OUR VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS
KNOW WHAT'S ON YOUR BALLOT.
PROPOSITION A — Congressional Districts
Lawmakers redrew Missouri's congressional map in 2025, years before the next census. It breaks up the Kansas City district, stretching it halfway across the state.
» A NO VOTE rejects the new map and keeps the current districts.
AMENDMENT 3 — Reproductive Healthcare
Missouri voters approved constitutional protections for reproductive healthcare in 2024. Amendment 3 would repeal those protections and sharply limit access to abortion. The amendment would also enshrine a ban on gender-transition procedures for minors, something Missouri law already prohibits.
» A NO VOTE would preserve the reproductive healthcare rights voters approved in 2024 and leave current restrictions on gender-transition procedures unchanged.
AMENDMENT 6 — Protecting Voter-Approved Laws
Missourians can petition to put laws directly before voters. Amendment 6 would stop lawmakers from changing or repealing those laws unless 80% of both chambers agree to send the change back to voters. It also protects the petition process and lets courts correct misleading ballot summaries.
» A YES VOTE would strengthen voters' rights and protect voter-approved laws from legislative interference.
AMENDMENT 7 — State Investment Fund
This proposal would create a permanent state investment fund with the goal of eventually replacing state taxes with investment earnings. It has no guaranteed funding source or deadline for eliminating taxes. Its success would depend on investment returns, which can rise and fall.
»A NO VOTE would reject this plan and its financial risks to future funding for schools, roads, and other public services.
AMENDMENT 8 — County Sheriffs
Amendment 8 would write sheriff elections every four years, already required by law, and other sheriff duties into the Constitution. It would also let only the Attorney General seek a sheriff’s removal, taking that power from local prosecutors.
»A NO VOTE would keep these rules under state law and preserve local prosecutors' authority to ask courts to remove sheriffs for misconduct.
PROPOSITION A — What Are We Voting On?
PROPOSITION A: WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY VOTING ON?
THE 2022 MAP — Missouri’s Regular Census Map
Missouri’s Constitution (Article III, Section 45) requires lawmakers to redraw congressional districts after each 10-year U.S. Census. Missouri did that in 2022, following the 2020 Census. This map was used in the 2022 and 2024 elections.
THE 2025 MAP — A Mid‑Decade Redraw
In 2025, without a new Census, lawmakers passed a second congressional map. Supporters said it would strengthen Republican representation. Opponents called it a partisan power grab.
The 2025 map changes Kansas City’s districts by placing more Kansas City and Jackson County voters into districts that extend across other parts of Missouri.
Missourians gathered enough signatures to put the 2025 map to a statewide vote as Proposition A on the November 3 ballot. The outcome will determine whether the 2025 map replaces the existing 2022 map for future congressional elections, beginning in 2028.
YES on Proposition A — Approves the 2025 congressional map, drawn to help Republicans gain an additional seat in Congress.
NO on Proposition A — Rejects the 2025 map and keeps the districts adopted after the 2020 Census.
Important: The 2022 map will be used for the November 3 election, no matter what. Proposition A decides which map Missouri uses after that.
PROPOSITION A — It’s a Power Grab
DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?
Under the 2022 congressional map, nearly all of Kansas City is within the relatively compact 5th Congressional District.
Proposition A would change that dramatically, dividing much more of Kansas City among three congressional districts that stretch far beyond the metro area.
Instead of keeping communities together, the proposed map redistributes Kansas City voters to help Republicans gain an additional seat in Congress.
That's not about keeping communities together.
That's not about fair representation.
THAT'S A POWER GRAB.
Missourians deserve districts that make sense and respect communities — not maps drawn to benefit a political party.
Vote NO on Proposition A to reject the unfair 2025 congressional map.
PROPOSITION A — It’s Just Wrong
WHO BENEFITS WHEN POLITICIANS REDRAW THE MAP?
Missouri's 2022 congressional map keeps most of Kansas City and its nearby communities together in a relatively compact district.
The proposed 2025 map (HB 1) would dramatically redraw those boundaries, stretching the 5th District nearly 200 miles into central Missouri and dividing Kansas City voters among sprawling congressional districts.
Why redraw the map in the middle of the decade? The 2025 redistricting effort was designed to give Republicans an opportunity to gain another seat in Congress.
Critics argue that this comes at the expense of communities whose voting influence is divided by the new boundaries.
Congressional districts determine whose voices are heard together in Washington.
The question is whether those boundaries should reflect communities or partisan political goals.
PROPOSITION A — A National Push for Mid-decade Redistricting
PROPOSITION A: MISSOURI'S MID-DECADE MAP VOTE
Missouri drew its current congressional map in 2022 after the Census — the usual once‑a‑decade process. In 2025, mid‑decade and without a new Census, lawmakers passed another one.
Why? The new map was part of a national effort to increase Republican seats before the 2026 midterms, targeting the Democratic‑held Kansas City district.
Here's the math:
» 2024 presidential vote: about 60% R | 40% D (5 R | 3 D)
» 2022 map: 6 R | 2 D
» 2025 map's (potential): 7 R | 1 D
(Note: Seats are won district by district, not by statewide allocation.)
