By Jack Harvel
The Kansas City Star
(TNS)
The ballot language for a Missouri constitutional amendment that would radically restructure how the state collects taxes was altered by the Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals on Friday, which found the language to be unfair, inaccurate and misleading.
The elimination of the state income tax is a top priority for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, and gained the support of legislative leadership.
The lawsuit, which led to Friday’s ruling, named the leaders of the Missouri House and Senate, including House Speaker Jonathan Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican.
The appeals court decision on Friday overturned a ruling from the Cole County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Limbaugh, which on Monday found the summary language and title were “sufficient and fair, and further that it is true and impartial.”
The summary statement that lawmakers proposed read:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Phase out the individual income tax based on revenue growth;
- Reduce personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase;
- Modify the sales and use tax to eliminate income tax and reduce local taxes;
- and protect local funding for public schools and other purposes?”
The court amended the language to:
“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.”
Appeals Court Judge Thomas Chapman wrote that the original language failed to inform voters that the proposal would give lawmakers sweeping authority to raise taxes under the proposal.
“It is not fair and sufficient to repeatedly suggest to voters that various tax obligations will be reduced and eliminated without informing them, at any point or in any manner, of the expansive authority that will be granted regarding sales and use taxes,” Chapman said.
The lawsuit sought to strike the proposal from the ballot entirely. Kansas City resident Jill Owens sued the Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins and top legislative leaders, claiming the proposal illegally bundles unrelated subjects and could alter multiple constitutional articles under the guise of a single tax-reform measure.
The appeals court ruled against Owens’ attempt to strike the proposal from the ballot. Amendment 5 is slated to go to voters during the Aug. 4 primary election.
Recommended Articles
Opponents celebrate decision
Opponents of the proposal hailed the decision as a step up in the proposed language, but said the court’s language could be improved.
“The court’s rewriting could have been clearer, but the judges agree with us that the ballot language was unfair and insufficient,” said Scott Charton, a spokesperson for Missourians for Fair Taxation, the group leading the opposition campaign.
“While the court could have added even more clarity about the bad impacts of Amendment 5, time is short, so we are taking our campaign directly to the people and urging them to Vote NO on Amendment 5.”
Supporters didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment or share whether they would appeal the court’s decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. Language must be finalized by June 9 to be printed on ballots for members of the military.
Photo credit: Wampa-One/Flickr
_______
©2026 The Kansas City Star. Visit kansascity.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency LLC.
Sign in to get access to this free resource, and all of our whitepapers and reports.
Download this content today!
Register Now Already registered? Click here to Log In
