WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 117

Proposes a constitutional amendment relating to state regulation of contracts

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Scott Miller

Prohibits state laws that impair private parties’ right to set prices or compensation in markets, with carve-outs for existing regulated industries, shared resources, and existing

Referred: Emerging Issues(H)
#businessandcommerce #constitutionalamendments
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 117

Summary of Bill: HJR 117 (Missouri) — 2026

Purpose

  • This proposed constitutional amendment would restrict the state from enacting laws that interfere with private parties’ ability to set prices or compensation for goods or services in any market or industry.
  • The goal is to shield contractual freedom and pricing autonomy from state regulation, subject to specified exceptions.

Key Provisions

  1. Prohibition on state price/compensation regulation

    • Section 37(1): “Except as provided under subsection 2, no law impairing the rights of private parties in any market or industry to set prices or compensation for goods or services offered or received shall be adopted by the state.”
    • In short: The legislature and state agencies would be barred from passing laws that obstruct private parties’ freedom to determine prices or compensation in markets.

  2. Specified exceptions (subsection 2)

    • Subsection 2(1): Existing industries regulated under state law as of the effective date of the amendment may be regulated under current/state law.
    • Subsection 2(2): The rights of a community in the use of a shared natural resource are exempt from the prohibition.
    • These carve-outs allow continued regulation of industries already under state regulatory frameworks and protect communal rights to shared natural resources.

  3. Contractual protections (subsection 3)

    • Subsection 3: The price/compensation protection does not apply to contracts or agreements in existence prior to the adoption of the section.
    • Terms or obligations of such pre-existing contracts would continue through their termination, expiration, or renewal.
    • The amendment would not prejudice or impair pending actions, proceedings, or rights already acquired.

Affected Parties and Impacts

  • Direct impact: Private parties engaging in negotiations and setting prices/compensation in markets or industries not already regulated by state law, once the amendment takes effect.
  • Industries with carve-outs: Markets currently regulated under state law and communities utilizing shared natural resources would retain jurisdictional regulation or rights as applicable.
  • Contracts in force: Existing contracts and ongoing legal actions at the time of adoption would largely remain unaffected, with protections continuing until contract termination, expiration, or renewal.

Procedural and Timeline Details

  • When submitted to voters: At the next general election in Missouri, or at a governor-called special election.
  • Election timing reference: Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2026 (or a subsequent special election).
  • Status history:
    • Prefiled: December 1, 2025
    • Read First Time: January 7, 2026
    • Read Second Time: January 8, 2026
    • Referred to Emerging Issues (H) for consideration: May 15, 2026
  • Constitutional mechanism: If approved by voters, the amendment would add a new Section 37 to Article I of the Missouri Constitution.

Practical Considerations

  • The measure represents a significant shift toward prohibiting state interference with private pricing and contract terms, aligning with a broader “state regulation gag” in which existing or future laws cannot impair private price-setting.
  • The carve-outs acknowledge the ongoing regulatory frameworks for certain industries and the protection of shared-resource rights, limiting blanket application.
  • By exempting pre-existing contracts, the amendment aims to provide a stable transition for ongoing business relationships.

Note on Language and Scope

  • The text specifies “no law impairing the rights of private parties in any market or industry to set prices or compensation for goods or services offered or received shall be adopted by the state,” which raises questions about interactions with federal law, antitrust constraints, and certain public policy measures. The intent appears to be broad, but the enumerated exceptions constrain its reach.

If you’d like, I can provide a comparison to existing Missouri constitutional provisions or outline potential legal and economic implications in more detail.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.