2026 Ballot Measures (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 6/16/2026 7:02:42 PM EDT
|
https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2026ballotmeasures Any input from the Missouri hive mind on the ballot measures? Seems clear on my end except the voting to make constiutional changes one. Not politically tuned in to understand how this would play out. |
|
Originally Posted By high-drag_low-speed: Yes on 4 No on 5 Whats 4? 5 is the stupid income tax thing right? I'm really afraid its gonna pass. |
LARUEMINATI
NRA Endowment Life Member
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
""AKs are for villagers you have to tell not to shit in their water supply.""
NRA Endowment Life Member
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
""AKs are for villagers you have to tell not to shit in their water supply.""
|
Originally Posted By smullen: Whats 4? 5 is the stupid income tax thing right? I'm really afraid its gonna pass. See edit in first post. No on 4 will keep KC, STL and other metro areas from controlling the state. |
NorCal callsign: Paladin
Bald headed knuckle dragger
Bald headed knuckle dragger
|
Originally Posted By high-drag_low-speed: See edit in first post. No on 4 will keep KC, STL and other metro areas from controlling the state. Other way around. No on 4, keeps IPs a simple majority for entire state, thus KC and STLs votes will determine if they pass......just like they have for the last 20+ years. Yes on 4 amends the constitution and gives each district a fighting chance no matter how small they are. |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Other way around. No on 4, keeps IPs a simple majority for entire state, thus KC and STLs votes will determine if they pass......just like they have for the last 20+ years. Yes on 4 amends the constitution and gives each district a fighting chance no matter how small they are. I'm Yes on 4... a big YES On 5, I'm a no because they haven't said how they'll address revenue changes nor if there would be any spending cuts. I'm 71, just retired and this year will be the first year in 53 years I won't pay income tax yet I'd vote yes if they'd spell out a reasonable new model e.g., cut spending by 20%, cut income taxes, increase sales taxes, eliminate personal property taxes and balance the budget. The increase to to sales taxes would have to be well defined and with an upper limit both % and dollars raised. |
|
Hi Guys, When we retired to Missouri in 2018, we were glad to rid ourselves of the crooked politicians and their ways of ruling the masses. Total population of Illinois was 12,821,813. The total population for Cook County(Chicago and Suburbs) was 5,265,398 and DuPage County(Suburbs outside Cook county) was 934,094. They control what happens to the rest of Illinoisians6,199,492 controls 6,622,321. The 2 counties , Cook and DuPage control the rest of the 100 counties in the state. Be careful how you vote, otherwise, we will be controlled by St. L and KC and the faulty laws they can come up with. |
|
Originally Posted By JJKrzos: Hi Guys, When we retired to Missouri in 2018, we were glad to rid ourselves of the crooked politicians and their ways of ruling the masses. Total population of Illinois was 12,821,813. The total population for Cook County(Chicago and Suburbs) was 5,265,398 and DuPage County(Suburbs outside Cook county) was 934,094. They control what happens to the rest of Illinoisians6,199,492 controls 6,622,321. The 2 counties , Cook and DuPage control the rest of the 100 counties in the state. Be careful how you vote, otherwise, we will be controlled by St. L and KC and the faulty laws they can come up with. That was my assumption on how it would play out real world. Looking at voting metrics on a couple past elections, i am not sure how it would benifit anyone other than jackson county / KC and STL |
|
It is my understanding that it'd reduce the influence of STL, KC by requiring each congressional district to vote 50% +1 or the proposal would fail; not just 50% +1 at large throughout the state. Yes, STL/KC can keep something from passing but cannot jam down our throats something the rest of the state doesn't want. We are a representative form of govt. not a democracy. The peoples' voice is heard directly when they vote for their representatives who should do their bidding [so communicate your will to them, frequently]. This amendment gives MO something akin to what it takes to amend the federal Constitution. It has been amended 27 times [and the first 10 right off the bat and then 2 that negated each other]. There have been 11,000 proposed amendments! That is how challenging our Founding Fathers wanted to be to amend it. Constitutions need to have an amendment process but it should be safeguarded to keep willy-nilly changes and big dollar influencers from outside the state from controlling it. The proposal mirrors how the electoral college keeps big population areas from overwhelming more rural areas. