Civic Command What is Civic Command?

Free voter guide

Missouri November 2026 Ballot Guide

Every statewide measure on your ballot, in the official words, with sourced arguments from named supporters and opponents and the facts that are not in dispute.

Election Day: November 3, 2026. 5 statewide measures are certified. Official information last checked against the Missouri Secretary of State on September 24, 2026.

Voting in Missouri

Register by
Wednesday, October 7. Forms sent by mail must be postmarked by then. Missouri has no same-day registration.
Absentee voting
Began September 22. Voting absentee by mail, or in person before October 20, requires one of the reasons the state allows.
No-excuse early voting
In person from Tuesday, October 20, through 5 p.m. on Monday, November 2, at a site your local election authority designates.
Mail ballot requests
Must be received by your local election authority by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21.

Referred by the General Assembly

Amendment 3

Reproductive healthcare and gender transition procedures for minors

How it reads on the ballot

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability; Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies; Allow legislation regulating abortion; Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions; Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?

What your vote does (official language)

Yes

A “yes” vote will repeal Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by the voters in 2024 which provided reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability; continue to ensure women’s ability to access medical care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; allow legislation to regulate abortion providers and facilities to ensure health and safety; require informed and voluntary consent for an abortion, including parental or judicial consent for minors; allow restriction of abortions to cases of medical emergency, rape and incest under twelve weeks gestation, and fetal anomalies; prohibit public funding of abortions except in limited circumstances; and prohibit gender transition procedures for minors including gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs, with exceptions for specific medical conditions.

No

A “no” vote will leave Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by voters in 2024 in place; will not limit abortion to cases of medical emergency, rape and incest under twelve weeks gestation, and fetal anomalies, but leave access to abortion available through fetal viability; will not prohibit gender transition procedures for minors.

Cost estimate: State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Greene County estimates it may experience an unknown increase in tax revenue. Other local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Taxes: If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.

The analysis

Amendment 3 would repeal the reproductive rights provision Missouri voters approved in 2024. It would generally limit abortion to medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and cases of rape or incest occurring before 12 weeks of pregnancy, while allowing the legislature to regulate abortion and requiring parental or judicial consent for minors. It would also place a constitutional prohibition on gender transition procedures for minors, including surgeries, cross sex hormones, and puberty blocking drugs, subject to specified medical exceptions. A no vote would leave the 2024 provision in place, including abortion access through fetal viability and no constitutional prohibition on those procedures.

What supporters say (the case for a yes vote)

  • The Archdiocese of St. Louis's Respect Life Apostolate describes the measure as a way to restore Missouri's pro-life protections after the 2024 amendment, while preserving exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and rape or incest before 12 weeks. Archdiocese of St. Louis
  • The Missouri Catholic Conference argues that the amendment would restore or preserve parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, permit health and safety regulation of abortion providers and facilities, and prohibit gender transition procedures for minors. Missouri Catholic Conference

What opponents say (the case for a no vote)

  • Tori Schafer of the ACLU of Missouri, part of the Stop the Ban Missouri coalition, said the measure "is an abortion ban that takes away a woman's right to make her own medical decisions and instead puts it in the hands of politicians and lawyers," and that "politicians are trying to trick Missouri voters into banning abortion by combining these two separate topics." KCUR, May 27
  • The Stop the Ban Missouri campaign says that in 2024 "the people of Missouri decided to stop Missouri's abortion ban," and that "now, politicians are trying to overturn the will of the people and ban abortion again." KCUR, May 27

Neutral ground

What’s not in dispute
  • The measure was placed on the November 2026 ballot as Amendment 3 and would repeal the reproductive rights amendment approved by Missouri voters in 2024. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The proposed exceptions include medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and rape or incest occurring before 12 weeks of pregnancy. KCUR, May 27
  • The measure would prohibit gender transition surgeries, cross sex hormones, and puberty blocking drugs for minors, with exceptions described in the proposal. ProPublica
  • Missouri law enacted in 2023 already restricts gender transition treatment for minors. Its ban on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones expires in 2027; its ban on surgeries is permanent. News Tribune, Sept 13
  • The most recent public poll, the SLU/YouGov poll of 900 likely Missouri voters taken August 13 to 24, 2026 (margin of error about 4 points), found 43% for Amendment 3, 44% against and 13% unsure. News Tribune, Sept 13
Questions still open
  • How courts would interpret the amendment's medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape and incest, parental consent, and medical condition exceptions is unresolved.
  • How the constitutional language would interact with existing Missouri statutes and future legislation is unresolved.
  • Whether the existing statutory restrictions on gender transition procedures for minors would be changed, expanded, or made harder to amend by the constitutional prohibition is unresolved.
Publicly supporting
Publicly opposing
  • Stop the Ban Missouri (coalition including the ACLU of Missouri) KCUR, May 27
For cities and counties

