Missouri Temporary Sales and Use Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 (August 2014)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Amendment 7
Flag of Missouri.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:Constitutional amendment
Constitution:Missouri Constitution
Referred by:Missouri State Legislature
Topic:Taxes
Status:Defeated Defeatedd
2014 measures
Seal of Missouri.svg.png
August 5
Amendment 1 Approveda
Amendment 5 Approveda
Amendment 7 Defeatedd
Amendment 8 Defeatedd
Amendment 9 Approveda
November 4
Amendment 2 Approveda
Amendment 3 Defeatedd
Amendment 6 Defeatedd
Amendment 10 Approveda
EndorsementsFull text
AdvertisementsPolls
Expenditures
Local measures
The Missouri Temporary Sales Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 was on the August 5, 2014, primary election ballot in Missouri as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.

The measure would have imposed a temporary 0.75 percent increase on the state sales and use tax to fund transportation projects. The duration of the tax would have been no more than 10 years. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Dave Hinson (R-119) and Rep. Dave Schatz (R-61) in the Missouri House of Representatives, where it was known as House Joint Resolution 68. It was also supported by Sen. Mike Kehoe (R-6).[1][2][3][4]

In May 2014, Gov. Jay Nixon (D) chose to place this measure, along with four others, on the August 5 primary election ballot, instead of the November 4 general election ballot.[3] If the measure had been approved by voters, it would have marked the first statewide tax increase since 1993 and the first tax increase for roads since 1992.[5]

Aftermath

How Missouri will handle transportation funding in light of voters' rejection of Amendment 7 remains to be seen. One of the projects which would have been funded by Amendment 7 was Missouri's portion of Interstate 49 that is supposed to connect to the Bella Vista Bypass at the border with Arkansas. A five mile stretch that would have been funded by this Amendment is the only remaining portion of the project that has not secured funding.[6]

Election results

Below are the certified election results:

Missouri Amendment 7
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No591,93259.18%
Yes 408,288 40.82%

Election results via: Missouri Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The language appeared on the ballot as:

MO 2014 Amendment 7 sample ballot.JPG[7]

The official ballot title and fair ballot language were as follows:[8]

Official Ballot Title:
Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges?
This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state's Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.


Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to increase funding for state, county, and municipal street, road, bridge, highway, and public transportation initiatives by increasing the state sales/use tax by three-quarters of one percent for 10 years. This amendment further prohibits a change in gasoline taxes and prohibits toll roads or bridges. This amendment also requires these measures to be re-approved by voters every 10 years.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to increase funding for state, county, and municipal street, road, bridge, highway, and public transportation initiatives.
If passed, this measure will increase the state sales/use tax.[7]

Constitutional changes

See also: Missouri Temporary Sales and Use Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 (August 2014), constitutional text changes

If it had been approved, Amendment 7 would have repealed Section 30(d) of Article IV of the Missouri Constitution and replaced it with two new sections: 30(d) and 30(e).[1]

Fiscal note

The following fiscal note was submitted to voters:[1]

This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state's Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.[7]

Background

See also: Missouri budget policy
Road-Spending.png

According to the Missouri Department of Transportation, revenue for transportation projects had declined due to inflation, a lack of fuel tax revenues and a loss of temporary funding. The fuel tax was said to have lost its effectiveness because it had not been raised in 20 years and vehicles had increased in efficiency.[9] A similar measure that would have provided a temporary increase of the sales tax by one cent for 10 years was prevented from reaching the ballot by a Republican-led filibuster.[10]

According to the Tax Foundation, 31.6 percent of state and local road spending in Missouri was covered by user fees and taxes in 2011. Specifically, 0.6 percent came from tolls and user fees, 22.5 percent came from fuel taxes and 8.5 percent from license taxes.[11]

Legislative debate

Policypedia
Policypedia Budget Policy-logo.jpg
Policy and Elections
Budget policy was a major issue in Missouri. Find out more about Missouri Budget policy.

