On November 3rd, Missouri voters will decide five statewide ballot questions: four proposed constitutional amendments and one referendum.
Some of these measures deal with issues that have received a great deal of public attention. Others deal with the structure of state government and probably aren't as familiar.
My goal is simple: explain what each question does, what a "yes" or "no" vote means, and what the practical result would be.
Amendment 3: Abortion & Gender Transition Restrictions
Amendment 3 is a direct response to the reproductive rights amendment passed by voters in 2024.
Amendment 3 would:
- Repeal the 2024 constitutional amendment that provided & protected abortion access through fetal viability.
- Allow abortion in cases of rape or incest (under 12 weeks of pregnancy), medical emergencies and fetal anomalies.
- Allow the legislature to pass laws regulating abortion providers and facilities.
- Require parental consent before a minor can get an abortion.
- Prohibit public funding of abortion except in limited circumstances.
- Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors, including surgery, cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers, with exceptions for certain medical conditions.
A "yes" vote repeals the 2024 amendment and replaces it with these narrower protections.
A "no" vote leaves the 2024 provision in place, preserving abortion access through fetal viability and not addressing any restrictions for gender transitions for minors.
The state estimates no direct fiscal impact, though Greene County projects a possible unspecified increase in tax revenue.
Amendment 6: Initiative Petitions
This is the most important amendment on the ballet. If it passes, it will begin to deconstruct our Constitutional Republic.
Amendment 6 had a bumpy road to the ballot. Secretary of State Denny Hoskins initially found the petition insufficient in August, before the Missouri Supreme Court reversed that decision on September 3rd and ordered it certified for November.
An initiative petition allows out-of-state organizations or citizens to collect enough valid signatures to put a proposed law or constitutional amendment directly before Missouri voters, bypassing the legislature.
The process currently is mostly used by out-of-state organizations that spend millions of dollars paying individuals to collect signatures across the state when they can't get the legislature to pass something they want. It has become the way the largest of special interest groups can achieve their policy agenda even if the elected representatives of the citizenry won't comply.
The signature collection process is usually not done according to statute and voters who sign most often do not fully understand what they are agreeing to. Although the IP process was designed to be used by "regular citizens", the process is extremely expensive, costing millions which prevents citizens from actually using it.
The IP process is complex, but it is not functioning well and needs to be adjusted. However, Amendment 6 is not what we need.
Amendment 6 would change the Missouri Constitution to ALLOW:
- The Initiative Petition process to be considered a fundamental right.
- Allow the courts to rewrite ballot summaries through lawsuits.
If Amendment 6 passes, the Missouri Constitution would PROHIBIT:
- The legislature from EVER changing the IP process or referendum powers.
- The legislature from changing or repealing any statute or constitutional amendment passed by IP, retroactive back to January 1, 2010, UNLESS 80% of both the House & Senate agree to the referendum which would then go back to the voters for ratification.
- The legislature from passing a law "similar in effect" to one voters already rejected via referendum, UNLESS 80% of both the House & Senate agree to the referendum which would then go back to the voters for ratification.
If Amendment 6 passes, the Missouri Constitution would PRESERVE:
- Existing simple majority vote ratification and signature collection requirements for certification.
Amendment 7 The "Show-Me Prosperity Fund"
Amendment 7 would create a permanent public endowment fund intended to eventually replace state-imposed taxes.
Tax elimination would depend on the fund first accumulating enough assets and producing sufficient net investment earnings to support state government under the requirements contained in the amendment. There would be no immediate impact on taxes.
Key provisions:
- Establishes the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, a state investment endowment.
- Prevent the legislature from appropriating or diverting money from the fund until the State Treasurer certifies the fund's investment earnings are sufficient to eliminate state taxes.
- Caps annual withdrawals at 3% of the fund's average market value over the prior five years.
- Prohibits the legislature from reinstating eliminated taxes - except if the fund becomes insolvent or falls short, in which case lawmakers regain full authority to tax and spend as needed.
A "yes" vote sets this fund in motion with the long-term goal of phasing out state taxes.
A "no" vote leaves the Constitution unchanged. The fund would not be created.
The state projects no immediate fiscal impact, since any tax eliminatio would dependon th efund's investment performance over time.
Amendment 8: Constitutional Sheriffs
Missouri law already generally provides for county sheriffs to be elected to four-year terms. Amendment 8 would move several provisions concerning sheriffs from state statute into the Missouri Constitution.
It would:
- Constitutionally guarantee the right of Missourians to elect their county sheriff every four years (currently a statutory requirement).
- Enshrine sheriffs' duties, currently governed by statute, directly in the constitution.
- Specify that an elected sheriff can only be removed through a writ of quo warranto initiated by the Attorney General.
