

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
While Missouri's 1% would get major tax breaks, one tax policy expert said, "working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Tax policy experts warned Tuesday that passing Amendment 5 in Missouri next month could lead to middle-income residents paying hundreds of dollars more each year as wealthy households enjoy a tax cut worth tens of thousands.
If approved by voters on August 4, the legislatively referred constitutional amendment would: reduce Missouri's individual income tax, based on revenue growth, until it is eliminated; prohibit future state individual income taxes; decrease personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase, but bar funding cuts to public schools; and limit expansions of sales and use taxes, unless they are used to lower income tax.
As The Kansas City Star detailed last week, Amendment 5 is a "top priority for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe," and Missouri Promise PAC, the main campaign supporting it, received "$9.6 million from six organizations or groups that do not have to disclose their donors," also known as dark money.
While some of the campaign backers remain unknown to voters, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) in Washington, DC aimed to shed light on the specifics of the amendment's anticipated impact with its new policy brief.
"Amendment 5 asks Missouri voters to approve a tax shift without telling them which purchases will be taxed or how high sales taxes will rise," said ITEP analyst and brief author Eli Byerly-Duke. "What is clear is who would benefit: the wealthiest Missourians. Working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Missouri's individual income tax "makes up about 64% of the state's general fund and is the major funding source for state investments in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, public safety, and other services," the brief explains. "Low- and middle-income Missourians already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to fund public services," and swapping income taxes for higher sales taxes "would shift even more of this responsibility from the state's highest-income individuals to teachers, farmers, truck drivers, and other middle-income Missourians."
Specifically, Byerly-Duke found that "middle-class Missourians with incomes of about $50,000 to $80,000 will pay $535 more in taxes if the personal income tax is eliminated and the sales tax expanded," all while Missouri's top 1%—or those with incomes of $689,300 and above—see an average tax break of $39,978.

The brief also highlights that "neither the Missouri Legislature nor governor has explained exactly how they will expand sales taxes if it passes. They might increase the sales tax rate, or they might expand the sales tax to include purchases of services that are not currently taxed, such as home repair and insurance, car repair and financing, personal care services such as hair or nail care, or medical services. Taxing these items will cost middle-income households a larger share of their incomes than higher-income households, but middle-income families will not get a commensurate benefit from the income tax elimination."
"For senior citizens, active-duty military families, and military retirees, the impact would be even worse," the report continues. "That's because Social Security benefits, active-duty military pay, and military pensions are already exempt from Missouri income tax, so households for whom those are the sole source of income would get no benefit from Amendment 5. For a middle-class Missourian earning between $49,100 and $79,700, this would mean an increase of $1,600 in taxes every year. Overall, seniors alone would see a net tax increase of about $335 million and each pay $365 more, on average, each year."
The brief bolsters the case for voters to say "No on 5," as Protect MO Taxpayers encourages. The "no" campaign's website warns that the amendment "hits seniors, retirees, veterans, and disabled persons hardest. Those on tight fixed incomes may not pay income tax on their limited income, but they will certainly be hurt by higher sales taxes on goods they buy every day, such as groceries, medicine, and gas, and services they use every day, from haircuts to car repairs to healthcare and housing."
"Amendment 5 hits working families hardest of all, with higher sales and use taxes estimated by the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project to cost the average Missouri family about $500 more in taxes per year overall," Protect MO Taxpayers' site says, also pointing to concerns that it will "increase the tough economic times in rural Missouri" and "make the economic struggle even harder for small businesses."
The proposal "is a severe hit for renters who are already struggling to make ends meet," and "crushes the dreams of Missourians who want to buy or sell a home," the site adds. "Amendment 5 hits active-duty military, who do not pay state income tax but will face higher prices off the base with sales taxes that could roughly triple. This will mean less retail business and economic harm in our neighboring military host communities."
"What voters are saying now is that democracy is sacred."
Organizers in Missouri on Sunday said they reached an important milestone in a campaign to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year that would stop Republican officials in the state from trying to sabotage ballot initiatives.
Respect Missouri Voters, a coalition aimed at protecting and strengthening the state's ballot initiative process, announced that it has delivered more than 367,000 signatures to the Missouri Secretary of State's office in favor of a constitutional amendment that enact two key policies to protect voter-passed laws.
First, as the Fairness Project summarized on Monday, it would "require that all future ballot measures in the state be summarized for voters in fair, clear, and easily understandable terms"; and second, it would demand "that any attempt by the Legislature to refer a voter-approved measure back to the ballot clear an 80% threshold in each chamber, a high bar designed to prevent politicians from undoing what voters have already decided."