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: It is my understanding that it'd reduce the influence of STL, KC by requiring each congressional district to vote 50% +1 or the proposal would fail; not just 50% +1 at large throughout the state. Yes, STL/KC can keep something from passing but cannot jam down our throats something the rest of the state doesn't want. We are a representative form of govt. not a democracy. The peoples' voice is heard directly when they vote for their representatives who should do their bidding [so communicate your will to them, frequently]. This amendment gives MO something akin to what it takes to amend the federal Constitution. It has been amended 27 times [and the first 10 right off the bat and then 2 that negated each other]. There have been 11,000 proposed amendments! That is how challenging our Founding Fathers wanted to be to amend it. Constitutions need to have an amendment process but it should be safeguarded to keep willy-nilly changes and big dollar influencers from outside the state from controlling it. The proposal mirrors how the electoral college keeps big population areas from overwhelming more rural areas. Ammending the US constitution requires a super majority. That seems simpler than this issue of discricts amd simple majorities. My gut feeling is that elderly politicians are still scratching their heads at Trump winning by hufe margins, and weed/abortion also passing. Because they no longer try to understand voters, they want a safe guard of some district that votes nearly 100% a certain direction to force the issue. But I could be 100% wrong. I dont ever see missouri general assembly members, county or city politician critters actively trying to explain stuff that end up on ballots. Its worded all crazy, so a normal guy living a normal life cant understand the implications. |
|
This has 100% to do with out of state money coming into MO, advertising heavily in STL and KC, and amending the State's constitution with 1 vote over 50% because people are stupid and don't read what they are signing. The most famous one was 10+ years ago called the "puppy mill ban" that really had nothing to do with puppy mills. STL and KC voted heavily YES because of the commercials, and every other county in the state voted NO. It passed, and then people found out it was a big commercial farm bill that hurt families with homesteads. It was repealed the following year. Missouri's constitution has 125+ amendments because the special interests figured out it was cheaper and easier to do it this way.......and they can write the amendment themselves. We can complain all day about politicians, but they have a lot more on the line than a the casino's did when they pushed online gaming through. That was the biggest farce perpetrated on the voters, the school's aren't getting a dime out of that compared to what it was supposed to generate. Also tired of hearing this one person, one vote crap. We are not a democracy; we are a representative republic. We elect representatives to cast votes on our behalf. If you don't like that, the I hope you all like living under liberal control as that NYC, LA, and Chicago would run the whole country, and STL and Jackson counties would run Missouri. Save that other democracy stuff for local school board elections and county/muni elections. |
|
My youtube is targeting me with kansas city ads. The vast majority have nothing to do with me, since i am not in kansas city. But it is hammering me with a vote NO on the ammendment to require a majority of all districts. However, it is also hammering me with some anti woke shit from the city elections. So its kinda a mixed, highly annoyong, bag. I need to pause the TV and search who paid for the ad. Its in small letters on the bottom of the screen. |
|
Originally Posted By WillieTangoFox: My youtube is targeting me with kansas city ads. The vast majority have nothing to do with me, since i am not in kansas city. But it is hammering me with a vote NO on the ammendment to require a majority of all districts. However, it is also hammering me with some anti woke shit from the city elections. So its kinda a mixed, highly annoyong, bag. I need to pause the TV and search who paid for the ad. Its in small letters on the bottom of the screen. That's how they're really gonna sell it......hit both Democrats and Republicans in STL and KC hard with "you're gonna lose your supermajority and ability as citizens to make laws covering 95% of the rest of this State's acreage." |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: That's how they're really gonna sell it......hit both Democrats and Republicans in STL and KC hard with "you're gonna lose your supermajority and ability as citizens to make laws covering 95% of the rest of this State's acreage." I guess my confusion is voting record. If the state has a long history of republican majority voting, how would this measure help anyone but the large city democrats? Maybe i dont get it. But it seems like a clear NO vote?? https://www.270towin.com/states/missouri#google_vignette But like i said earlier. I think some districts with the abortion vote fresh on their minds, will believe this will help their republican sreong hold from having that happen again. |
|