Available reporting says the official fiscal analysis found no estimated costs or savings for state governmental entities and generally no costs or savings for local governmental entities, although Greene County reported an unknown possible increase in tax revenue. The measure's direct effects on local services would likely depend on future enforcement and legislation.

Note on sources: Public campaign and news coverage is substantially more developed than the publicly accessible legislative hearing and floor debate material identified here. The available sources document the principal arguments on both sides, but do not provide a complete, independently verified record of all testimony, endorsements, or implementation analyses.

Reviewed September 24, 2026.

Read the full textOfficial certificateSigned copy

Proposed by initiative petition

Amendment 6

Initiative and referendum rights and legislative changes to voter-approved laws

How it reads on the ballot

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: expand the initiative and referendum petition process by making it a fundamental right; allow courts to revise ballot summaries through lawsuits; prohibit the legislature from weakening initiative or referendum powers; prohibit the legislature from changing or repealing laws enacted through the initiative process, or passing laws similar to those rejected by referendum, without approval from at least 80% of both chambers; and preserve existing majority vote and signature requirements for initiative and referendum petitions?

What your vote does (official language)

Yes

A “yes” vote will prohibit the people’s elected representatives from directly amending or changing any law enacted through the initiative process; require that any modifications to laws enacted through the initiative process be referred to the people by a vote of at least 80% of each chamber of the General Assembly; restrict the legislature from passing laws that limit the ability to pursue initiatives and referenda; maintain the current signature requirements of five percent of the individual legal voters in each of two-thirds of Missouri’s congressional districts for proposing a law; maintain the current signature requirement of eight percent of individual legal voters in each of two-thirds of Missouri’s congressional districts for proposing a constitutional amendment; and maintain the current requirement that a simple statewide majority of votes cast on a measure by individual legal voters is sufficient to enact any law or constitutional amendment.

No

A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions, which already give citizens the right to propose initiatives and referenda.

Cost estimate: State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Taxes: If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.

The analysis

Amendment 6 would add stronger constitutional protections for Missouri's initiative and referendum process, including describing that process as a fundamental right. It would generally prevent the legislature from weakening that process or changing laws approved through initiative without approval from at least 80% of both legislative chambers and, for changes to voter-approved measures, approval by voters. It would also allow lawsuits challenging ballot summaries and preserve current signature thresholds and simple-majority approval rules. The official fiscal note says state and local governments estimate no costs or savings.

What supporters say (the case for a yes vote)

  • Respect MO Voters, the campaign behind Amendment 6, says Amendment 6 protects citizens' direct lawmaking power by preventing lawmakers from simply overriding or weakening laws and constitutional amendments approved by voters through the initiative process. Respect MO Voters
  • Respect MO Voters says the 80% requirement is meant to keep lawmakers from overriding what voters decide, not to permanently freeze congressional districts. News Tribune, Sept 23
  • Eric Bronner, co founder of Veterans for All Voters, said: "For more than 118 years, Missourians have had the power to put issues directly before the voters. Amendment 6 is about protecting that right." News Tribune, Sept 7

What opponents say (the case for a no vote)

  • Secretary of State Denny Hoskins opposes Amendment 6. He said that if it passes, "it will basically cut our legislature off at the knees as far as being able to pass laws to reduce crime and cut taxes." News Tribune, Sept 23
  • Secretary of State Denny Hoskins refused to certify the petition, saying he believes it violates the single subject rule of the Missouri Constitution. KOMU

