Missouri voters will select party nominees and decide four proposed constitutional amendments and two St. Louis County propositions.
Election Day: Tuesday, August 4, 2026
Polling hours: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.
St. Louis County voters may vote at any County polling place. Find a polling place .
I will not provide information or opinions regarding the candidates running for office. However, the issues on this ballot are substantial. Several are more complicated than their short ballot descriptions may suggest, and campaign advertising is often misleading. There are only six issues, but lots to talk about - buckle up (this is a long one)!
Choosing a Primary Ballot
Missouri does not register voters by political party. When you arrive at your polling place, you may request one of the following ballots:
- Republican
- Democratic
- Libertarian
- Green
- Issues Only
You may select only one party ballot. You cannot vote in one party’s contest for one office and another party’s contest for a different office.
Each party ballot also includes the four statewide and two county issues. A voter who does not wish to participate in a party primary may request an Issues Only ballot, which contains only the constitutional amendments and propositions.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Constitutional Amendment 1
Parks, Soils and Water Sales Tax
Official Ballot Title
Shall Missouri continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites, and resubmit this tax to the voters for approval in 10 years?
The measure allows continued collection of the existing sales and use tax, which generates revenue of approximately $140 million annually.
The Question
Amendment 1 asks voters whether Missouri should continue its existing one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax, or 0.1%, for another 10 years.
The revenue is divided between:
- Missouri state parks and historic sites
- Soil and water conservation programs
The tax generates approximately $140 million annually.
Is This a New Tax?
No. This is a renewal of an existing tax.
The tax was first approved by Missouri voters in 1984. It was subsequently renewed in 1988, 1996, 2006 and 2016. In 2016, approximately 80% of Missouri voters supported the renewal, and it passed in every county.
If voters do not renew the tax in 2026, it is scheduled to expire in 2028.
Where Does the Money Go?
The proceeds are divided approximately equally between the state park system and soil and water conservation programs.
State Parks and Historic Sites
Half of the revenue supports Missouri’s state park system. According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, this revenue accounts for approximately 75% of the state park system’s operating and development budget.
Missouri has more than 90 state parks and historic sites. The revenue is used for operations, maintenance, repairs, historic preservation and capital improvements.
Missouri is also one of a relatively small number of states that does not charge a general entrance fee at its state parks.
Soil and Water Conservation
The other half funds voluntary conservation programs administered through Missouri’s 114 county soil and water conservation districts.
The programs provide technical assistance and partial reimbursement to agricultural landowners for measures such as:
- Terraces and erosion-control structures
- Cover crops
- Rotational grazing systems
- Streambank stabilization
- Livestock exclusion from streams
- Nutrient-management practices
- Improvements that reduce runoff and sediment entering waterways
During fiscal year 2026, the program provided nearly $45 million through 5,736 cost-share contracts. The Department of Natural Resources reported that those projects prevented more than 924,000 tons of soil erosion during the year.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
Continues the existing 0.1% sales and use tax for another 10 years.
What a No Vote Means
Does not renew the tax, allowing it to expire in 2028.
Learn More About Amendment 1
Missouri Department of Natural Resources: Parks, Soils and Water
Sales Tax
The best overall explanation of the tax, its history, how the revenue
is divided and the programs it supports.
Missouri Secretary of State: 2026 Ballot Measures
Includes the official ballot title, fair ballot language and full
constitutional text for Amendment 1.
DNR Report on Fiscal Year 2026 Soil and Water Spending
Provides recent examples of how the conservation portion is used,
including cost-share contracts for cover crops, terraces, rotational
grazing, stream protection and erosion-control projects.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Constitutional Amendment 2
Election and Training of Charter-County Assessors
Official Ballot Title
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- require all charter counties, including Jackson County, to provide for the election of a county assessor; and
- require assessors in all charter counties to comply with any training requirements established by general law?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
The Question
Amendment 2 would require:
- Every Missouri charter county to elect its county assessor.
- Assessors in charter counties to comply with any training requirements established under Missouri law.
The ballot language specifically mentions Jackson County because it is presently exempt from the constitutional requirement to elect an assessor.
What Is the Current Law?
Missouri’s Constitution requires charter counties to elect their county assessors, but it currently includes one exception for a charter county with a population between 600,000 and 700,000. That population range applies only to Jackson County.
Jackson County currently has an appointed assessor. The assessor is appointed by the county executive rather than elected directly by voters.