Minimum wage hike (twice) Repeal of right to work Abortion Medical marijuana Recreational marijuana And let's go back a long time to CCW failing when it was on the ballot (after midnight when they counted STLs ballots of course ) This state voted for Republican candidates for the last 15 yrs, but with the current IP process its pretty easy to swing those votes by cleverly wording this stuff on the ballot and on commercials. This and Amendment 5 are perfect examples. What Trump voting Republican would vote against IP reform and eliminating income tax unless you believe these deceptive ads against them (that are being funded by DEMOCRATS.) I still hold a real estate license and am getting pelted with post cards and emails to vote NO on both. Voting the opposite of the whatever the MO Realtors Association suggests is always a safe bet as they are hard core liberals. Another example was Jefferson Co in the 2016 election. They voted for overwhelmingly for Greitens (who ran on passing right to work in his first year) but then they voted to repeal it two years later. People vote on this feel good / ballot candy which undermines the representatives, making them lame ducks and less likely to push legislation. |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Minimum wage hike (twice) Repeal of right to work Abortion Medical marijuana Recreational marijuana And let's go back a long time to CCW failing when it was on the ballot (after midnight when they counted STLs ballots of course ) This state voted for Republican candidates for the last 15 yrs, but with the current IP process its pretty easy to swing those votes by cleverly wording this stuff on the ballot and on commercials. This and Amendment 5 are perfect examples. What Trump voting Republican would vote against IP reform and eliminating income tax unless you believe these deceptive ads against them (that are being funded by DEMOCRATS.) I still hold a real estate license and am getting pelted with post cards and emails to vote NO on both. Voting the opposite of the whatever the MO Realtors Association suggests is always a safe bet as they are hard core liberals. Another example was Jefferson Co in the 2016 election. They voted for overwhelmingly for Greitens (who ran on passing right to work in his first year) but then they voted to repeal it two years later. People vote on this feel good / ballot candy which undermines the representatives, making them lame ducks and less likely to push legislation. Ok, so would the idea behind voting YES, be that there will never be another constitutional ammendment passed by popular vote in missouri? |
|
Originally Posted By WillieTangoFox: Ok, so would the idea behind voting YES, be that there will never be another constitutional ammendment passed by popular vote in missouri? Yes and no. In a perfect world you wouldn't need this process because the reps bring forward the wants of their constituents and got the laws passed in a manner than you didn't need to amend the constitution. But if that doesn't happen, like with marijuana and sports betting, then you still have this process. This at least ensures the WHOLE state (regionally and population), want this. The US Constitution does this in a two part process--66% vote in congress, then 75% of the states. It's 10x easier in MO since it's 50%+1 with no threat of filibuster. This would have the State with those to checks/balances, and just do it in one vote on the ballot. Both of those aforementioned IP's would have passed. They group pushing this stuff know through polling, it's just a different way to play the game, and they can't slide all crap in these measures knowing they can win on such a thin line, concentrating their attention, money, and attractiveness on KC and STL......they have to position themselves for a 66% majority overall, or at least 51% in the most liberal or conservative districts. This is a good thing for the state. And the only better thing would be a constitutional convention to clean up the 125 amendments and get the State's constitution in the right place. |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Yes and no. In a perfect world you wouldn't need this process because the reps bring forward the wants of their constituents and got the laws passed in a manner than you didn't need to amend the constitution. But if that doesn't happen, like with marijuana and sports betting, then you still have this process. This at least ensures the WHOLE state (regionally and population), want this. The US Constitution does this in a two part process--66% vote in congress, then 75% of the states. It's 10x easier in MO since it's 50%+1 with no threat of filibuster. This would have the State with those to checks/balances, and just do it in one vote on the ballot. Both of those aforementioned IP's would have passed. They group pushing this stuff know through polling, it's just a different way to play the game, and they can't slide all crap in these measures knowing they can win on such a thin line, concentrating their attention, money, and attractiveness on KC and STL......they have to position themselves for a 66% majority overall, or at least 51% in the most liberal or conservative districts. This is a good thing for the state. And the only better thing would be a constitutional convention to clean up the 125 amendments and get the State's constitution in the right place. Amen and Amen |
|
My absentee ballot arrived Saturday, so I'm looking through it now. Besides the long list of people I don't know, I'm looking at the amendments. #1; I've always voted yes for this, though it bothers me to vote for any tax, so I'm thinking about voting no. #2; I don't even get this. Some counties don't have an assessor? How do they manage those duties? #4; I like the sound of this. It sounds like it would help avoid St. Louis "finding" just enough votes overnight to change things. #5; I like the idea of eliminating the income tax. Maybe the places they spread the misery to would be easier to deal with individually. |