HJR 68 passed in the House on April 9, 2014, and the Senate responded with a substitute bill. It was then returned to the House on April 29, 2014, where it was ultimately approved. It was passed in the Senate on April 29, 2014. Initially, action on the measure was stalled due to an amendment eliminating funding for bicycle paths. Supporters of this amendment argued that the transportation tax increase should only fund core infrastructure improvements. House Democrats threatened to withdraw support for the bill while arguing that Missouri should support alternative forms of transportation. Additionally, the Senate substitute resolution reduced the House's original tax increase of 1 percent to 0.75 percent. This version, which was the one that ultimately was referred to the ballot, prohibited the state, cities and counties from operating toll roads or bridges while the temporary tax increase was in effect. Additionally, if it had been approved by voters, it would have prohibited increases in the fuel tax during this period.[2][12][9]

These debates were not the only hurdles for the passage of the resolution by the House. An income tax cut also stalled the measure. A veto override by the Republicans created a $620 million income tax cut. This led some Democrats, such as Rep. Stephen Webber (D-46), to reconsider their votes on the tax increase for transportation. Webber said that due to the income tax cuts, the tax increase for transportation could further shift the tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class. He stated, "I’m certainly willing to ask people to sacrifice money in order to build this state, but I’m not willing to continue asking the middle class to sacrifice a disproportionate share."[13]

Democrats said they would be willing to pass the tax increase if Republicans would compromise on expanding Medicare in the state. Majority Floor Leader Rep. John Diehl, Jr. (R-89) accused Democrats of holding the measure hostage from a vote. The measure's sponsor, Rep. Hinson, stated that he still believed the measure would pass before the end of the session, which it ultimately did.[13]

MoDOT project list

On July 9, 2014, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) approved hundreds of transportation projects that would have been funded if Amendment 7 had been approved. The projects largely focused on roads and bridges. A full list of the projects approved can be read here. (dead link).[14]

Support

Supporters

MOyeson7 logo.png

Officials

Former officials

  • Bill McKenna, former Missouri transportation commissioner & co-chair of Missourians for Safe Transportation and New Jobs
  • Rudy Farber, former Missouri transportation commissioner & co-chair of Missourians for Safe Transportation and New Jobs


Organizations

  • Missouri Department of Transportation[15]
  • Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry[16]
  • Missourians For Safe Transportation & New Jobs Inc.[17]
  • Missouri Transportation PAC[18]
  • Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation (MoBikeFed)
  • Missouri State Troopers




Arguments

  • The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry supported the measure as a necessary move to avoid a funding shortfall. According to the chamber,
By 2017, it’s estimated that the department’s funding will drop to $325 million. At that level, department leaders have warned that they won’t be able to even maintain the state’s existing infrastructure. The new sales tax is designed to provide the funding needed to maintain and improve Missouri’s transportation infrastructure.[7]
  • Dave Nichols, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, argued that the legislation would help improve the economy and keep people safe by making needed transportation improvements.[19]
  • Co-chairmen of Missourians for Safe Transportation and New Jobs, Bill McKenna and Rudy Farber, argued that the beneficial progress engendered by Amendment 7 would be evident before the measure's renewal in 10 years. They also argued that raising the gas tax would not provide enough revenue for the transportation needs and "would place Missouri at a competitive disadvantage with other states." Furthermore, they contended the tax would support not just bridges and highways, but other alternative modes of transportation.[20]
  • The League of Women Voters provided a nonpartisan voter guide for all amendments in Missouri. The group included the following argument in favor of Amendment 7: "Supporters say roads and bridges are in poor condition and revenue from the state gasoline tax isn't sufficient, partly because of an increase in fuel-efficient and hybrid cars."[21]
  • The Franklin County Democrats provided summaries and arguments written by Rep. Jeanne Kirkton (D-91) for and against each amendment on the August ballot. She provided the following arguments in favor of Amendment 7:
Existing transportation funding barely allows MoDOT to maintain the existing state highway system. Without a new revenue source, it won’t even be able to do that within a few years.

Amendment 7 will provide a massive stimulus to Missouri’s economy, not only by creating road construction jobs in the short term but also by enhancing commerce in the long term with a greatly improved state transportation system.

Amendment 7 will enhance highway safety by allowing MoDOT to make long overdue improvements to unsafe roads and bridges. Failing to make these necessary investments will cost lives.

Funding additional transportation improvements solely through fuel taxes, as some Amendment 7 opponents urge, is unrealistic since Missouri would need to increase its fuel tax from 17 cents a gallon to 35 cents a gallon to generate the same amount of revenue a three-quarter-cent sales tax would provide.