Amendment 2 would remove the population-based exception. Its operative language provides that every charter county must require its assessor to be elected and to comply with any training requirements established by general state law.
Jackson County Has Already Approved an Elected Assessor
Jackson County voters approved a separate amendment to their County Charter in November 2025 changing the assessor from an appointed position to an elected office. The first election for Jackson County assessor is expected to occur in 2028.
That local charter amendment will proceed regardless of the outcome of statewide Amendment 2. However, Amendment 2 would also place the elected assessor requirement in the Missouri Constitution. That would prevent Jackson County from returning to an appointed assessor through a future local charter change unless the Missouri Constitution were also amended.
Would This Affect St. Louis County?
St. Louis County already elects its assessor, so Amendment 2 would not change how the County Assessor is selected here.
The training provision would apply more broadly. Assessors in all charter counties, including St. Louis County, would be constitutionally required to comply with any training requirements established under Missouri law.
Why Is This on a Statewide Ballot?
Although the practical change from an appointed assessor to an elected assessor primarily concerns Jackson County, Amendment 2 would change the Missouri Constitution. Any amendment to the state constitution must be approved by voters statewide, even when its most direct effect is limited to one county.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
Requires every Missouri charter county to elect its county assessor and requires charter-county assessors to comply with any training requirements established under state law.
What a No Vote Means
Retains the existing constitutional exception for Jackson County and does not add a constitutional requirement that assessors in charter counties comply with state-law training requirements.
The official fiscal note projects no additional costs or savings to state or local government.
Learn More About Amendment 2
Missouri Secretary of State: 2026 Ballot Measures
Includes the official ballot title, fair ballot language, fiscal
statement and full constitutional text. The Secretary of State
explains that a yes vote would require every charter county,
including Jackson County, to elect its assessor and would require
those assessors to comply with training requirements established
under state law.
KCUR: Missouri Amendment 2 Would Make Jackson County Elect Its
Assessor
A readable explanation of why the proposal is on the statewide
ballot, the controversies surrounding Jackson County property
assessments and the effect of Jackson County voters separately
approving an elected assessor through a County Charter amendment.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Constitutional Amendment 4
Changing How Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments Are Approved
Official Ballot Title
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Modify current requirements that a statewide majority of voters may approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution;
- Require a majority of voters in each congressional district to approve initiative petitions to amend the constitution; and
- Make available to each voter the full text of initiative petitions with their ballot?
The Department of Corrections estimates increased annual costs of up to $21,817. The Office of State Public Defender estimates an unknown fiscal impact. Other state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
Amendment 4 is one of the more consequential measures on the August ballot. It would change how citizen-initiated amendments to the Missouri Constitution are approved and would add several campaign-finance, petition-enforcement, public-hearing and voter-information requirements.
The change receiving the most attention is the voting requirement. Today, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment passes if it receives a simple majority of votes cast statewide. Amendment 4 would instead require majority approval in every Missouri congressional district.
The Current Requirement
Currently, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment becomes part of the Missouri Constitution if it receives a simple majority of votes cast statewide.
For example, if a proposed amendment receives 51% of the statewide vote, it passes even if it receives less than 50% of the vote in some parts of Missouri.
The Proposed Requirement
Amendment 4 would replace the current statewide-majority standard with a requirement that a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment receive a majority of the vote in each Missouri congressional district.
Missouri currently has eight congressional districts.
- A proposal could receive a majority of votes statewide and still fail if it did not receive a majority in all eight congressional districts.
- A proposal could win seven congressional districts but still fail because it did not receive majority support in the remaining district.
In practical terms, each congressional district would have the ability to prevent adoption of a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, regardless of the overall statewide vote.
The requirement would be based on the congressional district boundaries in effect at the time of the election.
Which Ballot Measures Would Be Affected?
The new district-by-district approval requirement would apply only to constitutional amendments proposed through Missouri’s initiative-petition process.
An initiative petition allows Missouri citizens to propose a measure directly to voters. A sponsoring group drafts the proposal, gathers the required number of signatures from registered Missouri voters and, if the petition meets the legal requirements, places the proposal on the statewide ballot without first obtaining approval from the Missouri General Assembly.
Citizens may use that process to propose either:
- A change to Missouri statutes, which changes state law but does not amend the Missouri Constitution; or
- An amendment to the Missouri Constitution.
Amendment 4 would impose the new congressional-district requirement only on the second category: a constitutional amendment proposed by citizens through an initiative petition.