|
Originally Posted By JAD762: Yes on 4. Yesish on 5. I generally support it but I wish they’d tell us the plan on how they’ll make up the loss. YUGE Yes on 5. The Hancock Amendment stays in place. They can't jack sales tax to 20% like the democrats are trying to scare people with. Sales taxes in no state income tax states (and no personal property tax) are considerably higher than Missouri, are their populations and economy are growing like crazy.......that means we will to. If you don't like paying higher sales taxes, then don't......you can completely control what you spend, where you spend, and avoid municipalities, items, or even purchase items out of state. This puts you in control of the tax you pay vs the goverment just STEALING your income before it even hits your checking account. This is NOT an immediate thing--it phases out as milestones are reached. People who think that schools, police departments, and cities are just going to close in January 2027 are idiots and just fear mongering. In the end, it takes away a revenue stream from greedy Rinos and Democrats that won't stop spending. That's the main thing here. Just like if we lost our jobs tomorrow, we couldn't go to the government, our ex employer, or our future employer, and say "yeah I need that income replaced". No we have to budget and learn to live within our means!! This will be a kick in the pants to do just that. The MO budget had gone from $25 billion to $50 billion in the last 10 years. Why couldn't they figure out how to save 1.5 billion in there so we could get rid of personal property taxes? Because they love spending out money. This is the first step toward getting this state on track to be the next Tennessee, Florida, or Texas when it comes to attracting businesses to this state. The employment taxes and sales/use taxes they will generate will pay for the "lost" income tax revenue and far more. |
|
I'm watching Nash Bridges, and they've been showing commercials against #4. It was paid for by Protect Majority Rule in Missouri, so I've been looking up info them. They sound shady, and don't want to lose the status quo. They helped me decide to vote Yes on #4. The top three search results; https://www.protectmajorityrulemo.org/ https://protectmojorityrule.com/ Even NPR says we don't know where the money is coming from. https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2026-06-28/missouri-election-august-2026-amendment-4-5 |
|
Looking at their tax filings, it seems all the people involved also run the Missouri Realtors "trade association". https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/932575358/202501329349300330/full |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: YUGE Yes on 5. The Hancock Amendment stays in place. They can't jack sales tax to 20% like the democrats are trying to scare people with. Sales taxes in no state income tax states (and no personal property tax) are considerably higher than Missouri, are their populations and economy are growing like crazy.......that means we will to. If you don't like paying higher sales taxes, then don't......you can completely control what you spend, where you spend, and avoid municipalities, items, or even purchase items out of state. This puts you in control of the tax you pay vs the goverment just STEALING your income before it even hits your checking account. This is NOT an immediate thing--it phases out as milestones are reached. People who think that schools, police departments, and cities are just going to close in January 2027 are idiots and just fear mongering. In the end, it takes away a revenue stream from greedy Rinos and Democrats that won't stop spending. That's the main thing here. Just like if we lost our jobs tomorrow, we couldn't go to the government, our ex employer, or our future employer, and say "yeah I need that income replaced". No we have to budget and learn to live within our means!! This will be a kick in the pants to do just that. The MO budget had gone from $25 billion to $50 billion in the last 10 years. Why couldn't they figure out how to save 1.5 billion in there so we could get rid of personal property taxes? Because they love spending out money. This is the first step toward getting this state on track to be the next Tennessee, Florida, or Texas when it comes to attracting businesses to this state. The employment taxes and sales/use taxes they will generate will pay for the "lost" income tax revenue and far more. Originally Posted By delorean: Originally Posted By JAD762: Yes on 4. Yesish on 5. I generally support it but I wish they’d tell us the plan on how they’ll make up the loss. YUGE Yes on 5. The Hancock Amendment stays in place. They can't jack sales tax to 20% like the democrats are trying to scare people with. Sales taxes in no state income tax states (and no personal property tax) are considerably higher than Missouri, are their populations and economy are growing like crazy.......that means we will to. If you don't like paying higher sales taxes, then don't......you can completely control what you spend, where you spend, and avoid municipalities, items, or even purchase items out of