Missouri Press Association
Serving Missouri Newspapers Since 1867
Missouri News Network: Statehouse News for MPA Members
This report is written by Missouri School of Journalism students for publication by MPA member newspapers in print and online.
-----------------------------------------------------
Missouri News Network this week looks at the general election.
If you have thoughts or questions, contact Fred Anklam at anklamf@missouri.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY
Mark Alford says he is fighting for 'America’s soul'
By Jae Jepsen, Missouri News Network
Running for his third term representing the 4th Congressional District, U.S. Rep. Mark Alford believes there is more at stake in this election than a congressional seat. To Alford, control of the House of Representatives is paramount to preserving recent Republican successes.
“This is a fight for the soul of America,” Alford said. “This is a line of demarcation that we go one way or the other in America, and it’s important that everyone get out and vote, you bank your vote early and help us preserve the majority of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
To Alford, voters have a choice between two starkly different parties.
“Are you on the side of chaos and communism?” he asked. “Or are you on the side of common sense and capitalism? And those are the choices that you’ve got to make on November 3rd.”
As a representative of both urban and rural parts of the state, Alford must balance the two, weighing his desires to meet as many as possible.
“The key to that is being a good listener and being able to gain an understanding of what people’s needs are,” he said. “You’re not always going to meet those needs, but people want to be listened to and feel like you represent them even though you may not agree with them politically.”
Today, Alford said he’s hearing people’s concerns about the economy amid the Iran War. While he understands the worries, he also believes higher prices are worth the security.
“I think most people my age understand the reality of the threat that this Islamic regime has been, not just to that region, but to the world,” he said. “And to ensure they never have a nuclear weapon, I’m willing to pay an extra $20 a week in fuel as I travel the district.”
In April, Alford introduced the Fair and Accurate Ingredient Representation on Labels Act, which would restrict how plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives can be labeled. He said he hopes to continue working to get the bill implemented, working collaboratively with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The 4th District has been a source of confusion within the state, as a series of court cases caused its boundaries to fluctuate between two maps before ultimately returning to the district Alford was elected to in 2022 and 2024.
Alford was supportive of the gerrymandered map, and originally campaigned on those boundaries, which were used in the primary.
“But nevertheless, the Supreme Court decided it and we immediately got to work because we had to go to five counties, and relatively big counties, including Boone County, and begin campaigning in those counties that we were not going to have under the Missouri First map,” Alford said.
“It’s been extra work for us, but it was beneficial in that we were already serving these districts through our district offices,” he said.
In August 2025, Alford embarked on a 15-county town hall tour, making a stop in Harrisburg as his Boone County visit. When asked why he did not make a stop in Columbia, Alford responded, “We will come to Columbia next year.”
However, he has not held any town halls in 2026.
Alford maintained that the city would be included in any future tours, but that the format of the events may change to be more conducive to civil discourse and conversation.
“We’ve got to have an environment where it’s productive and not a shouting match,” he said.
With what he describes as a relatively safe seat, Alford is spending time leading up to the election campaigning for Republican candidates in Tennessee, Washington, Nevada, California and Montana. Alford is aiming to keep the Republican majority in the House.
If that majority isn’t secured, Alford has fears for what the future may hold.
“It’s gonna be about the investigation of the Trump family. Impeachment of Donald Trump,” he said.
“(Democrats) gonna try to reopen the border. They’re gonna try to pull back on everything that we’ve accomplished with the One Big Beautiful Bill staving off, preventing the largest tax increase in U.S. history,” Alford said.
“They’re going to want to renew those taxes, and all this work that we have done, they’re going to try to disassemble,” he added.
-----------------------------------------------------
Jordan Herrera wants to be a good neighbor
By Jae Jepsen, Missouri News Network
As a child who grew up with parents facing addiction, 4th Congressional District candidate Jordan Herrera says much of his childhood was spent depending on the kindness of others.
“I can’t tell you how many nights I would run out of my home, with sometimes no shoes on, getting my feet scraped up, running across the street to knock on the door, and wake up Martha Walker,” Herrera said during an Oct. 13 town hall hosted by the Boone County Democrats.
Decades later, he’s running for Missouri’s 4th District seat in the House of Representatives, where he wants to be the good Samaritan he said his district needs.
“It doesn’t matter your qualifications to be a neighbor,” Herrera said, speaking after the town hall. “It matters whether or not you’re willing to accept the invitation to become a neighbor to someone else in need. And so, for me, that’s exactly what I’m doing. This campaign is nearly an invitation for every Missourian to help a neighbor in need.”
A veteran of the Air Force and former state assistant attorney general, Herrera is challenging incumbent Mark Alford, a Republican former small business owner and news anchor who has held the office since 2023. The district has been Republican-led since 2011.
By advancing past the primary, Herrera became the first Mexican-American and first openly gay man to be nominated for a federal seat in Missouri.
“I think it’s important to recognize that Mexican Americans, LGBTQ+ Americans, and post-911 veterans still have not had the opportunity to represent,” he said. “So why it’s important to me is, if a Mexican American or a Latino person doesn’t have a seat at the table, then we’re not gonna be heard. We’re not going to be understood.”
Herrera’s policies are robust and detailed, with multistep plans to enact each item. He supports protecting reproductive freedom, making higher education more affordable, regulating data centers, securing the border and defending LGBTQ+ and women’s rights. Herrera’s priorities lie in economic support for Missouri residents, expanding healthcare access and establishing government reform to improve accountability.
“People who are willing to go in to limit their own power; that is servant leadership,” he said. “That is a servant who understands there is too much power currently contained at the top, or constrained at the top, such that the power of the people has been diminished, and that’s the kind of leader I’m looking for.”
For all his positivity, Herrera is equally fervent in his campaign rhetoric. He calls Alford a coward, a joker, a loser and a jackass without reservation. At the town hall, where Herrera and 3rd District candidate Bethany Mann answered voter questions, cardboard cutouts were set up in chairs next to them, labeled as Alford and Bob Onder, Mann’s opponent.