It would not change the approval standard for:
- Citizen-initiated statutes; or
- Any measure placed on the ballot by the Missouri General Assembly, including a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment.
Therefore, a citizen-proposed constitutional amendment would have to receive majority approval in every congressional district, while a constitutional amendment proposed by the General Assembly would continue to be decided under the existing statewide voting standard.
That distinction is central to the measure. The higher district-by-district threshold would apply to citizen-proposed constitutional amendments but not to amendments proposed by the state legislature.
Providing the Full Text to Voters
Amendment 4 would require the full text of statewide initiative measures to be made available to voters when they receive their ballot.
The full text could be made available:
- On paper; or
- Electronically through digital access.
This would supplement the ballot title and other existing publication requirements.
Other Provisions in the Full Amendment
The official ballot question focuses on the district-voting requirement and access to the full text. However, the complete amendment contains several additional provisions.
Foreign-Funding Provisions
The amendment would prohibit political committees from knowingly accepting contributions from foreign nationals or designated foreign adversaries in support of or opposition to statewide ballot measures.
Missouri statutes already restrict foreign-national participation and funding in ballot-measure campaigns. Amendment 4 would add a prohibition to the Missouri Constitution and establish its own criminal penalties and enforcement provisions.
Petition-Signature Fraud
The amendment would define and criminalize several forms of petition-signature fraud. Among other things, it would:
- Prohibit signing another person’s name.
- Prohibit knowingly signing the same petition more than once.
- Prohibit submitting petition sheets known to contain fraudulent or invalid signatures.
- Prohibit causing a voter to sign a petition different from the one the voter intended to sign.
- Prohibit forging a petition signature.
- Prohibit paying or offering something of value in exchange for a person’s petition signature.
The amendment would not prohibit paying petition circulators for their work collecting signatures. It would prohibit paying an individual in exchange for that individual’s signature.
Public Hearings
The amendment would require one or more public hearings after an initiative petition is submitted but before it is placed on the ballot.
The hearings could be held in person or electronically. A transcript or summary would have to be made publicly available before the measure is placed on the ballot.
Criminal Penalties and Enforcement
The proposed penalties include imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Certain illegal-contribution violations could also result in an additional penalty equal to three times the amount of the illegal contribution.
The amendment would give the Missouri Attorney General exclusive criminal jurisdiction over the newly created offenses involving prohibited foreign contributions and petition-signature fraud.
Why Is This Amendment Being Proposed?
Supporters argue that the Missouri Constitution should be more difficult to amend than ordinary state law. They contend that a constitutional amendment should demonstrate broad support across the entire state rather than passing solely because of large vote margins in Missouri’s more populous areas.
Under that view, requiring approval in every congressional district would ensure that citizen-initiated constitutional amendments receive support from urban, suburban and rural voters.
Opponents argue that the proposal goes beyond requiring broad support. Because an amendment could win statewide and in seven of eight districts but still fail, they contend that Amendment 4 would allow a minority of voters in one district to block the decision of the statewide majority.
The proposal also arises within a broader disagreement between the General Assembly and supporters of Missouri’s initiative-petition process. Missouri voters have used initiative petitions to approve policies opposed by many legislators.
Supporters describe Amendment 4 as protection against frequent or narrowly supported changes to the Constitution. Opponents describe it as an effort to make it more difficult for citizens to enact constitutional changes without the legislature’s approval.
How Did the Missouri General Assembly Vote?
Amendment 4 was placed on the ballot through House Joint Resolution 3 during the Second Extraordinary Session of the 103rd Missouri General Assembly.
The final votes were heavily partisan.
- Missouri House: 98-58. All 98 yes votes were cast by Republicans. The no votes were cast by 52 Democrats and six Republicans. Three Republican representatives were absent.
- Missouri Senate: 21-11. All 21 yes votes were cast by Republicans. The no votes were cast by nine Democrats and two Republicans. One Democrat and one Republican were absent.
Because House Joint Resolution 3 proposed an amendment to the Missouri Constitution, it did not require the governor’s signature. After passing both chambers, it was submitted to Missouri voters.
How Would Amendment 4 Have Affected Past Elections?
Amendment 4 would apply only to future elections and would not invalidate any constitutional amendment Missouri voters have already approved.
However, past election results help illustrate how significant the proposed change would be. Several citizen-initiated constitutional amendments received statewide majority approval but did not receive majority support in every congressional district.
Each of the following passed under Missouri’s current statewide-majority standard but would have failed under the Amendment 4 district-by-district standard:
- 2016 — Sales-tax limitation: Prohibited new state and local sales taxes on most services.
