October 2026 Policy Newsletter
THERE ARE 27 DAYS UNTIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 - ELECTION DAY!
EARLY VOTING STARTS OCTOBER 20
The general election ballot for November 3, 2026 is packed. There are the usual candidates for offices like Congress, State Auditor, State Senate, State Representative, Recorder of Deeds, the Board of Education and judges. But then there are also the seven constitutional amendments and propositions, labeled by both numbers and letters. It can be confusing, so this month’s policy newsletter is going to focus on the issues that are going to be on your ballot. I’ll try to explain each amendment and proposition, tell you which way I will be voting, and why.
Constitutional Amendment No. 3
MB Recommends: NO
This is probably an amendment you’ve already heard a lot about. It would repeal the right to abortion that Missouri voters passed in 2024. As if it wasn’t insulting in and of itself to tell people that they didn’t know what they were voting for two years ago, there is additional wording on this amendment that is intended to confuse people (we call this ballot candy). The wording on the amendment includes a cynical and disgusting attempt to focus voters on the issue of gender transition surgery for minors, something that is already illegal.
Amendment 3 is just another example of the long-running tradition of the Missouri General Assembly seeking to undo the will of the people, and it’s taking a swipe at an easy target, a population that is small in number and young in age. Don’t be distracted, this amendment is about banning abortion, inserting hospital administrators and lawyers into a decision that should be between a person and their doctors. We already know from looking at Texas what the results will be: a horrifying increase in maternal mortality. Tell the General Assembly to stop messing with what we’ve already voted for. Vote NO.
Constitutional Amendment No. 6
MB Recommends: YES
This is the only constitutional amendment I will be voting yes on, because it is addressing the problem in Jefferson City. Just as I discussed with Amendment 3, Jefferson City loves to overturn the will of the voters. They did it with Right to Work, they did it with the minimum wage and sick leave, and now they’re trying to do it again with abortion. Amendment 6 puts the initiative petition process into the constitution, protects against misleading ballot summaries (like Amendment 3), and requires the state legislature to have an 80% majority in both chambers if it is going to overturn the will of the voters. Power to the people. Vote YES.
Constitutional Amendment No. 7
MB Recommends: NO
Amendment 7 is another scheme by Governor Kehoe and Republicans in Jefferson City. Just as voters overwhelmingly rejected their attempt to eliminate the income tax in the August election, we should similarly reject Amendment 7. It would create a public endowment fund and seek to eliminate state-imposed taxes once the revenue from the endowment fund is sufficient to cover state services. There are several problems, but the biggest one in my mind is that the ballot text of the amendment leaves a key part of the measure unmentioned: the power for the state legislature to increase taxes if the new fund isn’t able to adequately cover the state’s budget. Missouri is a state without a large revenue generator like oil, gambling, or tourism, so it isn’t clear where the money would come from to create the endowment fund that would allow us to do away with all other state taxes. To get the revenue to create such a fund, there will have to be either new sources of revenue (taxes) or cuts to services. The proposed endowment fund currently has no dedicated funding source, but proponents of Amendment 7 (Missouri Republicans) want you to believe that they’ve got a plan. We should be wary. Public education, healthcare, and other public services will be at risk. Instead of swinging for the fences, our state legislature should play small ball and figure out how to reliably fund quality services. Vote NO.
Constitutional Amendment No. 8
MB Recommends: NO
This amendment will feel very close to home in St. Louis, but it won’t affect St. Louis City. It has to do with whether sheriffs are elected or appointed, but instead of leaving it up to each county to decide, Amendment 8 will put it in the Missouri Constitution that sheriffs must be elected, taking away local control over the issue. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The amendment would also change who can remove a Sheriff from office. Currently, our local Circuit Attorney can pursue the removal of the Sheriff, but this amendment would change it so that only the Missouri Attorney General would have that power. St. Louis City recently went through this when Alfred Montgomery was removed from office by a quo warranto case brought by the Missouri Attorney General. Whether you agree with that removal or not, this amendment would make it so that only the AG could remove our locally elected Sheriff.
Our Sheriff is currently elected, but there is a reasonable debate to be had over whether our Sheriff should be elected or appointed. That debate belongs to each county, and not in the Missouri Constitution. Even though this won’t apply to St. Louis City, it’s another example of state overreach and should be rejected. Vote NO.
Proposition A
MB Recommends: NO
Missouri Republicans are pushing to enact this map, gerrymandered to split Kansas City’s Democratic seat into thirds. On the ballot as Proposition A, a “no” vote on the referendum keeps our current 6-2 map intact. (Screenshot from Missouri House website).
Also known as “The Referendum,” headlines about which congressional map Missouri would use for the 2026 Midterms dominated the news for the past couple of months, thanks to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway. They bowed to party pressure instead of following Missouri law as they fought for a gerrymandered map that would see Kansas City lose their congressional seat and whittle down Democratic representation in Missouri from two seats down to just one. A group named People Not Politicians fought back, collecting enough signatures to force a referendum vote, putting the 7-1 gerrymandered map on the ballot for voters to decide. Proposition A is that chance. It is asking voters: Do you want to keep the Congressional district map drawn at the behest of Donald Trump (a 7R-1D map)? Vote NO on Proposition A.