Neutral ground

What’s not in dispute
  • Amendment 6 was proposed by initiative petition 2026-106. On September 3, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ordered it onto the November ballot, reversing a Cole County ruling that had upheld the Secretary of State, and found the single-subject and single-article challenges to the petition to be without merit. Missouri Lawyers Media, Sept 4
  • Following the ruling, the Secretary of State certified the petition for the November ballot on September 8, 2026. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The measure would amend the Missouri Constitution rather than ordinary statute. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The official proposal would require at least 80% approval in both chambers for the legislature to change or repeal laws enacted through the initiative process, and would restrict legislation similar to laws rejected by referendum. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The proposal preserves the stated current signature requirements of 5% of individual legal voters in two-thirds of congressional districts for statutory initiatives and referenda, and 8% in two-thirds of congressional districts for constitutional initiatives. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The official fiscal note says state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The official ballot language says a simple statewide majority of votes cast on a measure remains sufficient to enact an initiative law or constitutional amendment. Missouri Secretary of State
  • Amendment 6 would bar the legislature from passing, proposing or referring a law or constitutional amendment "similar in effect" to a law voters rejected by referendum unless at least 80% of both the House and Senate agree. News Tribune, Sept 23
  • In the August 4, 2026 primary, voters defeated Amendment 4, which would have required citizen initiated constitutional amendments to win a majority in each congressional district rather than statewide, 80.3% to 19.7%. Ballotpedia News, Aug 6
Questions still open
  • How courts would apply the new protections against legislative action that is merely similar to a referendum-rejected law is not fully resolved by the ballot language.
  • The practical scope of the provision allowing courts to revise ballot summaries through lawsuits would depend on future judicial interpretation.
  • It remains uncertain how the 80% legislative threshold and voter-approval requirement would operate when a voter-enacted law needs technical correction, emergency revision, or comprehensive replacement.
  • Whether a future congressional map would count as "similar in effect" to one voters rejected. Travis Crum, a Washington University law professor who specializes in election law, has said he believes it would, which would require 80% of both chambers.
Publicly supporting
Publicly opposing
For cities and counties

The official fiscal note reports that state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. The reviewed sources do not identify a specific effect on city or county services.

Note on sources: Respect MO Voters runs an organized campaign for Amendment 6. The opposition on record comes mainly from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, and no organized opposition campaign was found in the sources reviewed.

Reviewed September 24, 2026.

Read the full textOfficial certificate

Referred by the General Assembly

Amendment 7

Show-Me Prosperity Fund (state endowment to replace state taxes)

How it reads on the ballot

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government instead of taxing Missouri residents, prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting the fund, and eliminate state-imposed taxes once the fund generates sufficient revenue to replace them?

What your vote does (official language)

Yes

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to establish the “Show-Me Prosperity Fund,” a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes without impairing the real value of the fund’s principal; prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting monies from the fund until notification is given by the State Treasurer that the net investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to eliminate state-imposed taxes; cap the total amount of moneys that may be appropriated from the fund in a fiscal year to three percent of the average market value of the fund over the preceding five fiscal years; and prohibit the General Assembly from enacting the eliminated state-imposed taxes, provided, however, that in the event the fund is unable to meet its obligations due to insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure, the General Assembly shall retain full authority to appropriate funds from any lawful source and to enact legislation establishing or increasing taxes or other revenues as necessary.

No

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes.

Cost estimate: State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Taxes: If passed, this measure will have no immediate impact on taxes but could lead to the elimination of state-imposed taxes if the net investment earnings of the fund become sufficient to support that outcome.

The analysis

A "yes" vote would amend the Missouri Constitution to create the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, a permanent state-managed endowment initially funded through legislative appropriations, gifts, grants, donations, and bequests. The State Treasurer would invest the fund, including in exchange-traded funds tracking the S&P 500, and the fund's principal could not be appropriated or diverted before its earnings were sufficient to replace state-imposed taxes. Once that threshold was met, withdrawals would generally be capped at 3% of the fund's average market value over the preceding five fiscal years, and the eliminated taxes could not be reenacted except if the fund became unable to meet its obligations. A "no" vote would leave the Missouri Constitution unchanged.

What supporters say (the case for a yes vote)

  • SJR 95, sponsored by Sen. Adam Schnelting, is written to create a permanent public endowment whose investment earnings would eventually replace state imposed taxes without spending down the principal. Missouri Senate
  • The resolution includes the safeguards its supporters point to: no money may be appropriated from the fund until the State Treasurer certifies that its earnings can replace state imposed taxes, and yearly withdrawals are capped at 3% of the fund's average value over the prior five years. Missouri Senate

What opponents say (the case for a no vote)

