Amendment 2: Legalize Online Sports Betting
Missouri’s Amendment 2 is all about legalizing sports betting within the state. If passed, it would allow people over the age of 21 to bet on sports via mobile apps, in casinos, and in professional sports betting districts. The Missouri Gaming Commission would oversee this new industry, implementing background checks and other regulations to ensure compliance and prevent advertising to minors. A key aspect of the amendment includes a 10% tax on all sports betting revenue, which purports to fund educational initiatives after covering administrative expenses and contributing to a problem gambling prevention fund. Many of the ads assert that claim. I have no faith that the projected funding will add on top of the funding for education. I believe the State will simply reallocate the money to offset the funding.
Currently, Missouri residents must travel to neighboring states like Kansas or Illinois for legal sports betting. Voting “yes” would keep that revenue within Missouri, potentially generating up to $28.9 million annually, with additional one-time licensing fees bringing in approximately $11.75 million. Voting “no,” on the other hand, would leave sports betting illegal in the state unless future legislation is passed through the Missouri General Assembly.
Amendment 3: (Vote YES) Reversal of Missouri Abortion Ban
Missouri’s Amendment 3, proposes a constitutional change aimed at establishing a fundamental right to reproductive freedom. If passed, this amendment would permit individuals to make personal reproductive health care decisions, including access to abortion and contraceptives, without interference from the state. It would effectively overturn Missouri’s current near-total ban on abortion, enacted after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Under Amendment 3, abortion would be permitted until fetal viability, after which it could be restricted except when necessary to protect the life or health of the individual seeking care.
Organizations like Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, argue that this measure safeguards bodily autonomy and addresses healthcare access gaps in the state. Opponents, led by groups such as Missouri Right to Life, contend that the amendment would weaken protections for the unborn. and erroneously claim there will be a potentially impact state revenues due to implementation costs.
This initiative represents a significant potential shift in Missouri’s reproductive health policies, reflecting broader national debates on abortion rights since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.
Amendment 5: Osage River Casino
Missouri’s Amendment 5 proposes to allow a new casino on the Osage River at Lake of the Ozarks, near Bagnell Dam. Currently, Missouri casinos are limited to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, with only 13 licensed operations statewide. This amendment would add a 14th license specifically for this Osage River location, opening up the area for a casino, hotel, convention center, and additional amenities.
Supporters, argue that the casino would generate economic benefits, creating around 700 jobs and contributing approximately $14.3 million annually in gaming tax revenue. This revenue would be allocated toward early childhood literacy programs across the state. Estimated annual fees and admissions revenue from the casino are projected to reach around $2.1 million, with additional one-time and ongoing costs for government entities involved in managing the site.Unlike Amendment 2 the money has to be spent on early Childhood organization. The American Federation of Teachers local 420 are in support of measure and they helped craft the bill.
The Osage Nation has applied to the U.S. Department of Interior for a pathway to build a tribal casino in Missouri at Lake of the Ozarks. If approved, the federal government would transfer 28 acres of land the tribe purchased at the corner of Bagnell Dam Boulevard and Highway 54 in the tourist town of Lake Ozark into federal trust with tribal sovereignty.
Now, a second casino plan that competes with the Osage Nation project has surfaced and is gaining momentum. Casino giant Bally’s and Eldon-based real estate developer Gary Prewitt bankrolled. Chief Standing Bear and the Osage Nation opposes this amendment considering the effort to build a casino on a site adjacent to the Osage River.
A change in the state constitution is necessary to get that project underway because the state’s current fleet of 13 casinos is limited to sites along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, areas once dominated by the Osage. On Nov. 5, Missouri voters will be asked if they support Amendment 5 that would expand the number of casinos to 14 to accommodate the proposal. It would still need approval from the Missouri Gaming Commission once enacted.
Amendment 6: (Vote NO) Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement System
Missouri’s Amendment 6 on the November 2024 ballot would allow a court fee to fund pensions and salaries for sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, and other law enforcement officials. This amendment responds to a 2021 Missouri Supreme Court ruling, which found that collecting a $3 court fee to support the Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement System was unconstitutional, as it wasn’t directly related to the cost of administering justice. If passed, Amendment 6 would reinstate this fee, aiming to secure retirement benefits for over 200 former sheriffs or their spouses, without increasing taxes
It is a perverse incentive that might place financial strain on defendants and create conflicts of interest. If rejected, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement Fund could face insolvency but there are other tools to solve that. Passage of this amendment will set a bad precedent.
Amendment 7: (Vote NO) Ranked Choice/ Approval Voting Attack
Missouri’s Amendment 7 proposes banning ranked-choice voting (RCV) statewide. If passed, this amendment would mandate that voters cast only one vote per candidate, removing the option to rank candidates in order of preference, which is central to the ranked-choice system. Supporters of the amendment argue that RCV is too complex and undermines voter confidence. Additionally, Amendment 7 would also specify that only U.S. citizens may vote in Missouri elections—a rule already established by law but here codified into the state constitution.
