Patrick Wroblewski For the 72nd

PROPOSITION A - 

 

This proposition, if approved by voters,  would repeal Missouri’s existing congressional plan, and replace it with the new (HB-1) congressional map. 

​

A NO vote repeals the new congressional map under HB1, keeping the congressional map enacted in 2022.

 

A YES vote supports upholding the new congressional district map under HB1, enacted in 2025.

 

Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn every 10 years in the year following the U.S. census. State legislatures use this new data to adjust boundaries so that every district has an equal number of people.

​

HB1 is not currently in effect. On September 3, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the referendum petition (challenging the enactment of the new/HB1 map) was legal. As a result, HB1 did not take effect and will take effect only if approved by voters. Although the HB1 districts were used for Missouri’s August 2026 primary elections, the congressional districts enacted in 2022 will govern the November 2026 general election.  The whole process is extremely confusing to Missouri voters.

​

If you check out the map below, you will notice that Kansas City is the most affected if the new HB1 map goes into effect. KC is currently mostly contained within the 5th District. The new map would divide it across multiple districts. A portion of St. Louis County is affected as well.

 

A portion of my district (HD-72) falls within the area affected by the new HB 1 map. When knocking on doors in that area, the vast majority of residents are livid about the possibility of falling into a different congressional district and having their representation altered.

​​​​

The link below provides a decent breakdown of the court back and forth timeline that led to the use of the original (2022) map for the November 3rd 2026 election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Missouri_Proposition_A

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​​​

PROPOSITION I&N - 

These propositions, if approved by voters, would provide funding for major facility improvements (Prop I) , and transfer existing tax revenue from the debt service fund to the operating fund (Prop N).

​​

The Ritenour Board of Education has placed two measures on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot that would address the district's facility and operational needs without changing the current school tax rate.

​

​Let's break these two props down...

​​

PROP I is a bond issue that would be used for HVAC replacements and upgrades, window replacements, safety and security improvements, building maintenance, and playground improvements.

​

What is a bond issue? I have explained this many times throughout the years, and here is the easiest way to understand.

​

A bond issue is basically a way for a school district to borrow a large amount of money to pay for big projects. I always describe it as a loan that the school district takes out, and is paid back over time so the schools can make major improvements without having to pay for everything upfront.  Districts require voter approval to take out these loans.  Ritenour is asking for your approval on this bond issue so that they can make the above mentioned improvements.

​

PROP N is a tax transfer.  If approved, existing tax revenue will be transferred from the debt service fund to the operating fund. The transfer would help fund teacher and staff salaries and operating expenses.

​​

Ritenour is asking for your approval to move leftover money that was set aside for paying off old loans into the regular school budget so it can help pay teachers and operating expenses, and keep the schools running day-to-day.

​

More info can be found through the link below.

https://www.ritenourschools.org/about-us/propsin

​

​

AMENDMENT 3 - 

This amendment, if approved by voters, will repeal Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by the voters in 2024 which provided reproductive healthcare rights.

​

I am not going to dive too deep into this issue, as the majority of Missouri voters already stated at the ballot box that they want access to reproductive healthcare. I will help to clear up any confusion on what your YES and NO vote would mean, as that has changed, but the amendment number (3) has not.

​

A yes vote on Missouri Amendment 3 means:

• Repealing the constitutional right to abortion

• Allowing abortion bans to take effect

• Giving politicians more control over personal medical decisions

​

A no vote on Missouri Amendment 3 means:

• Keeping the current constitutional protections in place

• Preserving access to abortion

• Preventing new constitutional restrictions

​

It is also important to note that Missouri already has a ban on gender-affirming medical procedures for

minors. The law, known as the Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act (Senate

Bill 49), took effect on August 28, 2023. The law was upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court in

January 2026. YES or NO on Amendment 3 would not change this.

​

​AMENDMENT 6 - 

 

This amendment, if approved by voters, would require ballot summaries to be clear and accurate, maintain the current standards for qualifying and passing an initiative proposal and require lawmakers who want to alter the provisions of a voter-proposed law to obtain votes of 80% of the General Assembly to put changes on a future ballot.

 

Amendment 6 would protect Missourians’ right to put issues directly on the ballot.

For over 118 years, regular citizens in Missouri have had the power to propose and vote on laws through the initiative process.

 

What is this process and how do you go about it?

​

A group or individual writes the exact language of the new law or constitutional amendment they want and gets it approved to circulate through the office of the Secretary of State.  After that, signatures can be collected from registered Missouri voters. For a new law/statute 5% of the votes cast for governor in the last election are required from at least 6 of the 8 congressional districts.  For a constitutional amendment, 8% is needed in at least 6 of 8 congressional districts.

Signatures are turned in at least 6 months before the election and if they are verified, it goes on the ballot.

​

Right now, the state legislature can weaken that power or even repeal laws that voters approved.  Just one instance of that happening was in 2025 when lawmakers repealed paid sick leave and inflation adjustments to the minimum wage that voters had passed.  This amendment would stop the legislature from making it harder for citizens to use the initiative process. It would prevent changes such as:

​

• Raising the number of signatures required

• Shortening the time allowed to gather signatures

• Restricting what topics can be on the ballot

• Making it harder to challenge ballot language in court

• Adding extra requirements for petition circulators

• Requiring more than a simple majority of voters to approve an initiative

 

Any of those changes would still be possible, but only through a new constitutional amendment that voters themselves would have to approve.  The amendment would also require ballot summaries to be clear and accurate. It keeps the current rules for qualifying and passing an initiative.