  • Traci Gleason of the Missouri Budget Project said any state dollars put into the fund would mean real cuts to existing services such as education, health care and services for older Missourians. ABC 17, Sept 15
  • Patrick Tuohey of the Show-Me Institute called it "a sovereign wealth fund-type thing, except there is no source of revenue," noting that unlike Alaska, which funds its account with oil revenue, this fund would have to be funded by taxes while lawmakers face pressure to pay for current services. Ballotpedia News, May 21

Neutral ground

What’s not in dispute
  • The measure was referred to voters by the Missouri General Assembly as SS SCS SJR 95 and is designated Amendment 7 for the November 2026 election. Missouri Senate
  • The proposed fund would receive money appropriated by the General Assembly and could also receive gifts, donations, grants, and bequests. Missouri Senate
  • The State Treasurer would invest the fund in exchange-traded funds tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 or a comparable successor index established by law. Missouri Senate
  • The official fiscal note says state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Missouri State Auditor
  • The Senate passed SJR 95 22 to 7 on March 23, 2026, with 22 Republicans in favor and 7 Democrats opposed. The House passed it 85 to 56 on May 15, 2026, with 85 Republicans in favor and 48 Democrats and 8 Republicans opposed. Ballotpedia News, May 19
  • Amendment 7 began as Senate Joint Resolution 95, sponsored by Sen. Adam Schnelting. Missouri Senate
  • The Missouri Budget Project estimates that because the state collects more than $18 billion a year in taxes, the fund would need at least $600 billion to replace them, and possibly more depending on how lawmakers define "state imposed taxes." KQ2, Sept 16
  • In the August 4, 2026 primary, voters defeated Amendment 5, which would have required the legislature to reduce the state income tax as revenue grew until it was eliminated, 83.3% to 16.7%. Ballotpedia News, Aug 6
Questions still open
  • How much money would the General Assembly initially appropriate, if any, and how quickly could the fund realistically grow enough to replace Missouri's state-imposed tax revenue?
  • How would the constitutional language operate alongside constitutional or statutory requirements governing specific taxes, public services, school funding, bonded obligations, and federal funding matches?
  • What would happen to state programs and local governments during a prolonged investment downturn or if investment earnings failed to meet the state's obligations?
  • What precise taxes and revenue sources would be considered eliminated state-imposed taxes, and how would the State Treasurer determine that the replacement threshold had been reached?
Publicly supporting
  • Sen. Adam Schnelting (sponsor) and the legislators who voted for SJR 95 Missouri Senate
Publicly opposing
For cities and counties

The official fiscal note reports that state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. The measure is aimed at state-imposed taxes and state government, but a future replacement or elimination of state revenue could affect state aid, grants, shared services, or other funding relied on by cities, counties, and local programs. The available sources do not quantify those effects.

Note on sources: Support on record comes from the sponsor, Sen. Adam Schnelting, and the legislators who voted for SJR 95. Named critics on record include the Missouri Budget Project and the Show-Me Institute. No organized campaign on either side was found in the sources reviewed.

Reviewed September 24, 2026.

Read the full textOfficial certificateSigned copy

Referred by the General Assembly

Amendment 8

County sheriffs: elections, duties and removal

How it reads on the ballot

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to support law enforcement by preserving the right of citizens to elect a county sheriff, prohibiting the removal of a county sheriff except by a writ of quo warranto, and recognizing the office of sheriff as part of the administration of justice?

What your vote does (official language)

Yes

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require counties to: elect a sheriff every four years, which is currently required by statute; place in the Constitution provisions regarding sheriffs’ duties that are currently provided by statute; and provide that an elected sheriff may be removed from office only through a writ of quo warranto initiated by the Attorney General.

No

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution. Current Missouri statutes providing for the election of county sheriffs to four-year terms and governing their duties and removal will remain in effect unless changed by law.

Cost estimate: State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Taxes: If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.

The analysis

Amendment 8 would add provisions about county sheriffs to the Missouri Constitution. In most counties, it would require voters to elect a sheriff to a four-year term, name the sheriff as the county's chief law-enforcement officer, and place specified sheriff duties directly in the Constitution. St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County are excluded under the proposed text. A sheriff could be removed only through a writ of quo warranto initiated by the Missouri Attorney General. A no vote would leave the Constitution unchanged, and existing statutory rules on sheriff elections, duties, and removal would remain in effect unless the General Assembly changes them.

