The Hancock Amendment: Missouri's Tax Limitation Measure

The Hancock Amendment:

Missouri’s Tax Limitation Measure

Report 17-2012

November 2012

Prepared by:

Bridget Kevin-Myers, RN JD

Assistant Research Professor

Institute of Public Policy

Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs

University of Missouri

Russ Hembree, JD

Director

Joint Committee of Legislative Research

Missouri General Assembly

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

1 | P a g e

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

THE HANCOCK AMENDMENT:

MISSOURI’S TAX LIMITATION MEASURE

Abstract

In 1980, the Missouri constitution was amended to include a taxing and expenditure

limitation, which is commonly known as the Hancock Amendment. The Hancock

Amendment requires the state to refund money to income tax payers when revenues are

in excess of a percentage based upon the personal income of Missourians. If, in any given

year, there is a revenue surplus greater than 1% of the revenue limitation, the state must

refund the money to taxpayers. There were refunds in the late 1990s, but it is unlikely

that the refund provision will be invoked any time soon because the state is at least $3

billion dollars below the revenue threshold. Further, the Hancock amendment limits the

overall amount of new annual revenue that the legislature may raise in any one year

without voter approval. Finally, the Hancock amendment has a ‘no unfunded mandate’

provision that prevents the state legislature from shifting funding responsibilities from the

state level to the local level. In these tight fiscal times, both the voter approval

requirement for taxes and the local mandate prohibition impact legislative decision-

making.

Introduction

In 1980, Mel Hancock, a Springfield businessman, began a petition drive in support of a

constitutional amendment that would limit state and local government taxation and

spending. On November 4, 1980, 55 percent of the voters approved the constitutional

amendment. It is generally known as the Hancock amendment, and is found in Article X

Sections 18-24 of the Missouri Constitution.

The amendment is often known as the “tax

and spending lid” whose purpose is to limit taxes by establishing tax, revenue and

spending limits for the state legislature and other political subdivisions that may only be

exceeded with voter approval. See Roher v. Emmons, 289 SW 3d 600, 603 (Mo.App.

E.D. 2009)(internal citations omitted).

Missouri is a fiscally conservative state and the Hancock Amendment places further

restrictions on the government’s ability to raise monies and spend those monies. It is

imperative that Missouri legislatures and government officials understand the limitations

and the allowances of the tax and spending lid. To that end, this report discusses the

various sections of the Hancock Amendment in detail and select court decisions

interpreting the provisions of the Amendment. The legislature has not adopted

implementing legislation; consequently lawsuits are necessary to determine the

parameters of the Hancock Amendment.

The amendment is found online at the State legislature site: http://www.moga.mo.gov/ , last visited November 5, 2012.

A thorough discussion of the historical context of the Hancock Amendment, its interpretation by the courts over the past thirty years

and the implications of the limitations for future legislative efforts is found in a recent Missouri Law review article. Bremer, J.G.,

Puling the Taxpayer’s Sword From the Stone: The Appropriation Requirement of Missouri’s Hancock Amendment, 77 Missouri

L.Rev. 481 (2012).

Id. at 489.

2 | P a g e

Substantive Provisions

The Hancock Amendment

contains five important provisions: 1) state revenue limit

and tax refund provision; 2) state mandate provision 3) voter approval of raising tax

revenues above a specified ceiling 4) local government tax limit and voter approval

provision and 5) taxpayer right to bring lawsuit.

State Revenue Limit

Section 18(a)

limits the amount of taxes which the General Assembly may impose in any

fiscal year by requiring that the ratio between total state revenues (TSR) and the personal

income of Missourians be the same as the ratio calculated for certain base years (the

amendment specifies the TSR for FY81 and the personal income figures for calendar year

1979). That ratio was determined and set at 5.6395% in 1985. This constant ratio is then

multiplied by the personal income figures for Missourians in later years to determine the

revenue limit for any given year. The limit in state revenue, therefore, is tied to the

percentage growth in Missourians' personal income.

To qualify as total state revenues, the funds must be received into the state treasury and

be subject to appropriation. Kelly v. Hanson, 959 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Mo. 1997).

