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.

As global outrage grew, many expressed unwavering support for Israel. However, it’s crucial to recognize that history is not confined to our attention span. Before making judgments, we must understand that the complexity of this situation requires a consideration of the historical context spanning at least the last two centuries.

History of Israel and Palestine 

Beginning in the 1840s, the British viewed Palestine as a strategic Middle Eastern foothold, formalizing their interest during World War I through the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Tensions escalated between Arabs and Jews in the following decades as a growing number of Jewish people sought refuge in Palestine following the Holocaust. Driven by a need for safety after centuries of persecution, Jewish individuals desired their own state. Simultaneously, Palestinians witnessed their own homes being forcibly taken and their land colonized, deepening the conflict. The conflict grew so large that the UK turned the issue over to the United Nations in 1947.  After looking at alternatives, the UN proposed the separation of Palestine into two independent states, one Palestinian-Arab and the other Jewish. The Jewish state proclaimed its independence as Israel. In the 1948 war involving neighboring Arab States, Israel’s new army expanded its territory, leading to the expulsion or flight of about 700,000 Palestinians, constituting approximately 85% of the indigenous Arab population in the captured area, who were never permitted to return.

Over the past 50 years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted with Israel constructing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 700,000 Jews now reside, despite international law deeming these settlements illegal. Israel’s policies, particularly concerning the Gaza Strip, have faced global criticism. Since 2007 Gaza has been under a stringent blockade, tightly controlled by Israel, encompassed by concrete walls and barbed wire fences.

Palestinians in Gaza endure severe restrictions, with limited access to trade, water and electricity due to the blockade. They are prohibited from entering or leaving the territory except in extremely rare cases such as urgent, life-threatening medical conditions. This situation has been described by human rights groups as akin to living in the world’s largest open-air prison.

Israel’s Response to the Attack  

In response to the recent attack on Oct. 7, Israel has taken significant military actions, which have sparked widespread international concern. Reports have emerged detailing alleged war crimes committed by Israel, including the bombing of hospitals and deliberate cutoffs of essential services such as electricity and water supply in Gaza. 

According to the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnès Callamard: “In their stated intent to use all means to destroy Hamas, Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure, while new restrictions mean Gaza is fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity. Testimonies from eyewitnesses and survivors highlighted, again and again, how Israeli attacks decimated Palestinian families, causing such destruction that surviving relatives have little but rubble to remember their loved ones by.” 

American Involvement 

The United States, among other countries, has been a long-standing supporter of Israel, providing substantial financial aid and military assistance. This support has generated debates and criticism, raising questions about the indirect endorsement of Israel’s military actions in the region.

The US is currently continuing its extensive financial support to Israel, having provided the country with $158 billion since World War II, surpassing aid given to any other nation. Although US officials have thus far refrained from sending troops, they actively support the Israeli military and security forces. In response to the recent Hamas attack, the US is sending guided-missile carriers, F-35 fighters and other equipment

On Oct. 13, The American public seemed to agree with the support of Israel. 44% of the 1,313 adult  Americans polled said that Israel’s response to Hamas attacks has been about right, while about 25% said it has actually been too little.  An article published on Oct. 23 showed how these numbers have changed over the last week. It found 7 in 10 Americans — support providing aid to Israel. When asked for opinions on Israel’s response to Hamas’ attack, 35% of registered voters said Israel’s retaliation has been “about right” while one-quarter said Israel’s response has been “not harsh enough.”  Those numbers may seem like a relatively small change, but it does show that opinions are changing slowly but surely. This may be due to the increasing number of young people who are speaking out against Israel’s action.

Should America be Supporting Israel

The significant financial aid and military assistance provided by the United States endorse Israel’s actions. This only leads to more human rights violations and exacerbates tensions in the region. There needs to be a more balanced approach that promotes diplomacy, dialogue and a just resolution to the conflict. Americans should advocate for a reconsideration of the substantial aid provided and urge the US to leverage its influence to encourage both parties to engage in peaceful negotiations and respect for international law instead of unequivocally supporting the Israeli government.

By promoting initiatives that encourage mutual understanding and respect, the focus can shift from military aid to diplomatic solutions. The goal should be to create a more peaceful coexistence. It’s vital for policymakers and leaders to carefully consider the implications of their support and work towards a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.

Conclusion

The ethics of the Israel-Hamas conflict is very nuanced and this article can only act as a brief overview. Nevertheless, it is important to consider not only the tragedies that Israel and its citizens have gone through but also the continuous and systemic tragedies that the Palestinian people have faced. To be as informed and humane as possible we must pay close attention to both sides of the issue. Unequivocally supporting a single side is how we allow injustice to happen.

While discussing these issues, it’s essential to emphasize that criticism of the Israeli government’s policies should not translate into hatred or prejudice against Jewish people. Not all Jewish individuals support the Israeli government’s actions, just as not all Palestinians support the actions of Hamas. Navigating this topic demands careful consideration that aims to promote understanding and empathy while condemning violence and injustice.