state. This puts you in control of the tax you pay vs the goverment just STEALING your income before it even hits your checking account. This is NOT an immediate thing--it phases out as milestones are reached. People who think that schools, police departments, and cities are just going to close in January 2027 are idiots and just fear mongering. In the end, it takes away a revenue stream from greedy Rinos and Democrats that won't stop spending. That's the main thing here. Just like if we lost our jobs tomorrow, we couldn't go to the government, our ex employer, or our future employer, and say "yeah I need that income replaced". No we have to budget and learn to live within our means!! This will be a kick in the pants to do just that. The MO budget had gone from $25 billion to $50 billion in the last 10 years. Why couldn't they figure out how to save 1.5 billion in there so we could get rid of personal property taxes? Because they love spending out money. This is the first step toward getting this state on track to be the next Tennessee, Florida, or Texas when it comes to attracting businesses to this state. The employment taxes and sales/use taxes they will generate will pay for the "lost" income tax revenue and far more. By my lazy math we’ll need a state sales tax around 10 or 12% to make up for lost income. Tack on local sales taxes beyond that. Assuming that they won’t find other tax avenues. Like I said, even a broad plan on how they expect to pull it off would be nice. |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Negative, none of these ever go into law immediately Originally Posted By delorean: Originally Posted By PlaysWithAtoms: They put Amendment 3 in November, unlike the others. If Amendment 4 is passed, it will stop Amendment 3 from passing. Negative, none of these ever go into law immediately When does it go into effect? I read the full text of the bill and the ballot language. Neither says when it goes into effect. |
|
Originally Posted By PlaysWithAtoms: When does it go into effect? I read the full text of the bill and the ballot language. Neither says when it goes into effect. Just like the candidates, it's not until the next year. So, Amendment 4 would not cancel out Amendment 3. As I understand it, that's one of the reasons they didn't really push hard for IP reform in the legislature in the last two sessions and special session, because they needed to fix the Amendment 3 from 2024 first. |
|
Originally Posted By JAD762: By my lazy math we’ll need a state sales tax around 10 or 12% to make up for lost income. Tack on local sales taxes beyond that. Assuming that they won’t find other tax avenues. Like I said, even a broad plan on how they expect to pull it off would be nice. Your math is WAY off and incorrect. The Hancock Amendment wouldn't let it get anywhere near that, and prevents the munis from jacking it up any higher. TX is 6.25%, TN is 7.0%, FL is 6.0%. I'm really curious about TIFs--I have a business inside one that is near 12% already, but the TIF goes away in 2027 anyway. I spoke with a state senator and he said there would be a cap regardless of state+county+muni+TIF to prevent that. As I mentioned before, what everybody leaves out of their math is that: 1 - The State will need to spend less! This is the best thing for everyone. 2- The amount of new businesses that will start, existing ones that will relocate to MO, and the existing ones that will flourish, will be paying those "lost" income taxes in the form of payroll and sales/use tax In 2016 I was at a crossroads of what to do. I had quit my W2 job two years before and was selling real estate, flipping houses and scaling my small business.........but was just putting myself in a higher tax bracket every time I made more money. Days after the election, Greitens's first order of business was the lower the state income tax, and the Trump tax cuts were coming. I took on about $500K in debt to scale my company and 4x'd it on the next few years because I knew I would get to keep more of the profits--the risk and work was finally worth it. That is what entrepreneurs need to know: Is the juice worth the squeeze? I have 30-something employees now, and generate a sh!tload of payroll and sales tax for this state, as well as pay a ton of property taxes. Make this Missouri more friendly to businesses like TN, TX, FL, etc and they will move here from states that punish successful businesses (e.g. CA, IL, NY, etc.) I wouldn't have even bother in IL, and I wouldn't have scaled my business without the tax cuts that started in 2017. |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Just like the candidates, it's not until the next year. So, Amendment 4 would not cancel out Amendment 3. As I understand it, that's one of the reasons they didn't really push hard for IP reform in the legislature in the last two sessions and special session, because they needed to fix the Amendment 3 from 2024 first. Link says 30 days is the window for amendments. ETA: On second or third read, this amendment only applies to Initiative Petitions, not Amendments proposed by the Legislature. So it would not interfere with 3. Still, odd that they did not put all the amendments in August. |
|
In case anyone else was like me, and had no idea what #2 is about. https://www.ky3.com/2026/06/25/fact-finders-why-is-whole-state-voting-amendment-2/ |