Revenues can include general revenue, special revenue, licenses and fees. It is important

to note, however, that the amendment requires the exclusion of tax revenues if those

revenues have been directly approved by voters after the adoption of the Hancock

Amendment. Goode v. Bond, 652 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1983); Missouri Merchants and

Manufacturers Association v. State, 42 S.W.3d 628 (Mo. banc 2001). The latter case

also held that tax credits used to reduce the amount of money a taxpayer owes do not

become TSR, but tax credits which exceed the amount of money owed in taxes do

become TSR. Id. at 635. Practically speaking, tax credits reduce TSR, which is

important to consider when contemplating raising tax revenues and the limitations

discussed below.

Vernon’s Annotated Statutes (VAMS) provides an excellent synopsis of major court decisions interpreting this constitutional

provision and the reader is encouraged to consult VAMS. VAMS Const. Art.10, §§ 16-24.

Mo.Const.art. X, §18 (2012).

3 | P a g e

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

Overall Limitation on Raising Tax Revenues

Section 18(e)

prohibits the General Assembly

from increasing taxes or fees in any fiscal year

that would produce "new annual revenues" in

excess of either a specified dollar amount

(adjusted annually by percentage change in

personal income; for FY12 the amount was

estimated at $80.2 million) or 1% of TSR for the

second fiscal year before the General

Assembly's action, whichever is less. The term

“new annual revenues” refers to the net increase

in annual revenues.

The determination of a net

increase in annual revenues is determined by

identifying the total increase of all taxes and

fees less any applicable refunds and any

contemporaneously occurring reductions in

taxes or fees. In addition, “new annual revenue”

does not include and interest earned on the

proceeds of any taxes or fees. Finally, this

limitation does not apply to dedicated funds.

Refund Provision

For any year in which the revenue limit is

exceeded by 1% or more, a pro rata refund of

the excess revenues is made to Missouri state

income taxpayers.

In order for the funds to be

subject to the refund mandate, they must be 1)

received into the state treasury and 2) subject to

appropriation. Missouri Ass’n of Counties v.

Wilson, 3 S.W. 3d 772, 774 (Mo. 1999) citing

to Kelly v. Hanson, 959 S.W. 2d 707 (Mo.

1997). The constitutionality of this provision

was upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court in

Missourians for Tax Justice Education Project

v. Holden, 959 S.W.2d 100 (Mo. banc 1997), in

which it was argued that the refund was

unconstitutional, as a violation of the Equal

Protection clause, because it went only to

income taxpayers, not all taxpayers. The Court

found that the Hancock amendment furthered a

Mo.Const. art. X,§ 18(e)(1)(2012).

Mo.Const. art. X,§18(e)(2)(2012).

The amount of annual new revenue allowable without voter approval is published annually in the executive budget and can be viewed on-line at

www.oa.mo.gov.

Mo.Const. art. X,§18(b)(2012).

Definitions

FY (Fiscal Year) - the period running from

July 1 of one year through June 30 of the

following year which is used to measure the

state budget cycle of revenues and spending.

General Revenue Fund - fund in the state

treasury into which all state moneys are

deposited, unless required by statute or

constitutional provision to be deposited into

another fund. (See §33.543, RSMo)

Hancock II - initiative petition placed on the

ballot in 1994 which would have strengthened

several provisions of the original Hancock

Amendment. The measure was defeated by a

wide margin.

Personal Income of Missouri - total amount of

income received by persons in Missouri from

all sources, as defined by the U.S. Department

of Commerce. (See article X, § 17(2) in

Appendix A)

Total State Revenue (TSR) - all general and

special revenues, licenses and fees, excluding

federal funds. The term is used to describe the

total amount of money which the state receives

into the state treasury and which is then subject

to appropriation; if the amount exceeds a

certain limit, the excess must be refunded to

state income tax payers. (See article X, §17(1);

§ 18(b) in Appendix A)

§18(e) State Tax Increases Requiring Voter

Approval - a referendum amendment adopted

in 1996 imposed an additional limit on the

ability of the General Assembly to increase

taxes without voter approval. New annual

revenues imposed by the General Assembly,

which in the aggregate exceed a specified

dollar amount (originally $50 million), or 1%

of total state revenues, must first be approved

by the voters. The dollar figure is adjusted for

changes in personal income of Missouri and for

2012; the amount is estimated at $80.2 million.