 

Most importantly, if lawmakers want to change or repeal a law that voters passed, they would need an 80% vote in both the House and Senate to put that change on a future ballot.  An 80% majority is a high bar. With current numbers, that would require 131 votes in the Missouri House (out of 163) and 28 votes in the Senate (out of 34). That level of support would almost always need bipartisan agreement.  

 

In short, Amendment 6 is about protecting the people’s right to make laws directly and making sure politicians can’t easily undo what voters decide.

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​AMENDMENT 7 - 

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?
State and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. 

 

BREAKDOWN:

This proposal would create a state permanent fund that would  receive state appropriations and gifts to the state.

The fund would be managed and left untapped until it could produce enough income to replace all the revenue generated by income, sales and other state taxes. When used, the state could spend no more than 3% of the fund’s three-year average balance.

To generate the roughly $13 billion of general revenue Missouri is collecting this year, the fund would have to hold $260 billion and earn a 5% return.

​​​​

Let’s break this down!  ​​​​​

​

 Right off the bat, my eye is drawn to this line in the language:

 

…in the event the fund is unable to meet its obligations due to insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure, the General Assembly shall retain full authority to appropriate funds from any lawful source and to enact legislation establishing or increasing taxes or other revenues as necessary.  

 

If the fund fails, this allows the politicians in office to increase taxes as necessary, suspending our/the peoples' right to vote on any tax increases, suspending the Hancock Amendment that limits the legislature from raising or creating new taxes without a vote of the people. Once again, eliminating state taxes sounds great, but what is the catch?

 

 Let’s dig a little further…

 

 This line comes straight from the truly agreed to and passed SJR 95 (see that here… https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections/Petitions/SSSCSSJR95-SignedCopy.pdf)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, the Standard and Poor’s 500 is also known as the S&P 500. This is an index fund that tracks the performance of the 500 largest companies in the US. This fund represents about 80% of the total stock market. Anyone who has ever invested in the market knows that it is risky. There are much safer options that I will mention after we get some of the other questions out of the way.  

 

Where is the money coming from to fund this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

Walking into the next legislative session we all know that we are going to be facing major budget hurdles. Covid funds are nearly completely spent, and our state auditor has warned that the budget is broken and faces severe deficits. I don’t see the General Assembly investing any funds anytime soon.

 

 Here is a logical alternative… Invest through MOSIP or a similar program. MOSIP stands for - Missouri Securities Investment Program. This program allows funds to be placed into fixed-income investments to buy certificates of deposit (CDs). These generate income at a fixed rate for a fixed amount of time without worry of the stock market crashing like investing in the S&P 500. Currently the state does not put funds into MOSIP as it is designed for local political subdivisions (schools, municipalities, counties). How about we change that so that if the state happens to find a surplus anywhere it can be invested? I’ll add that to my state to-do list.

 

 We have invested through MOSIP in Overland and it has been a huge success.  In 2024, we established the Overland Investment Committee. I am proud to have served on that committee since its creation. We invested unused revenue from our General Fund, Parks Fund, and Capital Improvement Fund into state-held certificates of deposit and high-yield savings accounts through MOSIP. Today, Overland retains only the cash needed for short-term obligations, investing the remainder for long-term growth. This approach now generates hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual interest revenue, which we can direct toward essential improvements like roads, parks, police services, and more.

 

 Lastly, here is some math. The fund would need to hold $260 billion and to earn a 5% return to cover the state’s general revenue. In 2026 Missouri brought in $13 billion in general revenue before any deductions. Since the money would be invested into an index fund there are fees associated with that as well... and let's not forget about inflation! Inflation is currently sitting at 3.4%.  That alone eats up a giant chunk of the 5% return needed.  What will it be in the future?

 

In conclusion, the language does not guarantee me that in the future the whole thing won’t flop and leave it open to legislators to raise taxes and create new taxes at will. There is also much risk involved when dealing with the stock market. Let’s put unused funds (if any) into safer investments like certificates of deposit by either opening MOSIP to the state or creating a similar program. And let’s not pretend that any big donors won’t expect something in return.

​

​​​​​​​​​​

​

AMENDMENT 8 - 

​​

This amendment, if approved by voters, would amend the state constitution to require the election of county sheriffs to four-year terms in most counties, with the exception of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County.

The amendment would define sheriffs as the chief law enforcement officers in those counties and assign them constitutional responsibilities, including preserving the peace, suppressing riots and disturbances, apprehending and jailing felons and traitors, attending circuit court proceedings, carrying out court orders and other legal processes, and hiring deputies and employees.

The amendment would also limit the circumstances under which a sheriff could be removed from office, while providing that a sheriff could only be removed through a writ of quo warranto (a legal proceeding used to challenge an official's right to hold office) initiated by the attorney general.

​

Detailed description and breakdown coming soon.

​

​