Missouri voters will head to the polls on Tuesday, November 3, to elect federal, state, and local officials and decide seven statewide and St. Louis County ballot measures.
As with my previous voter guides, I won't be covering the candidates or offering endorsements. Instead, I'll focus on the ballot issues—what each proposal would change, how it differs from current law, and what a YES or NO vote would mean.
Several of these measures are more complicated than their short ballot descriptions suggest. Some contain provisions that aren't immediately obvious, while others raise important questions about government authority, accountability, taxes, and local control.
My goal is to provide a factual, balanced explanation of each issue, including potential consequences voters may want to consider. I've also included links to the underlying legislation and other resources so you can dig deeper and make your own informed decisions.
There are seven issues to cover, so this is another long one—but I hope you'll find it useful!
Election Information
Election Day: Tuesday, November 3, 2026
Polling hours: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.
For early-voting locations and hours, identification requirements, and sample ballots, visit the St. Louis County Board of Elections website.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3
Abortion Laws and Gender-Transition Procedures for Minors
Official Ballot Language
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?
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.
What Would Amendment 3 Change?
Amendment 3 would replace the abortion-related provisions approved by Missouri voters in November 2024 with new restrictions. It would generally prohibit abortion except in specified circumstances, authorize additional regulation of providers and facilities, and establish informed-consent and parental-consent requirements. It would also put restrictions on gender-transition procedures for minors in the state Constitution.
How Does This Compare With Previous Missouri Law?
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional protection for abortion and allowing individual states to establish their own restrictions. This triggered a Missouri law that generally prohibited abortions, except in medical emergencies.
In November 2024, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment that generally permits abortion before fetal viability and allows it after viability under specified medical circumstances.
The proposed 2026 Amendment 3 would return Missouri to restrictions similar to those in effect before the 2024 vote, but with additional exceptions for rape, incest, certain fetal conditions, and medical emergencies.
Other Provisions
The measure addresses licensing and inspection of abortion facilities, physician qualifications, informed consent, parental consent for unemancipated minors (with a possible judicial authorization process), public funding restrictions, and certain other abortion-related rules. It would direct particular constitutional challenges involving reproductive healthcare laws to Cole County Circuit Court.
It would also constitutionally prohibit gender-transition surgery, cross-sex hormones, and puberty-blocking medications for individuals younger than 18, with exceptions for certain medical conditions. Missouri already restricts these treatments by statute; some of those statutory restrictions are scheduled to expire in August 2027. The proposal contains no expiration date.
Abortion and gender-transition procedures for minors are combined into one ballot measure. Voters must accept or reject both sets of provisions together.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Replace the 2024 constitutional abortion provisions with new restrictions and exceptions.
- Authorize specified abortion regulations and consent requirements.
- Place the proposed restrictions on gender-transition procedures for minors in the Constitution.
What a No Vote Means
- Retain the constitutional abortion provisions approved in 2024.
- Leave existing statutes concerning gender-transition procedures for minors in place, subject to statutory expiration provisions and future changes.
Learn More
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 6
Citizen Initiatives, Referendums, and Legislative Authority
Official 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?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
What Would Amendment 6 Change?
Missouri voters already have the constitutional right to propose laws and constitutional amendments through initiative petitions. They can also use referendum petitions to require a public vote on certain laws passed by the General Assembly.
Currently, the legislature can generally amend or repeal laws enacted through citizen initiatives using the ordinary legislative process. Constitutional amendments, however, can be changed only with voter approval.
Amendment 6 would substantially limit the legislature's ability to change voter-approved measures. It would require at least 80% approval in both legislative chambers before lawmakers could submit proposed changes to voters, who would then have to approve them.
This 80% threshold is considerably higher than the two-thirds supermajority required for extraordinary actions such as overriding a governor's veto.
The amendment would also establish additional protections for the initiative and referendum process, including restrictions on legislative changes to petition requirements and provisions allowing courts to revise misleading or inaccurate ballot summaries.
What Counts as Changing or Weakening a Voter-Approved Law?
One potentially significant aspect of Amendment 6 is how broadly it defines legislative changes to voter-approved measures.
The amendment would prohibit legislation that modifies, repeals, supersedes, or undermines any part of a citizen-approved initiative, even when the effect is indirect.
This could create questions about future legislation that interacts with existing voter-approved laws. For example, would changing enforcement procedures, establishing exemptions, or passing related legislation constitute an improper change to an earlier initiative?
The amendment also prohibits laws that would weaken the initiative or referendum process. It provides examples, such as increasing signature requirements or restricting permissible petition subjects, but directs that the term weaken be interpreted broadly.
