Missouri Earnings Tax, Proposition A (2010)

Contents 1 Aftermath 1.1 Local 2011 vote 1.2 Lawsuit 2 Election results 3 Text of measure 3.1 Title 3.2 Fair Ballot Language 4 Support 4.1 Donors 5 Opposition 5.1 Donors 5.2 Tactics and strategies 6 Policy analysis 6.1 Show-Me Institute Reports 6.1.1 Response to reports 6.1.2 Supporters respond to criticism 7 Media editorial positions 7.1 Opposition 8 Polls 9 Lawsuits 9.1 Kansas City challenges measure 9.1.1 Challenge rejected 10 Path to the ballot 11 See also 11.1 Articles 12 External links 12.1 Measure details 13 Additional reading 13.1 Editorials 14 Footnotes

Voting on taxes Ballot measures By state By year Not on ballot Local City taxes County taxes School taxes Property taxes Sales taxes Income taxes Other taxes Missouri Constitution Preamble Articles I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV

The Missouri Earnings Tax Act, also known as Proposition A, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Missouri as an initiated state statute, where it was approved.^[1][2]

With the approval of the measure, voters in Kansas City and St. Louis were required to hold a referendum on keeping the levy in 2011 and every five years thereafter. If the levy is rejected by voters the tax would be phased out at one-tenth of one percent per year and could not be reinstated. If Proposition A had been defeated by voters the current state laws would have stayed the same, allowing cities to continue generating revenue through earnings tax.

In order to qualify, the proposed measure needed about 95,000 valid signatures. The measure was certified by the Missouri Secretary of State after signatures were validated.^[3] Supporters submitted more than 200,000 signatures on April 27, 2010.^[4][5][6]

A total of five different versions of an earnings tax initiative were certified for circulation, however, all versions were submitted by one sponsor - Marc H. Ellinger from Jefferson City, Missouri.

Aftermath[edit]

See also: Legislative alteration in Missouri

A month following voters' approval of Proposition A, Kansas City civic leaders announced campaigns to retain the earnings tax. In Kansas City, leaders said they planned to launch a $1 million campaign to preserve the tax. In St. Louis, supporters announced a day following the November election that they had $300,000 in pledged donations and had created a website called Citizens for a Stronger St. Louis. The first earnings tax renewal election, as stipulated by Proposition A, was scheduled for 2011.^[7][8]

However, supporters of the earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City didn't stop at campaigns to save the taxes, they also initiated efforts to overturn the voter-approved measure. According to reports, they argued that the measure was unconstitutional. Specifically, supporters argued that the measure did not provide funding for the required elections set by Proposition A. The elections, they said, could cost up to $500,000 each.^[7]

Additionally, some lawmakers launched efforts to amend the recently approved measure. Rep. Tishaura Jones filed legislation designed to amend the frequency of elections in St. Louis and Kansas City on the earnings tax issue from every five years to every 20 years.^[7]

Local 2011 vote[edit]

See also: St. Louis City Earning Tax Measure and Kansas City Earning Tax Measure

City residents in St. Louis and Kansas City voted to keep the 1 percent city earnings taxes on April 5. In Kansas City, 78 percent voted to keep the earnings tax and 88 percent voted for the tax in St. Louis.^[9]

Lawsuit[edit]

On July 25, 2011, Kansas City Fire Chief Richard Dyer and civic leader Anita Gorman, who helped lead the effort to establish the earnings tax in 1963, filed a lawsuit Cole County Circuit Court. The lawsuit argued that the "Kansas City charter authorizes the local earning tax and does not require the periodic renewal vote."^[10]

A lawsuit was dismissed by Cole County Judge Jon Beetem in mid-August 2011. The lawsuit was filed by the Kansas City attorney’s office on behalf of labor leader Pat Dujakovich and City Manager Troy Schulte. Specifically, the lawsuit noted that the election requirement violated the city charter and state constitution, partially because it required an election costing about $500,000 every five years. According to Beetem the measure did not violate the state constitution because "the Kansas City Council could on its own abolish the earnings tax and isn’t forced to conduct a costly election."^[11]

The dismissal, however, did not affect the lawsuit filed in July 2011.

