Act for Missouri Logo

Legislative Watch

In-depth analysis of the 2026 Missouri Legislative Session.

Find Your Legislators

HomeFact SheetsHB 2356
ELECTIONS AND TAXES

HB 2356: Local Tax Ballot Questions

Sponsor: Tricia Byrnes

RECOMMENDATION:
SUPPORT

Advances taxpayer truth-in-advertising.

HB 2356 creates a new rule for local ballot questions that ask voters to approve bonds, levy increases, or other tax-supported debt. It bans political subdivisions from marketing these measures as a "no-tax-increase bond issue" if that wording implies taxpayers have no financial obligation, and requires plain-language disclosures in the ballot question itself.

Grows Government?
Restrains Deception
Fiscal Impact
Transparency Gain
Family Impact
Honest Disclosure
Act4Mo Alignment
High Support

What Does This Bill Do?

  • Bans Deceptive Phrasing: Prohibits using "no-tax-increase bond issue" or similar language if it implies taxpayers won't be financially responsible for the debt.
  • Mandates Disclosures: Requires ballot questions to state if the debt-service levy changes, provide an estimated dollar impact on the average home, and explicitly state that bonds are a taxpayer-backed obligation.
  • State Auditor Oversight: Requires subdivisions to submit ballot language to the State Auditor for a 30-day review of accuracy and compliance before certification.

Constitutional or Critical Context

This bill primarily regulates government speech rather than private citizen speech, aiming to restrict local government manipulation of voters through misleading language. While it adds a layer of state oversight via the Auditor and Attorney General, the intent is to ensure "fair notice" and honesty in public finance communication, which aligns with constitutional principles of transparent self-government.

Red Flags & Recommended Amendments

!

Vagueness in Prohibited Phrasing

The term "substantially similar words implying..." is somewhat ambiguous and could invite litigation gamesmanship or inconsistent enforcement.

Act for Missouri Recommendation:

We recommend defining specific examples of prohibited claims to reduce ambiguity and replacing the "next general election cycle" penalty with a more tailored cure period to correct language.