“I stood on two battlefields to do what I’m doing right now,” Herrera said, responding to a question about supporting LGBTQ+ rights. “I would challenge either one of these losers to do the same about anything that they care about. They had opportunities to serve, they never did. They’re just cowards.”
The 4th District has been a source of confusion within the state, as a series of court cases caused its boundaries to fluctuate between two maps.
“When I decided to run against Mark Alford in the 4th, because of the gerrymandering situation, I also understood full well that, you know, this is a risk,” he said.
Rather than campaigning in both district boundaries, he focused on the 2022 map, a decision that ultimately paid off as that map was approved.
With only weeks remaining before the election, Herrera’s campaign is in its final push as he strives to flip a solidly red seat. And as he enters the last stretch, his message of support and kindness remains strong.
“I believe very strongly in answering that call of being a good neighbor,” Herrera said. “I’m trying to remind every one of us the obligations and responsibilities we owe to one another as Americans, members of the same community and as neighbors.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Holbrook runs as third option in District 4
By Jae Jepsen, Missouri News Network
Thomas Holbrook wants Missouri residents to have another choice.
As the Libertarian candidate in the 4th Congressional District election, he stands as a third option for those who do not wish to vote for the Democratic or Republican candidates.
“People tend to forget when they’re looking at their favorite brand of soda, they really can’t pick between Coke or Pepsi,” Holbrook said. “There’s always R.C. Cola. You have more than two choices on the ballot.”
Holbrook works in civilian contracting, a field where he says he has come to understand the dangers of unchecked bureaucracy.
“I noticed that, you know, things that could be changed in a moment’s notice for the better, was stymied by, well, you have to follow the chain. You have to respect the chain of command,” he said.
Holbrook’s main policy concerns lie in preventing gerrymandering, which he’d achieve by introducing a bill to stop redistricting between censuses, granting citizens the right to remove elected officers and removing tariff powers from the president.
“I think it’s time that citizens be granted an additional power of being able to keep their nationally elected officials in check,” Holbrook said.
He also opposes TikTok bans, trade wars, school choice vouchers and book bans. He is in support of developing cryptocurrency and legalizing marijuana.
-----------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY
The way Amendment 3 is worded can be confusing. Here's what it means.
By Hailey Sanford, Missouri News Network
Many are confused about Amendment 3, the ballot issue that would repeal a constitutional provision approved by voters in 2024 to guarantee reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion.
Since the abortion issue was on the ballot two years ago, under the same title, the shift in wording can be difficult to understand.
Here’s the bottom line on Amendment 3 on Nov. 3: It would ban abortion, except in certain specific situations.
Abortion would be allowed in the case of rape or incest up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The amendment ensures that care for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, fetal anomalies and care for a mother whose life is in jeopardy would be available throughout the pregnancy.
Additionally, the amendment includes a provision that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. It would also prohibit the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments “unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.”
‘Ballot candy’
Scott LaCombe, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri, said voters pay little attention to state-level politics, making them more susceptible to persuasion.
“Voters are a blank slate when it comes to a lot of state politics,” LaCombe said. “So there is a high potential for them to easily be persuaded or, depending on your perspective, confused about what different measures do and what the arguments for and against them are.”
Some tactics to confuse voters include “ballot candy,” or the inclusion of words and phrases in the ballot language that would make someone more likely to support or oppose it. Other strategies are to use argumentative and coded language or very technical words to distract voters.
“There are several tricks that the legislature put into this amendment to try and convince voters to vote against what they just passed in 2024,” said Tori Schafer, a spokesperson for Stop the Ban, a group that supports abortion rights.
In 2023, the legislature passed the ”Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act.” This act banned gender-transition surgery, puberty-blocking drugs and hormone therapy for minors.
Some people see the inclusion of gender-affirming care as ballot candy that violates the single-subject rule, LaCombe said. That rule declares that any ballot initiative can only take up one subject. Others, he said, see this as part of reproductive healthcare.
“When the courts don’t have a clear and transparent way to distinguish what is a single versus what is a multi-subject rule, they’re going to be reluctant to intervene because they’re going to view the courts as kind of making a political stance,” he said.
The ballot language is also confusing because it is based on a counterintuitive interpretation. Voting no means approving abortion rights, and voting yes means approving an abortion ban.
“So if you vote no on repealing a protection, that means you want to keep the protection,” LaCombe said. “I don’t really fault the authors of the ballot language with that. It’s always a weird place with double negatives in voting.”
The legal history
In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court determined the right to abortion was a constitutional freedom under the right to privacy provision in the 14th Amendment.
Then in 2022, the Supreme Court overturned that decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, known informally as Dobbs, and returned the right to establish abortion laws to the states.
Following this decision, 13 states, including Missouri, enacted trigger laws. Missouri lawmakers had anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision and passed a law effectively banning abortions in the state to be enacted once the ruling was announced.
The Missouri ban made it illegal to perform an abortion, classifying it as a Class B felony with the potential suspension or loss of a medical license.
The citizen-led initiative to allow abortions began in 2024. Abortion-rights supporters gathered more than 250,000 valid signatures on a petition, even though they needed just over 170,000 to put the amendment on the ballot.
Two years after the ban was enacted, Missouri voters approved the amendment, with 51.6% voting to give citizens “the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”
State Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, said the voter-approved amendment went too far. In 2025, he and state Sen. Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles, led the charge to restrict abortion again.
A resolution to put abortion back on the ballot was passed in the Missouri House on a 94-50 margin. Notably, two Republicans voted no — Speaker of the House Jon Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit, and state Rep. Bill Allen, R-Kansas City.
The Senate passed the resolution 21–11, nearly along party lines, except for state Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove.
