Differences in Kansas and Missouri Show Importance of Initiative Process

As partisan gerrymandering makes some state legislatures less reflective of the will of a state’s people, citizens are turning to direct democracy to enact popular policies their representatives won’t. Lawmakers who have shielded themselves from election defeats have less incentive to care about the will of the people of a state as a whole — and sometimes decline to pass laws a majority of the people in their state favor. What can citizens of such gerrymandered states do when their elected representatives ignore their preferences?

A close look at Missouri and Kansas — neighboring states with very different approaches to direct democracy — highlights the increasing importance of the initiative process as a counter to an unresponsive legislature. Citizen-initiated ballot measures, which exist in just over half the states, allow citizens to put proposed state constitutional amendments or statutory provisions to the voters. It wasn’t long ago that neither Missouri nor Kansas had legalized marijuana, state-protected reproductive rights, or expanded eligibility for the publicly funded health insurance program Medicaid. Today, Missourians enjoy all three, thanks to the citizen-driven initiative process in the Missouri Constitution. Kansas, by contrast, remains in the minority of states that have not legalized marijuana or expanded Medicaid. (Kansas has protected reproductive rights by virtue of an important Kansas Supreme Court decision, with the legislature repeatedly attempting to limit and overturn those rights through statutes and the legislatively controlled constitutional amendment process.)

The Missouri Constitution expressly authorizes and empowers the people to propose and reject laws and constitutional amendments, articulating detailed procedures for the collection of signatures, submission to the secretary of state, and review by the attorney general. Missouri citizens utilized this provision numerous times in recent years, almost always after the Missouri legislature refused to enact legislation. In addition to abortion rights, marijuana legalization, and expanded Medicaid access, Missouri voters in recent years have proposed and approved amendments adopting a state-wide minimum wage law and allowing sports betting.

This sounds like a success story for the will of the people of Missouri and an impressive use of the state constitution. And mostly it is. But the partisan legislature, seeking to protect its own (gerrymandered) power, has responded by attempting to limit the people’s power. Most significantly, the Missouri legislature in September proposed a constitutional amendment that would require any initiative proposal to pass in each and every one of Missouri’s congressional districts — recently re-gerrymandered to favor Republicans in essentially all districts — rather than requiring a simple statewide majority to approve such initiatives. Hopefully, the voters of Missouri will reject this anti-democratic amendment.

The legislature’s resistance to the will of the voters often has been assisted by the secretary of state and attorney general, who both play a role in the process. They have, for example, the power to reject signatures submitted in support of a proposal and to review the initiative’s proposed language. These officials have not hesitated to use their powers to stop, frustrate, or limit the initiative process.

But even given these hurdles to direct democracy in Missouri, voters there have more of a voice than their friends in neighboring Kansas. Kansans have no process for citizen-initiated amendments or laws. Instead, constitutional amendments can only be proposed by their legislature, which is partisan and gerrymandered. The Kansas legislature has repeatedly refused to legalize marijuana or expand Medicaid, and Kansas voters have no recourse. If an initiative process existed in Kansas, would voters pass these policies?

Further demonstrating the disconnect between the legislature and the people, the Kansas legislature in 2022 proposed an ill-fated constitutional amendment to give the legislature complete control over reproductive rights. After the Kansas Supreme Court recognized a vigorous state constitutional right to abortion in 2019, the legislature proposed to the people a very confusingly worded (likely intentionally so) constitutional amendment proponents called the “Value them Both” amendment, with “Both” referring to women and the unborn. That amendment would have overruled the Kansas Supreme Court decision.

In a remarkable display of popular sovereignty, Kansas voters turned out in droves for that vote — even though the legislature tactically scheduled the vote for a primary election, which generally would have a lower turnout than a general — and overwhelmingly rejected the amendment. The strength and widespread nature of that statewide vote suggests the desires of the people may diverge from those of the legislature in other areas as well.

Was the Kansas legislature chastened by the vote of the people? Not at all. Immediately after the vote, some Kansas legislators publicly acknowledged their position on reproductive rights was contrary to that of a majority of their constituents. The state’s solicitor general told the Kansas Supreme Court in a post-vote oral argument that the statewide vote affirming abortion rights in Kansas “doesn’t matter.” And the legislature doubled down by enacting new laws that interfere with and restrict reproductive rights.

The Kansas legislature’s latest effort to further its partisan interests is a proposed constitutional amendment that would make Kansas Supreme Court justices elected rather than nominated by a commission of lawyers and citizens and then appointed by the governor, as they have been since enactment of a constitutional amendment in 1957 following a scandalous, politicized appointment to the court. Presumably, legislative leadership in Kansas believes elected supreme court justices are more likely to do the legislature’s bidding.

There is a serious disconnect in Kansas and Missouri between popular will and the legislatures’ priorities. Missouri voters have successfully invoked the initiative process to enact their will on a number of important public policy topics, even as the legislature tries to limit their power to do so. Kansas voters do not have that option. What a difference it makes for these two sister states.

Stephen R. McAllister is the E.S. & Tom W. Hampton Distinguished Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law. He was previously the U.S. Attorney for Kansas and the state solicitor general. 

Suggested Citation: Stephen R. McAllister, Differences in Kansas and Missouri Show Importance of Initiative Process, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Dec. 3, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/differences-kansas-and-missouri-show-importance-initiative-process