Understanding Missouri's Constitutional Government

Conclusion: An Evolving Document

Conclusion An Evolving Document The Missouri Constitution has come a long way since its first manifestation in 1820. Then the only elected officials at the state level were the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the General Assembly. Few limits were placed on the legislature except to maintain the institution of slavery. Ironically, the post–Civil War constitution of 1865 could be characterized by its punishment of the Southern sympathizers while at the same time denying the vote to the newly freed slaves (negated by the U.S. Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865). It took the constitution of 1875 to correct these oversights and to begin the progress toward a more specific document designed to place more limits on state government. Maximum tax rates were set, segregation was mandatory, and state income had to provide for public schools. The course of politics led to demands for more public services so that the executive branch began to grow without constitutional structures mandated. Growth and social changes led to demands for a constitutional convention, and the post–World War II world was projected to be significantly different from the past. The constitution needed rethinking. The bipartisan convention used a great deal of the fundamentals of the 1875 constitution, in the Missouri Bill of Rights, for example, but added significant restrictions on government while defining its structure more particularly. It stayed long, then.1 Besides this bumpy history and the continuity of the 1875 constitution, the 1945 Missouri Constitution has continued to reflect the influence of the national Constitution, national laws, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In addition, through the years the document has been changed by many amendments, and it has also been subject to interpretation through the 145 146 Understanding Missouri’s Constitutional Government Missouri court process. The document is always changing and certainly has always been affected by the political environment within which it operated . This is no less true today than in earlier times. In an article published in 1962, prior to the vote calling for a constitutional convention, it was argued that there was again a need for substantial revision of the constitution. The 1945 constitution was compared to a model state constitution proposed by constitutional experts, and it was concluded that there were major difficulties with the constitution. First, it was observed that the language of the constitution was not clear and understandable. Second, the document was long and inflexible. Third, the constitution was much too specific and needed to be changed to deal mostly with fundamentals.2 Despite these arguments, Missourians did not approve a constitutional convention in 1962, nor has it in consequent twenty-year votes. The 1945 constitution reflects a desire for limited government at both the state and the local levels, and this objective appears to continue to reflect the thinking of Missouri voters.3 This certainly has been the case in both the use of amendments and court interpretations. A reflection of this resonates through what has happened with the Missouri Bill of Rights. From the addition of the victims’ rights amendment to interpretation of the concealed weapons phraseology in the document, the courts have now become more important than ever as a source of individual protection. The thematic distrust of government has always been indicated in the detail of the document, and this has been reinforced by the adoption of a number of amendments that have placed additional restrictions on government activity. Taxation issues illustrate this point dramatically, especially the “Hancock Amendment.” The detail of the document enhances the role for the courts in Missouri by allowing them to interpret these various restrictions . Even so, not to be left out, the courts are also subject to limitations. The specificity of clauses makes them less subject to broad interpretation, and the ease of amending the document, even by the direct process of initiative , means that there is a strong check against judicial lawmaking. Robert F. Karsch, a longtime observer and expert on Missouri government , stated in 1978 that he had at first believed that the constitution of 1945 was essentially a standby document that would probably have to be rewritten twenty years later, but he subsequently changed his mind and emphasized that the amendment process seemed capable of providing the necessary updating of the constitution. He summed up the process by stating, “Missouri’s genius for incremental political adjustment thus takes on the character of a comfortable Guardian Angel, or behind-the-scenes [3.144.252.140] Project MUSE (2024-04-19...