Moon calls himself an abolitionist, meaning he supports a full abortion ban. Thus, he started the campaign against Amendment 3 to encourage abortion-rights opponents to reject it as too lenient.
The arguments for and against
Missouri voters will consider abortion once again next week.
Those against the amendment want more abortion rights. Those in favor say they want more protection for women, unborn children and minors seeking a gender change.
“We just think that, obviously, transition surgeries should not be allowed, that abortion through the second and third trimesters is barbaric, that it’s a human life,” said Lewis, who wants to ban abortion.
The 2024 amendment did offer protection from any adverse action based on a pregnancy outcome, but it remains unclear whether that protection could limit a malpractice claim involving a patient’s death during an abortion. State law separately requires abortion providers to carry malpractice insurance covering negligence-related deaths.
A number of organized groups oppose Amendment 3, but they fall on both sides of the political spectrum. Many opponents are for abortion rights and reproductive healthcare. They also argue that voters have already weighed in on the issue. On the other end of the spectrum are abolitionists who want to ban abortion completely and see the issue on the ballot as too permissive.
Stop the Ban is an organization campaigning door-to-door and holding rallies in hopes of defeating the amendment. It argues that it would ban abortion in nearly all cases, and the exceptions for rape, incest and early pregnancy termination are unlikely to be available to many.
“We know that because exceptions do not work,” Schafer said. “They have not worked across the country. They didn’t work in Missouri. We know that even when people are victims, that is an extremely underreported crime.”
The amendment would also remove the protections for doctors, healthcare workers and anyone who helps someone get an abortion.
“This Amendment 3 deletes that protection out of our Constitution, and if a doctor provides abortion care and the state disagrees with whether or not that care should have been provided, a doctor could lose their medical license and end up in jail,” Schafer said.
“So that’s going to have a chilling effect on doctors’ ability to provide care to patients,” Schafer added.
In the opposite corner, Moon encourages voters to oppose Amendment 3 on the grounds that it is not restrictive enough. He and other abolitionists are calling for a total abortion ban in Missouri that would have no exceptions for rape or incest.
“I believe the 2024 Amendment 3 should be repealed,” he said, “but I do not believe we should replace one abortion provision of the Constitution with another that continues to authorize the intentional ending of certain preborn human lives.”
What’s next?
No matter the outcome of the amendment, Lewis said he expects future litigation.
“There’ll be another proposal, absolutely,” Lewis said. “It will come through the legislature, or it’ll come through initiative petition, but there’ll be another no matter what happens, pass or fail.”
He said he is worried about future legislative initiatives because he foresees the passage of Amendment 6, which would require 80% of each chamber to vote in favor of placing a referendum initiative on the ballot.
LaCombe also expects continued fighting over the abortion issue.
“We do not have consensus as a state on what we want the law to be,” he said. “And so activists on either side of this are going to keep coming back to this issue.”
The polling about Amendment 3 shows a very close outcome. Of 900 Missouri voters surveyed by Saint Louis University in August, 43% approved of Amendment 3, 44% did not and 13% were undecided. The margin of error was 4.09%.
While there are voters on the extreme ends of the spectrum, LaCombe said most fall somewhere in the middle.
“I think the average Missourian doesn’t want a near total ban with a couple exceptions for health and rape,” he said. “The supermajority of voters support first-trimester abortion rights, a supermajority oppose third-trimester abortion rights, and then the second trimester is where you have this mushy middle.”
Utilities are spending more on Republican candidates in midterm elections
By Jana Rose Schleis, Missouri News Network
Utility companies are giving to Missouri politicians ahead of this year’s midterm elections — even some not on the ballot. Republican candidates got more cash, according to an analysis by the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog group.
Investor-owned utilities and their associated political action committees, or PACs, reported spending about $2.4 million in Missouri races in 2025 and 2026.
“Anytime you get into the seven figures, that’s a meaningful influence on the political state of a state,” said Jonathan Kim, research and communications manager at the Energy and Policy Institute.
Kim’s analysis of Missouri Ethics Commission data shows investor-owned utilities such as Ameren, Evergy and Spire spent about five times as much backing Missouri Republican politicians than they did Democrats, with $1.6 million going to Republican-aligned PACs and $328,000 going to Democrat-aligned PACs.
Kim said Missouri politicians who supported Senate Bill 4, a massive utility bill passed in 2025, got more dollars than those that didn’t.
“We saw about three quarters of spending to candidates go to folks that voted for SB 4 — including folks coming from the utilities and energy committees — and then you also have just 10% going to those that were against the legislation,” Kim said.
In 2024, when Gov. Mike Kehoe was running for his position, utilities companies contributed more than $400,000 to his campaign. Kehoe has prioritized expanding energy production in the state by creating a nuclear power task force and directing the Department of Natural Resources to produce a state energy plan.
The governor is not on the ballot this year, but in the past two years, utility companies have donated about $175,000 to the Kehoe-affiliated American Dream PAC.
Kim said Missouri utility spending is out of sync with other Midwestern states. In Wisconsin, campaign spending by utilities is down this year, despite a high-profile gubernatorial race. In Michigan, voters will weigh in on a ballot proposal to ban utility campaign spending altogether.
Which politicians are benefiting?
Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, received $205,000 from utility companies and their affiliated PACs, according to data from the Energy and Policy Institute.
Utilities have also bought into both sides of a Missouri Senate race between outgoing House Speaker Jon Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit, and Rep. Keri Ingle, D-Lee’s Summit.
They are seeking the seat being vacated by term-limited Sen. Mike Cierpiot, R-Lee’s Summit, who had been chair of the Senate energy committee. Patterson received $71,000 in campaign donations from energy companies and affiliated PACs, and Ingle got $11,400.
Montgomery County Republican and Executive Vice President of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association Mike Deering is running for Missouri Senate District 10 — where Google and Amazon are developing power-hungry artificial intelligence data centers. He received $36,000 in reported utility campaign contributions.