Because four-year elected terms for sheriffs already exist under Missouri law, the practical effect of a "yes" vote is mostly to make removal harder and to insulate the office from future statutory change without another constitutional amendment.
A "no" vote leaves sheriff elections and removal governed by ordinary statute, which the legislature can amend more easily.
Proposition A: Congressional Redistricting Referendum
Unlike the amendments above, Prop A is a referendum - meaning it asks voters to approve or reject a law the legislature already passed, House Bill 1 from the 2025 second extraordinary session. It does not amend the Constitution.
- A "yes" vote approves the new congressional map passed by the General Assembly, which redraws Missouri's congressional district boundaries and keeps more counties intact than the current map.
- A "no" vote rejects the new map and leaves the congressional boundaries drawn in 2022 in place.
This measure exists because opponents of the legislature's new map successfully petitioned to force a public vote on it rather than let it take effect automatically.
The Bottom Line
The five questions on the ballot cover very different issues, but each one could have lasting effects on Missouri law and the Missouri Constitution. Each of these measures will be decided by a statewide simple majority of votes cast on that question.
Before you vote, I encourage you to read the official ballot language and, when possible, the full text of the proposals themselves. These are decisions that belong to the people of Missouri, and informed voters make better decisions.
The People Have Spoken
Last night, the people of Missouri spoke with unmistakable clarity. Amendment 5 was overwhelmingly rejected by Missouri voters:
NO: 1,165,085 votes (83.316%)
YES: 233,309 votes (16.664%)
That isn't just defeat. It is one of the clearest messages voters have sent in recent memory.
I was the only Republican in the Missouri Senate speaking out against Amendment 5.
I welcomed the criticism and the attacks. I was told I was on the wrong side of history and that I was repeating socialist talking points. I was even called a Marxist for refusing to go along.
I never wavered from the moment I stood on the Senate floor in the early morning hours. I voiced my opposition as we were required to take a vote on a final draft I hadn't been given time to fully read and digest.
Why I Took My Stand
I stood because I wasn't elected to protect political agendas. I was elected to protect Missouri taxpayers and defend our Constitution.
Last night, Missouri voters proved that standing on principle is never the wrong decision. I'd rather stand alone with the people than stand with the power and money against them.
Politics Needs to Change
I also hope last night brings an end to a style of campaigning that has no place in Missouri politics.
Too many Missourians who questioned Amendment 5 were mocked, bullied, or told they simply didn't understand the issue. Some campaign messages crossed the line. Voters were bullied by giving them the impression that their individual votes were being tracked. Our elections should be about informing voters - not intimidating them or pressuring them into supporting a particular outcome.
We can disagree on policy without attacking the character or motives of those who disagree. The people deserve honest debate, mutual respect, and campaigns built on facts instead of fear.
Thank You, Missouri
Thank you to every Missourian who took the time to study the issue and make your voice heard. Your vote sent a clear message that government must earn the people's trust - not assume it.
Congratulations
Finally, congratulations to every Senate and House primary winner in yesterday's election.
I will continue fighting for transparency, accountability, lower taxes, and the constitutional protections that keep government in its proper place.
Working for Missouri. Fighting for you.
Let’s face it — Artificial Intelligence is just that: artificial.
Artificial intelligence is already reshaping our lives, and nowhere are the risks more serious than in our elections and in the lives of our children. From AI-generated political messages designed to manipulate voters, to the misuse of children’s images to create exploitative or harmful content, these technologies are being deployed faster than the law can respond.
As your state senator, my first responsibility is to protect Missourians — especially families and the integrity of our democratic process.
I also believe deeply in state sovereignty and local control, which is why I am troubled by recent efforts at the federal level to prevent states from acting where Washington has failed. Missouri should not be left defenseless while powerful technology outpaces accountability.
Here are clear, public examples of the harms unregulated AI has caused — the kind of real-world damage that demands action.
AI & Election Integrity
Artificial intelligence isn’t just a tool for convenience — it’s rapidly becoming a powerful weapon in shaping political opinion and influencing elections, often without voters’ awareness.
AI generated robocalls mimicking public officials' voices have already appeared in the United States. In January 2024, thousands of New Hampshire voters received phone calls using an AI-generated voice resembling President Joe Biden, falsely urging them not to participate in the state’s presidential primary — a tactic widely condemned as voter suppression and election interference. Criminal charges and federal fines have been pursued in connection with these false calls under laws prohibiting impersonation and deceptive practices.
Further research shows that AI chatbots can significantly alter voter opinions with only a short interaction. A 2025 study from Cornell University found that conversational AI can shift voter support in either direction by producing large amounts of persuasive claims, some of which are incomplete, biased, or misleading — meaning generative AI could be harnessed to sway political views on a massive scale.
These incidents underscore how accessible AI tools have become and how easily they can be deployed to circulate misleading political content — potentially suppressing turnout, distorting public perception and affecting outcomes of elections along with horribly damaging the character and reputations of innocent candidates.