All Missourians use the transportation system, directly or indirectly; even people who don’t drive. Since everyone benefits from an improved transportation system, everyone should help pay for it.[7]

Rep. Kirkton, [22]

  • The Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation endorsed Amendment 7 on July 25, 2014, due in part to its support for alternate forms of transportation, including biking, walking and mass transit.[23]

Campaign contributions

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $2,069,607.64
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $2,172.40

As of the July 2014 quarterly report to the Missouri Ethics Commission, two campaign committees were registered as supporting this measure. A political action committee (PAC), Consulting Engineers Council Of Mo., was also registered as supporting the amendment. The PAC totals in the following chart are only for 2014 contributions and expenditures. The PAC had $12,147.59 on hand as of the July report.[24][25][26][27]

Campaign committee & PAC info:

Campaign committee or PAC Amount raised Amount spent
Missourians For Safe Transportation & New Jobs Inc. $2,039,072.13 $430,373.44
Missouri Transportation PAC $30,002.00 $3,524.77
Consulting Engineers Council Of Mo. $533.51 $12,000.00
Total $2,069,607.64 $445,898.21

Opposition

Missourians For Better Transportation Solutions "Vote No on Amendment 7" campaign

Missourians For Better Transportation Solutions led the campaign in opposition to Amendment 7.[28]

Opponents

  • Gov. Jay Nixon (D)[29]
  • Joseph Miller, policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute[30]
  • Missouri Association for Social Welfare (MASW)[31]
  • Southwest Missouri Democrats[32]

Arguments

Much of the opposition to this measure occurred during its legislative debate. Those arguments focused on support for alternative transportation forms and concern that the taxes would unfairly burden some groups. House Democrats threatened to withdraw support for the bill, arguing that Missouri should support alternative forms of transportation. Additionally, a veto override by the Republicans led to the passage of a $620 million income tax cut, which led some Democrats, such as Rep. Stephen Webber (D-46), to reconsider their votes on the tax increase for transportation. Webber said that due to the income tax cuts, the tax increase for transportation could further shift the tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class. Webber's view was shared by others who found it hypocritical to cut income taxes while raising a sales tax. Others said higher sales taxes disproportionately tax young, poor and minority citizens.[2][12][9][13][33]

  • Gov. Nixon stated his opposition to Amendment 7, saying, "The burden of this $6.1 billion sales tax increase would fall disproportionately on Missouri’s working families and seniors by increasing the cost of everyday necessities like diapers and over-the-counter medication, while giving the heaviest users of our roads a free pass."[29] The governor stated that while the transportation system needed extensive work, he disagreed with the methods used by this legislation to address that need.[34]
  • Joseph Miller, a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute which promotes free markets and private over public solutions, argued against the measure. He disagreed with Amendment 7 because it would not place the tax burden on those who use the roads most. He said, "The fundamental problem with MoDOT funding, which a sales tax would only exacerbate, is that people who use the roads are paying less than their fair share." Miller additionally argued that if the state made drivers pay for the roads, it would not only be more fair, but the charges would "discourage overuse of highways and create a sustainable funding structure for MoDOT." He stated that drivers would choose to drive less or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles if gas prices rise due to increased taxes and tolls.[30] Similar to what some state legislators pointed out while debating HJR 68, Miller also claimed that Missouri's failure to raise gas taxes should be one of the first things remedied in the transportation budget. He said,
At 17 cents a gallon, Missouri has one of the lowest gas taxes in the country. This is not automatically a bad thing, but it is an issue when state road maintenance is underfunded. If Missouri simply raised its rate to adjust for the inflation since the tax was set in 1996, MoDOT calculated it would get additional revenues of more than $150 million per year.[7]

—Joseph Miller, [30]

  • The League of Women Voters provided a nonpartisan voters guide for all amendments in Missouri. The group included the following arguments in opposition to Amendment 7:
Opponents say the burden of the sales tax hike would fall most heavily on lower-income people. Opponents also complain that the trucking industry, which causes great wear and tear on Missouri roads, would pay relatively little of the extra tax.[7]

League of Women Voters, [21]

  • The Franklin County Democrats provided summaries and arguments written by Rep. Jeanne Kirkton (D-91) for and against each amendment on the August ballot. She provided the following arguments in opposition to Amendment 7:
There is no disputing that Missouri needs more revenue for transportation, but a general sales and use tax is the wrong way to do it.

Sales taxes are regressive and disproportionately impact the poor and middle class.