Energy companies offer little explanation on why they donate
Gas company Spire is regulated by the Missouri Public Service Commission and provides utility services for 38 Missouri counties.
“Spire complies with all legal requirements and ethical standards governing campaign donations and stays engaged with the communities we serve to raise awareness about the value of natural gas and to grow Missouri business,” spokesperson Jason Merrill said.
Ameren Missouri provides electric service for much of central and eastern Missouri and gas service for the Columbia area. In an emailed statement, an Ameren spokesperson said the company has “robust governance procedures and oversight over all of our political contributions.”
“Advocating for smart, balanced energy policies at the local, state and federal levels ultimately benefits our customers and the communities we serve by protecting customers from unnecessary cost increases while ensuring that grid reliability is never sacrificed,” an Ameren spokesperson said.
Ameren also emphasized that money for political contributions does not come from customer’s bills.
“We support candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, who advocate for sound, constructive energy policy for the benefit of our customers that moves Missouri forward,” the company said in the statement.
Representatives from Evergy declined to comment.
-----------------------------------------------------
Onder's and Mann's focuses differ in District 3 rematch
By Nolan Haberstroh, Missouri News Network
A rematch between U.S. Rep. Bob Onder and Bethany Mann in Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District showcases their continued campaigning on opposite policy platforms.
Onder, the Republican incumbent, is a physician and lawyer from St. Charles County who formerly served as a member of both chambers in the Missouri General Assembly.
Having been a prominent figure in the state’s Republican Party for several decades, Onder has remained mostly in line with policies of the party at large. He has run against illegal immigration as well as abortion and is in favor of maintaining Second Amendment rights.
The challenger, Bethany Mann, is an environmental chemist who has been the Democratic candidate for the 3rd District seat in the last three elections.
Mann has run on access to abortion, better funding for schools and more affordable healthcare. Drawing from her background, environmental protection is another facet of her platform.
Libertarian candidate Jim Higgins is also running. Higgins is a retired computer systems analyst who has run unsuccessfully for several offices in the state since the 1990s: multiple bids at different congressional districts, a run at the governorship in 2012 and at state Senate District 24 in 2018.
Higgins does not have much of a social presence this year but previously supported abolition of the death penalty, legalization of marijuana and an end to state registration on firearms.
Mann and Onder previously faced off in the 2024 election for the same position, with Onder winning his first term in Congress following the retirement of Republican Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer after 12 years in office.
In a September speech to the Boone County Republican Women’s Club, Onder outlined what he saw as major structural problems in the Missouri government, worrying that mishandling of these issues could lead to Republicans losing voters to Democrats.
“They’re the problems that a generation ago, Colorado had,” Onder said. “And it turned a very red state very blue, and we’re seeing that in real time right before our eyes.”
The main aspect Onder takes issue with is Missouri’s ballot initiative system, where citizens can get a statute or constitutional amendment on the ballot if enough signatures are gathered.
“Way too much direct democracy,” Onder said. “No state has a more liberal initiative and referendum process than Missouri.”
“It’s entirely too easy to amend our constitution,” Onder added. “Our constitution has become a glorified statute book.”
Onder acknowledged the recent failure of Amendment 4 in the August primary, which would have made passing ballot initiatives more difficult by requiring a majority of each congressional district to approve any policy as opposed to the current requirement of a simple statewide majority.
While over 80% of the state voted against the amendment, Onder contends that if it makes it to the ballot again with language emphasizing it’s other elements, including preventing foreign spending on ballot measures, it would have better success.
Mann has made data centers and their impact a major part of her platform, in line with her career as an environmental specialist.
In a news release earlier this month, Mann called for a statewide paid moratorium on the construction of data centers. Moratoriums have been popular even among Republicans in Mann’s district, with both St. Charles County and city passing local versions of the policy earlier this year.
Mann’s proposed moratorium would require developers of the centers to continue paying union workers already assigned to data center construction projects, arguing that developers should allow residents to make decisions about the centers without the threat of losing work.
“If these corporations genuinely believe their projects will benefit Missouri, they should be willing to continue paying the skilled union workers they’ve hired while our communities review their plans,” Mann said.
“A paid moratorium gives Missouri the opportunity to establish responsible standards without forcing working families to shoulder the cost of that process.”
Mann stipulated that the proposed moratorium should be lifted only after Missouri has outlined statewide standards for the facilities and how they interact with the communities they are built in.
“When something enormous and unexpected arrives at the gates of a community promising prosperity, our first responsibility is not to throw open the gates,” Mann said. “The lesson of the Trojan Horse is not that everything new is an enemy. It is that promises should be examined before they are welcomed inside.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Amendment 8 would solidify election of county sheriffs
By KJ Drazen, Missouri News Network
Amendment 8, sponsored by Sen. Jill Carter, R-Granby, has been less prominently talked about this election season.
If approved, this amendment would change the state constitution by requiring the election of sheriffs and establishing them as chief of law enforcement across all counties except for St. Louis County, St. Charles County and the city of St. Louis.
Currently through the election process, each county elects a sheriff to a term of four years. The decision is made by the majority of qualified voters in each county.
Amendment 8 would put the office of sheriff in the Missouri Constitution, thus protecting the public’s right to continue to elect their sheriff as their chief law enforcement officer.
But the amendment also limits ways a sheriff can be removed from office.
Under current law, the attorney general and county prosecuting attorneys have the ability to initiate a sheriff’s removal from office by filing a quo warranto petition. If Amendment 8 passes, this right would be reserved for the attorney general only and local prosecuting attorneys could not file for removal.
State law already requires the election of sheriffs, but placing that requirement in the Missouri Constitution would make it more difficult to change in the future.
Kevin Merritt, executive director of Missouri Sheriffs United, spoke on behalf of the organization in regard to this part of the amendment.
“We are very much dedicated to keeping the office of sheriff as an elected office where the local voters can choose who they want as their sheriff carrying out their law enforcement in their communities,” Merritt said.