What supporters say (the case for a yes vote)

  • Sen. Jill Carter (R-Granby), the sponsor, said: "At its core, this bill is about one simple but powerful idea: accountability to the people," adding, "When citizens elect their sheriff, they know exactly who is responsible for public safety." KZRG, Mar 28

What opponents say (the case for a no vote)

  • During House debate, Rep. Aaron Crossley (D-Independence) objected to language requiring sheriffs to apprehend and jail traitors, asking, "Is a traitor a protestor?" He called putting the issue in the state constitution "a dangerous route." Columbia Missourian
  • The Backbone Network, an online publication, urges a no vote, arguing that the measure writes into the constitution rules already covered by state law, which would make future changes harder, and that limiting removal to an Attorney General quo warranto case could reduce local accountability. The Backbone Network

Neutral ground

What’s not in dispute
  • The measure was referred to voters by the General Assembly as CCS HCS SS SJR 87 and would amend Article VII of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri Senate
  • The proposed amendment generally covers county sheriffs but excludes St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County. Missouri Senate
  • The official fiscal note reports that state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Missouri State Auditor
  • Under the official ballot explanation, current statutory provisions concerning four-year sheriff elections, sheriff duties, and removal would remain in effect after a no vote unless changed by law. Missouri State Auditor
  • Amendment 8 began as Senate Joint Resolution 87, sponsored by Sen. Jill Carter. Missouri Senate
  • The legislature passed it in May 2026, 95 to 46 in the House and 24 to 9 in the Senate. Ballotpedia News, May 21
  • St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles County are left out because their sheriff offices already work differently: St. Louis County voters replaced the sheriff with a county police department in 1955, St. Charles County voters approved a county police department in 2012, and St. Louis City operates under its own charter. Ballotpedia News, May 21
Questions still open
  • How courts would interpret the amendment's constitutional descriptions of sheriff duties and authority in cases involving conflicts with other county or law-enforcement officials.
  • Whether the Attorney General would have sufficient resources and willingness to pursue quo warranto proceedings in every case where removal is sought.
  • How constitutionalizing provisions that currently exist in statute would affect the General Assembly's ability to revise sheriff duties, qualifications, or removal procedures in the future.
Publicly supporting
Publicly opposing
For cities and counties

The measure would place constitutional rules on sheriffs who operate county jails and handle courthouse security in covered counties, potentially affecting how those responsibilities relate to other county offices. The fiscal note reports that state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Note on sources: The legal effects described here come from the resolution text and official fiscal materials. The arguments on record come from the sponsor, from House floor debate and from one online publication. No organized campaign on either side was found in the sources reviewed. No public position from the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association or the Missouri Association of Counties was found on their websites, in the Senate and House hearing records for SJR 87, or in news coverage reviewed on September 24, 2026.

Reviewed September 24, 2026.

Read the full textOfficial certificateSigned copy

Proposed by referendum petition (a vote on a law, not a constitutional amendment)

Proposition A

Congressional district map (House Bill 1, 2025 Second Extraordinary Session)

How it reads on the ballot

Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled “House Bill No. 1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session),” which repeals Missouri’s existing congressional plan, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more counties intact?

What your vote does (official language)

Yes

A “yes” vote will approve the act of the General Assembly entitled “House Bill No. 1 (2025 Extraordinary Session),” which redraws the congressional district boundaries.

No

A “no” vote will leave in place the congressional district boundaries enacted in 2022.

Cost estimate: State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.

Taxes: If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

The analysis

Status as of September 24, 2026

On September 21, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2025 map must be used, and put its own ruling on hold until September 28 so the U.S. Supreme Court can review it. Late on September 22, People Not Politicians, the committee that sponsored the referendum, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to direct the state to keep using the 2022 map, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh ordered responses by 1 p.m. on September 23. Absentee voting began on September 22 on ballots that use the 2022 districts; the group’s attorney, Alixandra Cossette, wrote in an earlier filing with the 8th Circuit that "Missouri’s 116 local election authorities are running the election under the 2022 map." Until the courts act, the 2022 map remains in effect. This note will be updated after September 28.

Sources: KCUR, Sept 21, KCUR, Sept 23

Proposition A asks Missouri voters whether to approve House Bill 1, a 2025 law that would replace the congressional map adopted in 2022 with a new set of district boundaries. The official ballot description says the new map keeps more counties whole. If voters say yes, the HB 1 map takes effect. If voters say no, the 2022 map stays in place. Which map will be used for the November 2026 congressional elections is still before the courts; see the dated status note above.

