On Nov. 8, Missourians will take to the ballot boxes to cast their votes in the general election. A number of state and federal officials are up for election or re-election. Another piece published in this issue of the Hilltop Monitor addresses the critical race for President between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. While national elections are important, local and state elections are also crucial — local elections may even have more impact on a community than national elections. This article, however, focuses on six ballot initiatives in the State of Missouri. 

Register to Vote!

In order to vote on any of these ballot initiatives or in any federal or state election, you must be eligible and registered to vote. To register to vote in Missouri, you must be a United States citizen, a resident of Missouri, and 17 ½ years old (although you must be 18 by Election Day).

According to the Secretary of State, a person cannot vote in Missouri elections if they are imprisoned, on probation or parole after a felony conviction, have been convicted of a voting-related felony or misdemeanor, or declared incapacitated.

The registration deadline in Missouri is the fourth Wednesday before Election Day – for the upcoming Nov. 5 election, that deadline is Oct. 9.

You can register to vote or check your registration status with the Missouri government here.

Local Ballot Initiatives

First, though: what is a ballot initiative?

Ballot initiatives are measures placed on a state or local ballot. These initiatives can propose anything, from bonds for water towers to legalizing marijuana (which was legalized in Missouri by initiative in 2022). In Missouri, such initiatives can be generated in two ways.

Any citizen can create an initiative petition to enact legislation or update the Missouri Constitution. To appear on the ballot, a petitioner must send the text of their initiative and necessary signatures to the Secretary of State (currently Jay Ashcroft) within six months of an election.

If a proposal seeks to amend the Constitution, it requires 8% of eligible voters in two-thirds of Missouri’s eight Congressional districts to sign a petition. If it seeks to amend state law, it only needs 5% of eligible voters to sign off on the petition.

While the Missouri state legislature can also propose constitutional amendments by joint resolution, it cannot enact these amendments unilaterally. Regardless of how a measure comes to the Missouri people, a simple majority is required to pass any measure. 

Nov. Ballot Measures in Missouri

 To avoid bias or subjectivity, this article uses  the official Fair Ballot Language provided by the secretary of state’s office whenever possible. This Fair Ballot Language will appear on official ballots on Election Day.

Amendment 2

What’s it about? Legalizing sports betting in Missouri

How did it get here? Amendment 2 was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

“Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow the Missouri Gaming Commission to regulate licensed sports wagering including online sports betting, gambling boats, professional sports betting districts and mobile licenses to sports betting operators;
• restrict sports betting to individuals physically located in the state and over the age of 21;
• allow license fees prescribed by the Commission and a 10% wagering tax on revenues received to be appropriated for education after expenses incurred by the Commission and required funding of the Compulsive Gambling Prevention Fund; and
• allow for the general assembly to enact laws consistent with this amendment?

State governmental entities estimate onetime costs of $660,000, ongoing annual costs of at least $5.2 million, and initial license fee revenue of $11.75 million. Because the proposal allows for deductions against sports gaming revenues, they estimate unknown tax revenue ranging from $0 to $28.9 million annually. Local governments estimate unknown revenue.”

The context: In 2018, the Supreme Court overturned a federal law barring states from legalizing sports betting. Since then, 38 states and the District of Columbia have voted to legalize betting on professional sports. Under Amendment 2, sports betting would not include fantasy sports, “wagering on the performance or nonperformance of any [collegiate] athlete [from Missouri],” or wagering on youth events.

Amendment 3

What’s it about? Reproductive rights

How did it get here? Amendment 3 was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

“Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;
• remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;
• allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
• require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and
• allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?

State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, but unknown impact. Local governmental entities estimate costs of at least $51,000 annually in reduced tax revenues. Opponents estimate a potentially significant loss to state revenue.”

The context: In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two cases that established federal protections for abortion to a certain point in pregnancy. In effect, the Supreme Court returned this decision to each state. Under a 2019 statute not in force until this decision, Missouri immediately banned all abortion in the state, including in cases of sexual violence.

Proposals to legalize abortion have succeeded in seven states: Kansas, Kentucky, California, Michigan, Vermont, Montana, and Ohio). According to New York Magazine, measures to enshrine or expand abortion rights are also on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota.