4 | P a g e

legitimate state purpose and that the refund mechanism was a rational means of achieving that

purpose. Id. at 105. Further, the words of the amendment were not vague or ambiguous, thus

were not a violation of the Due Process clause. Id. at 106-07. Ultimately refunds for FY95,

FY96, FY97, FY98, and FY99 were distributed. Approximately $971 million in total refunds

(including corporate taxpayers) were made for those years.

In the current economic environment, and for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that the refund

provision will be invoked. The state is currently more than $3 billion below the refund threshold.

As discussed above, the legislature is limited in its ability to raise tax revenues in excess of $80.2

million without voter approval. Raising tax revenues above $80 million requires voter approval

of the largest proposed tax. Moreover, the Missouri Supreme Court has consistently held that

“voter approved tax increases [are] not subject to the revenue limit of article X, section 18(a) and

[are] not subject to being included in the revenues subject to Hancock refunds.” Missouri

Merchants and Manufacturers, 42 S.W.3d 628, 633. Consequently, even if voters approved

taxes whose revenues exceeded the revenue threshold amount in any given year (currently over

$3 billion); it is unlikely that those funds would be subject to Hancock refunds.

State Mandate

Sections 16 and 21

prohibit the state from reducing its proportion of funding for local activities

from the level in effect at the time the amendment was adopted (11/4/1980) or from requiring

local governments to provide new or additional activities or services without the state agreeing to

pay the costs. This provision essentially prevents the legislature from shifting funding

responsibilities from the state to local governments- no unfunded mandates. Court cases have

emphasized that a violation occurs when two things happen: 1) the state requires a new or

increased activity of a political subdivision; and 2) the political subdivision experiences

increased costs as a result of the state-mandated new or increased activity or service. See City of

Jefferson v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 863 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. banc 1993).

The political subdivision must show an actual increase in costs; the increase will not be

presumed. The plaintiff has the burden to prove that an unfunded mandate exists by offering

specific proof of new or increased duties and increased expenses, and these elements cannot be

established by mere ‘common sense,’ or ‘speculation and conjecture’. School Dist. of Kansas

City v. State, 317 S.W.3d 599, 611 (Mo. 2010).

If increased costs are shown, then the state must make a specific appropriation which expressly

funds the costs of the state-mandated program. See Rolla 32 School Dist. v State, 837 S.W.2d 1

(Mo. banc 1992). If a specific appropriation is not made, the recourse for the political

subdivision is a declaratory judgment relieving it of the duty to perform the state-mandated

activity or service. See Harrison v. Monroe County, 716 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. banc 1986). With

respect to the requirements of a concealed carry statute, the Court ruled that the fee authorized by

statute for the issuance of gun permits by counties was insufficient to cover the cost of issuing

those permits. See Brooks v. State of Missouri, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc 2004).

In the case

of handgun permits, the statute was revised to allocate more of the fee to pay for processing. The

Mo.Const.art X, §§16, 21(2012).

Actually, the court ruled that the portion of the fee applied to the cost of processing the application was inadequate. This decision applied only

to the four counties that were party to the suit.

5 | P a g e

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

Senate Appropriations Staff is not aware of any appropriation as the result of a decision made

under the mandate provision of the amendment.

Where there is no mandate that the governmental entity take on a new responsibility, rather to

continue to maintain a responsibility for funding an existing activity in accordance with a

previously-existing formula, there is no Hancock violation. See Neske v. City of St. Louis, 218

S.W.3d 417, 423 (Mo. 2007) (overruled on other grounds).

Local Government Tax limit/voter approval

Sections 16 and 22

impose the tax limit and voter approval requirement on local governments.

The general rule is that voter approval is required before any political subdivision can levy any

"tax, license or fees" not authorized when the Amendment was adopted or increase the current

levy above the level at the time of adoption. In addition, if the existing base of a tax, license or

fee is broadened (such as by repealing a deduction or exemption), then the tax rate has to be

reduced to yield the same amount as would have been received on the prior base.

The Missouri Supreme Court, in Keller v. Marion County Ambulance District, 820 S.W.2d 301

(Mo. banc 1991), enunciated a five-part test to be used in determining what constitutes a "tax,

license or fee" for purposes of the Hancock amendment. These factors should be considered in

totality and no factor should be considered independently controlling of the analysis.