- 2020 — Medicaid expansion: Expanded Medicaid eligibility in Missouri.
- 2022 — Recreational marijuana: Legalized and regulated adult recreational marijuana.
- 2024 — Sports betting: Authorized regulated sports wagering.
- 2024 — Reproductive-rights amendment: Established constitutional protections for reproductive health-care decisions, including abortion subject to the amendment’s terms.
These measures represent different political constituencies and policy positions. The 2016 sales-tax limitation, for example, was supported by business organizations and received nearly 57% of the statewide vote, but it would have failed because it did not receive majority support in the St. Louis-based 1st Congressional District.
These examples do not determine whether the proposed standard is desirable. They demonstrate that Amendment 4 would create a materially higher approval threshold rather than merely requiring a somewhat larger statewide majority.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
A yes vote would:
- Require citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to receive majority approval in every Missouri congressional district.
- Require the full text of statewide initiative measures to be made available to voters.
- Add constitutional provisions concerning foreign funding of ballot-measure campaigns.
- Create petition-signature fraud offenses and related criminal penalties.
- Require public hearings before initiative petitions are placed on the ballot.
What a No Vote Means
A no vote would:
- Retain the current statewide-majority approval requirement for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.
- Leave the Missouri Constitution unchanged regarding access to the full text of initiative measures with the ballot.
- Not adopt the amendment’s additional foreign-contribution, petition-fraud, public-hearing and enforcement provisions.
- Leave current Missouri statutes governing initiative petitions and foreign funding in place.
The official fiscal statement estimates increased annual costs of up to $21,817 for the Department of Corrections and an unknown fiscal impact on the Office of the State Public Defender. Other state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
Learn More About Amendment 4
Missouri Secretary of State — 2026 Ballot Measures
Includes the certified ballot title, fair-ballot language, fiscal
statement and complete text of the proposed constitutional amendment.
This is the primary source for reviewing exactly what voters are being
asked to approve.
St. Louis Public Radio — Missouri House Advances Plan to Make It
Harder for Some Amendments to Pass
Provides St. Louis-area coverage of the legislative debate and
explains the arguments made by supporters and opponents, as well as
the provisions involving foreign contributions, public hearings and
petition fraud.
Missouri Independent — Amendment 4 Puts Rural Missouri at the
Center of the Fight Over Ballot Power
A statewide overview of the principal arguments on both sides,
including the case for broader geographic agreement and concerns
about allowing one district to block a statewide majority.
KCUR — Missouri Judge Rewrites Ballot Language for Plan Making It
Harder for Voters to Change the Constitution
Explains the court challenge to the original ballot summary and why a
judge required the ballot language to focus more directly on the
change to the voting threshold.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Constitutional Amendment 5
Individual Income Taxes, Sales Taxes and Local Tax-Rate Adjustments
Official Ballot Title
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Require legislative phase-out of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes;
- Curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and
- Require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases?
The proposal has no direct impact on state or local tax revenue. If passed, implementing legislation will have an unknown impact to state and local tax revenue. If implemented, state government entities expect a reduction of $57,000 annually in income tax check-off donations and implementation costs of at least $100,000.
Amendment 5 would establish a constitutional framework for eliminating Missouri’s individual income tax and replacing at least part of that revenue through broader or higher sales and use taxes.
It is therefore more accurately understood as a tax swap, rather than simply a tax cut.
The amendment would not immediately eliminate the income tax or impose sales tax on any particular service. Instead, it would authorize and direct the General Assembly to enact future legislation determining how the change would occur.
What Would Change?
Missouri’s Constitution currently generally prohibits state and local governments from extending sales and use taxes to services and transactions that were not taxable as of January 1, 2015.
Amendment 5 would create an exception allowing the General Assembly to:
- Expand sales and use taxes to currently untaxed goods, services and transactions
- Increase the state sales and use tax rate
- Use the resulting revenue to reduce and eventually eliminate the individual income tax
Legislation using this authority would have to pair the anticipated new sales-tax revenue with a substantially comparable reduction in income-tax revenue.
Once the individual income tax was completely eliminated, the Constitution would prohibit its reinstatement.
The Details Would Be Decided Later
Amendment 5 establishes the direction of state tax policy but does not specify:
- Which goods or services would become taxable
- Whether or how much the state sales-tax rate would increase
- The size of each income-tax reduction
- What level of revenue growth would trigger reductions
- When the individual income tax would be fully eliminated
Those decisions would be made later by the General Assembly.