Missourians gathered signatures to force a public vote. That's Proposition A:
» YES: Approve the 2025 map
» NO: Reject it and keep the 2022 map
The 2022 map will be used on November 3 either way. Prop A decides which map applies going forward.
AMENDMENT 3 — A Fact Check
Those yard signs say “Ban Transgender Surgeries for Minors.” Here’s what they leave out.
Missouri law already bans transgender surgery for minors. The SAFE Act passed in 2023 (Sec. 191.1720, RSMo).
So what does Amendment 3 actually do? It repeals the reproductive healthcare rights voters approved in 2024.
Adding an existing ban to a ballot measure is called “ballot candy”—a sweetener that makes a yes vote more likely. But it’s one vote on two very different issues. A Yes on the ban is also a Yes on the repeal.
A YES vote would:
» Repeal the 2024 reproductive healthcare rights.
» Allow abortion throughout pregnancy in cases of medical emergency or a fetal condition that would prevent survival after birth.
»Limit abortion for rape or incest to 12 weeks, regardless of the victim’s age or when she learns she is pregnant.
» Remove constitutional protection for private medical decision-making, giving the legislature broad power to regulate abortion providers.
» Permanently ban gender-affirming care for minors, including hormones and puberty blockers, even when physicians recommend it and parents agree.
A NO vote would:
» Keep the 2024 amendment in place.
» Preserve abortion access through fetal viability.
» Stop the proposed constitutional bans from taking effect.
The surgery ban doesn’t expire. Puberty blocker and hormone restrictions are law through August 28, 2027, and lawmakers can extend them. None of it needs Amendment 3.
AMENDMENT 3 — Missouri’s SAFE Act
MISSOURI'S SAFE ACT: WHAT EXPIRES IN 2027?
There's a lot of confusion about gender-affirming care for minors in Missouri and Amendment 3. Here are the facts.
The 2023 SAFE Act (RSMo §191.1720) restricts gender-transition treatments for minors.
SURGERIES - Already banned for minors. This ban has NO expiration date and will remain in effect.
PUBERTY BLOCKERS & HORMONES - Restricted, with limited exceptions, until August 28, 2027. After that, the restriction expires unless lawmakers act. They can extend or remove the expiration date by passing a bill. No public vote. No constitutional amendment. No need for Amendment 3.
WHAT WOULD AMENDMENT 3 DO?
It would write these restrictions into the Constitution. It would also repeal the reproductive healthcare protections voters approved in 2024, allowing a near-total abortion ban with limited exceptions.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Missouri already restricts gender-transition care for minors, and lawmakers can extend the temporary limits without changing the Constitution.
AMENDMENT 3 — An Opinion Letter by Faith Leaders
People hold a wide range of moral and religious views on abortion. No single belief speaks for everyone.
It's encouraging to hear a rabbi and two Christian leaders acknowledge that these deeply personal, often difficult decisions involve faith, medical circumstances, and individual conscience—not just government policy.
Their thoughtful letter reminds us that religious freedom means respecting beliefs different from our own.
Worth reading, regardless of where you stand on Amendment 3.
AMENDMENT 3 — Twelve Weeks Isn’t a Real Choice
She’s 13 years old.
She’s pregnant.
And it wasn’t her choice.
At her age, she may not realize she’s pregnant for weeks. Even if she does, she may not know whom she can safely tell.
Under Missouri’s Amendment 3, she would have just 12 weeks from the beginning of pregnancy to access care. And at 13, she probably doesn't even know there is a time limit.
She’s a child. She needs support, protection, and medical care — not a deadline.
Amendment 3 sets the limits on what care young victims can access.
AMENDMENT 6 — A Check on Legislative Power
WHAT IS MISSOURI AMENDMENT 6?
Missouri’s initiative and referendum process has been part of the Constitution since 1908. Amendment 6 would add new protections to keep it strong and accessible.
KEY PROVISIONS
Fundamental rights—Makes initiative and referendum powers constitutional fundamental rights.
Protects voter-approved laws—Lawmakers couldn’t overturn them. Any change would go back to voters, and only if 80% of both chambers agree.
Protects referendum results—Lawmakers couldn’t pass a law similar to one voters rejected, unless 80% of both chambers send it back to voters.
Corrects misleading ballot summaries—Courts could rewrite summaries that are unclear, inaccurate, or biased.
ALSO IN AMENDMENT 6
Keeps current signature requirements.
Keeps simple majority rule for citizen-initiated measures, the same as for legislature-referred measures.
Applies the protections retroactively to voter-approved laws and referendum vetoes dating back to 2010.
Gives initiative and referendum rights the strongest constitutional protection, making it very difficult for lawmakers to restrict them.
IN SHORT: Amendment 6 strengthens Missouri’s citizen initiative and referendum process while keeping current signature and majority-vote rules.
AMENDMENT 6 — Protect the Citizen Initiative Process
️VOTERS APPROVE A LAW. CAN LEGISLATORS CHANGE IT?
