Constitutional amendments primer
Vote stock
Missouri voters will decide on five statewide ballot measures in the Nov. 3 general election. Summaries of the measures are below with the ballot language, what a “yes” and “no” vote means on each, and additional background information.
AMENDMENT 3
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;
- Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;
- Allow legislation regulating abortion;
- Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;
- Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?
State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Greene County estimates it may experience an unknown increase in tax revenue. Other local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
YES vote
A “yes” vote is to repeal the amendment that allows access to abortion in Missouri and replace it with language that only allows abortions in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape or incest. Additionally, a “yes” vote enshrines a ban on gender transition procedures and cross-sex or puberty-blocking hormones for minors in the state constitution.
NO vote
A “no” vote is to continue to allow abortion access in Missouri as is. Additionally, a “no” vote would continue to bar gender transition procedures and cross-sex or puberty-blocking hormones for minors because of a 2023 law, but would not enshrine that prohibition in the constitution.
Background
Amendment 3 would repeal the “right to reproductive freedom” amendment passed by Missouri voters in 2024 and make abortion illegal again except for the exceptions above. The prohibitions on gender-affirming care are already in place due to a state law passed by the legislature in 2023, but the amendment would enshrine that language in the constitution.
AMENDMENT 6
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- expand the initiative and referendum petition process by making it a fundamental right;
- allow courts to revise ballot summaries through lawsuits;
- prohibit the legislature from weakening initiative or referendum powers;
- prohibit the legislature from changing or repealing laws enacted through the initiative process, or passing laws similar to those rejected by referendum, without approval from at least 80% of both chambers; and
- preserve existing majority vote and signature requirements for initiative and referendum petitions?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
YES vote
A “yes” vote is to require at least 80% approval in both the state House and Senate to change a law that was passed by citizen initiative petition. Then voters would also have to approve the change. Additionally, the amendment would allow courts to revise ballot summaries through lawsuits, enshrine that the initiative and referendum processes are fundamental rights, preserve current signature requirements for citizen-led initiatives and the simple majority requirements for initiatives and referendums, and ban the legislature from weakening the citizen-led amendment and referendum processes through methods like raising signature thresholds, shortening signature-gathering periods, narrowing subjects allowed to appear on the ballot or by creating additional requirements for signature gatherers.
NO vote
A “no” vote is to leave the constitution as is, which would allow legislators to change or repeal laws that voters have passed through the citizen-led initiative process.
Background
In recent years, state officials have taken steps to attempt to weaken citizen-led amendment and referendum processes. For example, an amendment backed by Gov. Mike Kehoe and put on the August ballot by the legislature would have changed the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment from a simple majority to needing a majority in each of the state’s congressional districts. The amendment was rejected by more than 81% of voters.
A measure passed by voters in 2024, for another example, required employers to offer one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and required minimum-wage increases based on the consumer price index. In 2025, Gov. Kehoe signed a law that repealed most of the voter-approved ballot measure. Amendment 6 would make that more difficult to do in the future and would prohibit some other strategies considered or attempted by state officials to weaken direct democracy.
AMENDMENT 7
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government instead of taxing Missouri residents, prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting the fund, and eliminate state-imposed taxes once the fund generates sufficient revenue to replace them?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
YES vote
A “yes” vote is to create a public endowment fund intended to grow until one day it can replace the need to generate state revenue through taxes. At that point, the amendment would require eliminating state taxes and would prohibit reinstating them unless the fund does not have enough money to meet the state’s obligations.
NO vote
A “no” vote is to oppose creating the public endowment fund intended to replace state taxes.
Background
Amendment 7 would create a public endowment fund, sometimes referred to as a sovereign wealth fund. The state legislature would decide how much money to put into the fund and the state treasurer would be required to invest the money. Once money is in the fund, the legislature couldn’t touch it until the fund earns enough annually to replace revenue generated by state taxes. The amendment provides no dedicated mechanism for the fund to generate its initial revenue. It would be up to the legislature to decide where the money comes from for the fund.
AMENDMENT 8
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to support law enforcement by preserving the right of citizens to elect a county sheriff, prohibiting the removal of a county sheriff except by a writ of quo warranto, and recognizing the office of sheriff as part of the administration of justice?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
YES vote
A “yes” vote is to enshrine in the constitution the requirement that county sheriffs be elected in most counties, enumerate some specific duties of sheriffs and limit the ways in which a sheriff may be removed from office. The amendment would grant exceptions for St. Louis, St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
NO vote
A “no” vote is to keep the system for electing sheriffs as is with no changes to their duties or how they may be removed from office.
Background
Most of what is in Amendment 8 is already law by statute, including the exceptions for the areas near St. Louis, but passage of the amendment would enshrine it in the constitution. The only major change is that Amendment 8 would narrow the ways in which a sheriff can be removed from office according to state statutes. Currently, local circuit attorneys and county prosecutors can initiate the removal of a county sheriff. The amendment would change that so sheriffs could only be removed by a “writ of quo warranto,” which must be filed by the state attorney general. In that process, the writ is filed with a court and a judge holds a hearing to determine whether an officeholder will be removed from office for reasons including unlawful election, abuse of their authority, corruption, fraud or neglect of their official duties.
PROPOSITION A
Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled “House Bill No. 1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session),” which repeals Missouri’s existing congressional plan, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more counties intact?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
YES vote
A “yes” vote is to approve a gerrymandered congressional map redrawn by the state legislature at the urging of President Donald Trump that would split off parts of the Fifth Congressional District, currently represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver, into several surrounding districts with the hope of creating a seventh Republican-leaning district in the state.
NO vote
A “no” vote is to keep the congressional map drawn after the 2020 Census and put into place in 2022.
Background
Gov. Mike Kehoe, at the behest of President Donald Trump, called a special session of the state legislature in 2025 to redraw Missouri’s congressional districts in the hope of creating a seventh Republican-leaning district. The redrawn map was used in the August primary election, but the Missouri Supreme Court in September unanimously ruled that was illegal because a citizen referendum to vote on the map should have prevented it from being used. The court ruled that the 2022 map should be used in November, a decision that was affirmed multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court. That referendum is Proposition A, which is voters’ first chance to weigh in on the map approved by the legislature. If approved, 2025 map would go into effect for future elections.