Voters are therefore being asked to approve the overall framework without knowing the final sales-tax rate or the complete list of goods and services that might become taxable.
Would Voters Approve the Later Tax Changes?
The implementing legislation would not automatically return to voters for approval.
A yes vote would give the General Assembly constitutional authority to enact the sales-tax expansion, rate increases and corresponding income-tax reductions. The amendment is structured to permit lawmakers to implement the initial tax swap without a separate automatic statewide vote on the specific taxes selected.
Missouri voters would retain their general right to attempt to challenge enacted legislation through the referendum-petition process. However, that would require a separate citizen-led petition effort and would not occur automatically.
Is It a Tax Cut?
Not necessarily for every taxpayer.
Amendment 5 would reduce one form of taxation while allowing another to replace the revenue. Whether a household ultimately pays more or less would depend on:
- Its taxable income
- How much it spends
- Which purchases and services become taxable
- The sales-tax rate adopted by the legislature
Households paying substantial state income tax could benefit from its reduction. Households paying little income tax but spending a large share of their income on taxable purchases could receive less benefit or potentially pay more overall.
Because the implementing legislation has not been written, the effect on individual households and total state revenue cannot yet be determined.
Statewide Constitutional Sales Taxes
The amendment would generally require corresponding rate reductions for sales taxes imposed directly by the Missouri Constitution if their revenue increased because of the broader taxable base.
This would include taxes such as the Parks, Soils and Water Sales Tax. The constitutional recreational-marijuana tax would be excluded from that adjustment.
The Missouri State Auditor would calculate the revised constitutional tax rates.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Supporters argue that eliminating the individual income tax would encourage economic growth, make Missouri more competitive with states that do not levy individual income taxes and allow residents to retain more of their earnings.
Opponents argue that shifting from income taxes to sales taxes could place more of the tax burden on consumption, disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income households and give future legislatures broad discretion to tax services and transactions that are currently exempt.
The central question is not simply whether Missouri should eliminate its individual income tax. It is whether voters should authorize the General Assembly to replace it through sales-tax changes whose precise scope has not yet been determined.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
A yes vote would:
- Require a revenue-growth-based phaseout and eventual elimination of the individual income tax
- Authorize broader or higher sales and use taxes to help replace that revenue
- Allow the General Assembly to determine the specific tax changes through future legislation
- Require related local tax-rate adjustments
- Prohibit reinstatement of the individual income tax after it is eliminated
What a No Vote Means
A no vote would:
- Retain the current constitutional provisions
- Preserve the existing restriction on extending sales taxes to services and transactions not taxable as of January 1, 2015
- Not require the General Assembly to phase out the individual income tax
- Not grant the legislature the additional taxing authority contained in Amendment 5
Learn More About Amendment 5
Missouri Secretary of State — 2026 Ballot Measures
Provides the official ballot title, fair-ballot language, fiscal
statement and full text of the proposed constitutional amendment.
KCUR — Missouri Appeals Court Rewrites Amendment 5 Language to
Make Clear It Allows New Sales Taxes
Explains the court ruling that required the ballot language to state
more clearly that the amendment would allow lawmakers to impose new
sales taxes without the Constitution’s current restrictions.
Missouri Independent — Plan to Replace Missouri Income Tax With
Expanded Sales Taxes
Provides broader coverage of the proposal, including the income-tax
phaseout and the legislature’s authority to expand or increase sales
taxes.
Missouri Independent — Missouri Supreme Court Declines Amendment
5 Ballot-Language Appeal
Explains why the revised ballot summary remained in place and
summarizes the dispute over whether voters were being adequately
informed about the legislature’s new sales-tax authority.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY BALLOT MEASURE
Proposition U
St. Louis County Use Tax
Proposition U asks whether St. Louis County should impose a local use tax at the same rate as the County’s total local sales-tax rate.
The proposal is largely a response to the growth of internet and other out-of-state sales. When a taxable purchase is made from a local business, the applicable County sales taxes are collected. When the same product is purchased from a remote seller, St. Louis County currently does not receive the corresponding local tax.
Had consumer purchasing remained primarily with local stores, this gap would be much smaller and Proposition U likely would not be needed. As more commerce has shifted online, however, St. Louis County, municipalities and several regional programs have lost revenue they generally would have received if the same purchases had occurred locally.