|
My girlfriend is on city council in our city, and they're flipping out because most city sales tax is where the money comes from. In our town, that's a grocery store and nothing else. These discussions about eliminating sales tax on food would screw them, hard. Apply that to a state level and.... Looks like I'll be reading up on 4 today. That's very poorly worded (by design). |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Your math is WAY off and incorrect. The Hancock Amendment wouldn't let it get anywhere near that, and prevents the munis from jacking it up any higher. TX is 6.25%, TN is 7.0%, FL is 6.0%. I'm really curious about TIFs--I have a business inside one that is near 12% already, but the TIF goes away in 2027 anyway. I spoke with a state senator and he said there would be a cap regardless of state+county+muni+TIF to prevent that. As I mentioned before, what everybody leaves out of their math is that: 1 - The State will need to spend less! This is the best thing for everyone. 2- The amount of new businesses that will start, existing ones that will relocate to MO, and the existing ones that will flourish, will be paying those "lost" income taxes in the form of payroll and sales/use tax In 2016 I was at a crossroads of what to do. I had quit my W2 job two years before and was selling real estate, flipping houses and scaling my small business.........but was just putting myself in a higher tax bracket every time I made more money. Days after the election, Greitens's first order of business was the lower the state income tax, and the Trump tax cuts were coming. I took on about $500K in debt to scale my company and 4x'd it on the next few years because I knew I would get to keep more of the profits--the risk and work was finally worth it. That is what entrepreneurs need to know: Is the juice worth the squeeze? I have 30-something employees now, and generate a sh!tload of payroll and sales tax for this state, as well as pay a ton of property taxes. Make this Missouri more friendly to businesses like TN, TX, FL, etc and they will move here from states that punish successful businesses (e.g. CA, IL, NY, etc.) I wouldn't have even bother in IL, and I wouldn't have scaled my business without the tax cuts that started in 2017. Well, you're right about one thing, I was a bit off on my math. If we were to make up for the loss of revenue from income taxes with sales taxes it would actually be about 16%. Lets do the math. State sales tax rate = 4.225% Revenue from state sales tax ~ $3.2 billion 3,200,000,000 / 4.225 = 757,396,449. Just to keep it simple round that to 757 million. Thus, every percent of sales tax generates 757 million dollars. MO income tax brings in about 8.8 billion dollars, which will need to be replaced. Here's the math on what it would look like if it were replaced with only sales tax: 8,800,000,000 / 757,000,000 = 11.6 So we wouldn't have to increase sales tax to 12% like I previously said, we'd have to raise sales tax by 12%, giving us a total state tax of 16% - if we were to cover the loss of tax with just sales tax. Now, you say the Hancock Amendment will prevent that dramatic increase. Cool, but they've already said that they're going to work around it. The "plan" is to increase the state sales tax and expand the sales tax to goods and services that aren't currently taxed. That second part is the one that needs to be carefully explained, because replacing one big tax with 20 little taxes that matches or increases our current tax burden is a step back, not a step forward. You point out TN's 7% sales tax. What you fail to mention is that TN's corporate tax rate is 2.5% higher than MO's and they charge franchise taxes and all kinds of bull shit. So they make up for their loss by taxing the shit out of businesses instead of people. And your idea that the government is going to have to spend less might be the funniest thing I'll read all day. That ranks right up there with planning on fairies dropping gold bars off on our door steps in the middle of the night. We're already spending more than we collect. That's not going to stop if we start collecting less. With the way they're vaguely explaining how they want to increase sales taxes, this sounds more like an opportunity for the state to increase taxes than reduce them. Like I said, I support amendment 5 in a broad scope, but need more information on how its going to work. Unfortunately when I ask for that, all I get is emotional optimism with some half truth sprinkled into it. Frankly, after reading your post I find myself less inclined to vote for it now than I did before. |
|
Originally Posted By 67Firebird: I'm watching Nash Bridges, and they've been showing commercials against #4. It was paid for by Protect Majority Rule in Missouri, so I've been looking up info them. They sound shady, and don't want to lose the status quo. They helped me decide to vote Yes on #4. The top three search results; https://www.protectmajorityrulemo.org/ https://protectmojorityrule.com/ Even NPR says we don't know where the money is coming from. https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2026-06-28/missouri-election-august-2026-amendment-4-5 Originally Posted By Joedirt199: Protectmajorityrulemo.org Was reading up on this one and says NO on 4 |
|
