Missouri's Dangerous Assault on Judicial Independence: When Legislators Boycott Democracy

The Facts: A Breakdown of the Constitutional Standoff

In a startling display of political petulance, Missouri Senate Republicans recently boycotted the annual State of the Judiciary address to a joint legislative session, effectively canceling Chief Justice W. Brent Powell’s scheduled address. This coordinated absence emerged as a protest against recent judicial rulings, particularly a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision that struck down legislation altering ballot summary procedures and granting new appeal powers to the attorney general.

House Majority Leader Alex Riley, a Springfield Republican, revealed that he learned of the boycott upon arriving at the floor, noting that Senate Republicans were “a little tied up in a filibuster of sorts” and would not be joining the session. The canceled address represents an unprecedented break with tradition and a concerning escalation in the tensions between Missouri’s legislative and judicial branches.

The specific ruling that provoked this constitutional crisis involved legislation that originally aimed to prevent courts from rewriting ballot language for measures referred to voters by the General Assembly. However, by the time the bill passed, it had expanded to change five sections of state law, completely revising the process for court challenges to ballot summaries and granting the attorney general authority to appeal preliminary injunctions across various regulatory fields.

Chief Justice Powell authored the unanimous decision that determined these extensive changes violated the Missouri Constitution’s requirement that amendments should not change the original purpose of legislation. This ruling follows other recent decisions that have drawn Republican ire, including the 2021 decision upholding voter-approved Medicaid expansion and the 2024 decision allowing an abortion-rights amendment to appear on the ballot.

The Context: Missouri’s Judicial Selection Process

Missouri’s judicial selection process deserves particular attention in understanding this conflict. The state employs a nonpartisan plan where a judicial commission selects candidates for the Supreme Court, presenting them to the governor for appointment. This commission comprises three lawyers elected by the Missouri Bar, three citizens selected by the governor, and the chief justice serving as chair. Remarkably, five of the seven current Supreme Court judges were appointed by Republican governors, including Chief Justice Powell himself.

Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville lambasted the court’s decisions, accusing the judiciary of thinking “they have carte blanche capability to do the job of the legislature” and claiming they “want to act like they’re the legislature.” Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, characterized the cancellation as “petty” and described it as “another sad example of majority Republicans throwing a temper tantrum whenever they don’t get their way.”

The Constitutional Principle Under Attack

What we are witnessing in Missouri represents more than mere political disagreement—it constitutes a fundamental assault on the separation of powers that forms the bedrock of our constitutional republic. The judicial branch exists precisely to serve as a check on legislative overreach, particularly when such overreach violates constitutional principles. When lawmakers respond to adverse rulings by boycotting constitutional ceremonies and threatening judicial independence, they undermine the very foundations of our system of government.

The court’s unanimous decision to strike down the ballot summary legislation rests on solid constitutional ground. The Missouri Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments that change the original purpose of legislation—a provision designed to prevent precisely the kind of legislative maneuvering that occurred here. What began as a single-section bill addressing ballot language evolved into a sweeping overhaul of judicial review processes and executive authority. This practice of loading bills with unrelated provisions represents exactly the type of legislative abuse that constitutional single-subject rules were designed to prevent.

The Dangerous Precedent of Intimidation

Republican leaders’ response to these constitutional rulings sets a dangerous precedent that should alarm all champions of democracy. When Senator Brattin accuses the judiciary of acting “like they’re the legislature,” he fundamentally misunderstands the judicial role. Courts are not acting as legislators when they strike down unconstitutional laws; they are performing their essential function as guardians of constitutional integrity.

The suggestion by House Majority Leader Riley that Missouri’s judicial selection process “may need to change” following decisions that displeased the majority party raises profound concerns about retaliatory measures against judicial independence. This echoes concerning trends we’ve seen in other states where legislative majorities have sought to undermine judicial authority when courts fulfill their constitutional duties.

The Hypocrisy of Partisan Outrage

The irony of this situation cannot be overstated. Five of the seven justices who joined the unanimous decision were appointed by Republican governors, demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue but a constitutional one. The court’s composition should reassure conservatives that these decisions emerge from legal principle rather than political ideology. Yet the reaction suggests that some lawmakers value partisan outcomes over constitutional principles—a deeply troubling orientation for those sworn to uphold our founding documents.

Even more remarkably, Riley himself acknowledged that “these massive omnibus bills that we’ve been doing in the legislature for a long time aren’t good for multiple reasons” and admitted that their legality is “certainly questionable.” This admission makes the Republican protest even more perplexing—if legislative leaders recognize the problematic nature of omnibus legislation, why the outrage when the judiciary applies constitutional principles to curb these practices?

The Broader Threat to Democratic Norms

This incident in Missouri reflects a broader national trend where legislative majorities increasingly challenge institutional norms and independent branches of government when they fail to achieve desired outcomes. The boycott of the State of the Judiciary address represents more than political theater—it signals a growing willingness to undermine essential democratic institutions when they serve as checks on power.

When lawmakers cannot accept judicial rulings that uphold constitutional principles, they threaten the rule of law itself. The alternative—a judiciary that simply rubber-stamps legislative actions regardless of constitutionality—would effectively eliminate one of the most important protections against government overreach. Our constitutional system deliberately makes lawmaking difficult, requiring deliberation, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles precisely to prevent hasty or oppressive legislation.

The Path Forward: Recommitting to Constitutional Principles

Missouri’s leaders must step back from this dangerous confrontation and recommit to the constitutional principles that have guided our republic for centuries. The judicial branch must remain free to interpret laws without fear of political retaliation. Legislative majorities must accept that constitutional limits on their power exist for good reason—to protect minority rights, ensure transparent governance, and maintain the delicate balance of powers.

Rather than boycotting constitutional ceremonies, lawmakers should engage in good-faith efforts to craft legislation that respects constitutional boundaries. As Riley himself suggested, passing “smaller, cleaner pieces of legislation” would not only likely survive judicial review but would also promote more transparent and accountable lawmaking.

The people of Missouri—and all Americans—should demand better from their elected representatives. Our constitutional system depends on each branch respecting the others’ roles and responsibilities. When legislators attempt to intimidate the judiciary or undermine its independence, they attack the very foundations of our free society. We must defend judicial independence, respect constitutional boundaries, and reject political theatrics that threaten our democratic institutions. The rule of law must prevail over partisan grievances, now and always.