What supporters say (the case for a yes vote)

  • U.S. Rep. Bob Onder and state Sen. Rick Brattin, who sued to keep the 2025 map in use, argue that switching maps between the primary and the general election violates voters' right to equal protection. KCUR, Sept 23

What opponents say (the case for a no vote)

  • Richard von Glahn, director of People Not Politicians, the group that gathered the signatures to put the map to a vote, said: "The courts have been very clear. You cannot change maps in the middle of an election." KCUR, Sept 23

Neutral ground

What’s not in dispute
  • Proposition A is a referendum on House Bill 1 and does not itself amend the Missouri Constitution. Missouri Secretary of State
  • A yes vote approves the HB 1 congressional map. A no vote keeps the 2022 congressional map in place. Missouri Secretary of State
  • The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that HB 1 cannot take effect unless voters approve it and ordered the 2022 map used for the 2026 general election. That ruling is now being contested in federal court; see the dated status note above. JURIST
  • The official fiscal note estimates no costs or savings for state or local governmental entities. Missouri Secretary of State
  • Amendment 6, also on this ballot, would bar the legislature from passing a law "similar in effect" to one voters rejected by referendum unless at least 80% of both the House and Senate agree. News Tribune, Sept 23
Questions still open
  • If voters approve Proposition A, when the HB 1 map would take effect, given that the courts are still deciding which map applies to the 2026 elections.
  • The publicly available material reviewed here offers limited detailed, side-by-side analysis of how each specific district would change and what those changes would mean for individual communities.
  • Public reporting describes competing claims about the map's political effects, but the sources reviewed here do not establish a single neutral consensus on its likely partisan consequences.
  • Whether, if voters reject Proposition A and approve Amendment 6, a later congressional map would count as "similar in effect" to the rejected one. Travis Crum, a Washington University law professor who specializes in election law, has said he believes it would, which would require 80% of both chambers.
Publicly supporting
Publicly opposing
  • People Not Politicians (Richard von Glahn, director) KCUR, Sept 23
For cities and counties

The official fiscal note estimates no costs or savings for state or local governmental entities. The map could still affect which congressional district represents particular cities and counties, especially where boundaries change, but the sources reviewed here do not quantify any effects on local services.

Note on sources: Current public coverage clearly documents the ballot question, the court history, and the broad arguments on each side, but detailed campaign materials, legislative hearing testimony, floor debate, and named organizational endorsements are limited in the sources reviewed here.

Reviewed September 24, 2026.

Read the full textOfficial certificate

How this guide works

The ballot titles, fair ballot language, fiscal notes, and document links come straight from the Missouri Secretary of State, and nothing in those sections is rewritten. The arguments for, against, and neutral context are researched from public sources, and every point links to the source it came from. A person reviews each analysis before it is published here.

This guide does not tell you how to vote and does not endorse any measure or campaign. Because research tools can make mistakes, please check anything important against the official documents linked under each measure. Have a correction or a question? Send us a message and a person will look at it.

Changes to this page

  • September 24, 2026: Proposition A: clarified that the "116 local election authorities" statement came from a filing with the 8th Circuit. Amendment 6: the court ruling is now cited to reporting on the opinion.
  • September 24, 2026: Added registration, absentee and early voting dates from the Missouri Secretary of State, the House and Senate party breakdown for Amendment 7, and the Missouri Supreme Court’s September 3 ruling on Amendment 6.
  • September 24, 2026: Updated after an outside review: every argument now names who made it, facts cite official or independent sources, and Proposition A gained a dated court status box, corrected to show the September 22 Supreme Court filing and that absentee voting has begun.
  • September 24, 2026: Guide published with the official ballot language and a reviewed analysis for all five measures.

Send a correction or question

Spot something wrong, or have a question about a measure? Tell us here. Your message goes straight to the Civic Command team, and we will reply by email.

We use your name and email only to reply to you. We do not share them or add you to any mailing list.

About the publisher

Civic Command publishes this guide free as a public service, separate from its paid work. Civic Command is a legislative tracking service for local government. It follows the bills filed in each state legislature, flags the ones that could affect cities, counties, regional planning commissions and nonprofits, such as preemption, unfunded mandates and funding changes, and sends a daily brief so officials know what is coming before it becomes law.

Civic Command is live today in Missouri, Kansas, and Illinois. We plan to expand to other states as we grow.

Learn about Civic Command