As partisan gerrymandering makes it difficult for some state legislatures to reflect the will of the people, people are turning to direct democracy to enact popular policies that their representatives don’t want. Lawmakers who have protected themselves from electoral defeat have less incentive to care about the will of the people across the state, and a majority of the people may refuse to pass legislation that favors the state. What can the people of these gerrymandered states do when their elected officials ignore the will of the people?
A closer look at Missouri and Kansas, neighboring states with vastly different approaches to direct democracy, highlights the growing importance of the initiative process as a counterbalance to unresponsive legislatures. Citizen-initiated voting systems, which exist in just over half of states, allow citizens to submit proposed state constitutional amendments or statutory provisions to voters. Both Missouri and Kansas have only recently legalized marijuana, legalized state-protected reproductive rights, and expanded eligibility for Medicaid, the publicly funded health insurance program. Today, Missourians enjoy all three thanks to the citizen-driven initiative process enshrined in the Missouri Constitution. By contrast, Kansas remains among the few states that have not legalized marijuana or expanded Medicaid. (Kansas has protected reproductive rights through important Kansas Supreme Court decisions, but the Legislature has repeatedly attempted to limit or overturn reproductive rights through statutes and the legislatively controlled constitutional amendment process.)
The Missouri Constitution explicitly gives the people the power to propose and veto legislation and constitutional amendments, and spells out detailed procedures for gathering signatures, submitting them to the Secretary of State, and reviewing them with the Attorney General. Missourians have used this provision many times in recent years, and they do so almost all the time. rear The Missouri General Assembly refused to enact the bill. In addition to abortion rights, legalizing marijuana and expanding access to Medicaid, Missouri voters have adopted a statewide minimum wage law and proposed and approved amendments in recent years to allow sports betting.
This sounds like a success story of the will of the people of Missouri and the masterful use of the state constitution. And most of them are. But partisan legislatures have responded by trying to protect their own (gerrymandered) power and limit the power of the people. Most importantly, the Missouri General Assembly in September proposed a constitutional amendment that would require approval of such initiatives to pass in every Missouri congressional district (recently regerrymandered to favor Republicans in essentially every district), rather than requiring a simple statewide majority. I hope Missouri voters reject this anti-democratic amendment.
Congressional resistance to the will of the voters has often been aided by the Secretary of State and Attorney General, who play a role in the process. For example, it has the power to reject signatures submitted in support of a proposal or review the proposed wording of an initiative. These officials did not hesitate to use their powers to block, obstruct, or limit the initiative process.
But despite these hurdles to Missouri’s direct democracy, Missouri voters have a greater say than their friends in neighboring Kansas. Kansan does not have a process for citizen-initiated reform or legislation. Instead, constitutional amendments can only be proposed by a partisan and gerrymandered Congress. Kansas voters have no recourse, as the Kansas Legislature has repeatedly refused to legalize marijuana or expand Medicaid. If an initiative process existed in Kansas, would voters pass these policies?
Further demonstrating the disconnect between Congress and the people, the Kansas Legislature proposed an ill-fated constitutional amendment that would give Congress full control over reproductive rights in 2022. After the Kansas Supreme Court strongly upheld the state’s constitutional right to abortion in 2019, the Legislature challenged constitutional reform advocates to propose to the public a highly confusingly worded (perhaps intentionally so) proposal called the “Value Both” Amendment, which refers to women and unborn babies. This amendment would overturn the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision.
In a remarkable display of popular sovereignty, Kansas voters turned out in droves to vote and overwhelmingly rejected the amendment, even though the Legislature had strategically scheduled primary voting and turnout was generally lower than in the general election. The strength and broad nature of that vote across the state suggests that people’s desires may differ from those of Congress in other areas as well.
Was the Kansas Legislature chastened by the people’s vote? Not at all. Immediately after the vote, some Kansas legislators publicly acknowledged that their position on reproductive rights was contrary to that of the majority of voters. The state’s attorney general told the Kansas Supreme Court in oral argument after the vote that the statewide vote affirming abortion rights in Kansas was “inconsequential.” And Congress went even further by enacting new laws that obstructed and restricted reproductive rights.
The latest effort to advance partisan interests in the Kansas Legislature is a proposed constitutional amendment that would make Kansas Supreme Court justices elected, rather than appointed by a committee of lawyers and citizens and then appointed by the governor, as has been the case since the 1957 constitutional amendment enacted in the wake of scandalous and politicized Supreme Court appointments. Perhaps Kansas’ legislative leaders believe that elected Supreme Court justices are more likely to follow the Legislature’s orders.
In Kansas and Missouri, there is a deep disconnect between popular will and legislative priorities. Missouri voters have successfully invoked the initiative process to enact their will on many important public policy topics, despite attempts by Congress to limit voter authority. Kansas voters don’t have that option. That’s a big difference for these two sister states.
Stephen R. McAllister is the ES and Tom W. Hampton Distinguished Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law. He previously served as the U.S. Attorney and State Attorney General for the State of Kansas.
Recommended citation: Stephen R. McAllister, Differences between Kansas and Missouri show the importance of initiative processSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (December 3, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/differences-kansas-and-missouri-show-importance-initiative-process