1) When is the fee paid? Fees subject to the Hancock Amendment are likely due to be paid on

a periodic basis.

2) Who pays the fee? A fee subject to the Hancock Amendment is likely to be blanket-billed to

all or almost all of the residents of the political subdivision.

3) Is the amount of the fee to be paid affected by the level of goods or services provided to the

fee payer? Fees subject to the Hancock Amendment are less likely to be dependent on the

level of goods or services provided to the fee payer.

4) Is the government providing a service or good? If there is no good or service being provided,

or someone unconnected with the government is providing the good or service, then any

charge required by and paid to a local government is probably subject to the Hancock

Amendment.

5) Has the activity historically and exclusively been provided by the government? If the

government has historically and exclusively provided the good, service, permission or

activity, the fee is likely subject to the Hancock Amendment.

Mo.Const.art X, §§16, 22 (2012).

6 | P a g e

Avanti Petroleum, Inc. v. St. Louis County, 974 S.W.2d 506, 510-11 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998)

citing to Keller at 304.

If the assessed valuation of property, excluding new construction and improvements, increases

by a larger percentage than the Consumer Price Index, then a "rollback" of the tax rate is

required to yield the same amount as would have been received from the levy on the prior

assessed value. This rollback applies on a district-wide basis; consequently, individual property

owners can still see a higher-than-CPI increase in their own property tax bills. It is important to

note, however, that claims for refunds of taxes collected in violation of the Hancock Amendment

must be brought before the taxes become payable, i.e., before the last day of the tax year at issue.

Koehr v. Emmons, 55 S.W.3d 580, 584 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001).

Plaintiffs sought the rollback of a school district tax levy in Thompson v. Hunter, 119 S.W.3d

95 (Mo. banc 2003). The central issue involved whether Article X, Section 11(b), as amended in

1998 and which authorizes a school district to set a property tax levy of $2.75 without voter

approval, was nevertheless subject to the Hancock rollback provisions. The Court held that the

1998 amendment prevailed and authorizes a $2.75 tax levy by decision of the district school

board.

Taxpayer right to bring lawsuit

Finally, section 23

specifies that "any taxpayer" has standing to bring suit in circuit court or,

when the state is involved, in the Missouri Supreme Court, to enforce the provisions of the

Hancock Amendment. To enforce the Hancock Amendment, a taxpayer may (1) seek an

injunction, enjoining the collection of the challenged tax until the constitutionality of the tax is

determined; or (2) seek a refund of an increased tax that was collected in violation of the

Hancock amendment through a timely action. Koehr 55 S.W.3d 580, 582. “Any taxpayer” does

not include any governmental entity or political subdivision, but may include a governmental

official if that official is bringing suit in his role as a taxpayer. State ex rel. City of Desloge v.

St. Francois County, 245 S.W.3d 855, 861 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007).

A plaintiff who is successful in pursuing a Hancock claim is entitled to reimbursement for

reasonable attorney fees and costs. See Avanti Petroleum, Inc. v. St. Louis County, 974 S.W.2d

506 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998). A class action by taxpayers is authorized under appropriate

circumstances. See City of Hazelwood v. Peterson, 48 S.W.3d 36 (Mo.banc 2001).

Conclusion

The Hancock Amendment effectively restricts the legislature’s ability to significantly tax and

spend revenues without voter approval. The legislature can impose taxes that increase revenue,

but are limited to those that result in a net increase that is less than or equal to 1% of TSR. Voter

approved taxes, however, are not generally subject to the limits of the Hancock Amendment. It

is unlikely that the refund provision of the Hancock Amendment will be invoked in the

foreseeable future because of the pronounced gap between TSR and the refund limit. Moreover,

it is likely that sections 16 and 21 of the Hancock Amendment will most affect the work of the

Mo.Const.art X, §23 (2012).

7 | P a g e

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

legislature in the future because those sections prohibit unfunded mandates imposed by the

legislature. Consequently, when enacting any legislation, the legislature needs to consider both

the limit on raising taxes that may result in revenue exceeding the 1% of TSR limit (currently

$80.2 million) and the financial consequences of imposing any responsibilities on local

government.