Election results[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Missouri Proposition A (2010)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,297,197	68.39%
No		599,672	31.61%

Election results via Missouri Secretary of State

Text of measure[edit]

Title[edit]

The official ballot title read as follows:^[12]

Fair Ballot Language[edit]

Support[edit]

Let Voters Decide was the supporting campaign organization for the earnings tax amendment. Organization spokesperson, Marc Ellinger, said, "The right of voters to have a say on local earnings taxes is what The Let Voters Decide Initiative is about. It does not repeal the existing earnings taxes in Kansas City or St. Louis. It will simply allow local sunset votes on the earnings tax in Kansas City and St. Louis every five years starting in 2011, so voters there can decide for themselves if they want to continue the earnings tax or phase it out gradually over a period of ten years. It also lets voters in other Missouri cities and towns decide if they want to prohibit any new local earnings taxes in their own communities."^[14]

• The Show-Me Institute, a Missouri think thank, said in a 2008 study that eliminating the tax would create about 4,700 jobs in the Kansas City area alone. Supporters of the repeal argued that the earnings tax keeps businesses from moving into the area and thus prevents job growth.^[15]
• Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser said the earnings tax put the city at a competitive disadvantage.^[15] Funkhouser said, in April 2010, if the measure was approved by voters he would consider proposing a land tax to replace the lost revenue.^[14]
• The Missouri Libertarian Party supported Proposition A.^[16]
• National Taxpayers Union, a taxpayer advocacy organization, supported a "Yes" vote on Proposition A in their 2010 Ballot Guide.^[17]

Donors[edit]

According to October 15, 2010 quarterly reports, Let Voters Decide collected $10,807,693.73 in contributions in 2010. The committee also reportedly spent $6,352,764.20.^[18]

Rex Sinquefield was not only the initiative sponsor but also the main contributor to the campaign. According to 2010 campaign finance reports, he donated an estimated total of $7.32 million to the campaign.^[19] In June 2010, Sinquefield made two donations of $2.5 million and one donation of $3.9 million in late September 2010.^{[20][21][22] [23][24]}

Below is a chart that outlines the major cash contributions to Let Voters Decide:^[25]

Opposition[edit]

• Kansas City and St. Louis city leaders lobbied in support of keeping earnings taxes in March 2010. "We are the economic engines of Missouri," said St. Louis Alderman Stephen Conway. Both cities said they agree that the earning tax is essential to providing the cities the basic services they require.^[15]

• A Springfield Firefighters Association argued that the approval of the earnings tax initiative, although Springfield does not have one, would bar the implementation of the tax anywhere in Missouri and added that they were concerned about the possible ripple effects.^[28]

• The Missouri Rural Crisis Center was opposed to the proposed initiative. Rhonda Perry, the organization's director, said, "We think it is very important for people to just know and understand that the petitions that they read are really important and can have lasting impact. This particular ballot initiative would actually take away the tool that cities may want to use in the future in Missouri to increase their income to fund basic services."^[29]

• On April 28, following the submission of more than 200,000 petition signatures by supporters, the St. Louis Association of Elected Officials released a statement arguing that ending the earnings tax would mean the end of 39.2% of the city's revenues and begin a large increase in taxes. According to reports the association included: St. Louis Recorder of Deeds Sharon Carpenter, Collector of Revenue Gregory F.X. Daly, Circuit Clerk Mariano Favazza, Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, License Collector Michael McMillan, Sheriff James Murphy, Public Administrator Gerard Nester and Treasurer Larry Williams.^[30]

• Gov. Jay Nixon announced his opposition to Proposition A on September 23, 2010. "I think we should provide a broad arsenal of options for local governments to fund their services. I just don’t think the state should be in the position of limiting those options," said Nixon of the measure.^[31]

Donors[edit]

According to July 7, 2010 quarterly reports, United for Missouri's Priorities collected $375,050 in 2010. The committee also reported $340,213.01 in expenditures.^[32] Washington University in St. Louis donated $5,000 in mid-August.^[33][34]

Below is a chart that outlines the top five major cash contributions to "United for Missouri's Priorities":^[35]