A “yes” vote on Amendment 7 would therefore make these provisions part of the state constitution, while a “no” vote would retain the existing voting rules, allowing local governments to decide if they want to implement alternative voting systems. Amendment 7 is an unnecessary restriction on local autonomy, particularly around RCV, which I believe can reduce political polarization and give voters more choice. St Louis wont be impacted as we are grandfathered in; but it will directly impact other urban areas that might benefit from having a system similar to our ours. The run off system we have in municipal elections has been working well.
Proposition A: (Vote YES) Minimum Wage/ Paid Sick Leave
Missouri’s Proposition A, proposes to raise the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026 and establish paid sick leave for employees. This measure would incrementally increase the current minimum wage of $12.30 to $13.75 in 2025, reaching $15 the following year. Additionally, it mandates that workers receive one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. However, this requirement would exempt government entities and certain other public organizations.
Proposition A could provide substantial benefits to low-wage workers by reducing financial stress and promoting public health, especially in high-contact industries. Access to paid sick leave can help prevent the spread of illness, benefiting both workers and customers.
City Proposition B: Board of Aldermen Budget Control
St. Louis’s Proposition B would amend the city’s charter to give the Board of Aldermen more control over budget changes. Specifically, it would allow the board to modify, add, or remove items in the annual city budget without needing approval from the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. This means aldermen could adjust funding amounts for different departments or projects as long as the overall budget remains balanced, offering more flexibility in addressing city priorities. However, this authority would exclude adjustments related to state-mandated funding or debt obligations.
It is possible that changes could streamline budgeting and improve responsiveness to local needs.
Alternatively, Proposition B could present issues with checks and balances in city governance. Currently, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which includes the mayor, the comptroller, and the president of the Board of Aldermen, approves budget adjustments, serving as a system of oversight. I am not a fan of an attempt to erode power from the black women elected officials. I believe this charter amendment helps concentrate power with the Board of Aldermen. If the City of St. Louis is going to compete on the National level we don’t need to introduced 14 new voices to the budgeting discussion. The BOA will need to be mindful not to politicize the budgeting process vs the functional duty of passing a budget.
City Proposition T: (Vote Yes)
Proposition T in St. Louis is a charter amendment that would transform the city’s Department of Streets into a new Department of Transportation (DOT). This change is aimed at creating a more cohesive approach to transportation planning, with the DOT responsible not only for road and sidewalk maintenance but also for long-term infrastructure planning, street safety, and support for alternative modes of transportation like cycling and walking. This proposed reorganization would centralize many functions that are currently spread across several departments, potentially increasing efficiency and addressing transportation safety more comprehensively.
This new structure would better address St. Louis’s modern transportation needs and improve safety for all street users, including pedestrians and cyclists. This would be a critical step toward reducing traffic accidents and improving infrastructure coordination.
To pass, Proposition T requires a 60% majority approval. If it succeeds, the new DOT is set to officially begin its expanded responsibilities in 2029.
City Proposition V: (Vote Yes)
Proposition V is a key measure that seeks to address the city’s significant problem with vacant and deteriorating properties. If passed, this proposition would lift the existing $500 cap on fines for violations related to non-owner-occupied properties. This cap has been in place since 1970 and many believe it is too low to effectively deter absentee landlords and property owners who neglect their properties.
Removing the cap will empower the Board of Aldermen to set higher, more effective fines, which could encourage property owners to maintain their buildings and ultimately enhance neighborhood safety and vitality. Currently, there are around 25,000 vacant and deteriorated properties in St. Louis, contributing to reduced property tax revenues and creating various public safety risks, including health hazards like mold and asbestos.
The measure is a necessary step to hold negligent landlords accountable and improve the overall quality of life in St. Louis neighborhoods. However, it requires a three-fifths majority to pass, reflecting the community’s strong interest in revitalizing its urban landscape.
City Proposition S: (Vote Yes) Short Term Rentals
Proposition S is a measure that aims to establish a 3% hotel tax on short-term rentals. This tax is designed to generate funds for affordable housing initiatives, with at least half of the revenue going directly to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This initiative could help address the city’s housing crisis by increasing funding for affordable housing projects.
Judges: (Vote No) Kelly Broniec, Ginger Gooch, Heather Cunningham
Kelly Broniec and Ginger Gooch voted to uphold the ban on abortion rights and to execute Marcellus Williams. Heather Cunningham ruled in favor of developer Paul Mckee and his usage for the Homer G Phillips name for his urgent care. For more information on all of the judges records visit https://yourmissourijudges.org/
Marty Joe Murray, Jr 