Official Ballot Language
Shall St. Louis County impose a local use tax at the same rate as the total local sales tax rate, provided that if the local sales tax rate is reduced or raised by voter approval, the local use tax rate shall also be reduced or raised by the same action?
A simple majority is required for passage.
What Is a Use Tax?
A use tax is generally the counterpart to a sales tax.
Sales tax is normally collected on taxable purchases made from sellers located within the taxing jurisdiction. A use tax generally applies to taxable purchases from sellers outside the jurisdiction when the same purchase would have been subject to sales tax if purchased locally.
Common examples may include:
- Purchases from an out-of-state online retailer
- Purchases made directly from an out-of-state vendor
- Equipment or supplies purchased from an out-of-state business for use in St. Louis County
The term “use tax” can be misleading. It is not a tax on the ordinary use of property that someone already owns. It is a transaction tax associated with qualifying purchases.
A transaction is generally subject to either sales tax or use tax, not both.
Missouri Already Has a State Use Tax
Proposition U would not create Missouri’s first use tax. Missouri already imposes a statewide use tax on qualifying remote and out-of-state purchases.
Local governments, however, receive a local use tax only when voters in that jurisdiction have authorized one. Crestwood already has a municipal use tax, but St. Louis County does not currently have a County use tax.
Proposition U concerns only the St. Louis County portion of the tax.
How Would Proposition U Affect Crestwood Purchases?
| Tax Component | Purchase From a Local Crestwood Business | Online Purchase Today | Online Purchase if Proposition U Passes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri state tax | ✅ Collected as sales tax | ✅ Collected as use tax on qualifying purchases | ✅ Collected as use tax on qualifying purchases |
| St. Louis County tax | ✅ Collected as sales tax | ❌ County use tax is not currently authorized | ✅ Collected as use tax on qualifying purchases |
| City of Crestwood tax | ✅ Collected as sales tax | ✅ Collected as use tax because Crestwood already has one | ✅ No change; Crestwood’s existing use tax remains in place |
| Applicable special-district or dedicated County taxes | ✅ Generally collected as part of the local sales tax | ❌ Certain County-related components are not collected | ✅ Applicable components would generally be collected as use tax |
A purchase is generally subject to either sales tax or use tax, not both. Proposition U would add the St. Louis County portion to qualifying online and out-of-state purchases. It would not change Missouri’s existing state use tax or Crestwood’s existing municipal use tax.
Why Is This Being Proposed?
The distinction between local and remote sellers was less significant when most purchases were made at local stores. A purchase made locally generated sales-tax revenue for the County and other affected taxing jurisdictions.
As internet shopping and remote sales have grown, an increasing share of purchases has moved outside that traditional sales-tax system. Missouri now requires many online sellers and marketplace operators to collect applicable use taxes, but a local government receives its portion only if its voters have authorized a local use tax.
Proposition U would place qualifying remote purchases on generally the same County tax footing as comparable purchases from local businesses.
Would This Replace the Sales Tax?
No. It would complement the County sales tax.
The purpose is to apply a comparable County tax to taxable purchases regardless of whether the seller is located inside or outside St. Louis County:
- Local purchase: sales tax
- Qualifying remote purchase: use tax
Where Would the Revenue Go?
Proposition U does not dedicate all revenue to a single County program. The proceeds would generally follow the same legal distribution and purposes as the corresponding County sales taxes.
Organizations and governmental entities that could receive funding include:
- St. Louis County government
- Municipal governments within St. Louis County
- The Saint Louis Zoo
- Great Rivers Greenway
- The St. Louis County Park Grant Commission
- Emergency communications and public-safety services
The Municipal League of Metropolitan St. Louis has estimated that the measure could generate approximately $118.4 million annually across the affected County sales-tax categories. Its estimate includes approximately:
- $70 million for St. Louis County government
- $35.4 million for municipalities
- $4.2 million for the Saint Louis Zoo
- $3.9 million for Great Rivers Greenway
- $1.7 million for the Park Grant Commission
- $3.4 million for emergency communications
These are estimates rather than guaranteed collections. Actual revenue would depend on the value of qualifying purchases, collection practices and the statutory distribution of each tax component.
Effect on the County Budget Shortfall
St. Louis County is facing an estimated budget shortfall of approximately $40 million.
The Municipal League estimates that approximately $70 million of the Proposition U revenue could be distributed to County government. That estimate is larger than the projected shortfall, but it should not be assumed that all of the revenue could be applied directly to the County’s general operating deficit.