City Proposition No. 1
MB Recommends: YES
This proposition fixes a quirk in our local elections. You may remember that last session I worked with the Board of Election Commissioners to update the election code in the city, revising it to match current state law and lowering filing fees among other tweaks to help our elections run better and give voters more choices in our elections. But there was one thing that needed fixing that wasn’t in the code. It’s how the City handles special elections, and that is controlled by the City's charter. Proposition 1 would make it so that special elections run under the same rules as regular elections in the City of St. Louis. When we moved to non-partisan approval voting, special elections were inadvertently left out of the change, and that has resulted in two different sets of rules for elections that determine the same elected offices. Voting yes on Proposition 1 would bring all municipal elections under non-partisan approval voting. Vote YES.
City Proposition B
MB Recommends: NO
The cost of childcare is very high and it is something that needs to be addressed if we want people to be able to raise families in our city. I think the people behind Prop B are coming from a good place. However, when I started reading through the proposal, I ended up with significant concerns with how this is being done.
First, this would be a sales tax. People’s lives have already become unaffordable in many aspects, and many are cutting back on their spending. As a result, many businesses are struggling too. People are seeing an increase in their water bills, electric bills, property taxes, groceries, gas, and more. If this sales tax is approved, it will result in St. Louis City having one of the highest sales tax rates in the state before even considering the layering of additional taxes from special taxing districts. This is a bad time to be supporting a regressive sales tax.
Even if there was an appetite to increase the sales tax rate, I am very reluctant to support something that doesn’t go to the City. It is not being communicated to the public that this is the last amount of sales tax that the City can impose. There are dozens of needs in the city that require funding, from city employee salaries to rebuilding after a devastating tornado. Childcare is undoubtedly a need for many families, but the cost shouldn’t be carried by St. Louis City alone.
The highly fragmented nature of our region often leaves the city shouldering outsized responsibility for regional issues. The high cost of childcare is not something isolated to just the city, but because we have 88 municipalities next door, and more across state lines, a sales tax only in the City of St. Louis would put us in a place where we subsidize childcare for residents only to see them move when their kids grow to school age. St. Louis doesn’t have a problem with retaining families with newborns, it has a problem retaining families with kids over the age of 5, as census data regularly tells us.
It would be different if the state was leading this effort, as is the case in other cities that offer subsidized childcare. Issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries should be something that the state takes the lead on. That’s how NYC is doing it; a city with a $125.8 Billion budget is putting in $5.2 Million while New York state is shouldering the remaining $1.2 Billion to offer free childcare to its residents. St. Louis City, with a much smaller budget of $1.4 Billion, has nothing coming from the state, and simply does not compare.
There is also a concern about how Prop B would affect public schools. The funds raised from Prop B would go to private daycares. Public schools would be eligible, but they would have to compete for those dollars. SLPS currently offers universal pre-K for ages 3-4. It is one of the only public school districts in the state that offers this program, and it has been a huge success for them and is well regarded. If we are looking to add more funding to support childcare, revenue raised from the public should go to support public programs. Prop B would collect public money via a sales tax and put it in the hands of a yet-to-be-determined board with little oversight.
It is important to scrutinize the details of a proposal that will be going into our Charter. This would be the only sales tax in our Charter. Even if you agree with the goal of Prop B, its implementation leaves much to be desired. Advocates for subsidized childcare and early childhood education should make their case to the state, and seek funding that puts public money towards public systems and programs, and doesn’t do it by creating one of the highest sales tax rates in the state.
Current Sales Tax Rate in City: 9.679%
Current Highest Sales Tax Rate in State: 9.988%* Hazelwood
St. Louis City Sales Tax Rate After 0.5% Increase: 10.179%
*This is the highest sales tax rate for a municipality without including any special taxing districts. Several municipalities have taxing districts that layer the entire jurisdiction (primarily Transit Development Districts, Ambulance Districts, and Fire Districts) and that can muddy the point. Pine Lawn has a citywide taxing district which puts its lowest sales tax rate at 11.488%. They have the highest sales tax rate for an entire municipality in the state. But if Prop B passes, it would put St. Louis City among the highest in the region, which could be detrimental to the city’s ability to attract businesses and customers.
Judges
To hear from the St. Louis judges on the ballot, mark your calendars for October 15th. The League of Women Voters of Metro St. Louis and the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri will be holding an event where you can ask questions and learn more.
School Board Candidates
The 9th Ward Democrats will be hosting their regular meeting on Thursday, October 15th, 2026 at 7:30 pm at Urban Chestnut Grove Brewery, 4465 Manchester Rd. Speakers will include Democratic Central Committee Chairman Sean Fauss and school board candidates Zachary Tyronne Davis Sr, Donna Renee Jones, Aneetra A. Williams, and representatives for Wendy Gross and Emily Hubbard. This will also be an endorsement meeting, so if you have paid your dues ($20) and live in the 9th ward, you will be able to vote at 8:30 pm to decide the clubs endorsement of candidates and ballot issues.
Thanks for taking the time to read this month’s edition of the policy newsletter. As always, you can reach me at BrowningM@StLouis-MO.gov for anything government related, and MBrowningSTL@gmail.com for anything campaign related.
