Missouri lawmakers have pre-filed thousands of bills ahead of the start of the 2026 legislative session Jan. 7. More than 80 of them are proposed constitutional amendments, changes that lawmakers want voters to approve and enshrine in the supreme law of the state.

Lawmakers’ proposed constitutional changes span topics from separating Kansas City from Jackson County to raising school districts’ debt limits and repealing abortion rights. 

But the most popular topics were property and other taxes, initiative petitions and changes to the legislature itself, including reducing the size of the House of Representatives. 

Property taxes

Property taxes have been a hot-button issue in Missouri, with property owners in Jackson County and across the state seeing significant increases in their property tax bills. 

Several lawmakers told The Beacon that changes to the property tax system are likely. That interest was reflected in legislators’ proposed constitutional amendments, with about one-quarter of all amendments pertaining to property taxes.

Five of those amendments would give property tax exemptions for certain disabled veterans. One of those bills, HJR 115, was proposed by Jefferson City Republican Rep. Dave Griffith. It would grant homestead property tax and personal property tax exemptions for Missouri veterans with 100% service-connected disability or who were prisoners of war.

Griffith told The Beacon he’s filed this bill every year since he joined the House of Representatives in 2019 because the current language — which requires recipients to have a 100% service-connected disability and have been a prisoner of war — only applies to a small number of Missouri veterans.

In 2019, “the only ones that would qualify were World War II veterans and maybe a few Korean War veterans. Very few Vietnam veterans. I think the total at that time was about 27 veterans qualified,” Griffith said. “Because of us losing our World War II veterans over the years, that number has now gone down to about 16. It could be even lower than that.”

He said that with his proposed changes, more than 21,000 veterans would qualify for the tax exemptions.

Sen. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican and former chair of the conservative Senate Freedom Caucus, also proposed several constitutional amendments on property taxes. One, SJR 70, would freeze property assessments until a property changes ownership.

“That way, they can tax you for whatever your purchase price is (and) it will remain that in perpetuity until you sell your property,” Brattin said. “It basically eliminates the unrealized gains taxation that we have currently in our system.”

“Let’s be real — when you buy your property for, say, $300,000, you’re not seeing any net gain on anything until you’re selling that property,” he added. “So why should your values go up, your taxes go up, when you paid a set price for that property?”

Another of Brattin’s proposals would prohibit political subdivisions — including school and library districts — from collecting real property taxes and replace that tax with a sales tax on property sales.

Brattin called that proposal “a total redoing of the system.” Asked what the fiscal impact might look like for school districts, he replied: “They’re not losing anything.”

“They’ve got more money than they ever have. Just in the past couple years, they’ve had their budgets double,” he said.

Brattin said another bill of his would require greater transparency into school districts’ budgets.

“Let’s start seeing where you’re actually spending the money,” he said. “Let’s look at that first before we start crying wolf that the sky is going to fall.”

SJR 66, proposed by Lee’s Summit Republican Sen. Mike Cierpiot, would give the state legislature the power to limit increases to real property tax liability.

“That’s one of those tough ones, because these taxes are always voted on locally, so I do have a hard time telling people they can’t do that if that’s what they want,” Cierpiot told The Beacon.

While he has concerns about the state overruling local voters, Cierpiot said he wanted to file the amendment so that, if passed, “that option is there.”

“Because right now, we just can’t do anything about it. I’m from Jackson County, and I’ve heard from a lot of people that are really upset about their property taxes going up so much because of the assessment,” Cierpiot said. 

This amendment “would give us a way that, if it stays out of control, we could do something about it,” he added. “But I think some of these other fixes would be a much better way to do it.”

Other property tax-related amendments would:

• Make Kansas City Public Schools’ property taxes subject to rollbacks (HJR 111).
• Limit the powers of the State Tax Commission to raise certain assessed property values (HJR 141).
• Prohibit state agencies from punishing counties for property tax assessments that fall below the upper range of acceptable assessment levels (SJR 102).
• Take away the State Tax Commission’s power to enter into agreements with counties for the purpose of changing assessed property values within the county (SJR 90).
• Create a property tax exemption for certain senior citizens (HJR 139).
• Halve the property tax assessments of senior citizens and people with disabilities (HJR 126).
• Allow counties to exempt eligible motor vehicles from personal property taxes (HJR 143).
• Exempt buildings under construction from property taxes (HJR 132).
• Limit property value assessment increases to the rate of inflation or 2%, whichever is less (HJR 112).
• Eliminate property taxes on personal property (SJR 84).
• Freeze property assessments for homes in a subdivision next to a subdivision receiving a tax break (SJR 75).
• Authorize a property tax exemption for some homestead owners and create a sales tax-based fund to reimburse political subdivisions for the lost revenue (SJR 73).

