Rep. Jim Murphy proposes 'truth in advertising' rules for ballot language in HB 17‑90
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Rep. Jim Murphy introduced HB 17‑90 to require clearer ballot wording, close a Hancock Amendment loophole that can preserve levies after reassessment, and require levies be expressed as cost per $100,000 of assessed value so voters better understand tax impact.
Representative Jim Murphy introduced House Bill 17‑90 as a “truth in advertising” measure for ballot language, saying the bill’s goal is to require clear, non‑misleading titles and explanations for measures placed before voters. “It is a truth in advertising law for ballot language,” Murphy said when he opened the hearing.
The bill has four components, Murphy told the Committee on Government Efficiency. One clarifies how local measures can be labeled on ballots (for example, allowing clerks to use A, B, C designations rather than reusing identical titles across jurisdictions). A second provision—described by Murphy as the “Melville” example—would require ballot language to disclose when a new measure nullifies a prior sunset so voters know a temporary levy could become effectively permanent. Murphy cited an historical example in which additional transfers left a district with a lasting higher levy.
A third section targets a perceived loophole in the Hancock Amendment by making clear that when reassessments occur the authorized levy must still be adjusted so taxpayers do not face an unintended windfall tax increase. The fourth change would require levies to be stated as a dollar amount per $100,000 of assessed value rather than only as cents (for example, instead of saying “4¢” the ballot would show the dollar cost on a $100,000 home), a step Murphy said is intended to make the tax effect clearer to voters.
Braden Pemberton of the Missouri Association of Counties and Election Authorities spoke for informational purposes and said his organization is working with Murphy and will provide suggested language for clerks. No opposition witnesses appeared at the hearing. The chair closed the public hearing after committee questions and moved on to other agenda items.
Because the hearing was informational and no vote was recorded in committee, the bill’s next procedural step will depend on committee scheduling and any written amendments submitted to the chair.