Tactics and strategies[edit]

Opponents submitted a joint letter to Gov. Jay Nixon speaking out against the proposed Proposition A. The letter was signed by several organizations, including: American Federal of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 72; the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City; Greater Kansas City ALF-CIO; and others. According to reports, the letter outlined the possible impacts of Proposition A. In closing, the letter said, "On behalf of our respective organizations, we strongly encourage you to publicly and vigorously oppose Proposition A in November. We would appreciate the opportunity to have a meaningful conversation with you about Proposition A and your position."^[39]

Policy analysis[edit]

Show-Me Institute Reports[edit]

Throughout the years the Show-Me Institute released numerous reports arguing that the earnings tax should be replaced and the impacts of the earnings tax on Saint Louis and Kansas City.

In a July 2009 article, the institute acknowledged that although neither Saint Louis or Kansas City could attribute their declining revenues to their 1-percent earnings tax, it was a common element in both cities. However, the article argued that as technology and transit became cheaper the earnings tax may be shifting residents towards the suburbs or out-of-state. Compared to Springfield, which did not have an earnings tax, had seen lower rates of suburban migration and higher rates of personal income growth than Kansas City or St. Louis. Should St. Louis end the tax the Show-Me Institute said the negative growth rate would reverse. The same went for Kansas City. The estimated income gains for St. Louis were $1.5 billion and $3.2 billion for Kansas City.^[40]

In 2007, the Show-Me Institute released reports analyzing how Kansas City and St. Louis could go about replacing the earnings tax. Reports can be viewed here: St. Louis and Kansas City.

Response to reports[edit]

In May 2010, Lisa Gladson, an economic professor at St. Louis University, and Jack Strauss, director of the Simon Center for Regional Forecasting at St. Louis University, argued that there was "NO relationship between earnings taxes and a city's income growth as the earnings tax coefficient falls to zero" in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article. Contrary to a report released by Show-Me Institute both Gladson and Strauss argued that the earnings tax in Kansas City and St. Louis were not to blame for the cities' income growth. The analysis, according to the article, reviewed more than 100 cities and 30 years of data. Gladson and Strauss instead argued that "an overwhelming reason why cities like St. Louis City tend to grow more slowly than their younger counterparts is just that: they are older, richer and more unionized cities. This is due to an economic property known as convergence." Additionally, the analysis argued that there was no evidence that an earnings tax discouraged businesses from locating there. Gladson and Strauss said other factors impacted the location of businesses: skilled workforce, limited bureaucracy, infrastructure, qualify of life and cost of doing business.^[41]

Supporters respond to criticism[edit]

Following the editorial by Gladson and Strauss, Marc Ellinger - a Jefferson City lawyer and spokesman for Let Voters Decide - wrote, "A yes vote on the Let Voters Decide initiative in November merely gives voters in Kansas City and St. Louis the right to decide whether they want to keep their earnings taxes. Specifically, it requires local sunset votes on the existing earnings taxes in St. Louis and Kansas City every five years, starting in 2011. These votes will let St. Louis and Kansas City voters decide for themselves if they want to continue the earnings tax in their city or phase it out gradually over a period of 10 years — at the rate of one-tenth of 1 percent per year."^[42]

Media editorial positions[edit]

See also: Endorsements of Missouri ballot measures, 2010

Opposition[edit]

• St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, "St. Louis and Kansas City long have depended on earnings taxes to pay for basic municipal services — the kind that are essential to keeping commercial districts and neighborhoods safe and attractive. If their earnings taxes are lost, and replacement taxes are not found, both cities would descend into financial chaos...It would give voters in places like Peculiar and Chillicothe right to impose mandates on St. Louis and Kansas City. It would prevent all Missouri communities from enacting the local tax policies they deem best."^[43]

• Kansas City Star said, "What’s not to like? Plenty. To start with, Proposition A is a draconian measure that’s aimed at killing the earnings tax in elections next year in Kansas City and St. Louis. If that happens, Kansas City’s revenues for basic city services — mostly for public safety — could be slashed $200 million a year. Plus Sinquefield and his anti-tax brethren have offered no alternatives on how to cut the city budget or bring in other funds to keep the city operating without the E-tax."^[44]

