A Facebook friend believes the Missouri legislature is intentionally crafting more convoluted ballot measures with every election, so that we, the people, will just vote as we’re told, along partisan divides. 

He might be right. The November 3rd ballot will contain what might be the biggest rat’s nest yet, with Amendments 3, 6, 7, 8 and Proposition A on the slate.

Prop A made it to the ballot as the result of a court order, in spite of many egregious attempts by secretary of state, Denny Hoskins, and attorney general, Catherine Hanaway, to sidestep the requirement, making a laughing-stock out of Missouri in the process.

I’m giving Prop A a big, hearty “No!”

No, I don’t want to use the new gerrymandered map that Prop A brings to the ballot: a map that legislators slung together and Governor Kehoe signed into law in 2025, just in time to use in our August primary. The new map changes a Kansas City congressional district into a monstrosity that cuts through the middle of the state. The timing of the map brings its legality into question, but Hoskins’ over-the-top efforts to ignore the citizens’ referendum, with its legally-collected 300,000-plus signatures, gives us some insight into his character.

A “Yes” vote on Prop A, would the affirm use of the gerrymandered map, while sending a message to Hoskins that we’re okay with his underhanded shenanigans.

A “Yes” vote on Amendment 6, on the other hand, will preserve the ability of citizens to have a say-so in the constitutional amendment process. The current requirements, for signatures and a statewide simple-majority for citizen-initiated ballot measures to pass, would stand. Legislature can still repeal or amend them, but changes would require an 80% vote from both the Senate and the House. If achieved, the changes would go back on the ballot for another vote by citizens.

Opponents of Amendment 6 say it will make it impossible for legislators to do their job. Yes, it could make it more challenging for a super-majority of legislators to achieve their ends – but not impossible. There’s a difference.

Opponents are also using scare tactics, again, telling us that if Amendment 6 passes, Missouri law will be unduly influenced by “big-money, big-city people and out-of-state interests.”

I’ve got news: those out-of-state influences have been affecting Missouri legislation for years. Take a look at the numerous tax credits our current legislators have dished out as bribes to out-of-state corporations to suck them into doing business in Missouri. Lobbyists for said corporations swarm the Capitol like gadflies, pitching gilded manure into the ears of whomever might listen. They’re gaining access, as evidenced by recent laws that have passed. We’re at their mercy, more so, if Amendment 6 fails.

A “No” vote on Amendment 6 will limit our ability to pipe up in the face of legislative injustice and corporate influence. Think hard before throwing away the valuable tool that a citizens’ initiative petition represents, just because you don’t agree with past, passed initiatives. The next one might be critical to your interests.

In Barry County, I’m thinking specifically of the corporations with big plans to store and dump out-of-state meat-processing waste on our fields. Because of Senate Bill 391, passed into law in 2019, counties cannot legislate against such activities, because the measure would be considered more stringent than state law, in matters agricultural. That law needs to change, and I suspect that few of you would disagree. A citizens’ petition could be our only recourse. Likewise, with many other pressing topics.

A “Yes” vote on Amendment 6 will allow us to retain our voice in matters that affect all Missourians.

Amendment 7 (like Amendment 5, in the August election) is another attempt by legislature to do away with Missouri state taxes: this time, to replace them with money generated from a government endowment fund. The account would receive funds appropriated by the legislature – for example, donations (very likely, some from out-of-state corporations) and a portion of our continuing state income taxes, which we’ll continue to pay until they’re deemed unnecessary. State taxes will only become unnecessary if stock-market gambling with our funds, by our state treasurer, pays off.

State income taxes for individuals would not be curtailed unless the endowment fund generated enough revenue to cover state expenses, which sponsoring Senator Adam Schnelling (R-23) envisions in a world 100 or 125 years from now.

The idea of our current legislators having a new tax-payer-funded account to tinker with, in the meantime, seems ludicrous, when they already have trouble giving account for what they’re in charge of. A $1.4 trillion discrepancy in reported revenue from out-of-state (pass through) corporations, between the Department of Revenue’s 2024 and 2025 annual financial reports, has yet to be accounted for.

There’s another big hitch with Amendment 7: if our taxes have been curtailed, and the investment fund goes belly-up – or not enough money is being generated – state taxes can be reinstated in the future, at unknown rates.

Tread lightly, Missouri voters. We have lots at stake.

Sheila Harris is a long-time Barry County resident and a sales executive and investigative reporter for the Cassville Democrat with a particular interest in environmental topics. She may be reached at [email protected].