Proposing a constitutional amendment recognizing the right of an individual to refuse a vaccination.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Daniel Alders and 21 co-sponsors

Constitutional amendment recognizing an individual's right to refuse vaccination, potentially curbing vaccine mandates and reshaping public health policy.

Referred to State Affairs

#health--general(i0385) #health--otherdiseases&medicalconditions(i0383) #immunizations(s4341) #resolutions--constitutionalamendments(i0661)

HJR 91 — Summary

Overview

HJR 91 is a joint-resolution constitutional amendment proposing to recognize an individual’s right to refuse vaccination. It is currently classified as a joint resolution and has been referred to the State Affairs committee. The bill was introduced on November 13, 2024, and, per the latest actions, the primary legislative steps have included a first reading and referral to committee in March 2025.

What the bill would do (as introduced)

Proposes amending the state constitution to recognize an individual’s right to refuse a vaccination.

The exact language, definitions, and any exceptions or limitations are not provided in the summary available here. Therefore, the precise scope (e.g., applicability to public health mandates, school-entry requirements, or healthcare settings) cannot be confirmed from the information provided.

Potential impacts and policy considerations

Public health and safety: The amendment could affect state authority to impose or enforce vaccination requirements in schools, workplaces, or during public health emergencies. It may constrain statutes or regulations that mandate vaccines or require exemptions.

Individual rights: The measure would strengthen or enshrine personal autonomy over vaccination decisions within the state constitution.

Relationships to existing laws: Depending on the final text, the amendment could interact with current vaccination mandates, exemptions (e.g., medical, religious), and emergency powers or outbreak response authorities.

Administrative implications: If adopted, agencies and courts would need to interpret and apply the constitutional guarantee in the context of public health policy and private conduct.

Who would be affected

Individuals seeking or resisting vaccination mandates.

Public health authorities and healthcare providers implementing immunization programs.

Schools, employers, and institutions that maintain vaccine requirements or exemptions.

Courts interpreting constitutional rights in cases involving vaccines and public health measures.

Procedural history and timeline

Filed: November 13, 2024

2024-11-13: Filed (initial filing)

2025-03-10: Read first time

2025-03-10: Referred to State Affairs

Status: Referred to State Affairs

Next steps and practical considerations

As a joint resolution, passage would typically require approval by both legislative chambers and, in many states, voter ratification in a ballot measure. The exact constitutional-roadmap for this bill depends on the state’s rules.

Final text (including any exemptions or limitations) will determine the practical impact on vaccination policies, school requirements, and public health authority.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific state’s constitutional amendment process or compare HJR 91 to similar measures in other states.