Missouri Amendment 3, Key Ballot Measures Face November Vote

Because there are no high-profile races for the presidency or the U.S. Senate on the ballot next Tuesday, some Missouri voters may be tempted to stay home. However, several proposed constitutional amendments could have profound impacts on key issues for people of faith who support the sanctity of life.

“The new Amendment 3 would provide greater protection for women, minors and preborn babies in the state of Missouri,” said Angie Springs, director of philanthropy for Vitae Foundation in Jefferson City. “For over 30 years, Vitae Foundation has focused on how to communicate about the abortion issue, how to reach people emotionally and how to change the culture. The question posed to voters isn’t whether we change the culture or change the law. It’s not an `either/or’ conversation; it’s `both/and.’ We have to change the culture and change the law. It’s time to reclaim Missouri as being one of the most pr-Ife states in the nation and as a place of protection for the preborn.”

Vitae Foundation is a national nonprofit organization that conducts research about life issues and applies the findings to create messaging strategies to share with others to build a future where abortion is unthinkable. In a state in which the governor, legislature and general population tend to be prolife, she cautions voters not to be complacent.

“If Amendment 3 were to fail now, voters may feel fatigued on the issue, and it may take several more years to get prolife protections back on the ballot,” Springs said. ”The enemy wants us to stay on the fence on this issue and be complacent, but when we do that, we’re not protecting the most vulnerable around us. We have the power to change things in Missouri, but we need voters to step up and step out to talk about this issue with friends and loved ones. We cannot do it without you.”

Bev Ehlen, president of Liberty Link Missouri, agrees.

“Please, I urge you to not only vote yourself but encourage five others to vote in November as well,” she said. “We are at a critical time of history in Missouri and in our country. Each of us needs to be accountable and do what we can to stand for God’s principles in every area of life, including civil government. The future of our children depends on us. We pray that eyes will be opened to the truth of how very critical it is to vote, as well as how to vote in a biblical manner to protect life, family and liberty.”

Missourians have been bombarded with advertising, direct mail and text messages from both sides of the issue. At times, descriptions of what Amendment 3 says and what it would do have been misleading. Following is the actual ballot language from the Missouri Secretary of State’s website and what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean for Amendment 3 and other amendments on the4 ballot.

Below is an examination of Amendment 3 and other important ballot initiatives.

AMENDMENT 3

Pro-life supporters view Amendment 3 as an opportunity to restore legal protections for unborn children after Missouri voters approved making abortion until viability (birth) part of the Missouri Constitution in 2024. This measure would permit lawmakers to restrict abortion and protect unborn life, with common exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape and incest under specified conditions. It would also establish parental consent protections and prohibit most gender-transition surgeries and other procedures for children. Supporters argue that protecting vulnerable children, preserving parental authority and allowing elected lawmakers to regulate abortion are fundamental responsibilities of government. Opponents contend that the proposal would substantially restrict abortion and the transitioning of children..

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?

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.

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. 

AMENDMENT 6

Conservative critics argue that Amendment 6 would weaken representative government by making voter-approved laws extraordinarily difficult for elected legislators to change, even when those laws are pushed by outside forces and produce unintended consequences. Requiring approval from 80 percent of both legislative chambers before referring modifications to voters would create a substantial barrier to correcting problematic or dangerous legislation. Critics also worry that well-funded interest groups, as evidenced in past referendum efforts, could use ballot initiatives to establish policies that publicly elected legislators would have limited power to revise. Supporters claim that the amendment protects voters from politicians who overturn the people’s decisions. In essence, the passage of Amendment 6 could mean that controversial advocacy groups cold funnel billions into the state to change the constitution on a wide rage of issues contrary to the values of many Missourians.

Ballot language:

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?

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.

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

AMENDMENT 7

Missouri voters rejected Amendment 5 in August by an overwhelming 83 percent to 17 percent. That proposal would have phased out the state income tax while allowing lawmakers to expand sales taxes and hundreds of other fees to replace lost revenue. With that defeat, Amendment 7 attempts a different, and some say back-door, approach, creating a government-controlled investment fund called the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, intended to eventually generate enough earnings to eliminate state-imposed taxes. Supporters argue it would promote long-term fiscal stability and reduce the tax burden without shifting costs to consumers. However, the amendment provides no initial funding, guarantees no tax reductions and could take generations to achieve its goal. Fiscal conservatives also question whether state government should accumulate and manage a massive investment portfolio, particularly when existing services compete for limited tax dollars. The central concern is whether Missouri should amend its Constitution to pursue another ambitious tax-elimination proposal so soon after voters rejected the previous approach.

Ballot language:

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?

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.

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.

AMENDMENT 8

Conservative supporters argue that Amendment 8 would strengthen local self-government by protecting the county sheriff as an elected constitutional office rather than leaving its status solely to ordinary legislation. Sheriffs are directly accountable to voters, and supporters believe that accountability is important for preserving local control over law enforcement. The amendment would also restrict removal of elected sheriffs to a legal process initiated by the attorney general. Critics caution that this could make it more difficult to remove sheriffs who abuse their authority. Most Missouri counties already elect sheriffs, so the proposal would primarily strengthen constitutional protections for the office.

Ballot language:

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?

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.

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.

–Alan Goforth | Metro Voice