Representative McGaw proposes HJR67 to allow 16 years of service in a single chamber; debate over institutional knowledge and voter intent

Representative Peggy McGaw introduced House Joint Resolution 67 to change Missouri’s legislative term-limit regime. The resolution would remove the single‑chamber prohibition that now limits service to 8 years in each chamber and instead allow members to serve up to 16 years in a single chamber. The proposal also includes limits on leadership: no person could serve more than three terms as Speaker of the House or more than two terms as President Pro Tem of the Senate. McGaw said the change would take effect after the next decennial reapportionment and was written to apply to future officeholders rather than be self‑serving.

“For the record, I am Peggy McGaw…using that same theory as to the number of years, this constitutional amendment, if approved, would simply remove the single chamber prohibition, allowing general assembly members to serve no more than 16 years total in either chamber of the legislative bodies,” McGaw said. She told the committee she favored a delay so the next cycle and post‑census maps would be in place for those affected.

Committee members generally praised the conversation. Representative Woods and Representative Bosley said they supported the measure’s intent to preserve institutional knowledge and reduce unintended concentration of power in leadership; Representative Frey suggested the leadership‑term limits could be shorter (four years rather than McGaw’s proposed limits). Opponents and some public witnesses urged caution — several speakers said term limits were a voter‑approved constitutional change in 1992 and should be respected.

Public testimony was mixed. Marilyn McLeod of the League of Women Voters said the League’s official position opposes term limits, but she told the committee she supported this particular measure because it “allows more time for members of the legislature to work and do their business” and would restore expertise. By contrast, state public advocate Arnie C. A. C. Dino and others urged retaining current limits; Dino said he favored honoring the 1992 vote and raised concerns about lobbyists’ influence and the legislature’s responsiveness to special interests.

Representative McGaw said the measure would allow lawmakers more time to learn complex state programs, citing the foundation formula for school funding as an example of policy that requires institutional knowledge: “The foundation formula is 20 years old. There's not one of us here that worked on that,” she said.

Ending: Committee heard three witnesses in person and several members offered recommendations and critiques. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the measure was returned to committee consideration after testimony.