‘After years of attacks on voters’ power to take matters into their own hands, democracy advocates are going on the offensive in Montana and Missouri. They’ve placed constitutional amendments on the ballot to declare that people have a fundamental right to popular initiatives.
‘If voters approve these measures in November, Missouri and Montana would have some of the nation’s most robust constitutional protections for direct democracy, legal experts told Bolts. …
‘Montana’s constitution already allows citizens to enact policy and pass amendments through popular initiatives; it has done this since 1906. But the upcoming amendment would enshrine the process into the constitution’s Declaration of Rights, adding a clause that would say, “The people have a fundamental right to exercise their powers of initiative and referendum.” …
‘Both measures also contain more precise protections. Organizers tailored the proposals to counter the maneuvers that Republican officials have been using in each state to undercut direct democracy.
‘Missouri’s Amendment 6 says the state legislature cannot roll back a popular initiative approved by voters unless 80 percent of lawmakers approve the change; even then, voters would still have to approve any modification before it goes into effect. …
‘The Montana measure says the initiative process should remain “impartial, predictable, transparent, and expeditious.” The provision is meant to stop officials from running down the clock to hinder initiatives they disagree with. …
‘Proponents of [the Missouri measure] also stress the importance of a separate provision that would restrict state officials’ ability to change the language of ballot initiatives.
‘This has also been a battleground in recent years as Montana’s attorney general has significantly rewritten proposed initiatives in a way advocates denounce as bias. Before certifying the 2024 abortion amendment, Knudsen wrote a new description that asserted that it would “allow post-viability abortions up to birth” and “may increase the number of taxpayer-funded abortions.” The Montana Supreme Court rejected his language and wrote its own version.