Some proceeds would be associated with particular sales-tax categories and legally designated purposes. The actual budget impact would therefore depend on collections, statutory restrictions and future decisions by the County Council.
Proposition U would nevertheless provide a substantial recurring source of County revenue and could reduce pressure on the County budget and the services supported by the affected taxes.
Municipal League Support
The Municipal League of Metropolitan St. Louis supports Proposition U. The organization represents municipalities throughout St. Louis County and has described the measure as a way to:
- Reduce the tax disadvantage faced by local businesses
- Restore revenue lost as purchasing has shifted online
- Provide additional funding for municipalities and regional services
Because the Municipal League supports the proposal, its revenue estimates and explanatory materials should be understood as coming from an organization advocating for passage.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Supporters argue that Proposition U would:
- Treat local and remote sellers more consistently
- Recover revenue lost as purchases have shifted online
- Help address the County’s budget shortfall
- Provide additional funding for municipalities and regional services
Opponents may view the proposal as an additional tax on purchases that currently do not include the County portion of the sales tax. They may also question whether additional revenue would result in sufficient improvements in County budgeting, management or services.
The practical question is whether qualifying online and out-of-state purchases should carry the same St. Louis County tax components as comparable purchases made from local businesses.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
A yes vote would:
- Authorize St. Louis County to collect a use tax on qualifying internet and out-of-state purchases
- Set the County use-tax rate equal to the County’s total local sales-tax rate
- Cause the use-tax rate to rise or fall when voters approve a corresponding change in the County sales-tax rate
- Add the applicable County tax components to some remote purchases made by Crestwood residents
What a No Vote Means
A no vote would:
- Leave St. Louis County without the proposed County use tax
- Continue the present difference between local and qualifying remote purchases
- Leave Missouri’s existing state use tax unchanged
- Leave Crestwood’s existing municipal use tax unchanged
Learn More About Proposition U
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Provides the official August 4, 2026 sample ballot and the ballot
language for Proposition U.
Municipal League of Metropolitan St. Louis — Use Tax Information
Campaign
Provides the League’s explanation of Proposition U, revenue estimates
and information about the governments and regional organizations that
could receive funding. The Municipal League supports the proposal.
St. Louis Public Radio — St. Louis County Council Ditches Earlier
Online Sales-Tax Ballot Plan
Provides background on an earlier attempt to place a St. Louis County
use tax before voters and explains how the tax would apply to online
purchases.
Missouri Department of Revenue — Sales and Use Tax
Explains Missouri sales and use taxes, registration, collection and
reporting requirements.
Missouri Revised Statutes — Section 144.759
Describes the distribution of local use-tax revenue in charter
counties, including distributions to municipalities and designated
purposes.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY BALLOT MEASURE
Proposition C
Amendments to the St. Louis County Charter
Proposition C would amend four sections of the St. Louis County Charter concerning compensation for elected officials and the terms of appointed replacements for three County offices.
The proposal is presented as bringing the Charter into conformity with the Missouri Constitution and correcting an error in the date on which certain appointed officeholders’ terms end.
Most of the changes are technical. However, the compensation amendment would make a meaningful change to when the County Council may establish the salary of an elected County official.
Official Ballot Language
Shall Sections 2.180(1) and 3.020, 5.050 and 6.060 of the Charter of St. Louis County be amended to bring the section in compliance with the Missouri Constitution Article VII, Section 13 and to correct an error on the date a term in office ends, as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 29,591, on file with the St. Louis County Administrative Director and the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners?
A simple majority is required for passage.
What Charter Sections Would Change?
Proposition C would amend:
- Section 2.180(1): County Council authority to set compensation for elected County officers
- Section 3.020: Replacement of a County Executive when the office becomes vacant
- Section 5.050: Replacement of a Prosecuting Attorney when the office becomes vacant
- Section 6.060: Replacement of a County Assessor when the office becomes vacant
The Compensation Amendment
The County Charter currently requires the compensation of elected County officers to be established at least ten months before the election for those offices. Their compensation cannot then be increased or reduced during their terms.
Proposition C would remove the phrases “at least ten months” and “before the election.”
The revised Charter would instead provide that compensation must be fixed before the term begins and cannot be increased or reduced during the term, consistent with Article VII, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution.
| Current Charter | Charter if Proposition C Passes |
|---|---|
| Compensation must be fixed at least ten months before the election. | Compensation must be fixed before the elected official’s term begins. |
| Compensation cannot be increased or reduced during the term. | Compensation still could not be increased or reduced during the term. |
What Does the Missouri Constitution Require?