The ability to fabricate credible-sounding statements and realistic video at scale poses a growing threat to our elections — and Missouri should not wait for federal action.
Exploitation of Children
One of the most alarming and underreported harms of unregulated AI is the exploitation of children’s images.
AI is trained on enormous datasets scraped from the internet that include identifiable photos of children - often without consent. These datasets empower generative models to create convincing AI-generated images or videos of minors that never existed or depict them in harmful or exploitative scenarios. Researchers warn that even personal photos parents post online can be reused in training sets and later manipulated without permission, creating risks of deepfake abuse and child exploitation
Law enforcement has documented real cases where generative AI tools were used to create child sexual abuse material — in one instance, a medical professional received a decades-long prison sentence for generating and distributing AI-produced sexual images of minors. Moreover, AI is being used by private individuals — including teenagers — to sexualize images of peers, causing profound emotional trauma, reputational damage, and long-lasting harm to young people’s lives.
These are not hypothetical risks; they are occurring today in real communities, and they show that unchecked AI use can put children directly in harm's path.
Other Harms of Unregulated AI
AI doesn’t only threaten political integrity and children’s welfare. It has real life risks that have already caused harm or have great potential to harm if left unchecked:
- Data privacy issues
- Intellectual property infringement
- Job loss
- Lack of transparency
- Unsafe decision-making by law enforcement, doctors, etc.
These are real harms and real people have already experienced many due to the lack of adequate oversight of AI.
My Response: SB 1012
To confront these threats, I am proud to sponsor Senate Bill 1012. SB 1012 creates new state provisions relating to artificially generated content, especially where it intersects with elections and exploitation.
Key components of SB 1012 include:
- Election Transparency. Political ads, communications, and public messaging content created or modified using AI must clearly disclose that they contain AI-generated elements, with violations.
- Criminal Penalties for Harmful Deepfakes: The bill establishes criminal offenses for creating or threatening to publicly disclose deepfakes of individuals under 18 with penalties ranging from class E to class B felonies depending on severity.
SB 1012 is common sense legislation that protects elections and safeguards children while respecting innovation and political expression.
Why a Federal Clampdown on States Is No Solution
On December 11, 2025 the President signed an executive order attempting to centralize AI policy and restrict states from creating regulations of their own. Critics — including many state leaders — argue this overreaches and could prevent states from protecting their residents while Congress fails to act.
Executive orders are not legislation and cannot preempt state law absent specific congressional authorization. States have long exercised authority over consumer protection, child welfare, elections, and safety — areas where AI is already creating novel harms. Preempting state authority at this critical moment risks leaving citizens exposed and communities unprotected.
States must be able to act when technology outpaces federal law. Missouri will not shrug off that responsibility.
Welcome Innovation With Common Sense
We should welcome technology that improves lives. But welcome does not mean blind trust. The stories above are proof that when companies and governments move faster than common-sense protections, ordinary people are the ones who get hurt. I respect the principle of federal leadership, but not when it weakens the ability of states to defend their citizens.
If Washington insists on trying to preempt state action, we should not abandon our duty to protect our communities. I will keep fighting for common-sense rules that keep families safe, preserve our freedoms, and hold those who profit from technology accountable when their systems harm people.
Missouri can - and must - do better.
This week, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins hosted something unprecedented in Missouri: a public demonstration of election equipment. To my knowledge, this level of transparency has never been offered before. Although I would prefer all Missouri elections be conducted without this type of election equipment, I am grateful for the opportunity to attend and learn more about how the technology behind our elections is designed to function.
Events like this matter. At a time when many Missourians have sincere questions about election integrity, offering an open, hands-on look at the machines available to our local election authorities is an important step toward rebuilding trust. I deeply appreciate the Secretary’s willingness to provide that access—not only for legislators, but for the public as well.
The demonstration featured equipment from Hart InterCivic, currently the only election machine company in compliance with the March 25, 2025, executive order requiring 2.0 security standards. Their participation offered valuable insight into what compliant technology looks like and what it means for secure elections going forward.
While inclement weather unfortunately kept some from attending, I am hopeful that this will be the first of many educational opportunities. More transparency, more information, and more public engagement can only help strengthen confidence in Missouri’s election systems.
It is also important to note that the Secretary of State’s office does not have the authority to mandate or prohibit the use of election equipment nor dictate the vendor used. Those decisions rest with local election authorities. Even so, Secretary Hoskins has made a commendable effort to provide clarity and education—especially for those who have genuine concerns or simply want to better understand how these systems work. For that, his efforts are sincerely appreciated.
Missourians deserve confidence in their elections, and transparency is a powerful tool in ensuring it. We look forward to seeing more opportunities like this in the future.
