What ballot summary did Missouri approve for petition 2026-129 requiring most in-person businesses to accept cash?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Missouri law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway approved the legal content and form of the proposed ballot summary for Mark Johnson's initiative petition 2026-129, version 3 of an Article XI amendment.
The approved summary described a requirement that most in-person businesses accept cash for goods and services. It listed exceptions for airlines, online-only businesses, tuition payments, gaming transactions, and campaign-finance contributions.
The summary also allowed refusal of suspected counterfeit bills, unlawful denominations, and payments where exact change could not be made. It would prohibit state or local governments from authorizing cashless policies and allow enforcement by the Attorney General or through private lawsuits.
The Attorney General's review under § 116.334, RSMo was limited to legal content and form and did not endorse the proposal.
What this means for you
In-person businesses
The approved wording described a proposed cash-acceptance requirement with specific business, transaction, and payment exceptions. The opinion itself did not create that requirement.
Consumers
The summary described a proposed right to use cash at most in-person businesses, subject to the listed exceptions.
State and local officials
The approved wording said governments could not authorize cashless policies and identified both Attorney General and private enforcement.
Common questions
Q: Which businesses would be exempt?
A: The summary listed airlines and online-only businesses, along with tuition payments, gaming transactions, and campaign-finance contributions.
Q: Could a business reject suspected counterfeit money?
A: Yes. The approved summary allowed refusal of suspected counterfeit bills.
Q: What if exact change could not be made?
A: The summary allowed refusal in that situation.
Q: Who could enforce the proposed rule?
A: The approved wording identified the Attorney General and private lawsuits.
Background and statutory framework
The Secretary of State requested review on September 26, 2025. The proposed summary concerned Mark Johnson's petition 2026-129, version 3, to amend Article XI of the Missouri Constitution.
The Attorney General issued Opinion 311-2025 on October 6, 2025 and approved the summary's legal content and form under § 116.334, RSMo.
Citations and references
Statute: § 116.334, RSMo.
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/311-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
CATHERINE L. HANAWAY
October 6, 2025
OPINION LETTER NO. 311-2025
The Honorable Denny Hoskins, CPA
Missouri Secretary of State
James C. Kirkpatrick State Information Center
600 West Main Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Secretary Hoskins:
This opinion letter responds to your request dated September 26, 2025, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Mark Johnson (2026-129) regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article XI, version 3, of the Missouri Constitution. The proposed summary statement is as follows:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- require most in-person businesses to accept cash as payment for goods and services;
- exempt airlines, online-only businesses, tuition payments, gaming transactions, and campaign finance contributions;
- allow refusal of suspected counterfeit bills, unlawful denominations, and cases where exact change cannot be made;
- prohibit state or local governments from authorizing cashless policies; and
- allow enforcement by the attorney general or private lawsuits?
Pursuant to § 116.334, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the proposed statement. Because our review of the statement is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the petition, nor as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents.
Very truly yours,
CATHERINE L. HANAWAY
Attorney General
OP-2025-331
Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102 | Phone: (573) 751-3321 | www.ago.mo.gov
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2025 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Missouri statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.