Rep. Aaron McMullen is fighting an uphill battle — and he knows it.
McMullen, R-Independence, is pushing legislation that would require Missouri’s members of Congress to reside in the district they represent.
But there’s one problem: His proposal conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.
Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution states that to be a U.S. representative, a candidate must be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for seven years and a resident of the state they seek to represent at the time of the election. Adding further requirements, such as those proposed in McMullen’s bill, would go against the Constitution.
McMullen’s 2-page proposal states that beginning in the 2026 federal elections, a candidate running to represent a congressional district in Missouri may do so only if they live in that district.
The bill further states that if a candidate runs for a congressional district in which the boundaries have not been changed in the past 24 months, that candidate must reside in that district for a period of 12 months before the election and for three months if the district’s boundaries have been changed. Before a candidate’s name appears on the ballot, their residency would have to be verified by the secretary of state’s office, the bill states.
But all of these requirements conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as determined by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1995.
In that ruling, Arkansas residents passed an amendment to their state constitution that sought to limit the number of terms members of their state legislatures and their congressional representatives could serve. In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that putting additional requirements on members of Congress is prohibited, and thus unconstitutional. The ruling invalidated similar measures passed by 22 other states, including Missouri.
“This is going to be a long process,” McMullen said in an interview, adding that he and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office are currently working to amend some language in the bill.
When McMullen first presented his bill during last year’s session, he faced stern opposition from Rep. Adam Schwadron, a St. Charles Republican, who called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional” and said he couldn’t support it.
Last week, Schwadron again laid out his argument for why the bill is flawed when it was heard by the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee.
“I understand where people are coming from,” Schwadron later said in his office. “Unfortunately, I don’t want to have to spend state money on something that we 100% know will be struck down by the courts.”
The question at the heart of McMullen’s bill is one of representation. Specifically, whether a candidate who doesn’t live in a particular district should be able to represent it.
The Missouri Constitution lays out requirements for members of the legislature, which includes district residency. But the U.S. Constitution, while specifying age, citizenship and state residency requirements, does not address the issue.
“The members of the Constitutional Convention were familiar with district residency requirements and many of the states imposed them in state constitutions. But they did not choose to put them in the U.S. Constitution,” said Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri. “While many Americans might agree on requiring district representation, it could only be mandated through a constitutional amendment.”
And an amendment is something McMullen, a candidate for Senate District 11, said he is open to.
“I feel like what this bill does is start the conversation to try to look and, you know, amend, possibly, the (U.S.) Constitution,” he said. “Everybody agrees with the concept and agrees that this is something that needs to be fixed. It’s just a long and arduous process.”
In 1996, Missouri residents passed a constitutional amendment that sought to place term limits on members of Congress to a maximum of three terms for House representatives and two for Senators. The measure passed with more than 57%, but was deemed invalid by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2001 decision.
Opposition to McMullen’s bill is sparse, with most either indifferent as a result of the legal hurdles still in its way or concerned with the precedent it might set.
“I get a little bit weary anytime we start confining the requirements that are already in the federal constitution,” said Rep. Kevin Windham, a Democrat from Hillsdale, who sits on the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee.
Windham said the bill raises a few red flags for him as it relates to placing boundaries around certain areas of the law.
“The state legislature draws the lines for congressional districts. What happens when what has seemingly been a practice of drawing folks out of certain congressional districts (occurs during redistricting every 10 years)? It has a little bit more of an effect when you say that that person can’t run at all in that district,” Windham said.
Windham added that he thinks there’s a clear conflict of interest when the legislature controls the process of both drawing the lines for congressional districts and narrowing down the district residency requirements in the U.S. Constitution.
“It puts, at least me, in particular, in a weird space as far as being able to support (the bill),” Windham said.
Squire said candidates can easily find themselves in new districts following redistricting, which could then place them in situations where they’re running for a district they do not live in.
“District lines shift and candidates may not want to move with them,” Squire said.
“In urban areas,” he added, “the lines don’t usually match media markets and members may be sufficiently well-known to run even if they don’t currently live in the district.”
It’s been nearly 32 years since the U.S. Constitution has last been amended, when in May 1992 Michigan became the 38th state needed to ratify the 27th Amendment.
Yet despite the slim odds McMullen’s bill might be facing during this legislative session, he remains optimistic.
“The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step,” McMullen said.
And if he somehow manages to pull it off, beginning the process of amending the U.S Constitution, even Schwadron, McMullen’s most ardent opponent, said he would support it.
“I would vote for that,” Schwadron said, “I would approve that, so long as it is an amendment to the United States Constitution.”
This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian.