Article VII, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution states that the compensation of state, county and municipal officers cannot be increased during their terms of office.
The Constitution does not contain the St. Louis County Charter’s additional requirement that compensation be established at least ten months before an election.
Proposition C would replace the County’s ten-month deadline with language based more directly on the constitutional rule: the salary must be established before the term begins and cannot be changed during that term.
Could This Affect the County Executive’s Salary?
Proposition C would not itself increase the County Executive’s salary or establish a new salary for any elected official.
It would, however, change the period during which the County Council could approve a salary adjustment for the next term.
Under the current Charter, the deadline for changing the salary for a County office elected in November 2026 was at least ten months before that election. That deadline passed early in 2026.
If Proposition C passes, the Council could potentially establish a new salary at any time before the new term begins in January 2027. This could include the period after the November election, when the identity of the incoming officeholder may already be known.
The Earlier County Executive Pay Proposal
Earlier in 2026, the County Council considered legislation that would have increased the annual County Executive salary from $140,000 to $195,000, effective January 1, 2027.
The proposal was vetoed by the County Executive, who cited the existing Charter requirement that the salary be established at least ten months before the election.
Proposition C would not revive or enact that particular salary increase. A separate ordinance and Council vote would still be required.
Passage would remove the ten-month obstacle and could allow the Council to reconsider that amount—or a different salary—for the next County Executive’s term before it begins.
Which Officials Could Be Affected?
Section 2.180(1) applies broadly to elected St. Louis County officers. It is not limited to the County Executive.
The revised compensation deadline could therefore apply when the Council sets compensation for elected County offices such as:
- County Executive
- Prosecuting Attorney
- County Assessor
- County Council members
- Other elected County officers whose compensation is set by ordinance
Any adjustment would still require separate legislative action and would have to take effect before—not during—the affected term.
What Term-Date Error Would Be Corrected?
The other three amendments concern what happens when a vacancy is filled in the offices of:
- County Executive
- Prosecuting Attorney
- County Assessor
The current Charter states that the appointed replacement serves until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election.
Proposition C would change that date to the first Tuesday in January.
This appears intended to align the appointed officeholder’s departure with the beginning of the elected successor’s term. It would not change the normal length of the office’s elected term.
Would Proposition C Change the Powers of These Offices?
No change to the substantive authority of the County Executive, Prosecuting Attorney or Assessor is included in Proposition C.
The amendments concern:
- The timing for setting elected-official compensation
- The end date for an appointed replacement’s service
The full replacement language appears in Exhibit A to County Ordinance No. 29,591 rather than being printed in full on the ballot.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Supporters may argue that Proposition C would:
- Align the County Charter more closely with the Missouri Constitution
- Allow compensation decisions to be based on more current information about salaries, responsibilities and market conditions
- Correct an apparent drafting error in the transition date for appointed officeholders
Opponents may argue that removing the ten-month requirement would:
- Allow elected-official salaries to be changed shortly before an officeholder begins a new term
- Permit a salary decision after voters already know who won the election
- Remove an additional County safeguard that is stricter than the minimum required by the Missouri Constitution
The principal policy question is whether elected-official compensation should continue to be set well before an election or whether the County Council should be able to set it at any point before the next term begins.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
A yes vote would:
- Remove the requirement that elected-official compensation be established at least ten months before an election
- Require compensation to be established before the applicable term begins
- Continue to prohibit increasing or reducing compensation during the term
- Change the end date for certain appointed replacements from the second Tuesday to the first Tuesday in January
What a No Vote Means
A no vote would:
- Leave the existing Charter language unchanged
- Retain the requirement that elected-official compensation be established at least ten months before the election
- Retain the existing second-Tuesday language for the terms of appointed replacements
Learn More About Proposition C
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Provides the official August 4, 2026 sample ballot and the ballot
language for Proposition C.
St. Louis County Ordinance No. 29,591 and Exhibit A
Contains the ordinance placing Proposition C on the ballot and shows
the exact additions and deletions proposed for each Charter section.
Missouri Constitution — Article VII, Section 13
Contains the constitutional prohibition against increasing the
compensation of state, county and municipal officers during their
terms.
Current St. Louis County Charter
Provides the existing Charter provisions governing County offices,
compensation and vacancies.
Call Newspapers — County Council Reconsiders County Executive
Salary Increase
Provides background on the earlier 2026 proposal to increase the
County Executive salary from $140,000 to $195,000 and the subsequent
veto.