Just a week before approving Amendment 7, lawmakers enacted an income tax cut of $800 million a year that primarily will benefit a wealthy few. If the state can afford to give a massive tax cut to the wealthy, it doesn’t need to impose the largest tax increase in history on everybody else.

Sales taxes are already too high. Combined state and local sales taxes are close to 10 percent in many areas of Missouri and even top 10 percent in some places.

Missouri should fund transportation the way it always has, through user fees such as the fuel tax, which is among the lowest in the country and hasn’t been increased in nearly two decades.

Increasing the sales tax rather than the fuel tax to fund transportation lets the trucking industry off the hook, even though its large trucks do most of the damage to our highways.

Missourians who don’t drive, including many who are elderly, disabled or too poor to afford a car, shouldn’t have to share in the burden of paying for new roads.[7]

Rep. Kirkton, [22]

Campaign contributions

Missourians For Better Transportation Solutions was the only committee registered with the Missouri Ethics Commission in opposition to Amendment 7, as of June 9, 2014.[18] The following totals are accurate as of the committee's July 2014 quarterly report.[35]

PAC info:

PAC Amount raised Amount spent
Missourians For Better Transportation Solutions $2,172.40 $998.00
Total $2,172.40 $998.00

Top 5 contributors:

Donor Amount
Debra Shrout $500.00
Ed Zagorac $200
Les Sterman $200
Terry Ganey $200
Cara Spencer $172.53

Reports and analyses

AP analysis

Gov. Nixon's decision to place this measure and four others on the August primary election ballot instead of the November general election ballot could have had political and legal ramifications, according to Associated Press reporter David A. Lieb. For example, it was presumed that Amendment 1 would draw many rural residents to the polls in November. Since rural Missouri voters tend to vote for Republicans over Democrats, it could have been a bigger boon to Republican candidates to have those voters come out to the November election, rather than the August primary. Similarly, the lawsuit over Amendment 5 was dismissed, at least in part, due to time constraints that would not have applied if the measure was on the November ballot, instead. Lieb summarized the potential impact of gubernatorial placement of ballot measures on the primary ballot, saying, "a governor who doesn't like a particular ballot measure could diminish its political impact by placing it on the August ballot, but that also could hinder the ability of opponents to challenge it in court."[36]

Read the full analysis here.

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Missouri ballot measures, 2014

Support

  • The Daily Star-Journal said,
Getting Amendment 7 onto the ballot took years of research, hearings and legislative wrangling, with the 1-cent plan being cut to 0.75 cents, and the tax does not apply to food, medicine and other essentials. If the tax now fails, as some short-sighted individuals advocate, then roads and bridges will suffer.[7]

The Daily Star-Journal, [37]

  • The Kirksville Daily Express said,
The transportation sales tax issue and veteran’s lottery ticket measures are ones we support, though we wish we didn’t have to. The bottom line is these are critical issues that should have been addressed by the Missouri Legislature, which instead passed a tax cut and punted these poorly funded issues to voters. We’d rather see better and more balanced approaches to both issues, but simply don’t trust that the Legislature can get it done.[7]

Kirksville Daily Express, [38]

  • The News Tribune said,
Support Amendment 7, a three-quarter cent, 10-year sales tax for transportation. Despite misgivings about veering from user-based funding, all Missourians benefit from a safe, reliable transportation system.[7]

News Tribune, [39]

  • The Columbia Daily Tribune said,
Transportation needs are serious, and the Missouri Department of Transportation has developed a good plan for spending the anticipated revenue. The sales tax will be widely dispersed among outside buyers of goods and services as well as state residents. Voters should say “yes.[7]

—Henry J. Waters, III, editor of Columbia Daily Tribune, [40]

  • The Joplin Globe said,
We think the long-term economic impact will be seen when better roads make Missouri a more attractive option for doing business. [...] [Low-income] and fixed-income residents have been given some level of protection, more than they would get if Missouri were to look at other options for raising the money, such as boosting the gasoline tax. [...] If the cost of improving roads is shifted to the trucking industry, those costs will be passed along to consumers. [...] In short, there is no free lunch for anyone, but with the sales tax plan and its exemptions, at least the price of the lunch won’t jump.[7]