Carter’s main goal with this amendment is to keep the power with the people when it comes to electing those who protect them.
“At its core, this bill is about one simple but powerful idea: accountability to the people,” Carter said. “Sheriffs in Missouri should be chosen by and held accountable to the voters of their county — not appointed, insulated or controlled by political bodies.”
The amendment also lays out a sheriff’s responsibilities and duties as provided by law, according to a news release from Carter. These responsibilities are presented fully in the text of Senate Joint Resolution 87.
“When citizens elect their sheriff, they know exactly who is responsible for public safety. And if that sheriff fails to lead with integrity, competence and courage, the people can remove them at the ballot box,” Carter said. “That is how a constitutional republic is supposed to work.”
If voters agree to add the office of sheriff to the Missouri Constitution, any changes to the office or its responsibilities may only be made with the approval of voters in the future rather than through legislative action.
-----------------------------------------------------
Two judges face retention vote on ballot
By Anna Kuschel, Columbia Missourian
Two appellate judges are up for retention and will appear on the general election ballot in Boone County.
Voters will decide whether to retain Missouri Supreme Court Judge Paul Wilson and Western District Court of Appeals Judge Lisa White Hardwick.
A simple majority of “yes” votes, or over 50%, will allow Wilson and Hardwick to remain in office for another 12-year term.
Wilson was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court in December 2012 and was the chief justice from July 2021 to June 2023.
Hardwick was appointed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, in May 2001, where she served as chief judge from 2010 to 2012.
The Missouri Plan governs the selection and retention of judges on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Missouri Court of Appeals and six circuit courts across the state.
Before the Missouri Plan was adopted in 1940, judges were chosen by voters. The plan was established to reduce political influence in the judicial selection process.
Wilson’s position on the Missouri Supreme Court and Hardwick’s position on the Missouri Court of Appeals mean their retention is governed by the Missouri Plan.
The Judicial Performance Review Committee recommends that both Wilson and Hardwick be retained.
The committee consists of lawyers, non-lawyers and retired judges. The committee considers lawyers’ ratings of judges, jurors’ ratings of some trial judges and written opinions from judges to decide whether a judge should be recommended for retainment, according to YourMissouriJudges.org.
The Missouri Bar’s 2026 lawyer survey provides evaluations using 13 different questions about legal reasoning, clarity of opinions and courtroom demeanor, with each question rated on a five-point scale.
Wilson received consistently positive evaluations across these categories, with average ratings ranging from 4.14 to 4.63. His highest rating was 4.63 for attentiveness to the arguments of all parties during oral argument, while his lowest rating was 4.14 for the conciseness of his opinions.
Hardwick secured consistently positive evaluations as well, with average ratings ranging from 4.35 to 4.69. Her highest rating was 4.69 for attentiveness to the arguments of all parties during oral argument, while her lowest rating was 4.35 for the tone and substance of separate opinions.
Since the adoption of the Missouri Plan, only four circuit judges have failed to be retained, according to the Missouri Bar. Those judges are Judge Marion Waltner of Jackson County in 1942, Judge John Hutcherson of Clay County in 1992, Judge Dale Hood of St. Louis County in 2016 and Judge Judy Draper of St. Louis County in 2018.
For more information about the judges and to read their reviews, visit the profiles of Wilson and Hardwick at YourMissouriJudges.org.
-----------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY
Amendment 7 would create 'Show-Me Prosperity Fund'
By Hudson Kuechler, Missouri News Network
Missourians can vote on a state constitutional amendment on Nov. 3 that would completely reshape how the government is funded — in time.
If passed, Amendment 7 would create a permanent public endowment fund to eliminate all state-imposed taxes.
Revenue generated by the fund would be used solely to eliminate, as outlined in the bill that placed the question on the ballot, the individual income tax, state sales and use tax, state corporate income tax and all other state-imposed taxes.
“I'm tired of taxing ourselves over and over again. I wanted to think outside the box and think of future generations. How can we reimagine how to fund government operations?” said bill sponsor Sen. Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles.
While other states have similar endowment funds to help support some aspects of government spending, the Show-Me Prosperity Fund would be the first to cover the cost of all government services.
If passed, the fund would consist of money appropriated by the legislature, coming from existing revenue or donations from sources outside government revenue. Ultimately, the Senate and House Budget Committees would determine the size of the initial investment and its source and that amount would be approved by legislators.
The bill envisions the following approach.
The state treasurer would invest those dollars into exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track the S&P 500.
No money would be taken out of the fund until the state treasurer notifies state officials that earnings are sufficient to eliminate all state-imposed taxes.
Government growth, inflation and continued market returns make an exact timeline impossible, but Sen. Schnelting says that if the state invested a one-time investment of $250 million, "by the 125-year mark, with inflation-adjusted dollars, the fund would be more than enough to fully cover the state budget."
The bill's House handler Rep. Colin Wellenkamp, R-St. Charles, added that the projections were modeled using "the worst performance of the S&P in its history as the benchmark... We wanted to assume only as conservatively as possible."
Once the legislature is notified, it would have 60 days to approve or reject the Treasurer's decision. If approved, the legislature would begin pulling revenue from the fund under the following provisions.
If the fund can’t generate enough revenue to run the government, the legislature retains full authority to reestablish taxes to keep government programs running.
Earnings used for appropriations cannot exceed 3% of the fund's average market value over the preceding five years. Also, the principal cannot be spent or used as collateral for a loan, protecting it from investors attempting to stake a claim.
Once state taxes are eliminated, the legislature can either pay dividends to Missourians or replace federal money with leftover revenue, supporters said.
The state auditor may conduct an audit whenever he or she deems necessary to ensure the legislature is complying with the provisions. Audits are required at least once every three fiscal years.
Critics note that if obligations anticipated to be fulfilled by the fund are not met, provisions left to future legislatures lack guardrails dictating what taxes would be established, how much those increases would be, and clarity on whether enacting taxes would replace the fund entirely, or simply cover the shortfall.
