JEFFERSON CITY — Republicans took action to restore a law that would grant the secretary of state more power over the language voters see when they head to the polls. A law with a similar provision was struck down by the state Supreme Court earlier this year, because it strayed too far from the bill’s original meaning.
Sponsored by Rep. John Simmons, R-Washington, HB 3146 aims to increase the number of words a summary statement can contain from 50 to 100. It also grants the secretary of state the ability to rewrite summary statements three times before a judge could rewrite the bill. Currently, if language is found to be insufficient or unfair in court, a judge is responsible for revisions to the language.
On Tuesday, the House Elections Committee passed the bill, and it will now pass to the House floor for debate.
A summary statement is the description included on a ballot for ballot measures — the laws and constitutional amendments passed by voters.
Simmons said he would rather the secretary of state write summary statements, instead of being written by a judge.
“(Judges) need to stay in their lane, need to stay in the confines of their checks and balances,” Simmons said.
In late January, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a law that included a provision allowing the secretary of state the ability to rewrite ballot language three times if it was challenged in court before a judge was permitted to rewrite the language.
The law, which was passed last April, also had a provision granting the attorney general the power to appeal preliminary injunctions from the court, which halt state actions. The Supreme Court said that it struck down the law because this provision, as well as others added to the original bill, too greatly changed the bill’s original meaning, violating a constitutional requirement.
Simmons said his bill is the same as the law that was struck down but without the amendments that saw it struck down. He added that it was “a response to the Supreme Court.”
A summary statement is originally written either by the secretary of state or the General Assembly. If the statement is challenged in court and found to be insufficient or unfair, meaning that it does not accurately represent the ballot measure, it is currently up to judges to rewrite the language.
Simmons’ bill would add an extra step to this process, allowing the secretary of state three attempts to rewrite the summary. These summaries need approval by a judge to appear on the ballot, and if the secretary cannot create fair language after three attempts, a judge will make revisions.
Before the previous law was struck down, the secretary of state was permitted to rewrite language from April 2025 until January 2026. During this time, Simmons said, “the process worked beautifully.”
Rep. Eric Woods, D-Kansas City, said the secretary of state should not be granted this power because he has previously written ballot language that does not reflect the true meaning of the law.
“The majority and the secretary of state have made a habit out of crafting ballot language that is intentionally designed to deceive and obfuscate,” Woods said.
Woods pointed out that Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has admitted, in court, to writing prejudiced ballot language.
He added that the bill was “an opportunity to test the limits in terms of what they can get away with in terms of dishonest ballot language.”
Woods said his biggest concern is that the secretary of state could use this revision power to get around challenges to summaries. He said that because the secretary of state has multiple attempts, language that is deemed insufficient or unfair in court can be passed back and forth until after the deadline for a measure to be added to the ballot, potentially delaying a vote.
“The challenge may expire based on the timeline, and we are faced with ballot language that is intentionally dishonest,” Woods said. “We need to have the courts as neutral arbiters in this process.”