• Southeast Missourian said, "Recommendation: Oppose. This proposition is basically aimed at St. Louis and Kansas City. Better for voters there to make the decision for themselves through normal processes rather than to do an end-run."^[45]

• Hannibal Courier-Post said, "St. Louis and Kansas City officials are right when they say elimination of the earnings tax would cause irreparable harm. Not only would basic services be affected, but long-term efforts might be abandoned because there was not a reliable source of revenue. If voters decide to say no in the future to such taxes, they can do so. But democracy demands that it not be against the law for them to make the choice. Voters should reject Proposition A."^[46]

• The Joplin Globe said, "Proposition A isn’t about only St. Louis or Kansas City, it’s about every city in Missouri. It’s about us. The only way to “let voters decide” is to vote no on Proposition A. It’s hard to find a major daily newspaper in Missouri that has endorsed this bad ballot question. We’re joining that skeptical crowd."^[47]

Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

• An October 18-20, 2010 poll for the Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV (Channel 4) by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. revealed that 59% of polled voters supported Proposition A, while 25% were opposed and 16% were undecided.The poll, of 625 registered Missouri voters, had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.^[48][49]

Lawsuits[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

Kansas City challenges measure[edit]

On August 13, 2010, Galen Beaufort, the Kansas City attorney, filed a lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court against Proposition A. Challengers argued that the proposed measure was unconstitutional and asked the court to remove the measure from the November 2010 ballot.^[50] Specifically, the lawsuit said the measure violated the state's single-subject rule, failed to make necessary distinctions between personal and business versions of the tax and mandated elections without funding them.^[51]

The lawsuit was filed 10 days following the certification of the measure by the Missouri Secretary of State. In response to the filed challenge, Let Voters Decide spokesperson Scott Charton called the lawsuit "an absurd act of desperation by special interests that don’t want voters to have a say on local earnings taxes." Prior to the certification of the measure, according to reports, the Kansas City Council unanimously voted to authorize the city attorney to take any legal actions deemed appropriate to challenge the initiative.^[52]

Let Voters Decide filed a motion in mid-August requesting a Cole County judge permission to take care part in the lawsuit case.^[53]

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem heard arguments on September 17.^[54][55]

Challenge rejected[edit]

Three days following the court hearing on September 20 Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Proposition A would remain on the 2010 ballot. In a two-page ruling Judge Beetem ruled that the allegations should be raised in a lawsuit following the November elections and rejected the challenges raised by Kansas City officials.^[56] The lawsuit alleged that the measure included too many topics and challenged the costs to municipalities for the required elections should the measure be approved by voters.^[57]

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Missouri signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

To qualify for the ballot, initiatives required signatures from registered voters equal to 5% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Petition signatures were due by May 2, 2010. All five proposed initiatives were cleared for circulation in January 2010.^[58] According to reports, supporters filed more than 200,000 signatures on April 27, 2010.^[59] The measure was approved for the November 2010 ballot in early August 2010.^[60]

According to reports, a spending disclosure for the first three months of 2010 revealed that the supporting campaign paid National Petition Management, a signature-gathering firm, a total of $575,757.^[61][62]

See also[edit]

Suggest a link

• Missouri 2010 ballot measures
• 2010 ballot measures
• List of Missouri ballot measures
• History of Initiative & Referendum in Missouri

Articles[edit]

External links[edit]

• Let Voters Decide, campaign finance information (support)
• for Missouri's Priorities, campaign finance information (opposition)
• Missouri 2010 ballot issues

Measure details[edit]

Additional reading[edit]

Editorials[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2010 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Vermont • Virginia Political topics (Certified topics only): Abortion • Administration of government • Affirmative action • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Energy • English • Firearms • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting • Direct democracy measures • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Natural resources • Property rights • Redistricting • State budgets • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation • Veterans • Water Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures • Official voter guides • Petition signature costs • 2010 ballot measure campaign websites • Certified but removed • Media endorsements • Not on the ballot Post-election 2010 analyses • 2010 election results • 2010 amendments to constitutions • Campaign contributions

	v • e State of Missouri Jefferson City (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | 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