The challenge is determining where legitimate updates to Missouri law end and prohibited changes to voter-approved measures begin.
These provisions could prevent legislators from circumventing decisions made by voters. They could also create legal uncertainty and additional litigation over whether future legislation violates the amendment.
Would This Apply to Previously Approved Measures?
Yes. The proposed protections extend to citizen-initiated measures approved since January 1, 2010, not just future initiatives.
The amendment would also restrict legislation similar in effect to laws rejected through referendum petitions during that period.
These provisions mean the amendment could affect the treatment of existing Missouri laws as well as future legislation.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
- Respecting voter decisions: Should the legislature be able to change laws approved directly by voters, or should changes generally require another public vote?
- Legislative flexibility: Would requiring 80% approval in both legislative chambers, even before voters could consider a proposed change, make it unnecessarily difficult to correct or update laws?
- Legal interpretation: Could the broad prohibitions against changing, undermining, or weakening voter-approved measures create uncertainty and additional litigation over ordinary legislation that affects those laws indirectly?
- Constitutional balance: Does the proposal establish an appropriate balance between the authority of voters and their elected representatives?
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Prevent the legislature from directly changing or repealing laws enacted through citizen initiatives.
- Require at least 80% approval in both legislative chambers to refer proposed changes to voters.
- Establish broader restrictions on legislation that could undermine voter-approved measures or weaken the initiative and referendum process.
- Preserve existing petition-signature requirements and majority-vote rules.
What a No Vote Means
- Retain the existing initiative and referendum process.
- Allow the legislature to continue amending or repealing voter-approved statutes through the ordinary legislative process.
- Preserve the requirement that constitutional amendments receive voter approval.
- Leave existing legislative authority over petition procedures unchanged.
Learn More
Missouri Secretary of State — Official 2026 Ballot Measures
Official ballot language and election information.
Missouri Secretary of State — Full Text of Amendment 6
The complete proposed constitutional language, including the 80% requirement and restrictions on legislative changes.
Missouri Constitution — Article III, Sections 49–53
Existing constitutional provisions governing initiative and referendum petitions.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 7
The Show-Me Prosperity Fund — Investing State Money to Eventually Replace Taxes
Official 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?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
What Would Amendment 7 Change?
Amendment 7 would establish a permanent state investment fund called the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, with the long-term goal of generating enough investment income to replace revenue Missouri currently collects through state taxes.
The concept is similar to a permanent endowment: money would be contributed to the fund, invested in the stock market, and allowed to grow until investment earnings could eventually support state government operations.
Approval of Amendment 7 would not immediately reduce or eliminate any taxes. Whether taxes could eventually be eliminated would depend on how much money is contributed, investment performance, and whether the fund ever generates sufficient earnings.
Where Would the Money Come From?
The Missouri General Assembly could appropriate state money into the fund. The fund could also receive gifts, grants, donations, and bequests.
However, the amendment does not require an initial deposit or establish minimum annual contributions. Those decisions would be left to future legislatures.
One particularly important provision is that once money is contributed to the fund, its principal could not be withdrawn, pledged, or borrowed against under the proposed constitutional rules.
For example, if Missouri contributed $1 billion to the fund, that money would no longer be available to meet other state needs, even during a severe budget shortfall. The legislature could not simply withdraw it for schools, transportation, healthcare, or other government services.
Changing those restrictions would generally require another constitutional amendment approved by voters.
How Would the Money Be Invested?
Missouri's Constitution generally restricts ordinary state investments to relatively conservative financial instruments rather than corporate stocks.
Amendment 7 would establish a specific exception, requiring the State Treasurer to invest the proposed fund in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tracking the S&P 500 stock index or a comparable successor index.
These investments could generate higher long-term returns but would also expose public money to stock-market losses.
The index funds would be operated by private financial firms that collect investment-management fees. The amendment does not designate a particular firm, establish a maximum fee, or specify how investment providers would be selected.
The State Treasurer would be responsible for the investments under fiduciary standards applicable to public trust funds. The State Auditor would be required to audit the fund at least once every three fiscal years, and its balance and investment performance would have to be reported publicly at least quarterly.
When Could the Fund Begin Replacing Taxes?
The fund could not begin distributing money until the State Treasurer determined that its net investment earnings during the previous fiscal year were sufficient to replace revenue from all the state taxes identified in the amendment. The General Assembly would then have to approve that determination.
The specified taxes include individual income taxes, state sales and use taxes, corporate income taxes, and other state-imposed taxes.
Even after meeting these conditions, annual withdrawals would be limited to 3% of the fund's average market value over the preceding five fiscal years.