Originally Posted By Joedirt199: Protectmajorityrulemo.org Was reading up on this one and says NO on 4 On this website's endorsement page, let's see which groups want you to vote NO: Abortion Action EmpowerMO League of Women's Voters Beacon Reproductive Health Network Missouri Action Alliance Missouri Coalition for the Environment Missouri Jobs with Justive Missouri Workers Center National Council for Jewish Women St Louis PPGraction,com (Planned Parenthood) ProgressMO ("We're Missouri's progressive communications hub") Respect Missouri Voters We Stand United Missouri Women's Voices Raised for Social Justice Missouri ACLU (When politicians can't beat us at the ballot box, they try to change the rules. Amendment 4 is a rigged system designed to make sure your voice doesn’t count, because it would let voters in just one congressional district veto the majority of voters." -Luz Henríquez, Executive Director, Missouri ACLU) All of these groups would greatly appreciate your NO vote. So let's say this fails, you think these groups like guns or not? They can get a anti-2A amendment on the ballot every other year easily now that they know how to do it, and there's not a damn thing that a Republican governor and super majority can do about it. If you vote no on this, you are siding with the Democrats, liberals, and progressives. |
|
Originally Posted By JJKrzos: Hi Guys, When we retired to Missouri in 2018, we were glad to rid ourselves of the crooked politicians and their ways of ruling the masses. Total population of Illinois was 12,821,813. The total population for Cook County(Chicago and Suburbs) was 5,265,398 and DuPage County(Suburbs outside Cook county) was 934,094. They control what happens to the rest of Illinoisians6,199,492 controls 6,622,321. The 2 counties , Cook and DuPage control the rest of the 100 counties in the state. Be careful how you vote, otherwise, we will be controlled by St. L and KC and the faulty laws they can come up with. By the same token, St. Louis or KC would be able tp stop something the rest of the state wants passed. It's a tough call on #4. I'm still undecided, but tending to think we might be better off to leave things the way they are now. |
|
Originally Posted By sleepercaprice1: By the same token, St. Louis or KC would be able tp stop something the rest of the state wants passed. It's a tough call on #4. I'm still undecided, but tending to think we might be better off to leave things the way they are now. That's already happening. No one that is trying push something through via IP would start it from a grassroots effort in a rural area......they can't get the signatures, do the canvasing, etc effectively. Unless STL and KC support it, it's not passing anyway. In the grand scheme of things, should be the case for constitutional amendments--it SHOULD be very hard to pass them, and we should NOT have marijuana, bingo, sports betting, etc in our State's constitution. There's been 1 amendment to the US Constitution in the last 50 years--we've had 25 amendments to the Missouri constitution in the last 15 years (and potentially 5 more this year.) Anything that our legislative supermajority does this year gets undone by billionaire liberals using IP next year (right to work, abortion, etc); then anything that gets passed by out-of-state liberals using IP, gets undone by the legislature next year's session (minimum wage, abortion, farms, etc.) This State will never get anything done if this cycle continues because it's cheaper and easier for the special interests to push constitutional amendments through. That's why they're spending so much money to kill Amendment 4: if they lose, they're done in this state. |
|
It is crazy all this stuff passes as consritutional ammendments, and not handled at the general assembly. They take complicated things, put them into a small number of words on a ballot, and 90%+ of people voting dont know the full scale of whats being voted on. I agree that all these matters of gambling, weed and everything else people seem to think we need....... dont belong as constitutional ammendments. |
|
Originally Posted By WillieTangoFox: It is crazy all this stuff passes as consritutional ammendments, and not handled at the general assembly. They take complicated things, put them into a small number of words on a ballot, and 90%+ of people voting dont know the full scale of whats being voted on. I agree that all these matters of gambling, weed and everything else people seem to think we need....... dont belong as constitutional ammendments. I second! |
|
I'm still undecided on Amendment 4 The reason I am still undecided on Amendment 4 is the fact that it would allow the St Louis and Kansas City areas to stop any proposed constitutional amendments that the rest of the state wants. You have to remember that big metro areas are predominantly democratic while the rest of the state is predominantly republican. It is a big NO for me on Amendment 5 as it will only hurt low income families and those that are on fixed incomes. It's bad enough that those of us on Social Security Disability or Social Security retirement generally lose money every year as the rise in Medicare premiums is usually higher than what the COLA increase is. Yes the last few years we actually gained a couple of dollars versus losing 5-10 dollars ( or more) per month. I mentioned the above since Amendment 5 would allow the state to increase sales taxes to the point that low/fixed income can't afford to buy basic necessities. I am pretty much conservative and I am still against Amendment 5. I am also against casinos as they claim that taxes from casinos helps Missouri veterans and I have not seen that happen in all these years. |