“Well, the goal is only to cover the shortfall,” said Schnelting, “That's essentially a safeguard.”
He added that any reinstatement of taxes would have to be approved by voters via the Hancock Amendment, which is a 1980 constitutional amendment that limits the state's ability to increase taxes by requiring voter approval for certain tax increases.
Schnelting stressed that fund failure is unlikely because the fund cannot be opened until it is large enough to pay for state government.
“The fund will be massive at that point,” he said.
Reporting from the Missouri Budget Project shows the minimum investment fund principal to eliminate state taxes in the fiscal year 2025 would be roughly $609.1 billion.
“When a fund is that massive, within three to five years it doubles. Which means when the fund gets large enough, it almost gets to a point where failure is not really possible,” said Schnelting.
While other states have specific structured funding for their endowment funds, typically revenue generated from natural resources, Amendment 7 does not.
"As it stands right now, we don't know where the money is going to come from and we're already broke," said Sen. Barbara Washington, D-Kansas City, who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
According to a June report from State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri's current budget would result in a $1.7 billion deficit against projected revenue by the end of the fiscal year.
Due to a lack of clear funding streams and Missouri's projected budget shortfall, critics don't believe it is worth appropriating more money from already underfunded government services.
"On the K.C. side, we're getting ready to shut down I-70; something that probably could have been done in a different manner if we had the proper funding," said Washington. "I think our resources could be better used."
"I'm consistently thinking of future generations," said Schnelting, explaining how his inspiration for drafting this bill came from his personal investment funds for generations of his family beyond his own children and grandchildren.
Schnelting asks voters to "consider the power of compound interest and think outside the box as far as how we're going to fund government going forward."
If the amendment does not pass, Schnelting says he will return to the drawing board.
-----------------------------------------------------
Missouri's budget shapes priorities in state auditor race
By Anika Austvold, Missouri News Network
As Missouri faces projected budget shortfalls, both major-party candidates for state auditor are looking to statewide programs for opportunities to improve government efficiency and identify potential savings.
Despite an earlier warning from Republican incumbent Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri lawmakers authorized an increase in General Revenue Fund spending for fiscal year 2027.
A June report from Fitzpatrick’s office projected the state would spend more than $1.7 billion above general revenue collections this fiscal year, which began July 1.
The report also projected the general fund’s balance would drop from a $5.8 billion surplus in fiscal year 2023 to just a $600 million surplus by the end of fiscal year 2027, with the remaining funds exhausted early in fiscal year 2028 if projections hold.
Against that financial backdrop, Fitzpatrick and Democratic challenger Quentin Wilson have emphasized examining state government operations, including healthcare programs, to identify potential savings.
The state auditor reviews government finances, identifies waste and fraud and evaluates how state and local agencies use taxpayer dollars. Although the office can recommend changes, it cannot directly cut government spending.
Fitzpatrick, who is seeking a second term, said he wants to shift more attention toward statewide programs after spending much of his first term auditing local governments and school districts.
"I'd like to see, in a second term, an opportunity to focus more on statewide programs," Fitzpatrick said.
He said his office has worked to catch up on overdue county audits and improve its internal operations, allowing auditors to devote more attention to state government programs.
"We're gonna need to basically find savings anywhere we can get them," Fitzpatrick said.
He also wants to examine whether existing state programs are operating efficiently and identify programs that could potentially be eliminated if they are no longer serving a useful purpose.
Wilson, who previously served as Missouri's director of revenue and commissioner of higher education, has proposed restructuring the auditor's office to place greater emphasis on evaluating government performance.
His proposal would model the office more closely after the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which evaluates federal programs and recommends improvements to government operations.
Wilson said the changes could be made without increasing the auditor's office budget.
"I have said in my campaign I can save a billion dollars a year on average over my four years as auditor," Wilson said.
He also identified healthcare programs, particularly Medicaid, as a priority for improving government efficiency.
"Health has got to be a major focus of that," Wilson said.
The candidates appear to be competing in a close race. An August Saint Louis University/YouGov Poll of 900 Missourians found 45% of likely voters supported Fitzpatrick, compared with 43% for Wilson. The margin of error was 4.09%.
Libertarian Dustin Coffell is also in the Nov. 3 general election.
Coffell said he also wants to involve businesses, labor organizations and community groups in identifying ways to improve government operations.
-----------------------------------------------------
MONDAY
Amendment 6 underscores disconnect between legislators, voters
By Emily Skidmore, Missouri News Network
Missouri’s ballot this November includes multiple ballot measures and state offices open for voting.
One proposed amendment could impact how many measures make it on future ballots as it seeks to make it harder for citizen-led initiatives to be overturned by legislators.
The proposal, Amendment 6, has brought to light a series of questions that expose the difference between what legislators think voters want in the government and what voters appear to actually want.
How exactly did Missouri get to the point of needing Amendment 6? And why do Missourians seek to assert power through citizen-led initiatives rather than their legislative representatives?
A growing disconnect
The disconnect between legislators and voters has been an ongoing issue in Missouri. Voters have become increasingly frustrated in recent years as legislatures have repealed a number citizen-enacted laws.
“Almost every single issue that we have done an initiative petition on has been fought by the Missouri General Assembly particularly in the last 10 years,” said Kay Park, board president of the League of Women Voters of Missouri.
Amendment 6 seeks to place higher restrictions on repeals of citizen-proposed initiatives and limit what voters have seen as power moves by legislators.
“The things that people tend to care the most about (the legislators) do try to overturn,” Park said. “That’s why I think there’s a disconnect. They’re obviously not listening to what the people want.”
This amendment seeks to uphold the ability for voters to have a say in the government through citizen-led initiatives and petitions. It will continue a constitutional right that spans 118 years in the Missouri Constitution.