This means Missouri could not begin making smaller withdrawals simply to reduce a particular tax while the fund was still growing. It would first have to meet the much larger earnings requirement covering the specified state taxes.
How Large Would the Fund Need to Become?
To put the proposal in perspective, Missouri collected approximately $13 billion in net General Revenue during fiscal year 2026, with additional tax revenue dedicated to other state purposes.
At the amendment's 3% annual spending limit, replacing $13 billion would require a fund with an average market value of approximately $433 billion. Replacing additional state-tax revenue would require an even larger fund.
This is an illustration rather than a precise funding target. The amount would depend on future tax collections, investment earnings, and the amendment's financial conditions.
In practical terms, the fund would need to grow to hundreds of billions of dollars to replace Missouri's current state-tax revenues.
Achieving that size would require substantial contributions from state budgets over many years, compounded investment growth, or both.
Money contributed by the state would no longer be available for other budget priorities. The fund's principal could not be withdrawn under the proposed constitutional rules, even if the fund never reached its intended goal.
The amendment establishes no minimum contribution, timetable, or guarantee that the fund would ever become large enough to replace state taxes.
What Happens if the Fund Cannot Support Government Spending?
If the fund eventually generates sufficient revenue to replace the specified taxes, the amendment would generally prohibit those taxes from being reestablished.
However, it includes an exception allowing the General Assembly to establish or increase taxes and other revenues if the fund cannot meet its obligations because of insolvency, revenue shortfalls, or program failure.
This would provide some ability to respond to financial difficulties, but it would not authorize withdrawing the fund's principal.
If the fund eventually replaced all the specified state taxes, the amendment would also permit investment earnings to be used to replace federal funding received by Missouri, provide dividend payments to Missouri residents, or both.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Scale and feasibility. Could Missouri realistically accumulate a fund worth hundreds of billions of dollars through state contributions and investment growth? How long might that take?
Restrictions on public money. Should money contributed to the fund become unavailable for other state priorities, even if future circumstances change or the fund never achieves its intended goal?
Investment risk. Is the potential for higher long-term stock-market returns worth exposing substantial public resources to market fluctuations and possible losses?
Investment management. Are the proposed fiduciary standards, audits, and reporting requirements sufficient oversight for a potentially very large fund invested through private financial institutions?
Uncertain funding and results. Given that the amendment requires no initial deposit, annual contribution, or timetable, would establishing the fund provide meaningful financial benefits without additional commitments from future legislatures?
The central question is whether Missouri should permanently commit public resources to a long-term investment strategy intended to replace state taxes, recognizing that the fund could require decades of growth and might never reach the amount necessary to accomplish that goal.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Establish the Show-Me Prosperity Fund in the Missouri Constitution.
- Permit state money and other contributions to be invested without requiring any particular contribution amount.
- Require investments in stock-market index funds.
- Prohibit withdrawing, pledging, or borrowing against the fund's principal.
- Permit investment earnings to replace state taxes only after specified financial and legislative conditions are met, subject to the 3% annual spending limit.
- Require periodic audits and public financial reporting.
What a No Vote Means
- Leave Missouri without the proposed Show-Me Prosperity Fund.
- Retain existing constitutional restrictions on ordinary state investments.
- Leave existing state taxes and budgeting arrangements unchanged.
Learn More
Missouri Secretary of State — Official 2026 Ballot Measures
Official ballot language and election information.
Missouri Senate — SJR 95, Complete Proposed Constitutional Amendment
The full text of the proposed amendment, including the investment restrictions, withdrawal limits, and tax-replacement requirements.
Missouri Senate — SJR 95 Legislative Information
Legislative history and summary of the proposed fund.
Missouri Constitution — Article IV, Section 15
Existing constitutional provisions concerning the State Treasurer and investment of state money.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 8
County Sheriffs — Elections, Authority, and Local Control
Official 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?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
What Would Amendment 8 Change?
Missouri law already provides for the election of county sheriffs. Amendment 8 would place that requirement directly into the Missouri Constitution for most counties, making it more difficult to eliminate or substantially change the position through ordinary legislation.
The amendment would also:
Establish the sheriff as the county's chief law enforcement officer and constitutionally protect certain responsibilities.
Give sheriffs authority to appoint deputies and other staff, subject to available funding.
Require that proceedings to remove a sheriff from office be initiated by the Missouri Attorney General.
Exempt St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and St. Louis City.
How Would This Affect Local Control?
Amendment 8 would strengthen the independence of elected sheriffs from other county officials. However, it could also limit a county's ability to reorganize its law enforcement structure.
