would be enshrined into constitutional law.
And at the end of the day, the only thing voters would do by voting "Yes" on Amendment 7 is surrender their right to adopt new election systems if they are dissatisfied with their representation at the local, state, and federal level.
Noncitizen voting is already illegal under the US Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, and state and federal statutes. There is zero evidence that noncitizen voting is a problem anywhere, even though it's on the ballot in multiple states.
In a recent op-ed, Wes Rogers wrote in The Kansas City Star that Amendment 7 exists only to deceive Missourians into voting against their own interests.
"[B]eware of the sneaky Missouri Amendment 7, which uses something that’s common sense — prohibiting noncitizens from voting — to candy-coat a poison pill and distract from all the other things it would do to make elections less representative of all of us," he writes.
Amendment 7 advanced to the general election through the Missouri legislature. It started as SJR78, introduced by Sen. Ben Brown in the state Senate. Brown said its purpose was " "to fortify" state "elections to make sure that every Missourian’s voice is heard and counted."
Nothing about the resolution or the final proposal that would become Amendment 7 does this -- but critics call the noncitizen provision "ballot candy," something that looks great but won't actually do anything.
This is why The Kansas City Star issued a "No" endorsement for Amendment 7.
If lawmakers tried to pitch only a voting reform ban, there is no guarantee it would pass -- especially in a state where voters have already shown they support comprehensive election reform.
However, it appears voters may end up taking the bait. A poll from Public Opinion Strategies found that 62% of respondents support Amendment 7, though its sample size was 600 registered voters. Without additional polling, it's difficult to gauge public opinion.
Regardless of how voters feel about ranked choice voting and open primaries, Amendment 7 is about denying voters the ability to decide for themselves what election model works best for them and their communities.
"Should voters ever wish to move from a costly and inefficient two-round system to a more modern single round with ranked choice, we should be able to make that decision. It’s silly to take that freedom away," writes Rogers.
He adds:
"It would be just as foolish to ban open primaries and require a plurality winner. Why should Missouri be stuck with a system that advances two candidates to a general election when they can’t even win a majority of their own party’s voters in a low-turnout primary?"
Amendment 7 would not have a retroactive impact on nonpartisan municipal elections passed as of November 5, 2024 -- meaning it would not force St. Louis to change its nonpartisan elections with approval voting.