Yes. And Missouri's 2024 Proposition A is a recent example. November 2024: Nearly 58% of Missouri voters approved paid sick leave, scheduled minimum wage increases, and future inflation adjustments.
July 2025: Just eight months later, legislators repealed the paid sick leave requirement and eliminated future automatic inflation adjustments to the minimum wage.
Amendment 6 would:
Protect voter-approved laws: Require approval from at least 80% of BOTH legislative chambers to send proposed changes or repeals of laws enacted through citizen initiatives back to voters for final approval.
Protect referendum results: Require the same 80% approval before legislators could pass laws similar to those voters rejected through a referendum.
Make citizen lawmaking a fundamental right: Establish initiative and referendum powers as fundamental constitutional rights.
Prevent new restrictions: Prohibit the legislature from weakening citizens' initiative and referendum powers.
Allow courts to revise ballot summaries: Give courts authority to correct ballot summaries through legal challenges to prevent tricky or deceptive ballot language.
Preserve existing requirements: Keep current petition signature requirements and the simple-majority vote needed to approve citizen initiatives.
AMENDMENT 6 — Your Vote is Not a Suggestion
YOUR VOTE IS NOT A SUGGESTION.
Last session, Missouri lawmakers introduced thousands of bills and resolutions. Sometimes they pass things you don't want. Sometimes they ignore things you do.
But Missouri's Constitution gives citizens another path. Gather signatures. Put an issue on the ballot. Let the people decide.
What happens when voters approve something and lawmakers want to undo it?
That's where Amendment 6 comes in.
It would prevent lawmakers from changing or repealing a citizen-initiated law on their own. Instead, at least 80% of each legislative chamber would have to approve sending proposed changes back to voters, who would have the final say.
Because our representatives should answer to us, not the other way around.
AMENDMENT 7 — Two Big Questions
AMENDMENT 7: Two big questions for November 3
Amendment 7 would create the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, a state investment fund intended to eventually replace Missouri's state taxes.
How long would it take? Sen. Adam Schnelting, the amendment's sponsor, has said he hopes Missouri could eliminate state taxes in 100 to 125 years. That's his long-term vision—not a guaranteed timeline. The amendment sets no deadline for eliminating taxes.
Where would the money come from? Alaska's investment fund is supported by oil revenue. Missouri has no comparable dedicated revenue source.
Lawmakers would need to appropriate money to build the fund, potentially using existing tax revenues. And the state already faces a projected $1 billion budget shortfall in fiscal year 2027.
Can Missouri afford to invest for a tax-free future while meeting today's needs?
AMENDMENT 7 — Where Would the Money Come From?
Missouri Amendment 7: Where Will the Money Come From?
Eliminating state taxes may sound appealing. But Amendment 7 leaves big questions about how Missouri would build—and pay for—a massive investment fund meant to someday replace state tax revenue.
NO DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE. Similar funds in other states typically rely on oil, gas, mineral or settlement money. Amendment 7 identifies no comparable revenue stream. Deposits could come from General Revenue—the money that supports schools, health care, senior services, and public safety. And Missouri already faces a projected $2 BILLION BUDGET SHORTFALL.
NO SET DEPOSIT OR TIMELINE. The amendment doesn't say how much must go in, how fast, or which programs could be affected. The state's fiscal note says the impact on General Revenue is unknown.
A MOVING TARGET. The Missouri Budget Project estimates the fund would need at least $600 billion to replace taxes like income, sales, gas and provider taxes. Inflation and a vague definition of "state-imposed taxes"—which could sweep in fees, permits, licenses and fines—could push that much higher.
NO GUARANTEED TAX ELIMINATION. The Missouri Budget Project says it's unlikely to happen for decades—if ever. If the fund falls short, lawmakers could bring taxes back, and the group warns they might do so outside limits like the Hancock Amendment.
These questions come from across the spectrum, including the conservative Show-Me Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Missouri Budget Project.
Investing for the future is a worthy goal. But should Missouri commit to a fund this large without a clear plan to pay for it today?
AMENDMENT 7 — Changes to Sheriff Rules
Take a close look at Amendment 8 before you vote.
Amendment 8 would add the office, election, and duties of county sheriffs directly into the Missouri Constitution.
Most counties already elect sheriffs every four years under state law, but this measure would make several key changes:
Locks sheriff election rules and duties into the Constitution, meaning future changes would require another statewide vote.
Gives the Missouri Attorney General SOLE authority to start court proceedings to remove a sheriff, ending local prosecutors’ independent authority to initiate those cases.
Exempts St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County.
Questions to consider before voting:
Should sheriff qualifications and duties be permanently written into the Constitution or remain in state law where lawmakers can more easily update them?
Should the power to start removal proceedings rest solely with the Attorney General, or should local prosecutors retain that ability?
What’s the impact of exempting three jurisdictions while applying the rule statewide?
Supporters say Amendment 8 protects local control and clarifies sheriff duties.
Critics question whether it reduces local accountability and flexibility.