The change? Amendment 6 will establish a higher threshold for legislatures to repeal voter-approved laws.
This will be done in three main ways:
Respect MO Voters, a political action committee, is leading the statewide “Yes on 6” campaign.
“(Amendment 6) guarantees and protects the right for citizens to have a say in their government,” said Jack Cardetti, spokesperson for “Yes on 6.”
In August, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins attempted to prevent the proposed amendment from going on the ballot despite the petition receiving more than 367,000 signatures. Hoskins claimed the proposed amendment consisted of more than one subject, which is prohibited under the Missouri Constitution.
Respect MO Voters sued Hoskins for the decision. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the proposed Amendment 6 would be on the November ballot and rejected Hoskin’s claims that the measure violated the constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision came after the August primary in which legislators proposed Amendment 4. This amendment sought to make it more difficult for citizens to amend the Missouri Constitution.
Amendment 4 reflected a loss for legislators and exemplified the disconnect between what legislators think voters in Missouri want, as 80.3%, or more than 1.1 million Missourians rejected the amendment.
“It would have made it virtually impossible for citizens to put stuff on the ballot and pass it,” Cardetti said.
There have been concerns about the impact Amendment 6 will have on lawmaking duties from legislators stating that the amendment will prevent them from doing their job properly.
“I think it is going to circumvent our legislature and undermine our constitution,” Lt. Gov. David Wasinger said in an interview.
Despite legislators’ concerns, there has been wide support for the amendment from statewide advocacy groups, coalitions and leaders.
Missouri leaders like Jack Danforth, former Republican U.S. senator, and Jason Kander, a Democrat and former Missouri Secretary of State, stated their support in a joint press release.
“Preserving the initiative petition process and respecting the will of the people are essential checks and balances when elected officials become too invested in maintaining the status quo,” Kander said in the release.
Additionally, more than $5.5 million has been raised so far on the “Yes on 6” campaign. The campaign has spent $3.2 million on broadcast ads that began Sept. 22, with its first ad featuring former Republican State Sen. Bob Johnson.
“This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats, it’s about honoring the will of the people,” Johnson said in the ad.
MO Protect PAC, a coalition working against Amendment 6, has reported raising $40,000 during their fall campaign.
“There’s a ton of excitement about the campaign,” Cardetti said. “We’re seeing Republicans and Democrats get behind this idea … this isn’t a partisan issue at all.”
An August poll from St. Louis University and the YouGov Program surveyed 900 Missouri voters to assess opinions surrounding Amendment 6 and if they would support an amendment to the state constitution addressing the initiative process. The poll showed 48% support, 21% oppose, and 32% not sure with a 4% margin of error.
Democratic voters’ responses in this poll showed 60% support for an amendment, and Republican voters’ responses showed 37% support.
“I think the general consensus that we’ve heard in every corner of the state is that ultimately Missouri voters should have the final say, not politicians,” Cardetti said.
What drove Amendment 6
The foundation for Amendment 6 spans from a need for accountability within the Missouri legislature. Recent issues of paid sick leave and reproductive rights have reaffirmed the idea of accountability for many Missouri voters.
In 2024, Proposition A made the November ballot and sought to increase the minimum wage in Missouri to $15 in addition to requiring employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The initiative passed with 57.6% of the vote.
A month later, legislators introduced HB 567, a bill that would repeal the paid sick leave provision that was passed in November 2024.
HB 567 passed successfully through the Missouri House and Senate in Spring 2025, and Gov. Mike Kehoe signed the bill into law on July 10, 2025, revoking the paid sick leave provision that voters accepted a couple of months earlier.
In a press release, after repealing paid sick leave, Kehoe stated “We are protecting the people who make Missouri work by cutting taxes, rolling back overreach and rolling back costly mandates.”
Currently, Missouri businesses do not have an earned paid sick leave statute. Missouri Jobs with Justice, a coalition that was a lead campaigner for Proposition A in 2024, is continuing to help Missouri workers affected by HB 567.
“Missourians expect elected leaders to fight for affordable healthcare … politicians who ignore that message should expect voters to hold them accountable,” said Caitlyn Adams, director of Missouri Jobs with Justice.
The right of abortion was made legal in Missouri in November 2024 after 51.6% of voters said yes on the proposed Amendment 3.
Since its passage, legislators in the Missouri Statehouse have made multiple attempts to repeal abortion, culminating with passage of a new Amendment 3 for this November ballot, which would prohibit abortion in most cases.
“Voters made it clear that we want Missourians and their families in charge of personal medical decisions, not politicians and lawyers,” said a press release from “No on 3,” Stop the Abortion Ban coalition.
Both of these issues have laid bare the increased gap between legislators and voters with observers saying a solution in fixing this disconnect comes from a need for common ground.
Impact of Amendment 6
Twenty six states have an initiative process, referendum process, or both at the state level. Missouri is one of the few states that have both an initiative and referendum process.
With the adoption of Amendment 6, Missouri can become one of the states with the greatest protections against elected lawmakers changing or repealing laws enacted by voters because of the requirements it will place on legislators to amend initiatives.
“We fit in with a long tradition that’s going back decades of adding protections, but we’re going to have probably the strongest protections of any state,” said Scott LaCombe, a professor at University of Missouri specializing in state-level institutions and political responsiveness.
The question of how this amendment will affect the disconnect between legislators and voters remains unclear.
Supporters of Amendment 6 believe that this will be a learning lesson for legislators in understanding what voters truly want.
Because of the 80% required vote from both chambers to change a voter-enacted law, legislators will be forced to help enforce voter-based initiatives.
“Every legislator in an initiative state knows on any given issue, if (they) push too far, too fast or too far in one direction then the voters can overturn it,” LaCombe said. “It’s almost like having this voice behind your head.”
Opponents of the amendment warn that lawmakers will have the inability to address problems within voter-based initiatives even if a policy proves unworkable.