8 | P a g e

APPENDIX A

The Hancock Amendment

Section 16. Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not

be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval as provided by

this constitution. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by

counties and other political subdivisions without full state financing, or from shifting the tax

burden to counties and other political subdivisions. A provision for emergency conditions is

established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed.

Implementation of this section is specified in sections 17 through 24, inclusive, of this article.

Section 17. As used in sections 16 through 24 of Article X:

(1) "Total state revenues" includes all general and special revenues, license and fees,

excluding federal funds, as defined in the budget message of the governor for fiscal year

1980-1981. Total state revenues shall exclude the amount of any credits based on actual tax

liabilities or the imputed tax components of rental payments, but shall include the amount of any

credits not related to actual tax liabilities.

(2) "Personal income of Missouri" is the total income received by persons in Missouri

from all sources, as defined and officially reported by the United States Department of

Commerce or its successor agency.

(3) "General price level" means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for

the United States, or its successor publications, as defined and officially reported by the United

States Department of Labor, or its successor agency.

Section 18. (a) There is hereby established a limit on the total amount of taxes which

may be imposed by the general assembly in any fiscal year on the taxpayers of this state.

Effective with fiscal year 1981-1982, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the general assembly

shall not impose taxes of any kind which, together with all other revenues of the state, federal

funds excluded, exceed the revenue limit established in this section. The revenue limit shall be

calculated for each fiscal year and shall be equal to the product of the ratio of total state

revenues in fiscal year 1980-1981 divided by the personal income of Missouri in calendar year

1979 multiplied by the personal income of Missouri in either the calendar year prior to the

calendar year in which appropriations for the fiscal year for which the calculation is being

made, or the average of personal income of Missouri in the previous three calendar years,

whichever is greater.

(b) For any fiscal year in the event that total state revenues exceed the revenue limit

established in this section by one percent or more, the excess revenues shall be refunded pro rata

based on the liability reported on the Missouri state income tax (or its successor tax or taxes)

annual returns filed following the close of such fiscal year. If the excess is less than one percent,

this excess shall be transferred to the general revenue fund.

the payment of principal and interest on bonds, approved by the voters and authorized under the

provisions of this constitution.

(d) If responsibility for funding a program or programs is transferred from one level of

government to another, as a consequence of constitutional amendment, the state revenue and

spending limits may be adjusted to accommodate such change, provided that the total revenue

The Hancock Amendment, Article X, Sections 16-24 of the Missouri Constitution are reprinted below.

9 | P a g e

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

authorized for collection by both state and local governments does not exceed that amount which

would have been authorized without such change.

Section 18(e). 1. In addition to the revenue limit imposed by section 18 of this article,

the general assembly in any fiscal year shall not increase taxes or fees without voter approval

that in total produce new annual revenues greater than either fifty million dollars adjusted

annually by the percentage change in the personal income of Missouri for the second previous

fiscal year, or one percent of total state revenues for the second fiscal year prior to the general

assembly's action, whichever is less. In the event that an individual or series of tax or fee

increases exceed the ceiling established in this subsection, the taxes or fees shall be submitted by

the general assembly to a public vote starting with the largest increase in the given year, and

including all increases in descending order, until the aggregate of the remaining increases and

decreases is less than the ceiling provided in this subsection.

2. The term "new annual revenues" means the net increase in annual revenues produced

by the total of all tax or fee increases enacted by the general assembly in a fiscal year, less

applicable refunds and less all contemporaneously occurring tax or fee reductions in that same

fiscal year, and shall not include interest earnings on the proceeds of the tax or fee increase. For

purposes of this calculation, "enacted by the general assembly" shall include any and all bills

that are truly agreed to and finally passed within that fiscal year, except bills vetoed by the

governor and not overridden by the general assembly. Each individual tax or fee increase shall

be measured by the estimated new annual revenues collected during the first fiscal year that it is

fully effective. The term "increase taxes or fees" means any law or laws passed by the general

assembly after May 2, 1996, that increase the rate of an existing tax or fee, impose a new tax or

fee, or broaden the scope of a tax or fee to include additional class of property, activity, or

income, but shall not include the extension of an existing tax or fee which was set to expire.

