Reading, writing, and arithmetic…three R’s…and that is the rub. While all three contain R, only reading starts with one. We repeat it because it sounds right and nobody checks. In a messy language where ‘ghoti’ spells fish, words matter. Nobody actually reads ghoti as fish. The trick works if you cherry-pick combinations from unrelated words and pretend they’ll behave the same way.
The legislature runs the same trick on the ballot, and there it works, because a ballot question never looks made up. The legislature and the initiative petition process use the same kind of language for the same reason. You can read every word and still not know what you voted for. Reading is not the problem. Reading is what they are counting on.
Amendment 3 is the perfect illustration of the language acrobatics. In 2024, Missouri voted overwhelmingly for President Trump. On the same ballot, the state passed Amendment 3, allowing broad constitutional abortion protections. This left many scratching their heads. Much of what people said or thought Amendment 3 (2024) did was never in its language. Some of those restrictions are exactly what Amendment 3 (2026) now puts into the Constitution.
Here we are in 2026, voting on abortion two years later, because what voters were told it meant and what the text actually said were not necessarily the same thing. The ballot language says one thing, but politicians and special interests sell another.
Before tackling the text of Amendment 7, let’s address the problem no one ever really wants to address because everyone uses it to their advantage. Many constitutional amendments are not designed to solve problems. They keep the battles alive because there is too much money in fighting them to bother with solutions. The Amendment 3 fight in 2024 saw abortion supporters raise $31 million, outraising the pro-life side nearly 10:1. When the legislature doesn’t like what the initiative petition process gives us, they try to change it. They asked voters to restrict the process with Amendment 4…and voters overwhelmingly said no.
Still, little to no effort has been made to give the average Missourian plain language, only enough ambiguity and subterfuge to leave confusion looking less like an accident. The problem doesn’t need solving; the battle needs another front and a cash infusion. Amendment 7 seems dull next to the strong emotions that Amendment 3 conjures up. That dullness is exactly what makes it useful: we can look at the language mechanics without the emotional static. And unlike an initiative petition, Amendment 7 is the legislature’s own work…Senate Joint Resolution 95, written and placed on the ballot by the General Assembly itself. The same body now saying voters misunderstood what they approved in 2024 drafted this ballot language. The first place to start is the title, and it’s a doozy.
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government instead of taxing Missouri residents, prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting the fund, and eliminate state-imposed taxes once the fund generates sufficient revenue to replace them?”
The ballot title makes three claims. Each claim leaves out a qualification that flips what you just read.
It says the fund supports the government “instead of taxing Missouri residents”…then Section 1 says that support comes as legislative appropriations, otherwise known as spending tax dollars.
It says the General Assembly is prohibited from appropriating or diverting the fund. That is where most people stop reading. The state’s Fair Ballot Language adds the one word the title left out. Until. They cannot take money out until the Treasurer says the earnings are big enough…and the same body barred from the fund votes to agree. There is just a limit on how much. You do not put a limit on something nobody is allowed to do.
It promises elimination “once the fund generates enough revenue”…but Section 2(5) hands the taxing authority back if the fund hits insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure. None of the three is defined. Revenue shortfall is just another Tuesday in state budgeting. And the power comes back bigger…authority to enact or increase taxes as necessary.
The text does not even agree with itself. Section 2(4) sets the spending ceiling at 3 percent of the fund’s five year average market value, while taxes disappear based on net investment earnings. Two different yardsticks for two different decisions. Same amendment, one section apart. Replacing $13 billion in revenue at five percent requires a $260 billion fund. That is a promise scheduled for never.
Ghoti spells fish and each letter in it is doing something it is legitimately allowed to do. Nothing is misspelled. Nothing is illegal. The letters point one way. You end up somewhere else. Three claims…and not one lie among them.
This was never a question of whether Missourians can read. They can. The three R’s only work if the label matches what is in the box, and at the ballot box Amendment 7 does not. Two years from now somebody will stand up and say the voters did not understand Amendment 7. They will also be the people who wrote it.
When you receive your ballot in November, look at the Amendments. Ask yourself: Do I really know what I’m voting for, or just what they sold to me?
John Grady