For example, a county seeking to transfer primary law enforcement responsibilities to an appointed police chief could face constitutional restrictions because the sheriff would be designated the county's chief law enforcement officer.
The amendment would also change the process for removing a sheriff from office. Under existing Missouri law, local prosecutors may initiate removal proceedings for certain forms of misconduct. Amendment 8 would require such proceedings to be initiated by the Missouri Attorney General through a court action known as quo warranto.
This would protect sheriffs from removal proceedings initiated by local officials, but it would also eliminate an existing local means of seeking their removal.
What About St. Louis County?
St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and St. Louis City are expressly exempt from Amendment 8.
These jurisdictions have different law enforcement arrangements. St. Louis County, for example, operates a county police department, while the Sheriff's Office primarily handles court-related responsibilities.
The amendment would not change the authority or operations of the Crestwood Police Department or St. Louis County's existing law enforcement agencies.
However, St. Louis County voters are being asked to establish constitutional requirements for most other Missouri counties that would not apply to their own.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Constitutional requirements: Sheriffs are already elected under Missouri law. Should their election and responsibilities be written into the Constitution rather than remain subject to ordinary legislation?
Local control: Would the amendment appropriately protect elected sheriffs' independence, or unnecessarily limit counties' ability to reorganize law enforcement?
Accountability: Should only the Missouri Attorney General be able to initiate proceedings to remove a sheriff, rather than retaining existing local procedures?
County exemptions: Is it appropriate for these constitutional requirements to apply to most Missouri counties while exempting St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and St. Louis City?
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Establish constitutional requirements for elected sheriffs in most Missouri counties.
- Protect certain responsibilities and staffing authority of sheriffs.
- Require removal proceedings to be initiated by the Missouri Attorney General.
- Preserve the existing arrangements in the three exempt jurisdictions.
What a No Vote Means
- Retain current state laws governing sheriffs.
- Preserve existing procedures for seeking removal of sheriffs.
- Leave the legislature's existing authority over the office unchanged.
Learn More
Missouri Secretary of State — Official 2026 Ballot Measures
Official ballot language and election information.
Missouri Senate — SJR 87, Complete Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Full amendment text, including duties, removal procedures, and geographic exemptions.
Missouri Revised Statutes — Section 106.230
Existing procedures for seeking removal of certain public officials.
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
Missouri Proposition A
Congressional Redistricting — Approval or Rejection of the 2025 Map
Official Ballot Language
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?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
What Would Proposition A Change?
Proposition A asks voters whether to approve or reject the congressional district boundaries adopted by the Missouri General Assembly during a special legislative session in 2025.
Missouri has eight congressional districts, each electing one member to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congressional districts are normally redrawn every ten years following the U.S. Census to reflect population changes. Missouri adopted its existing map in 2022 following the 2020 Census.
However, in 2025, the legislature approved a new map without waiting for the next census. The revised boundaries make significant changes to several congressional districts, particularly in the Kansas City region.
A YES vote would approve the 2025 map, while a NO vote would retain the map adopted in 2022.
Why Is This on the Ballot?
Opponents of the 2025 map gathered signatures to require a statewide referendum on the legislation.
Following several legal challenges, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in September 2026 that the referendum petition was valid and that the 2025 map could not take effect unless approved by voters.
The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently ruled that Missouri must use the 2022 map for the November 2026 congressional election.
As a result, voters will decide whether the 2025 map should take effect for future elections, not which map will be used on November 3.
When Would the New Map Take Effect?
If voters approve Proposition A, the 2025 congressional map would take effect on December 3, 2026, 30 days after the general election.
The new districts would then govern future congressional elections, beginning in 2028, unless subsequent legislation or court decisions change them.
If voters reject Proposition A, the existing 2022 map would remain in place.
Regardless of the outcome, the November 3, 2026 congressional election will use the 2022 district boundaries.
What Would the New Map Change?
The 2025 plan redraws Missouri's eight congressional districts, with the most significant changes occurring in the Kansas City area.
The new boundaries would divide Kansas City among additional congressional districts, substantially changing the composition of the existing Fifth Congressional District and surrounding districts.
The ballot language emphasizes that the new map keeps more counties intact. While keeping counties together is one consideration in redistricting, other factors include population equality, geographical compactness, preserving communities of interest, and avoiding unnecessary divisions of cities and neighborhoods.
Congressional boundaries can also affect political representation because changing which communities are included in a district may change its political composition.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Mid-decade redistricting. Should congressional districts be redrawn between the regular ten-year census cycles when no new census data requires it?