Amendment 5

What’s it about? Constructing a riverboat casino at Lake of the Ozarks

How did it get here? Amendment 5 was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow the Missouri Gaming Commission to issue one additional gambling boat license to operate on the portion of the Osage River from the Missouri River to the Bagnell Dam;
• require the prescribed location shall include artificial spaces that contain water and are within 500 feet of the 100-year base flood elevation as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
• require all state revenues derived from the issuance of the gambling boat license shall be appropriated to early-childhood literacy programs in public institutions of elementary education?

State governmental entities estimate one-time costs of $763,000, ongoing costs of $2.2 million annually, initial fee revenue of $271,000, ongoing admission and other fee revenue of $2.1 million annually, and annual gaming tax revenue of $14.3 million. Local governments estimate unknown revenue.

The context: Currently, the Missouri Constitution only allows riverboat gambling on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This amendment would enable a gaming license to be issued for a gambling boat on the Osage River, near the Lake of the Ozarks. KCUR has reported that Bally’s, the operator of a Kansas City casino, plans to build a casino at the Lake.

Amendment 6

What’s it about? Sheriff’s pensions: part of “administration of justice” or no?

How did it get here? Missouri’s general assembly proposed this measure to voters.

What does it say?

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to provide that the administration of justice shall include the levying of costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for certain current and former law enforcement personnel?

State and local governmental entities estimate an unknown fiscal impact.”

What’s the context? In 2021, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a $3 court fee going to sheriff’s retirement funds was not consistent with the Missouri Constitution. The Court argued that since the sheriffs’ retirement fund is not related to the administration of justice, Missouri courts could not collect that fee.

Passage of this amendment would enable the courts to continue collecting this fee by including the pensions of retired law enforcement personnel under “administration of justice.”

Amendment 7

What’s it about? Restricting ranked-choice voting and clarifying that only U.S. citizens can vote in state elections

How did it get here? Missouri’s general assembly proposed this measure to voters.

What does it say?

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Make the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote;
• Prohibit the ranking of candidates by limiting voters to a single vote per candidate or issue; and
• Require the plurality winner of a political party primary to be the single candidate at a general election?

State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.”

What’s the context? This amendment does two things.

First, it would prohibit non-citizens from voting, which Missouri law already does. Proponents of the measure claim that Missouri’s constitution, which states that “all citizens [may vote],” does not prevent localities from enabling non-citizens to vote.

Second, it prohibits Missourians from later adopting ranked-choice voting measures, which have been passed in a number of states. Ranked-choice voting permits voters to rank candidates in order of preference, an alternative to “strict plurality” voting, also known as “first past the post” voting. Opponents of the measure claim that these two provisions were included together to ban ranked-choice voting under the guise of prohibiting something already forbidden under state law.

Proposition A

What’s it about? Raising the minimum wage in Missouri

How did it get here? This proposition was proposed by initiative petition.

What does it say?

“Do you want to amend Missouri law to:

• increase minimum wage January 1, 2025 to $13.75 per hour, increasing $1.25 per hour each year until 2026, when the minimum wage would be $15.00 per hour;
• adjust minimum wage based on changes in the Consumer Price Index each January beginning in 2027;
• require all employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked;
• allow the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to provide oversight and enforcement; and
• exempt governmental entities, political subdivisions, school districts and education institutions?

State governmental entities estimate one-time costs ranging from $0 to $53,000, and ongoing costs ranging from $0 to at least $256,000 per year by 2027. State and local government tax revenue could change by an unknown annual amount depending on business decisions.”

What’s the context? Missouri’s minimum wage is currently $12.30/hr. In 2018, Missouri voters approved Proposition B, a measure that increased the minimum wage gradually, to $12/hr in 2023. Afterward, the minimum wage would increase or decrease according to the Consumer Price Index. Businesses would also be required to provide a week of paid sick leave.

If Your Time is Short:

Missouri provides its citizens with ways to approve or reject proposed constitutional amendments and laws. Six measures are on the ballot for Nov. 8, during the general election. To make your voice heard on these issues, you must register to vote in Missouri. You can do this online through the Secretary of State or by going to the election office in your local county.

UPDATE – May 1st, 2023, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Ellen Ribaudo granted a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s emergency rule until at least May 15th following a lawsuit filed by ACLU Missouri and Lambda Legal. A hearing is scheduled for 1 PM on May 11th, which could halt enforcement of the emergency rule until after the completion of the lawsuit.

