JEFFERSON CITY — Resolutions that would further limit access to the ballot for initiatives and constitutional amendments were discussed for more than four hours in a House hearing Tuesday.

The first resolutions heard by the House Committee of Elections and Elected Officials focused on raising the requirements for passing initiative petitions.

Rep. Mike Henderson, R-Bonne Terre, who is Speaker Pro Tempore, told the committee that his resolution “would put in front of Missouri voters the question: is a simple majority to change the constitution of our state too low of a threshold?”

If passed, House Joint Resolution 43 would implement stricter requirements such as increasing the number of signatures required in each congressional district as well as raising the number of votes needed to pass an initiative petition from a simple majority to two-thirds.

Henderson said that this resolution “does not change statutory reform at all, this is only dealing with the constitution.”

Witness testimony stretched over two hours, with several who spoke in support celebrating the possibility of rural representation.

Rep. Bill Falkner, R-St. Joseph, highlighted the benefits of HJR 43.

“As far as getting the signatures in each congressional district, I think that brings awareness to these initiative petitions to where it starts the information process.”

Those who testified in opposition touched on common themes within their testimonies such as the adversity that grassroot efforts would face in creating change.

Missouri is one of only 18 states that allow initiative petitions for constitutional change.

HJR 24 and HJR 25 also propose changes to initiative petitions. The two resolutions, sponsored by Rep. Bishop Davidson, R-Republic, are identical apart from where they would be placed within the Missouri Constitution. The resolutions would require ”a majority of registered voters in order to pass constitutional amendments initiated by initiative petitions,” Davidson said.

“The question at hand is: Is there enough consensus to really show the enthusiasm of Missourians across our state when it comes to changing their most fundamental document, the Missouri Constitution,” he said.

Countering a witness objection to the increased requirements seen in the resolutions, Rep. Brad Banderman, R-St. Clair, said “the things that rise to the occasion of amending our constitution should be no-brainers.”

Several witnesses who testified in opposition to HJR 43 reiterated their discontent also with HJR 24 and 25.

The committee also heard testimony on HJR 30, a resolution sponsored by Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, that would make constitutional amendments more difficult to attain.

In addition to receiving a simple majority of votes cast to pass an amendment to the constitution, Lewis would require that such amendments receive a majority of the votes in a majority of state House of Representative districts in order to pass.

“HJR 30 is very different than anything (the committee) heard so far,” Lewis said.