Other taxes

Many legislators also proposed constitutional amendments relating to non-property taxes, which have been a major focus of previous sessions. 

Last year, Missouri became the first state in the nation to eliminate the capital gains tax while continuing to tax other kinds of income. And Gov. Mike Kehoe and his allies in the legislature have pushed to reduce — with the goal of eventually eliminating — the state income tax. 

HJR 108, proposed by Branson Republican Rep. Brian Seitz, would prohibit statewide taxes from being increased or created unless approved by voters during a general election. 

Seitz said that after voters shot down a legislatively approved gas tax twice in a row, “I became concerned that any statewide tax should go before the vote of the people.”

“If it’s going to be affecting the people on a statewide basis, then they should be allowed to have input on it,” he said. 

If approved by voters, the amendment would “most definitely” have an impact on future taxes, particularly as the state explores reducing or eliminating some taxes and may look to make up revenue elsewhere, Seitz said. 

“I just want greater representation. I’d like people to weigh in with their votes,” he said. “If it’s going to be a statewide tax, everyone has to participate.”

Another constitutional amendment, proposed by Republican Rep. Bill Irwin of Lee’s Summit, would allow local taxing entities to raise their sales tax or change its purpose without the General Assembly’s approval, if it’s been approved by voters.

Other tax-related amendments would:

• Make several changes to different parts of the tax system, including requiring voter approval for any new state tax increase or for an existing tax to continue (HJR 131).
• Require voter approval to continue existing taxes 25 years after they were first enacted (HJR 128).
• Eliminate the state income tax and cap state sales taxes (SJR 101).
• Prohibit taxation of the increased value of assets prior to sale (SJR 96 and SJR 68).
• Create a state-run investment fund with the goal of ultimately eliminating all state taxes (SJR 95).
• Cap the state income tax at 4.7% (SJR 91).
• Create an income tax credit for contributions to pregnancy resource centers (SJR 80).
• Allow counties to create their own income tax if the state income tax drops below 4.5%, but only if total income tax doesn’t exceed 4.5% (SJR 74).

Initiative petitions

Initiative petitions, or citizen-led movements to gather enough signatures to put a question on the ballot to change state law or the state constitution, were another major topic in 2025. 

Initiative petition-based ballot questions have brought major changes to the state constitution, including the legalization of abortion and marijuana. And last year, state lawmakers voted to repeal part of Proposition A — which raised the state’s minimum wage and expanded access to paid sick leave — after an initiative petition put the proposition on the ballot and voters approved it.

Since then, lawmakers and citizens alike have looked to limit the other’s power when it comes to initiative petitions. 

But some lawmakers, such as Arnold Republican Rep. Phil Amato, have also sought to limit the legislature’s ability to amend or repeal statutory initiatives passed by voters. Amato’s HJR 118 would prohibit the legislature from doing so except under certain circumstances.

Rep. Marty Joe Murray, a St. Louis Democrat, proposed a similar amendment. His proposal would prohibit the legislature from “weakening citizens’ initiative or referendum powers” or “changing any citizen-initiative law (or) changing any citizen-initiated amendment.”

Another constitutional amendment, proposed by St. Charles Republican Rep. Scott Miller, would require the full text of an initiative petition to appear on the ballot and limit petitions to 75 words total.

Legislative changes

Since voters approved the change in 1992, state lawmakers have been limited to serving a maximum of eight years in the House of Representatives and eight years in the Senate. 

Seven lawmakers have proposed constitutional amendments to change that. Their proposals would:

• Raise the limit to 12 years in each chamber, with a cap of 20 years of service in both chambers (HJR 140).
• Remove the eight-year limit on a member serving in any one chamber (HJR 122 and HJR 104).
• Remove the eight-year limit on a member serving in any one chamber, and reduce the number of members in the House of Representatives from 163 to 104 (HJR 121).
• Limit lawmakers to 16 years total in both chambers (SJR 97).
• Allow lawmakers to serve up to 16 years, regardless of chamber, and reduce the number of members in the House of Representatives from 163 to 102 (SJR 82).
• Raise the limit to 12 years in each chamber (SJR 79).

Several other proposed amendments would not change term limits but would impact the legislature. Those constitutional amendments would:

• Make employment by a school district a permitted job for state lawmakers (HJR 137).
• Make several changes to legislative powers, including requiring all bills to be referred to a committee within two weeks of introduction (SJR 99).
• Make several changes to the legislature, including expanding the size of the House of Representatives, extending the legislative session to the full calendar year and tripling legislators’ pay (SJR 78).