DAV lifetime member
NRA Patriot Life Benefactor
NRA Patriot Life Benefactor
|
Originally Posted By chumpmiester: I'm still undecided on Amendment 4 The reason I am still undecided on Amendment 4 is the fact that it would allow the St Louis and Kansas City areas to stop any proposed constitutional amendments that the rest of the state wants. You have to remember that big metro areas are predominantly democratic while the rest of the state is predominantly republican. It is a big NO for me on Amendment 5 as it will only hurt low income families and those that are on fixed incomes. It's bad enough that those of us on Social Security Disability or Social Security retirement generally lose money every year as the rise in Medicare premiums is usually higher than what the COLA increase is. Yes the last few years we actually gained a couple of dollars versus losing 5-10 dollars ( or more) per month. I mentioned the above since Amendment 5 would allow the state to increase sales taxes to the point that low/fixed income can't afford to buy basic necessities. I am pretty much conservative and I am still against Amendment 5. I am also against casinos as they claim that taxes from casinos helps Missouri veterans and I have not seen that happen in all these years. The point of 4 is exactly what you say, make it harder to ammend the constitution, because constitutional amendments are not the correct way to legislate things. That is what the legislature is for. Ultimately, it will make new laws follow the process rather than throwing things into amendments. As far as 5, the gov can already raise tax rates. The difference is you have some control over what you spend, and many of the necessities will still be tax free. |
|
Originally Posted By onthebreeze: The point of 4 is exactly what you say, make it harder to ammend the constitution, because constitutional amendments are not the correct way to legislate things. That is what the legislature is for. Ultimately, it will make new laws follow the process rather than throwing things into amendments. Originally Posted By onthebreeze: The point of 4 is exactly what you say, make it harder to ammend the constitution, because constitutional amendments are not the correct way to legislate things. That is what the legislature is for. Ultimately, it will make new laws follow the process rather than throwing things into amendments. You got it. The rest of the state shouldn't be try to amend the constution against STL and KC......and STL and KC shouldn't be amend contrary to rest of the state (like they already are.) The way they wrote this ensures that a majority of the WHOLE state approves, which is how it should be. As far as 5, the gov can already raise tax rates. The difference is you have some control over what you spend, and many of the necessities will still be tax free. And the DOR never put anybody in jail for not spending enough money. Income taxes come out of your check before you even see them, if you don't pay them you're big trouble, then you have prove to them you get a refund (and wait for it, without accruing interest while they sit on it.) You can control what you spend, what districts you spend it in, or buy out of state. |
|
Originally Posted By high-drag_low-speed: So where will the state make up the lost revenue when amendment 5 passes? First off, it's not an immediate elimination of state income tax.......it's a path to a phase out over what could take many years. As they start to phase it out little by little, the lost revenue is shift to sales tax--but the municipalities have their hands tied on what what they can tax and how they can try to raise it. The Hancock amendment is still in full force. They also can't shift it to real estate and personal property taxes. Basically, the plan is that since residents have more money on their checks, they're going to spend it, and the sales tax will make up what was lost through income tax withholding. At the same time, this state is going to attract a whole lot of out of state businesses and wealthy individuals (like other states that don't have income tax like FL and TN), that the increase spending will make it up. In the end, just like if you or I lose our jobs, we have to budget accordingly. The state's budget had gone from $25 billion to $50 billion in the last 15 years. They can figure out how to spend it, but not save it. This will fix that BS. EITHER WAY, if what I just listed doesn't start to happen, then the phase out STOPS until it does start to happen. |
|
You better read the amendment again. Amendment 5 suspends the Hancock amendment for 5 years. It gives lawmakers a broad discretion on raising and creating new taxes on just about anything. I’m not saying the the whole amendment is bad. But it definitely benefits the wealthy. And why is the 9.6 million dollars promoting amendment 5 hidden from their sources. |
WTB 1928 Thompson Submachine Gun Parts and Accessories
An armed populace is governed. An unarmed populace is ruled.
An armed populace is governed. An unarmed populace is ruled.