The first part of the amendment is aimed at addressing problems created by Republican Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who has repeatedly been taken to court for writing ballot initiative summaries that advocates say are misleading or provide incomplete information about what the initiatives would do.
As the Missouri Independent reported in February, a total of five summaries written by Hoskins have been thrown out by courts since October, as "judges at every level of Missouri’s court system have stepped in to block or rewrite ballot language" drafted by the secretary of state.
The second part of the amendment, meanwhile, was written in response to Republican legislators' efforts to overturn ballot initiatives passed in 2024 that legalized abortion in Missouri and established mandatory paid sick leave.
Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, a key backer of Respect Missouri Voters, said the gathering of more than 367,000 signatures is "a promising milestone for Missouri voters and for direct democracy."
"Perhaps more than in any other state, voters in Missouri understand what is at stake,” Hall added. "It’s in Missouri that extremist politicians have worked overtime to undermine the will of their voters, whether it’s been fighting to reinstate a wildly unpopular ban on access to abortion care, gerrymandering congressional districts, or undermining the ballot measure process. What voters are saying now is that democracy is sacred."
However, it's not just Missouri where direct democracy is under attack. The Fairness Project reported last September that “extremist” legislators across the United States “escalated their efforts to dismantle the ballot measure process in 2025 by 95%.”
If and when other states replicate Florida’s hardball tactics against ballot measures, it would represent the greatest threat to direct democracy in years.
In February, the Florida Department of State determined that no citizen-initiated measures qualified for the Florida 2026 general election ballot. This was not an accident. This outcome is the culmination of a multi-year, multi-pronged attack on the ballot measure process in Florida, with the most draconian blow coming last May.
On May 2, 2025, the Florida legislature passed House Bill 1205, a law that restricts, criminalizes, and penalizes ballot initiative efforts in Florida. HB 1205 is a direct assault on Florida’s citizen-led constitutional amendment process—imposing vague, burdensome, and punitive restrictions that threaten to chill core political speech and discourage civic participation. Although there are several insidious provisions in this law—severe petition-related fines and penalties, restrictive circulation periods, and burdensome petition circulation training obligations, including for volunteers—one of the most damaging provisions only revealed its true nature weeks after the law went into effect.
Unique to the Florida ballot measure process, statewide initiative proponents are obligated to pay a verification fee for each petition they submit. Prior to HB 1205, the cost averaged about 87 cents per petition. On its face, this obligation was already unconstitutional. However, HB 1205 went even further, redefining the “actual cost” of signature verification and authorizing county supervisors to calculate the new per-petition cost, and begin collecting it from statewide ballot initiatives.
Starting on June 30, 2025, the county supervisors began posting their increased signature verification rates. Many newly posted fees are dramatically higher. For example, Lee County raised fees from $0.95 to $4.40 per petition, a 363% increase, while Gilchrist County raised fees from $0.10 to $2.77 per petition, a 2,670% increase. On average, Florida’s three largest counties increased fees to more than $3.77 per signature. As a result, it will now cost sponsors millions of dollars to verify enough petitions to qualify for the ballot. By comparison, no other state even comes close—the largest filing fee we are aware of is Montana’s fee of $3,700, which a court promptly struck down as unconstitutional under state law.
If the regressive policies of HB 1205 are left unchecked, other states will immediately adopt the same types of policies.
There is no question that Florida has been a breeding ground for bad legislation in recent years. Just to name a few—in 2005, Florida passed the first “stand your ground” law. Florida was one of the first states to ban “critical race theory” from its classrooms and was the first state to ban the AP African American studies course. Attacks on the ballot measure process have escalated in recent years, and there is no question that state legislatures look to one another for novel ideas to make the ballot measure process more restrictive. Once a restrictive policy is seen as permissible in one state, other states move quickly to adopt it for themselves. For instance, several states have tried to increase their ballot measure passage thresholds after Florida increased its threshold to 60%. Likewise, geographic circulation requirements, circulator registration and reporting obligations, and circulator payment restrictions have spread like wildfire across Republican-controlled states. Without a doubt, if the regressive policies of HB 1205 are left unchecked, other states will immediately adopt the same types of policies.
And yet, there is still hope. After HB 1205 passed last year, Florida Decides Healthcare, the Medicaid expansion initiative campaign, immediately filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that HB 1205 is a direct assault on Florida’s citizen-led ballot measure process. That case went to trial on February 9, where the State attempted to defend its restrictions. If HB 1205 is allowed to stand, it will be prohibitively expensive for any initiative to get on the ballot in Florida. If and when other states replicate Florida’s hardball tactics against ballot measures, it would represent the greatest threat to direct democracy in years. Democracy advocates around the country should watch this trial closely, and we should all applaud Florida Decides Healthcare for standing up for their direct democracy rights.