The Joplin Globe

  • The Springfield News-Leader said,
Some Missourians have argued that the General Assembly has dropped the ball on transportation, that the legislature should fund needed road maintenance and expansions. It may be true that our legislature has steered clear of that path, but we believe that could be a good thing. By passing an amendment that clearly lays out what must be completed with funds from the tax, we have taken the politics out of the money pot.[7]

—Editorial Board, Springfield News-Leader, [41]

  • The Missourian said,
Nobody likes a tax increase. Everybody likes to operate their vehicles and in most cases people have to drive to work and use their cars and trucks for other vital purposes in their everyday lives. We must have the roads and bridges to serve their needs. Without more revenue, MoDOT won’t be able to maintain what we have in a first-class condition, much less make needed improvements. MoDOT is a responsible state agency. It has done well on what resources it has. The fat in the operation was cut some years ago. We have confidence MoDOT will spend added revenue wisely. This is not a major tax hike. If there is a recognition of the need, and the improvements that will be made with added revenue, we believe Missourians will support this tax increase.[7]

The Missourian, [42]

  • St. Joseph News-Press was highly critical of the amendment, saying,
Historically, roads in Missouri have been funded by the users — primarily by taxes that motorists and truck operators pay on fuel and vehicle purchases. The ballot plan amounts to what is said to be the largest tax increase in state history, a projected $5.3 billion to $6.1 billion over 10 years. And it apparently would mark the first time general sales tax revenues have been earmarked for roads and bridges.

This matters because lower-income residents pay a higher proportion of their incomes in sales tax but use the highways less than average. Meanwhile, the truck operators who stand to benefit greatly from road investments hardly would be impacted.[7]

St. Joseph News-Press, [43]

However, the paper ultimately endorsed the measure, saying,

Voters have turned down a gas tax increase in the past and tell pollsters they have little interest in approving toll roads. A case can be made steeply higher levies on the trucking industry would come with higher costs passed along to consumers.

We still would like to see these options given further consideration, but the priority must be a funding plan voters will approve. We agree Amendment 7 offers the best chance of success and we recommend a “yes” vote on Aug. 5.[7]

St. Joseph News-Press, [44]

  • The Columbia Daily Tribune said,
All of us would like to fix transportation without resorting to a sales tax, but this is not a realistic option. In Missouri, we have avoided biting this bullet as long as we should. The benefits of improving transportation will accrue to everyone. A good portion of sales tax revenue will come from visitors as well as residents, painlessly enlarging the pool. [...] Time to bite the bullet and vote “Yes” on Amendment 7.[7]

Columbia Daily Tribune, [45]

Opposition

  • The Sullivan Journal said,
Taxes don't generate business. Sure, a few shovels will move and pavement will pour. But putting MoDOT in charge of 90 percent of our money is like putting the proverbial cat in charge of the fishbowl. The cat gets fat, the fish gets...well, we know what the fish gets. Toll roads, gas taxes, and other user fees may be a better solution to crumbling infrastructure. Putting the burden on the backs of every consumer in Missouri is not.[7]

Sullivan Journal, [46]

  • The West Plains Daily Quill said,
The fuel tax is now 17.3 cent per gallon. It is one of the lowest gas tax rates in the country and hasn’t been adjusted in 20 years. Companies that run trucks on Missouri highways and across its bridges would not share a greater tax burden. Over the road truckers are exempt from state sales taxes on new trucks and repair parts.[7]

—Frank L. Martin III, editor and publisher of West Plains Daily Quill, [47]

  • The Southeast Missourian said,

Though we generally believe in low taxes, we have endorsed various tax increase measures in the past. This depends on the type of tax, how much it is, and if there is a track record for success. However, a statewide sales tax is not the best solution to solve transporation [sic] infrastructure improvements.[7]

Southeast Missourian, [48]

  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch said in an editorial outlining 10 reasons not to vote for Amendment 7,
Missouri’s roads and bridges need the work. The state’s economy could use a jolt. But this is the wrong tax at the wrong time and in some ways, for the wrong purposes. Let us count the ways we hate it.[7]

—Editorial Board, [49]

  • The Kansas City Star said in an editorial following Gov. Nixon's decision to place the measure on the August ballot,
This is yet another regressive tax, piled on top of other sales taxes local communities have approved. Also, legislators refused to put a gasoline tax on the ballot, even though that user-pays model has been followed for decades, and Missouri has one of the nation’s lowest gas taxes. Plus, the state is asking for extra revenue right after lawmakers passed a tax cut that favors the wealthy.[...] Along with Nixon’s decision last week, the transportation sales tax has the definite feeling of being rushed to voters.[7]

The Kansas City Star, [50]

  • The St. Louis American encouraged its readers to vote no on the amendment, saying,
The promise that this tax will create jobs sounds good, but other than short-term construction jobs, history and common sense tell us it won’t happen. And MoDOT is certainly capable of fixing deficient bridges and making other safety improvements to roadways with its current budget or with a very small tax increase.[...] The proposal will increase the combined sales tax rate in the city to over 11 percent in some places, making it hard on consumers and local businesses. It will make it more difficult for the city and the state to pay for truly essential services in the future. And it will lead to a further expansion of the highway network in suburban and rural areas that has encouraged and enabled the drain of population and jobs from the core of our region.[7]

The St. Louis American, [51]

Lawsuit

Missouri Constitution
Flag of Missouri.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIXIII

On June 12, 2014, the Missouri Association for Social Welfare filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot language for Amendment 7. The group was represented by Gaylin Rich Carver, an attorney with Carver & Michael, LLC in Jefferson City. Gov. Nixon's wife, Georganne Wheeler Nixon, was listed on the Carver & Michael law firm's website as their PC of Counsel. The lawsuit contended that the cost estimate provided was insufficient. It also claimed that the summary failed to include that the measure would also raise the state use tax. It further posited that the ballot language should note the current sales tax rate of 4.225 percent.[52] Supporters of the measure claimed that the lawsuit was an effort to confuse voters. According to the Associated Press, using lawsuits to challenge ballot measure language has been common in Missouri over the last 10 years. While some have been successful in forcing ballot language changes, "many have not."[52]

On July 1, 2014, Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the lawsuit by ruling the ballot summary of this measure and another regarding the right to bear arms sufficient and fair.[53]

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Missouri Constitution

Either chamber of the Missouri General Assembly is allowed to propose an amendment. A majority of members in both chambers must approve it in order to refer the measure to the ballot. If the measure is approved by a simple majority of voters, it becomes part of the Missouri Constitution.

HJR 68 was passed in the House on April 9, 2014, by a vote of 96 to 53. It was then referred to the Senate, where an alternative version was proposed. This version was approved by a vote of 22 to 10 in the Senate on April 29, 2014, and was then sent back to the House for approval. The House ultimately approved the amended proposal on May 14, 2014, by a vote of 105 to 43.[54]

Senate vote

April 29, 2014 Senate vote

Missouri HJR 68 Senate vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 22 69%
No1031%

House vote

May 14, 2014 House vote

Missouri HJR 68 House vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 105 71%
No4329%

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Missouri State Legislature, "SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 68 JOINT RESOLUTION," accessed May 14, 2014
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Open States, "Missouri 2014 Regular Session: HJR 68 Proposes a constitutional amendment imposing a 1% temporary increase in the state sales and use tax to be used for transportation projects," accessed May 14, 2014
  3. 3.0 3.1 MissouriNet, "Senate sponsor OK with transportation tax on August ballot," May 26, 2014
  4. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "McCaskill backs Missouri transportation sales tax," May 21, 2014 (dead link)
  5. Columbia Daily Tribune, "Transportation sales tax to go on Missouri ballot," May 15, 2014
  6. The City Wire, "Missouri vote leaves Bella Vista bypass/I-49 connection in limbo," August 6, 2014
  7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 7.23 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  8. Missouri Secretary of State, "2014 Ballot Measures," accessed July 1, 2013
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 emissourian.com, "Smaller Version of Transportation Sales Tax Passes Senate," May 3, 2014
  10. STLToday.com, "Republican split in Mo. Senate kills transportation sales tax," May 17, 2013
  11. Tax Foundation, "Gasoline Taxes and User Fees Pay for Only Half of State & Local Road Spending," January 3, 2014
  12. 12.0 12.1 Transportation Investment Advocacy Center, "Missouri House Avoids Action on Penny Tax Transportation Bill," April 22, 2014
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 Missourian, "Tax increase to fund transportation stalls in House," May 13, 2014
  14. KOAM 7, "Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission today approved a list of hundreds of transportation projects," July 9, 2014
  15. The Missouri Times, "Press release: Statement from MoDOT Director Dave Nichols on the passage of HJR 68," May 14, 2014
  16. Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, "NEWS RELEASE: Transportation funding measure goes to Missouri voters," May 14, 2014
  17. Columbia Daily Tribune, "Two tax issues in the works: Voters to get say in cuts, highways," November 11, 2013
  18. 18.0 18.1 Missouri Ethics Commission, "Ballot Measures by Election Search," accessed May 27, 2014
  19. The Missouri Times, "Press release: Statement from MoDOT Director Dave Nichols on the passage of HJR 68," May 14, 2014
  20. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Backers of Missouri's transportation sales tax defend ballot measure," June 23, 2014
  21. 21.0 21.1 League of Women Voters' Voter Guide, "Constitutional Amendment 7," accessed July 21, 2014
  22. 22.0 22.1 Franklin County Democrats, "Primary Election Day, August 5th Ballot Measures," July 8, 2014
  23. Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation, "MoBikeFed endorses Amendment 7, the first Missouri transportation funding plan in history to incorporate biking, walking; Vote August 5th," July 25, 2014
  24. Missourui Ethics Commission, "MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION PAC Initial 15 Day Report," December 19, 2013
  25. Missouri Ethics Commission, "MISSOURIANS FOR SAFE TRANSPORTATION & NEW JOBS INC Initial 15 Day Report," September 24, 2013
  26. Missouri Ethics Commission, "Missourians for Safe Transportation & New Jobs Inc. January Quarterly Report," January 15, 2014
  27. Missouri Ethics Commission, "Missourians for Safe Transportation & New Jobs Inc. April Quarterly Report Amended," April 21, 2014
  28. Missourians For Better Transportation Solutions, "Homepage," accessed November 30, 2014
  29. 29.0 29.1 PoliticMO, "Nixon opposes transportation tax ballot measure," June 2, 2014
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2 Show-Me Institute, "Ballot Initiative Lets Motorists Off Hook," November 25, 2014
  31. MASW, "MASW Calls for No Votes On Amendments 1, 5, and 7," accessed July 15, 2014
  32. The Joplin Globe, "Neosho lawmaker stands by ballot proposal on farming," July 16, 2014
  33. The Missouri Times, "Transportation tax increase shaping up as race against time," May 5, 2014
  34. KFVS CBS, "Three quarter cent sales tax on August 5 MO ballot could impact transportation," June 12, 2014
  35. Missouri Ethics Commission, "MISSOURIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 2014 Quarterly Report," July 13, 2014
  36. Associated Press, "Analysis: Timing of elections can have political, legal effects for Missouri ballot measures," July 6, 2014
  37. The Daily Star-Journal, "State highway tax needed for state," August 1, 2014
  38. Kirksville Daily Express, "Our View: How we're voting in the primary," August 3, 2014
  39. News Tribune, "Our Opinion: End of discussion; time to vote," August 4, 2014
  40. Columbia Daily Tribune, "Amendments: Cluttering the Constitution," July 27, 2014
  41. Springfield News-Leader, "Our Voice: Vote ‘Yes’ on Amendment 7," July 19, 2014
  42. The Missourian, "Now It’s Up to Voters," May 22, 2014
  43. LakeExpo.com, "EDITORIAL: More sales tax for transportation locks in inequity," June 16, 2014
  44. St. Josephe News-Press, "Road tax emerges as best option," July 19, 2014
  45. Columbia Daily Tribune, "Amendment 7," July 20, 2014
  46. Sullivan Journal, "Say "No" to Amendment 7 and Amendment 1 Right To Farm," August 3, 2014
  47. West Plains Daily Quill, "Don’t vote for record tax hike," July 25, 2014
  48. Southeast Missourian, "Editorial: Our take on August ballot issues," July 27, 2014
  49. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Editorial: Ten good reasons to vote against the transportation sales tax," May 31, 2014
  50. The Kansas City Star, "Missouri rushes transportation sales tax to the ballot," June 3, 2014
  51. The St. Louis American, "Vote no Amendment 7," June 26, 2014
  52. 52.0 52.1 The Rolla Daily News, "Lawsuit challenges Mo. sales transportation tax," June 13, 2014
  53. Associated Press, "Missouri judge rejects challenges to ballot items," July 1, 2014
  54. OpenStates.org, "HJR 68, Missouri House Joint Resolution," accessed May 26, 2014