Advocates for Amendment 1, a measure that could appear on Missouri's November ballot, say the measure has the noble-sounding goal of improving the culture in Jefferson City.

Even its nickname "Clean Missouri," projects a more ethical and functional political culture, one in which donors and lobbyists have reduced influence and where Missouri's political maps are redrawn to make elections fairer and more competitive. More than 300,000 Missourians signed petitions to put the issue on the Nov. 6 ballot. 

Touted by supporters as a bipartisan reform effort, the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution has drawn opposition from establishment Republicans, who view it not as a tool to reduce corruption but as a disingenuous attempt to elect more Democrats.

What's in Amendment 1?

If it makes it to the ballot and is approved by voters, Amendment 1 would make a number of changes to Jefferson City politics. 

It would slightly reduce how much money statehouse candidates can accept from each donor per election. Senators and representatives would be constitutionally barred from soliciting contributions on state property.

Lobbyist gifts to lawmakers would be capped at $5 per present. Also, statehouse politicians would have to wait two years after serving in office before taking a paid lobbying job.

The amendment also would explicitly make legislative records subject to the Sunshine Law and would change how Missouri's political maps are drawn.

MORE: Letters for 9/21: Amendment 1, Social Security and more

What's going on with the maps?

Which statehouse and congressional candidates Missourians get to vote on in each election depends on the invisible district lines divvying up the state into political subdivisions.

Some political maps are obvious — for statewide candidates, the boundaries are Missouri's borders. But for representation in Jefferson City, district boundaries are redrawn every decade after the Census report comes out.

A panel of bipartisan commissioners picked by the governor is supposed to submit a map plan, but only if 70 percent of them agree. If not, the Missouri Supreme Court picks six judges from appeals courts to draw the maps.

Amendment 1 would upend this process, redefining the role of Missouri's state demographer and requiring that districts be drawn based on "partisan fairness" and "competitiveness."

This amendment would not affect how Missouri's districts for the U.S. House of Representatives are drawn. Those Congressional districts would continue to be drawn by state lawmakers themselves. 

How would the new system work?

First, Amendment 1 would create a selection process for the position of "non-partisan state demographer," who would be responsible for drafting legislative maps.

Nominees for the five-year demographer position would be put forward by the state auditor. That partisan position is now held by Nicole Galloway, a Democrat up for election who took over for deceased Republican Auditor Tom Schweich in 2015.

The state auditor would propose at least three names to the top Republican and Democrat in the Missouri Senate. If the legislative leaders agree on a name, the selection process ends there.

If there's no consensus, each party's Senate leader could remove one-third of the auditor's nominees, and the auditor would then select the demographer from the remainder through a lottery.

The districts, once drawn, would have to have about the same number of people living within them, similar to the current maps. Amendment 1 would inject some new language to:

  • Prevent districts from being "drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminishing their ability to elect representatives of their choice"
  • Require districts to achieve "partisan fairness," meaning that "parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legislative representation with approximately equal efficiency"
  • Require districts to achieve "competitiveness," meaning that "parties' legislative representation shall be substantially and similarly responsive to shifts in the electorate's preferences."

Requirements that districts be contiguous and compact would remain, but the fairness and competitiveness requirements would come first. The Brennan Center for Justice has said that if Amendment 1 passes, "Missouri would be one of the first states in the nation to require a statistical test to measure partisan fairness in the redistricting process."

The House and Senate commissions would still exist, but instead of drawing their own maps, they would start by reviewing the demographer's plans. The commissioners could make changes with 70 percent support. If no changes are made, the demographer's maps would become final.

A state demographer already exists in the Office of Administration, but the position doesn't have nearly the power it would under Amendment 1.

There's a lot going on here

Whether Amendment 1 makes it to the ballot remains to be seen, as the proposal has been challenged in court for trying to do too much.

The Missouri Constitution prohibits proposals that try to cram multiple unrelated issues into a single bill or amendment, a process referred to as "logrolling."

Two lawsuits are pending in state court challenging the constitutionality of Amendment 1 on the grounds that it contains at least two and as many as 20 discrete changes. Clean Missouri argues that Amendment 1 deals with only one subject: The state legislature.

A Cole County judge ruled that the group contains at least two different subjects and is invalid, knocking it off the November ballot. An attorney for Clean Missouri appealed and won an order keeping the measure on the ballot until the lawsuit is complete. 

The case was argued last week in appellate court in Kansas City. The decision was reversed — a win for the Clean Missouri camp — as the appeals court cited precedent that initiative petitions must be read "liberally and non-restrictively."

MORE: The facts about medical marijuana amendments

"Construing the Initiative Petition 'liberally and non-restrictively,' we conclude that the Petition’s multiple provisions all relate to a single central purpose: regulating the legislature to limit the influence of partisan or other special interests," the appeals court ruled, holding that Amendment 1's several provisions all address "one subject and matters properly connected therewith."