Effective April 27th, an emergency rule issued by MO Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, sets new restrictions for adults and minors seeking gender-affirming care in the state of Missouri. The emergency rule is to remain in effect until it expires on February 6th, 2024.

The emergency rule requires compliance with eleven guidelines from any person or health organization providing “Covered Gender Transition Intervention”, or simply “Intervention”, to patients. “Intervention” is defined in the emergency rule as the provision or prescription of any puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones or surgery for the purpose of transitioning gender, decreasing gender incongruence or treating gender dysphoria. “Intervention”, as defined within the document, excludes treatment for genetically or biochemically verifiable sex development disorders.

The restrictions set in place by the emergency rule require any person or health organization providing “Intervention” to (listed in order of appearance in the document):

A. Assess annually whether or not the patient continues to have gender dysphoria
B. Obtain informed consent after disclosing 23 specific risks (p. 3-5)
C. Ensure that the patient has exhibited a medically documented, long-lasting, persistent and intense pattern of gender dysphoria for at least the 3 most recent consecutive years
D. Ensure that the patient has received a full psychological or psychiatric assessment, consisting of at least 15 separate hourly sessions over the course of at least 18 months, with a single provider conducting at least 10 of the sessions
E. Ensure that any psychiatric symptoms from existing mental health comorbidities of the patient have been treated and resolved
F. Ensure that the patient has received a comprehensive screening to determine whether or not they have autism (It is unclear whether or not autism is a disqualifying condition. Footnote 34 suggests that, if allowed at all, rehabilitative interventions to address the patient’s autism must occur before providing gender-affirming care. At this time, The Attorney General’s Office has not responded to my inquiry into clarification on the matter.)
G. Ensure, in the case of a patient who is a minor, that the patient has received and will continue to receive, at minimum, an annual comprehensive screening for social media addiction or compulsion and that the patient has not suffered from either for at least six months prior to beginning any intervention
H. Ensure on at least an annual basis that the patient is not experiencing social contagion with respect to their gender identity
I. Adopt and follow a procedure for all patients to track all adverse effects, both expected and unexpected, that arise from any course of intervention for at least fifteen years
J. Maintain data about adverse effects in a form that can be accessed readily for systematic study
K. Keep informed written consent on file either from the patient or from all parents or guardians who have the authority to provide consent in the case of minors – Consent must be renewed quarterly for the first 3 years and then at least twice a year afterward.

The emergency rule is the first of its kind, most notably because the guidelines have not been passed by a legislator or signed by a governor but, rather, are a result of Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s power to enforce consumer protection laws. Bailey cited Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, which is typically used to prosecute fraudulent business practices, as reason to enforce new guidelines on providing gender-affirming care. 

Bailey defended the emergency bill in an interview with St. Louis Public Radio, stating the guidelines are “intended to protect all patients and make sure that all patients have access to mental health services.” The American Medical Association stated in a press release that this kind of care is already tested, describing gender-affirming care as “medically-necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people.”

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri issued a joint statement describing the rule as “a shocking attempt to exploit Missouri’s consumer protection laws in order to play politics with life-saving medical care.” They additionally asserted that “the Attorney General’s so-called emergency rule is based on distorted, misleading, and debunked claims and ignores the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care as well as the medical experts and doctors who work with transgender people every day.” 

In only the first few months of 2023 alone, the ACLU has tracked 469 anti-LGBT+ bills at the time of writing this article. Missouri is responsible for 48 of these, falling short in quantity only to Texas at 52 bills. The passing of anti-LGBT+ bills in 2023 is an exponential increase from the 278 bills tracked by the ACLU  in all of 2022.

Anti-trans legislation has especially been on the rise with 19 anti-trans bills introduced in state houses in 2018, 25 bills introduced in 2019, 60 bills introduced in 2020, 131 bills introduced in 2021 and 155 bills introduced by October of 2022. 

Those who wish to stand with the trans community and push back against the emergency rule can donate to the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Lambda Legal to help challenge the actions of Attorney General Andrew Bailey. LGBT+ supporters can also donate to the general ACLU fund or to The Trevor Project to help combat the broader wave of anti-LGBT+ legislation. 

For further action, individuals can also plan a peaceful protest after learning about their rights as protestors, contact local representatives to voice concerns, contact the Missouri Attorney General’s Office directly, vote for political candidates who advocate for LGBT+ rights in the upcoming election or get involved locally by volunteering at community sites such as The Center Project.  

