On November 4, 1980, Missouri voters approved the Hancock Amendment (Hancock) to Missouri's Constitution. Hancock addressed voter concerns as to whether state and local governments could keep their taxing and spending in check. The amendment contains two principle aspects. First, Hancock limits state and local governments in their ability to increase taxation, revenue, and spending without voter approval. Second, Hancock prohibits the state from imposing "unfunded mandates" upon its political subdivisions - closing a loophole that would otherwise allow the state to circumvent its duty not to raise taxes or spending above a certain level without a vote of the people. According to Hancock, new state mandates require that a "state appropriation is made and disbursed to pay the county or other political subdivision for any increased costs." This "appropriation requirement" is the focus of this Law Summary. As one of, if not the most, fiscally conservative states in the nation, the history and future of Missouri's Hancock Amendment - arguably the most restrictive tax and expenditure limitation in the nation - is critical to understand, not only for Missourians, but for many other Americans, as our state and national elected representatives consider how, if at all, to approach spiraling deficits in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Part II of this Summary will briefly trace the history of self-imposed fiscal restraints among the various states. Missouri's unique tradition of fiscal conservatism and the birth of Hancock will be part of the historical discussion, which also includes a description of the Hancock's key provisions and how the courts have interpreted Hancock's provisions over time. Part III will focus on the 2004 case of Brooks v. State that appears to open the door for avoidance of the seemingly unambiguous Hancock appropriation requirement. This Part will also describe the pending case of Turner v. School District of Clayton, which may bring this question of interpretation before the Supreme Court of Missouri. Part IV provides two examples of recently proposed and enacted legislation that could violate the Hancock appropriation requirement in an effort to show the potential broad reach of the provision. It also suggests that the Supreme Court of Missouri has become increasingly deferential to the legislature in Hancock cases. Lastly, it applies the interpretive methods used by the court in Hancock cases to the appropriations requirement and concludes that regardless of method, the court is likely to uphold the provision's broad reach. This section ends with a policy-based argument supporting such a holding.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.