The appeals court also decided that the petition "substantially complied" with state law, even though Amendment 1 made a "regrettable error" in misquoting part of the text that would be deleted if voters approve the measure.

The Missouri Supreme Court on Sept. 24 declined to hear the case, meaning the appellate court's ruling kept Amendment 1 on the ballot.

Are Missouri's statehouse maps gerrymandered now?

Missouri's districts give Republicans more representation than would be expected given the number of votes they receive, according to a 2017 study by the Associated Press.

However, the AP study found that disparities do not reach an accepted threshold needed to legally prove gerrymandering.

When the News-Leader reviewed this data, some experts suggested that the districts may be "rigged to some extent" to protect incumbents. And though Democratic and Republican party leaders disagree on many issues, they agreed that Republicans may enjoy a slight advantage because Democratic support is so densely concentrated into St. Louis and Kansas City.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former California governor, actor and body builder, has launched a campaign to "terminate gerrymandering" in Missouri by supporting Amendment 1. 

However, the Missourians First group, which stands opposite Clean Missouri, is trying to brand Amendment 1 as "the gerrymandering initiative" because of the proposed mapping changes. 

Our look at the data: Analysis: Missouri's political map favors Republicans but falls short of gerrymandering

What about lawmakers' records and the Sunshine Law?

The Missouri House and Senate are subject to the Sunshine Law, meaning that hearings generally are open and records of government business can be requested by the public.

But it's long been the position of the Missouri General Assembly that individual state lawmakers are not subject to the Sunshine Law, Missouri's statutes governing open records and meetings.

As such, state lawmakers have resisted calls or requests to release documents such as their official emails. One point of caution they often raise is that — notwithstanding the ability to redact certain information — opening up lawmakers' emails could endanger the privacy of constituents reaching out to their representatives.MORE: Details: Threats of violence Springfield police investigated during 2017-18 year

Generally, communications using state email systems are subject to public disclosure, and public records range from copies of contracts to official calendars to parking logs. Much of this information requires a written request before it's provided, though Missouri makes information such as executive-branch salaries available already, and there are a host of exemptions and other state and federal laws that allow or forbid disclosure under certain circumstances.

What about the lobbying parts?

Right now, public officials can accept gifts from lobbyists without any real restriction.

Amendment 1 would prohibit lawmakers and their staff from accepting any gifts valued at more than $5.

Also, lawmakers would have to cool off for two years after their last session in Jeff City prior to becoming a paid lobbyist.

This raises the question of whether getting coffee, meals, or sports tickets from professional advocates leads lawmakers to sponsor specific language or vote a certain way.

Most Springfield-area state lawmakers accept lobbyist gifts. Rep. Elijah Haahr, who is positioned to be Missouri's next House Speaker, has led the way in 2018 among local legislators by receiving about $2,081, with another $636 given to his staff or family. About $300 of that was for a July dinner at Flame Steakhouse for Haahr, his wife and two staffers, according to the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Some lawmakers — including Springfield Reps. Crystal Quade and Curtis Trent  and Nixa Sen. Jay Wasson — have reported receiving no gifts in 2018. However, there's been more than $150,000 in lobbyist spending on behalf of the entire General Assembly in 2018 with about $31,400 going to the Senate and another $11,400 spent for the House.

Lobbyists play an important role in Missouri's political ecosystem. In addition to persuading lawmakers to pass priority legislation for the clients they represent, some lobbyists have been in Jefferson City for much longer than those in Missouri's term-limited legislature, making them sources of institutional knowledge.

But "lobbyist" can be an ugly word — remember former Gov. Eric Greitens' tirades? — and activities where policy-makers benefit financially can create the appearance of impropriety even where none exists. 

Who's paying for it?

As is typical for a Missouri election, millions of dollars have been spent on Amendment 1.

Clean Missouri has raised more than $2 million in support of the proposal. Big chunks of its funding have come from groups that usually back Democratic politicians and causes, including labor unions, Planned Parenthood affiliates, and a group linked to liberal mega-donor George Soros.

Many smaller contributions — $5 here, $10 there — have come from ordinary Missourians, according to the Missouri Ethics Commission's data.

MORE: CLEAN Missouri's anti-corruption crusade backed by big bucks from unions

Another pro-Amendment 1 group, the generic-sounding "2018 Ballot Fund," has reported just one contribution, but it's a big one — $400,000 in July from the Civic Participation Action Fund, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., with the mission of "increasing participation in elections and the democratic process, particularly among people of color," according to its website.

We Are Missouri, a union-backed political campaign committee, spent most of its millions to defeat the "right-to-work" measure in August. But this group has also registered with the ethics commission to advocate for Amendment 1.

Missourians First, the anti-Amendment 1 group, was created Aug. 10 and has not yet filed any contribution or spending reports, according to the ethics commission.

Read or Share this story: