Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Missouri Sales Tax for Parks and Conservation, Amendment 1 (2016)
| Missouri Amendment 1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Taxes | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Automatic referral | Origin Dictated by law |
| 2016 measures |
|---|
 |
| November 8 |
| Amendment 1 |
| Amendment 2 |
Amendment 3  |
| Amendment 4 |
| Amendment 6 |
| Proposition A |
| Polls |
| Voter guides |
| Campaign finance |
| Signature costs |
The Missouri Sales Tax for Parks and Conservation Measure, also known as Constitutional Amendment 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Missouri as an automatic ballot referral. It was approved.
| A yes vote supported renewing the existing sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for 10 years to fund state parks and soil and water conservation. |
| A no vote opposed this proposal to renew the existing sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for 10 years. |
Election results
| Amendment 1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,187,773 | 79.88% | ||
| No | 551,117 | 20.12% | ||
- Election results from Missouri Secretary of State
Overview
Renewal of the sales tax
Amendment 1 was automatically referred to the 2016 ballot. The measure originated with a 1984 constitutional amendment. Due to the wording of this original amendment and subsequent iterations, the measure needed to be renewed by voters. It is automatically referred to the ballot every 10 years. Previous versions of this amendment were approved in 1988, 1996, and 2006.
Amendment design
Amendment 1 renewed the existing sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for 10 years. The revenue from the tax goes toward state parks and soil and water conservation efforts. The measure was designed to "continue to generate approximately $90 million annually for soil and water conservation and operation of the state park system."[1]
State of the ballot measure campaigns
The campaign supporting Amendment 1, Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks, raised $195,057 as of December 14, 2016. The top donor to the “Yes” campaign was The Nature Conservancy, which contributed $49,201. There was no organized opposition to the amendment.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Shall Missouri continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites, and resubmit this tax to the voters for approval in 10 years?
The measure continues and does not increase the existing sales and use tax of one-tenth of one percent for 10 years. The measure would continue to generate approximately $90 million annually for soil and water conservation and operation of the state park system.[2] |
” |
Fair ballot language
An explanation of the ballot language was as follows:[1]
| “ | A “yes” vote will continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites. This will be resubmitted to the voters for approval in 10 years.
A “no” vote will not continue this sales/use tax. If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes.[2] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Section 47 of Article IV of the Missouri Constitution
The amendment repealed and replaced Section 47(c) of Article IV of the Missouri Constitution. The following text was added:[3]
Background
Renewal votes
In 1984, voters approved a constitutional amendment instituting the first sales tax increase to provide funds to state parks and soil and water conservation. The amendment was designed to expire without voter renewal. In 1988, over 68 percent of voters favored extending the tax for 10 years via Amendment 7. In 1996, two-thirds of voters supported Amendment 8, which extended the tax for 10 additional years. The most recent vote on the tax was in 2006, when over 70 percent of voters approved an extension via Amendment 1. The following table summarizes each renewal amendment:
| Amendment | Year | Percent “Yes” | Percent “No” |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment 7 | 1988 | 68.66% | 31.34% |
| Amendment 8 | 1996 | 66.61% | 33.39% |
| Amendment 1 | 2006 | 70.79% | 29.21% |
| Average | 68.69% | 31.31% |
Support
Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks led the campaign in support of Amendment 1.[4]
Supporters
Officials
- Gov. Jay Nixon (D)[5]
- Attorney Genera Chris Koster (D), 2016 gubernatorial candidate[6]
- Eric Greitens (R), 2016 gubernatorial candidate
Organizations
- Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives[7]
- Conservation Federation of Missouri
- Great Rivers Greenway
- Greenbelt Land Trust of Mid-Missouri
- Missouri Land Improvement Contractors Association
- Missouri Agribusiness Association
- Missouri Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts
- Missouri Bird Conservation Initiative
- Missouri Coalition for the Environment
- Missouri Corn Growers Association
- Missouri Farm Bureau
- Missouri Levee & Drainage District Association
- Missouri Parks Association
- Missouri Prairie Foundation
- Missouri Rock Island Trail, Inc.
- Missouri Soybean Association
- Missouri State Parks Foundation
- National Association of State Outdoor Recreation
- Liaison Officers
- The Nature Conservancy
- Ozark Regional Land Trust
- The Sierra Club, Missouri Chapter
- Stream Team Watershed Coalition
Arguments
Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks, the campaign in support of Amendment 1, stated:[8]
| “ | Why does it matter? Missouri’s parks, soils and clean water are important to our quality of life, our health and our economy. More than 19 million people visit our state parks and historic sites annually, providing more than $1 billion a year in economic impact and supporting 14,000 jobs. What does it do? How does it work? |
” |
Estil Fretwell, spokesperson for the Missouri Farm Bureau, said:[9]
| “ | It does bring together a rather diverse coalition of groups that a lot of times don't see eye-to-eye on issues, but we do set aside any differences we may have, recognizing that this is an important program. I think the voters recognize the benefits of the program, but also recognize the fact that when you have this diverse group of organizations working together (that) there must be some value in the program.[2] | ” |
Campaign advertisements
The following video advertisements were produced to support the sales tax:
|
|
Opposition
If you know of any opposition to Amendment 1, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.
Media editorials
Support
- Hannibal Courier-Post said: “The continuance of this straight-forward, easily traceable tax makes sense. Approval of this conservation-centric amendment has taken place in the past (and approved overwhelmingly) and won’t affect anyone’s pocket if approved again. Missouri thrives on its natural beauty; supporting this amendment ensures Missouri parks continue to thrive.”[10]
- The Herald-Whig said: "The tax generates about $90 million annually and is the primary funding source for the state's parks and historic sites. It was first approved by voters in 1984, and again in 1988, 1996 and 2006. We support this measure because it has proved to be money well spent. Voters should say yes to Amendment 1."[11]
- The Joplin Globe said: “Of the six questions on this year’s ballot, none is more deserving of your “yes” vote than Amendment 1. In the year of difficult decisions, this one is easy. Please keep this funding intact.”[12]
- The Kansas City Star said: "Even the most rigid opponent of taxes should acknowledge that this tax has been highly beneficial to Missouri citizens. Prior to the tax’s first approval in 1984 Missouri had the second-highest rate of erosion in the nation. Over the last 30 years water and soil conservation programs have kept more than 177 million tons of soil from escaping into waterways."[13]
- The Missourian said: "The money has been used wisely over the years. We expect that to continue. Soil and water conservation is important and certainly should be funded. We have one of the best state park systems in the country. The state parks as recreational venues bring much satisfaction to many people. They are affordable and the state does a good job in maintaining and expanding them with the money that is available."[14]
- St. Louis Post-Dispatch said: "Agriculture is a vital part of the state’s economy; soil and water conservation efforts are critical to it. Missouri’s park system is annually ranked among the nation’s best and is a huge tourism draw. The system can’t keep up with its needs, and the sales tax provides about three-quarters of the parks budget."[15]
- St. Joseph News‑Press said: “Of the six statewide ballot proposals, none is more deserving of support. … The tax produces about $90 million annually, with half going to soil and water and half to parks and historic sites. The good that is done with this money is well documented.”[16]
Opposition
Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Amendment 1. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.
Campaign finance
As of December 14, 2016, the support campaign for Amendment 1 featured one ballot question committee, Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks, that received a total of $195,056.89 in contributions. The support campaign had spent $97,026.55.[17]
As of December 14, 2016, no ballot question committees registered to oppose Amendment 1.
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $97,046.55 | $98,010.34 | $195,056.89 | $97,026.55 | $195,036.89 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $97,046.55 | $98,010.34 | $195,056.89 | $97,026.55 | $195,036.89 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[17]
| Committees in support of Amendment 1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks | $97,046.55 | $98,010.34 | $195,056.89 | $97,026.55 | $195,036.89 |
| Total | $97,046.55 | $98,010.34 | $195,056.89 | $97,026.55 | $195,036.89 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the committee.[17]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Nature Conservancy | $0.00 | $49,201.00 | $49,201.00 |
| Missouri Farm Bureau | $10,000.00 | $34,554.56 | $44,554.56 |
| Missouri Soybean Association | $14,500.00 | $0.00 | $14,500.00 |
| COOP Owners Political Action Committee | $11,000.00 | $0.00 | $11,000.00 |
| Bass Pro, LLC | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
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.
Amendment 1 is a reauthorization of the sales and use tax originally passed in 1984 and last approved in 2006. Every 10 years, this measure is automatically put before the voters for approval.
State profile
| Demographic data for Missouri | ||
|---|---|---|
| Missouri | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 6,076,204 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 68,742 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 82.6% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 11.5% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 1.8% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.4% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 2.4% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 3.9% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 88.4% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 27.1% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $48,173 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Missouri. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Missouri
Missouri voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More Missouri coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Missouri
- United States congressional delegations from Missouri
- Public policy in Missouri
- Endorsers in Missouri
- Missouri fact checks
- More...
Related measures
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Missouri Sales Tax Parks and Conservation Amendment 1 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- 2016 ballot measures
- Missouri 2016 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri
- Tax policy in Missouri
External links
Basic information
- Senate Joint Resolution 1
- Missouri 2016 Ballot Measures
- League of Women Voters of Missouri 2016 Ballot Issues Guide
Support
- Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks
- Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks Facebook
- Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks Twitter
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Missouri Secretary of State, "2016 ballot measures," accessed March 29, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "SJR 1," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks, "Homepage," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ News-Press Now, "Soils tax to go on November ballot," May 10, 2016
- ↑ St. Louis Public Radio, "Koster, Greitens oppose tobacco-tax proposals, but split on other ballot measures," October 24, 2016
- ↑ Citizens Committee for Soil, Water and State Parks, "About," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ You Can Help, "About," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ St. Louis Public Radio, "Proposed constitutional amendment would continue funding stream for Missouri state parks," October 11, 2016
- ↑ Hannibal Courier-Post, “Courier-Post editorial: Amendments receive mixed reviews,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ Herald-Whig, "Only one Missouri ballot measure merits yes vote," October 26, 2016
- ↑ The Joplin Globe, "Our View: 'Yes' for Missouri's best," October 19, 2016
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Reject higher Missouri cigarette taxes; approve campaign contribution limits," October 6, 2016
- ↑ The Missourian, "Amendment 1," October 22, 2016
- ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Editorial: Yes, yes, yes. No, no. Yes, yes. Our recommendations on the Nov. 8 ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ St. Joseph News‑Press, "Parks, soils tax deserves a ‘Yes’," October 9, 2016
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Missouri Ethics Commission, "Candidate or Committee Name Search," accessed December 14, 2016
 |
State of Missouri Jefferson City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
