Missouri bill shifts court power to officials, reignites debate over judicial power

• Missouri lawmakers approved a bill that changes how courts can review and revise ballot language for statewide measures. Supporters say it returns power to elected officials, while critics argue it weakens judicial oversight and voter protections.
• The legislation sets stricter deadlines for legal challenges, allows the secretary of state to submit revised language and gives courts the ability to write final summaries only if earlier drafts are rejected.
• It also gives the attorney general authority to appeal court rulings that block state laws.

Full Story

Missouri lawmakers passed legislation changing how courts review and revise ballot language for statewide measures, restarting debate over judicial review and the role of courts in the state’s legislative process. The bill would shift control into the hands of Missouri’s elected officials rather than judges.

Missouri curbs court role in ballot language

Judicial review is the process by which courts interpret and evaluate the fairness or legality of laws, including ballot language. In Missouri, a judge can revise the wording of a statewide ballot measure if they find it misleading or unclear.

On April 14, the Missouri House voted 109-46 to send the bill to Gov. Mike Kehoe, approving the Senate version without amendments. If signed into law, the measure would give the state attorney general new authority to challenge prior court rulings that block Missouri laws.

Some Democratic lawmakers say Republicans’ key goal is to overturn an injunction that currently prevents the state from enforcing its abortion ban.

Planned Parenthood speaks out in opposition to bill

Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action called SB 22 a power grab, releasing a call to action on its website. It reads in part, “From ending the abortion ban to raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing earned sick days, the ballot measure process is a powerful tool for Missourians to come together and vote directly on issues that matter to us — which is exactly why Jefferson City politicians are attacking it.”

For injunctions in place before Aug. 28, 2025, the attorney general would have until Sept. 12 to file an appeal.

Lawmakers in support said it’s a safeguard to prevent the courts from having too much power over officials.

“We’re all duly elected office holders,” state Rep. Ben Keathley, R-Chesterfield, said. “We have a constitutional duty to send that ballot language through. The courts are only there to call the balls and strikes on it.”

Bill breakdown

The bill summary sets a more structured process for legal challenges to ballot summaries, including stricter deadlines and a clearer division of responsibilities between the courts and the secretary of state. Under the new rules, if a judge rejects a summary, they may ask the Secretary of State to submit up to three revised versions. If none are approved, the court may draft its own.

People must now file challenges no later than 22 Tuesdays before a general election. For elections called by the governor or the legislature, courts must expedite the process to ensure ballot language is finalized before printing begins.

The legislation also extends the deadline for final court rulings on ballot summaries from 56 to 70 days before an election. It doubles the word limit for legislative ballot summaries from 50 to 100 words.

Why are there concerns about the bill?

Some Democrats said the bill could weaken protections for voters and diminish oversight.

“There is nothing to stop the secretary of state from submitting bad language, from running out the clock, from delaying certification to allow a challenge to expire,” state Rep. Eric Woods, D-Kansas City, said. “There are serious issues with the timeline here.”

Campaigns may continue collecting signatures even if someone challenges a ballot title in court. Signatures gathered before a revision will still be valid as long as they meet all other legal requirements.

If signed by the governor, the law would take effect immediately. Lawmakers included an emergency clause to fast-track implementation and avoid delays in future elections.