Missouri’s long-standing 1/10 of 1% tax—just 1¢ on a $10 purchase—doesn’t increase taxes and has been renewed for decades. It provides 75% of State Park funding and supports soil and water conservation. Ending it would severely damage our top-ranked parks and vital conservation work.

YES on 1 would: extend the tax for 10 years, maintaining free access to state parks, upkeep of trails and facilities, conservation work on agricultural land, and a stable dedicated funding stream outside the annual budget process.

NO on 1 would: end the tax when it expires in 2028, eliminating a major funding source for parks and conservation programs.

BOTTOM LINE: This funding stream is essential to protecting what Missourians have built together—our parks, historic sites, clean water, and working land. This is a proven, voter-controlled mechanism that costs pennies and delivers results.

——————————————————

Official Ballot Language:

Shall Missouri continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites, and resubmit this tax to the voters for approval in 10 years?

The measure allows continued collection of the existing sales and use tax, which generates revenue of approximately $140 million annually.

 Fair Ballot Language: 

A “yes” vote will continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites. This will be resubmitted to the voters for approval in 10 years.

A “no” vote will not continue this sales/use tax.

If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.

Full amendment text: https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/SJR12005.pdf

Currently, most Missouri counties elect their assessor, but charter counties — including Jackson County — can choose to appoint one instead. This amendment would change that. This issue grew out of Jackson County’s assessment controversies after large property-tax increases in 2023, which led to intense political backlash and a countywide vote in November supporting an elected assessor by more than 88%.

YES on 2 would:

• Require all charter counties to elect their assessor rather than appoint one.

• Require assessors in those counties to meet training standards set by state law.

NO on 2 would: leave things as they are — Jackson County and other charter counties could continue appointing their assessor, and no training requirements would be added.

BOTTOM LINE: Amendment 2 decides whether charter counties must elect their assessor or keep the option to appoint one.

——————————————————

Official Ballot Language:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• require all charter counties, including Jackson County, to provide for the election of a county assessor; and

• require assessors in all charter counties to comply with any training requirements established by general law?

State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

 Fair Ballot Language: 

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that all charter counties, including Jackson County, elect a county assessor and that such assessors comply with training requirements established by state law.

A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions, which exempt Jackson County from the requirement to elect its assessor and do not require charter county assessors to follow training requirements under general law.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Full Amendment text: https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills251/hlrbillspdf/1465H.02T.pdf

YES on 4 would:

• Require a statewide majority PLUS a majority in EVERY congressional district to pass a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. Voters in any one district could overrule the will of the voters in all seven of the remaining districts.

• Create a double standard because legislators' amendments would still ONLY need a simple statewide majority.

• Have prevented Medicaid expansion, minimum wage increases, marijuana legalization, and reproductive rights protections.

NO on 4 would:

• Keep the current process: a simple statewide majority for everyone — citizens and legislators alike.

BOTTOM LINE: Amendment 4 rigs the rules against voters. YES silences voters. NO keeps Missourians in charge.

——————————————————

Official Ballot Language:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Modify current requirements that a statewide majority of voters may approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution;

• Require a majority of voters in each congressional district to approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; and

• Make available to each voter the full text of initiative petitions with their ballot?

The Department of Corrections estimates increased annual costs of up to $21,817. The Office of State Public Defender estimates an unknown fiscal impact. Other state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

 Fair Ballot Language: 

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• modify current requirements of Article III and Article XII that a simple statewide majority of voters may approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution;

• require a majority of voters in each congressional district to approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; and

• make available to each voter the full text of initiative petitions with their ballot.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to require majority approval in each congressional district for initiative petitions to amend the constitution or make available the full text of initiative petitions with the ballot.

If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.

YES on 5 would:

• Phase out the state income tax—a major source of state general revenue that helps fund K–12 schools and essential public services.

• Authorize lawmakers to expand sales and use taxes to goods and services not currently taxed—including categories such as health care, legal services, repairs, or real estate transactions—without voter approval during the five-year transition period. The amendment sets no upper limit on any new taxes.

• Increase taxes on 60–80% of Missourians. Only those earning near $300,000 or more would see a cut. (Source: mobudget.org)

• Eliminate two voter-approved constitutional tax protections: 1) the 2010 ban on sales tax for real estate transactions and 2) the ban on adding sales tax to goods or services not already taxed as of January 1, 2015.

NO on 5 would:

Keep the current tax system and protect funding for schools, roads, and essential services without shifting the burden onto everyday Missourians.

BOTTOM LINE: YES cuts taxes for the wealthy and raises them for everyone else — then hands politicians a blank check to keep raising sales taxes with no limit. NO keeps the system fair.

——————————————————

Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Require legislative phase-out of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes;

• Curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and

• Require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases?

The proposal has no direct impact on state or local tax revenue. If passed, implementing legislation will have an unknown impact to state and local tax revenue. If implemented, state government entities expect a reduction of $57,000 annually in income tax check-off donations and implementation costs of at least $100,000.

 Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require legislative phase-out and elimination of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes; curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to require legislative phase-out and elimination of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth; and will not authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes.

At this time, the impact on taxes is unknown.

Full Amendment Text: https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills261/hlrbillspdf/6854S.13T.pdf