3. In the event of an emergency, the general assembly may increase taxes, licenses or

fees for one year beyond the limit in this subsection under the same procedure specified in

section 19 of this article.

4. Compliance with the limit in this section shall be measured by calculating the

aggregate actual new annual revenues produced in the first fiscal year that each individual tax

or fee change is fully effective.

5. Any taxpayer or statewide elected official may bring an action under the provisions of

section 23 of this article to enforce compliance with the provisions of this section. The Missouri

supreme court shall have original jurisdiction to hear any challenge brought by any statewide

elected official to enforce this section. In such enforcement actions, the court shall invalidate the

taxes and fees which should have received a public vote as defined in subsection 1 of this section.

The court shall order remedies of the amount of revenue collected in excess of the limit in this

subsection as the court finds appropriate in order to allow such excess amounts to be refunded

or to reduce taxes and/or fees in the future to offset the excess monies collected.

Section 19. The revenue limit of section 18 of this article may be exceeded only if all of

the following conditions are met: (1) The governor requests the general assembly to declare an

emergency; (2) the request is specific as to the nature of the emergency, the dollar amount of the

emergency, and the method by which the emergency will be funded; and (3) the general assembly

thereafter declares an emergency in accordance with the specifics of the governor's request by a

majority vote for fiscal year 1981-1982, thereafter a two-thirds vote of the members elected to

10 | P a g e

and serving in each house. The emergency must be declared in accordance with this section

prior to incurring any of the expenses which constitute the emergency request. The revenue limit

may be exceeded only during the fiscal year for which the emergency is declared. In no event

shall any part of the amount representing a refund under section 18 of this article be the subject

of an emergency request.

Section 20. No expenses of state government shall be incurred in any fiscal year which

exceed the sum of the revenue limit established in sections 18 and 19 of this article plus federal

funds and any surplus from a previous fiscal year.

Section 21. The state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed proportion of

the costs of any existing activity or service required of counties and other political subdivisions.

A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that

required by existing law shall not be required by the general assembly or any state agency of

counties or other political subdivisions, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed to

pay the county or other political subdivision for any increased costs.

Section 22. (a) Counties and other political subdivisions are hereby prohibited from

levying any tax, license or fees, not authorized by law, charter or self-enforcing provisions of the

constitution when this section is adopted or from increasing the current levy of an existing tax,

license or fees, above that current levy authorized by law or charter when this section is adopted

without the approval of the required majority of the qualified voters of that county or other

political subdivision voting thereon. If the definition of the base of an existing tax, license or

fees, is broadened, the maximum authorized current levy of taxation on the new base in each

county or other political subdivision shall be reduced to yield the same estimated gross revenue

as on the prior base. If the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized, excluding the

value of new construction and improvements, increases by a larger percentage than the increase

in the general price level from the previous year, the maximum authorized current levy applied

thereto in each county or other political subdivision shall be reduced to yield the same gross

revenue from existing property, adjusted for changes in the general price level, as could have

been collected at the existing authorized levy on the prior assessed value.

(b) The limitations of this section shall not apply to taxes imposed for the payment of

principal and interest on bonds or other evidence of indebtedness or for the payment of

assessments on contract obligations in anticipation of which bonds are issued which were

authorized prior to the effective date of this section.

Section 23. Notwithstanding other provisions of this constitution or other law, any

taxpayer of the state, county, or other political subdivision shall have standing to bring suit in a

circuit court of proper venue and additionally, when the state is involved, in the Missouri

supreme court, to enforce the provisions of sections 16 through 22, inclusive, of this article and,

if the suit is sustained, shall receive from the applicable unit of government his costs, including

reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in maintaining such suit.

11 | P a g e

Missouri Legislative Academy

Institute of Public Policy

University of Missouri

Section 24. (a) The provisions for voter approval contained in sections 16 through 23,

inclusive, of this article do not abrogate and are in addition to other provisions of the

constitution requiring voter approval to incur bonded indebtedness and to authorize certain

taxes.

The provisions contained in sections 16 through 23, inclusive, of this article are self-enforcing;

provided, however, that the general assembly may enact laws implementing such provisions

which are not inconsistent with the purposes of said sections.