Those who live in safe states (3 or less anti-LGBT+ bills tracked by the ACLU) can also provide asylum or offer transportation through A Place for Marsha to trans adults fleeing hostile states (10 bills or more).

In most ways, the 2020 election served to underscore how contentious American politics are. Poring over the results, analysts have already begun emphasizing how highly polarized Americans are by metrics such as generation, gender, race, education and geography. Overlooked in this analysis is one important policy area where people  appear relatively unified. In a stunning rebuke to the War on Drugs, drug liberalization ballot initiatives passed across the country.  

This bipartisan revolt against the War on Drugs is striking when recalling that just over a decade ago, cannabis was illegal at the state level for non-medical use in every state. Now, with the results from this election, it stands poised to be fully legalized in 15 states, with some form of medicinal legalization in a further 28 states. Moreover, Gallup recently registered its highest level of support for cannabis legalization in fifty years, with 68 percent of Americans supporting legalization. 

Acknowledgment of the failure of the War on Drugs has also managed to transcend the political divide. In a time of intense political polarization, changed attitudes towards drug use occurred in strongholds of both parties. Voters in blue New Jersey, purple Arizona and red South Dakota all approved initiatives to liberalize drug laws. Indeed, at the state level, everywhere that drug liberalization was on the ballot, it notched a success. 

In ruby red Mississippi, voters resoundingly approved an initiative to legalize medicinal marijuana despite the opposition of Governor Tate Reeves (R). 

In New Jersey, Montana and Arizona, referendums to legalize recreational marijuana use were all passed. Meanwhile, South Dakota passed an initiative to legalize medicinal and recreational marijuana simultaneously. 

Elsewhere, victories were achieved in the decriminalization effort. Understanding the distinction between decriminalization and legalization is key. Decriminalization is not legalization. With decriminalization of certain drugs, though the drug possession and use will remain illegal, infractors will not face prosecution so long as the use is under a certain limit. Instead, violators would face penalties such as fines – similar to speeding tickets.

Additionally, with decriminalization one will not see the emergence of stores selling drugs commercially in contrast to the emergence of marijuana dispensaries following recreational legalization in states across the country. Commercial sale of drugs such as heroin remains criminalized even if personal possession and use is decriminalized.

Advocates have been urging drug decriminalization for years, citing criminalization as being part of the problem of mass incarceration, ineffective as a deterrent and counterproductive to those suffering from addiction. Proponents often point to Portugal as a model. In 2001, the European country decriminalized drug possession and has seen its overall drug usage rate remain stable while accruing reductions in overdose fatalities and incarceration.  

As a reckoning over mass incarceration, the role of the police and racial justice has ensued while more states legalized recreational cannabis use, the movement has notched city-level decriminalization victories across the U.S. Oakland and Santa Cruz, Calif.; Denver, Colo. and Ann Arbor, Mich. have all passed some form of psychedelic decriminalization prior to the 2020 election. 

In Washington D.C., where recreational cannabis use is already legalized, voters took another step to chip away against the War on Drugs. The District voted to decriminalize possession and noncommercial distribution of hallucinogenic mushrooms.  

It was in Oregon, though, that drug reform efforts saw their biggest win. Oregon held its own vote on legalizing psilocybin – the active agent in hallucinogenic mushrooms – for those over the age of 21, which passed comfortably. In an unprecedented move in the U.S., Oregon voters also approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession and personal use of all drugs. 

Sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance, Measure 110 passed with over 55 percent of the vote. In addition to decriminalization, Measure 110 also expanded access to treatment options for those suffering from addiction. Oregon became the first state to decriminalize all drugs for personal use. Though other states, including California, Vermont, and Washington have mulled decriminalization, supporters are hoping that Oregon may act as a catalyst for other states. 

For now, observers can watch and see if Oregon’s experiment replicates Portugal’s success with drug decriminalization. 

Despite all these city and state-level victories, all the drugs discussed here, including cannabis, remain illegal under federal level. This dual nature has led to some obstacles for state-legal cannabis dispensaries and even allowed federal authorities to shut down some that were compliant with state law. Despite this,  there has been some movement in recent years at the federal level. The House is expected to hold a vote on legalizing cannabis at the federal level in the lame-duck session.