Why We Vote No

Amendment 3 is not a straight repeal. It removes the 2024 abortion-rights language and immediately replaces it with a new constitutional provision that says abortion may be performed in cases of fetal anomaly and of rape or incest through 12 weeks. A "yes" vote does not just take something out of the Constitution. It puts those exceptions in.

Act for Missouri begins with a simple premise: human life begins at conception, and a child's worth does not depend on how that child was conceived or on a prenatal diagnosis. A child conceived in rape committed no crime. A child with a terminal diagnosis is still a child. Once the Constitution divides unborn children into protected and unprotected classes, it establishes the principle that some human beings may lose the protection of life because of circumstances they did not choose. You cannot build equal protection by first constitutionalizing unequal protection.

Supporters say the exceptions can be tightened later. But the final text contains no rape-reporting requirement, no second-opinion requirement for a fetal-anomaly diagnosis, and leaves most safeguards to future legislatures. And if these exceptions are morally acceptable enough to write into the Constitution in 2026, on what principle would they become unacceptable later? Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers today. If that is not the moment to bring personhood and equal protection to a recorded vote, it is fair to ask what moment we are waiting for.

A "No" Vote Is Not a Vote for the 2024 Amendment

We want to be honest about what a "no" costs: it leaves the 2024 amendment in place for now. We do not minimize that. But a "no" is not an endorsement of it. It is a refusal to trade one set of lives for another, and a demand that the legislature offer what it could have offered from the start: a clean repeal, or a personhood amendment that protects every unborn child equally. Either one would have united pro-life voters. Amendment 3 divides them.

For our full analysis, including the equal-protection argument and the case against "fix it later," visit our Amendment 3 resource site: act4mo.info/a3

Why We Vote No

Voter-approved measures deserve serious respect, and parts of Amendment 6 address real concerns, including clear and fair ballot summaries. But its central provision would require 80% of each legislative chamber just to refer a change to a covered citizen-approved measure back to voters. That is 131 of 163 representatives and 28 of 34 senators. Seven senators could block the people from even being asked.

The restriction reaches well beyond repeal. It covers any change that would modify, repeal, supersede, or undermine a covered measure, with no general exception for technical fixes, and it applies to measures adopted since 2010. It would also close the legislative route to reforms that raise the bar for citizen initiatives, including the balanced reform we support.

Our position has not changed since August. Missouri's Constitution is too easy to change, and every amendment, whether it comes from citizens or the legislature, should need a statewide majority plus a majority in a majority of state House districts. Amendment 4 failed that test by tilting power toward the legislature. Amendment 6 fails it by tilting power the other way. Both judge the rules by which side expects to win.

The Court Put It on the Ballot. It Did Not Endorse It.

The Missouri Supreme Court's unanimous September 3 ruling in Harris v. Hoskins required that Amendment 6 go before voters with its originally certified ballot title. That decision was about ballot access, not the merits. The Court did not recommend a "yes" vote or resolve every challenge that could arise if the amendment passes. The organizers did the work to earn a vote; we respect that while explaining why voters should say no.

For our full analysis, including the legislative history behind Amendment 6 and our alternative, see our long-form piece: "Amendment 6 Goes Too Far: Missouri Needs Balanced Reform, Not Another Power Struggle."

Why We Vote No

The promise is appealing: let investment earnings replace state taxes. But Amendment 7 allows no money to leave the fund until the previous year's net earnings are enough to replace all of the listed taxes: the individual income tax, the state sales and use tax, the corporate income tax, and all other state taxes. It does not eliminate taxes one at a time. Missouri could contribute for decades, perhaps generations, before a single tax goes away.

A second rule makes the target far larger. Annual spending from the fund is capped at 3% of its five-year average value. To replace an illustrative $8 billion in yearly tax revenue under that cap, the fund would need roughly $266.7 billion. Management fees come out before the trigger is tested, yet the amendment sets no fee cap, requires no competitive bidding, and contains no conflict-of-interest protections for choosing the investment firms. At a 0.06% fee, a fund that size would pay about $160 million a year.

And it arrives during a budget squeeze. In June the State Auditor warned the budget lawmakers passed would spend more than $1.7 billion above ongoing revenue in FY2027, and the administration projects a FY2028 shortfall of more than $500 million. Every dollar deposited would become permanent principal that cannot be spent, pledged, or borrowed against, even in an emergency.

"No Costs or Savings" Does Not Mean Free

The official ballot information says state and local governments estimate no costs or savings. That is because future deposits are left entirely to future legislatures, so the fiscal note reports them as "$0 or unknown." It does not mean the endowment can be built for free, and it does not mean no private firm will be paid. The amendment's own definition of net earnings subtracts management fees and expenses.

For the full math, the fee tables, and the fiscal note, see our long-form piece: "The $267 Billion Question: What Amendment 7 Asks Missouri to Trust."

Why We Vote No

We want to be clear: we like the idea of a constitutional sheriff. An independently elected sheriff whose office cannot be abolished or restructured by an ordinary bill is a sound principle. Giving sheriffs control over their own deputies and staff, within the budget the county provides, has real merit too. If Amendment 8 did that for every Missourian, we would be glad to support it.

It does not. The amendment expressly excludes St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County. Those jurisdictions are organized differently, but the result is a constitutional protection for the office of sheriff that applies to most Missourians and expressly leaves out some. A principle worth putting in the Constitution should be worth applying statewide.

The bigger problem is removal. Today, a quo warranto action against a county officer can be started by the Attorney General or by a local circuit or prosecuting attorney, and Chapter 106 lets citizens start a misconduct removal through their local prosecutor. Amendment 8 says a covered sheriff can be removed only by quo warranto initiated by the Attorney General. Accountability for a county officer would run through a single statewide official in Jefferson City. We objected to the same kind of exclusive Attorney General power in Amendment 4, and the principle has not changed.

Amendment 8 Does Not Create Elected Sheriffs

Missouri already elects its county sheriffs every four years under state law, and many of the duties listed in Amendment 8 are already in statute. A "no" vote does not end elected sheriffs. The amendment's real effect is to move those provisions into the Constitution while changing two things: who controls sheriff staffing in some counties, and who can start the process of removing a sheriff.