Representation. Would the proposed boundaries provide appropriate representation for the communities within each district?
Redistricting criteria. How much importance should be placed on keeping counties intact compared with preserving municipalities, neighborhoods, and other communities of interest?
Political considerations. Congressional district boundaries can affect which political party is more likely to win a district. To what extent should political considerations influence redistricting decisions?
The central question is whether Missouri should adopt the revised congressional boundaries enacted by the legislature in 2025 or retain the districts established in 2022.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Approve the congressional district boundaries adopted by the Missouri General Assembly in 2025.
- Allow the new map to take effect on December 3, 2026, 30 days after the election.
- Establish those boundaries for future congressional elections, beginning in 2028, unless subsequently changed.
What a No Vote Means
- Reject the congressional map adopted by the legislature in 2025.
- Retain the congressional district boundaries established in 2022.
- Continue using those boundaries for future congressional elections unless changed through subsequent legislation or court action.
Important: Missouri's November 3, 2026 congressional elections will use the 2022 district boundaries regardless of how voters decide Proposition A. The referendum determines which map will govern future elections.
Learn More
Missouri Secretary of State — Official 2026 Ballot Measures
Official ballot language and election information.
Missouri General Assembly — House Bill 1, 2025 Second Extraordinary Session
The legislation establishing the proposed congressional districts.
Missouri Supreme Court — September 3, 2026 Decision
Explains why the referendum is valid, why the 2022 map governs the 2026 election, and when a voter-approved replacement would take effect.
U.S. Supreme Court — September 25, 2026 Order
Confirms that the 2022 congressional map must be used in the November 2026 election.
National Conference of State Legislatures — Mid-Decade Redistricting
Provides background on Missouri's redistricting dispute and similar developments in other states.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY BALLOT MEASURE
St. Louis County Proposition A
County Auditor — Term of Office and Responsibilities
Official Ballot Language
Shall Sections 2.200 and 2.210 of the Charter of St. Louis County be amended to remove the term of office from the position of County Auditor and as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 29,627, on file with the St. Louis County Administrative Director and the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners?
What Would County Proposition A Change?
The County Council appoints the St. Louis County Auditor for a four-year term. Proposition A would eliminate that fixed term. The Auditor would serve without a scheduled four-year reappointment, but the Charter’s provision allowing removal by a two-thirds County Council vote for incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance would remain.
The measure would also change the description of the Auditor’s role from being the County’s “auditing officer” to “oversee all audits.” That wording change is not separately identified in the short ballot question. The office’s listed powers to examine records and report findings would remain.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Could an indefinite term promote continuity and independence, or reduce regular opportunities for reviewing the appointment? Would the revised wording clarify the Auditor’s supervisory role or create uncertainty about responsibilities?
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Remove the fixed four-year Auditor term and change the role description to oversight of all County audits.
What a No Vote Means
- Keep the existing four-year term and current Charter wording.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY BALLOT MEASURE
St. Louis County Proposition S
Property Tax for Senior Citizens’ Services
Official Ballot Language
Shall St. Louis County levy a tax of five cents per each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation for the purpose of providing services to persons sixty years of age or older?
What Would Proposition S Change?
Proposition S would establish an ongoing property tax of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation for services benefiting County residents age 60 or older. Supporters estimate approximately $15 million in annual receipts. The levy would apply to taxable residential, commercial, and other property; the ballot provides no automatic expiration date.
What Services Would Be Funded?
State law permits programs such as transportation, meals, home repairs, in-home assistance, and services supporting older adults’ health and independence. These are potential uses—not commitments to provide any specific benefit to individual residents.
How Would the Money Be Managed?
Missouri law provides for a dedicated Senior Citizens’ Services Fund administered by a seven-member board appointed by the County Council, with Council approval of the annual budget. Spending must remain within authorized senior-services purposes.
However, the ballot does not establish a detailed spending plan. Decisions about funded programs, allocations, service providers, eligibility rules, and measures of effectiveness would be made after voter approval. Voters would therefore be authorizing the tax and its general purpose before the detailed program is defined.
Issues Voters May Want to Consider
Would a dedicated tax improve services for older residents? Is the planned governance and oversight sufficient without defined programs and performance measures at the time of voting? How would the new fund coordinate with existing programs and avoid duplication? Is an ongoing tax appropriate without predetermined allocations?
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
What a Yes Vote Means
- Authorize the five-cent property-tax levy and creation of the senior-services fund, leaving detailed allocations and eligibility to subsequent decisions under state law.
What a No Vote Means
- Reject the new levy; existing senior-service programs and funding continue without this tax.