When Missouri voters go to the polls this Nov. 8, they’ll be asked to weigh in on a series of state constitutional amendments. Last week we provided a lengthy breakdown of an even lengthier …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, or you are a print subscriber who had access to our previous wesbite, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you have not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print subscriber and did not have a user account on our previous website, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
When Missouri voters go to the polls this Nov. 8, they’ll be asked to weigh in on a series of state constitutional amendments. Last week we provided a lengthy breakdown of an even lengthier legal marijuana amendment, but there are three other amendments voters are being asked to decide as well.
Here’s what you need to know about each of these amendments when you go to cast your vote:
AMENDMENT 1
“Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
This amendment would modify the part of the Missouri Constitution that controls how the state treasurers manages state funds. The Constitution currently allows the treasurer to place excess funds into certain secure investments that generate revenue for the state.
Currently allowed investments include time-based deposits with banks that have been approved by both the governor and the state auditor, or bonds from the U.S. federal government, or short-term notes from banks or corporations with the highest bond rating.
Amendment 1 would expand the state treasurer’s investing in two ways. First, it would allow the state to invest in bonds issued by local government entities. These bonds are a form of long-term lending that typically pay for infrastructure or public facilities.
The second change is a little more vague: It would allow the treasurer to invest in “other reasonable and prudent financial instruments and securities” as directed by future laws passed by the Missouri Legislature. Amendment 1 doesn’t contain any further guidance on what investments are considered “reasonable and prudent.”
State officials have estimated that opening up the treasurer’s investment options could help the state generate an additional $2 million in interest revenue per year.
AMENDMENT 4
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize laws, passed before December 31, 2026, that increase minimum funding for a police force established by a state board of police commissioners to ensure such police force has additional resources to serve its communities?”
Out of everything on the ballot, this question is likely the hardest to understand without a lot of additional context.
It would amend a section of the Missouri Constitution that forbids the state government from ordering local counties, schools, or other public agencies to provide new or expanded public services, unless the state also pays for those expanded services. The change would give the Missouri Legislature four years to order a local government to pay more money if their local police force was “established by a state board of police commissioners.”
But what local governments would such a mandate actually apply to? As it turns out, only one: Kansas City, Missouri.
“Kansas City is the only city in the state that lacks direct control over its police department. The police board is controlled by the governor’s appointees under a 1939 law,” the Kansas City Star wrote in May after Amendment 4 was proposed by the Missouri Legislature.
Kansas City is currently required to pay 20 percent of its general operating revenue into the Kansas City Police Department, according to The Star. Amendment 4 was proposed in tandem with a new law that would up the required payment to 25 percent.
The legislation is in response to the Kansas City Council attempting to exert more local control over how funding that exceeds the 20-percent threshold is spent. The council voted last year to divert $42 million of the KCPD’s $269 million budget into a “Community Services and Crime Prevention Fund,” before that change was blocked in a lawsuit, according to The Star.
In short, Amendment 4 would give the Missouri Legislature complete control of how much money Kansas City spends on its local police department until the end of 2026.
AMENDMENT 5
“Shall the Missouri National Guard currently under the Missouri Department of Public Safety be its own department, known as the Missouri Department of the National Guard, which shall be required to protect the constitutional rights and civil liberties of Missourians?”
The main effect of this amendment would be to have the head of the Missouri National Guard reporting directly to the governor, rather than being subordinate to the state’s director of public safety. The adjutant general who leads the national guard would be appointed by the governor with confirmation by the state Senate.
State officials estimate that separating the National Guard into its own department will increase annual operating expenses by about $132,000.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
“Shall there be a convention to revise and amend the Constitution?”
That leaves one more small question on the ballot for voters. It’s not an amendment, but rather a question of whether voters think more amendments are needed.
Every 20 years, the Missouri Constitution requires voters to be given the chance to call a constitutional convention to revise and amend the state constitution. If a majority of voters answer yes, state officials would need to organize an election of delegates from across the state to attend the convention.