It remains a mystery whether Amendment 6 will change the perspectives of lawmakers regarding voter needs. But, it is determined that Amendment 6 will have a significant impact on future Missouri lawmaking if passed.
“If Amendment 6 passes, that is not going to just affect how legislators feel about the initiative process, but it is going to change the rules of the game,” LaCombe said. “If you change incentive, you change behavior.”
Early voting in Missouri began last week on Oct. 20 with polling places around the state receiving votes in person and via mail-in absentee ballots.
“I think folks are going to go into November when they think about the issues and the candidates and ask a simple question: Are these (legislators) going to stand with us or sell us out?” Adams said.
-----------------------------------------------------
Prop A: Out with the old, in with the new?
By Jordan Davis, Missouri News Network
With early voting in swing and just a week until the general election, the congressional redistricting ballot initiative, Proposition A, is now finally in the hands of the voters.
If the majority of voters select “yes” on the ballot, this will instate the 2025 HB 1 map to be used in the 2028 presidential election and beyond. If the majority of voters select “no” on the ballot, the 2022 map will remain until after the next census or until the legislature decides to bring up the subject again.
The HB 1 map would split up the Kansas City Democratic-leaning congressional district in its primarily urban area to include more rural, Republican populations.
This question is on the forefront of voters’ minds as they, at the same time, use the 2022 map to select members of Congress after a whirlwind of political discourse.
The decision will have an impact on Boone County districts. If the new map is approved, the current 4th Congressional District will be replaced by a new 5th Congressional District in the next election. The 3rd Congressional District will expand to most of Columbia rather than encapsulating only areas south of Broadway.
Gov. Mike Kehoe called a special session in September 2025 with the General Assembly to discuss new congressional redistricting created by the Kehoe administration. The HB 1 map was passed quickly by the Republican-dominated General Assembly and was signed by Kehoe.
The bill sparked controversy, especially among people who believed that citizens of Missouri should have a say in redistricting during mid-census years. Legislators argued both during the session and in court that it was their own responsibility to make those decisions on behalf of the voters instead.
Similar redistricting bill trends have been seen across the country in various states. The action was prompted by President Donald Trump’s nudge for more seats to be available to Republicans in Congress facing midterms. Traditionally, the party in power loses seats in the off-year election, and the Trump administration seized on redistricting as a way to offset or soften the loss of congressional seats.
This brought political advocates like the group People Not Politicians to action. They gathered over 300,000 signatures to get Prop A on the ballot to allow citizens the opportunity to vote on the new map rather than have it automatically be law.
The group faced opposition from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who is a supporter of the new map. Hoskins delayed verifying the petition signatures for months until the last day possible, Aug. 4, when he declared the petition unconstitutional.
The delays meant the 2025 HB 1 map was used in the Aug. 4 primary election.
A legal battle ensued between Hoskins and People Not Politicians that centered around constitutionality and citizens’ rights to petition initiatives.
Heard in state courts first, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in early September that the new 2025 map cannot be used in the general election. They sided with the public’s idea that this map should be approved by the people rather than by legislators.
This decision was appealed to federal court by Hoskins and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway.
In a back-and-forth court dispute over the course of a month between both the state and federal courts, the main question was: Can a different map from the primary be used in the general election and still be constitutional?
On three separate occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court backed the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court: The ballot initiative is constitutional, and a different map, the 2022 map, will be used for the Nov. 3 general election.
People Not Politicians has been pushing ads on various broadcast and streaming platforms after the court ruling, encouraging voters to select “no” on their ballot next Tuesday. Striving to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, the group has directed their ads to the idea of constitutional freedom and having a say in government actions on both the state and federal level rather than choosing a political party.
Despite the court battles seeking to protect the new map, the topic seems to have fallen on the back burner for Republicans nearing the election. There have not been as many promotional ads or public outreach. The topic has mainly only been broached during campaign events.
Social media appears to be the biggest area for Prop A promotion. Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Onder in the 3rd Congressional District posted a digital flyer on X that stated which amendments he wanted voters to vote “yes” or “no” on. He wrote “yes” on Prop A.
While Republicans and legislators support the new map, there has been little activity of their support publicly.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hoskins denies whistleblower lawsuit allegations from former director of election integrity
By Max Quinn, Missouri News Network
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins responded on Thursday to a lawsuit filed by his former director of election integrity, who said he was fired after reporting allegedly illegal and unethical conduct.
The secretary denied many of the accusations from former director Nicholas La Strada, a Republican who was hired by Hoskins, according to court documents.
In his lawsuit, La Strada claims Hoskins’ staff conspired to create a false whistleblower submission to use as evidence in a federal trial.
He also alleged Hoskins ordered a retabulation of write-in votes in Marshall after a complaint about this year’s April election.
Hoskins’ response states that La Strada’s disclosures are “materially false and a reasonable person would know they are false.”
He said La Strada had his administrative rights revoked to the Missouri Centralized Voter Registration system because he was allegedly making changes to voter audit logs.
Further, he said La Strada’s concerns about an affidavit in a federal trial were unprompted, as it was materially accurate and the plaintiff had no way of knowing what was inside it before he was terminated.
Hoskins said La Strada was terminated after he was told to meet with the deputy general counsel to prepare for the hearing and allegedly refused, among other reasons.
“Plaintiff by then had a history of not showing up to work, poor communication, unprofessional conduct, insubordination, and other misconduct to include refusing to go to meetings when he had disagreements with senior staff and Secretary Hoskins,” lawyers for Hoskins said in their response to the lawsuit.
The Secretary of State also disagreed with La Strada’s naming of him and the state of Missouri as defendants. Hoskins’ lawsuit claims only the Office of the Secretary of State is the correct party to sue.
His lawyers moved to strike his name from the litigation, according to court documents.
In September, the communications director for the Secretary of State’s Office, Anne Marie Moy, told KOMU 8 News that Hoskins would not comment on pending litigation involving a personnel matter.
