What ballot summary did Missouri approve for Andrew Prewitt's Osage River gambling petition 2026-147?
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 Andrew Prewitt's initiative petition 2026-147, version 3 of an Article III amendment.
The approved summary said the proposal would amend Article III, Section 39(e) by removing floating facilities and adding nonfloating facilities, while excursion gambling boats, floating facilities, and similar gaming establishments would remain authorized if they complied with state law. It also authorized one additional Osage River gambling location, defined by parcel and boundary descriptions and subject to Miller County and City of Lake Ozark approval.
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
Miller County and Lake Ozark officials
The approved summary made the additional Osage River location subject to approval by Miller County and the City of Lake Ozark.
Gaming regulators and researchers
The summary described changes to Article III, Section 39(e) and required operations to comply with existing gaming-law tax, fee, and adjusted-gross-receipts obligations.
Initiative petition proponents
The proposed summary passed legal-content and form review. The opinion did not take a position on the petition's objectives.
Common questions
Q: What constitutional provision did the summary identify?
A: Article III, Section 39(e).
Q: What additional location did the summary authorize?
A: One Osage River gambling location defined by specific parcel and boundary descriptions.
Q: Would existing gaming establishments remain authorized?
A: The summary said excursion gambling boats, floating facilities, and similar gaming establishments would remain authorized if they complied with state law.
Background and statutory framework
The Secretary of State requested review on December 23, 2025. The proposed summary concerned Andrew Prewitt's petition 2026-147, version 3, to amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution.
The Attorney General issued Opinion 349-2025 on December 30, 2025 and approved the summary's legal content and form under § 116.334, RSMo.
Citations and references
- § 116.334, RSMo
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/349-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
CATHERINE L. HANAWAY
December 30, 2025
OPINION LETTER NO. 349-2025
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 December 23, 2025, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Andrew Prewitt (2026-147) regarding a proposed amendment to amend Article III, version 3, of the Missouri Constitution. The proposed summary statement is as follows:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
-
amend Article III, Section 39(e) by removing floating facilities and adding nonfloating facilities (excursion gambling boats, floating facilities, and similar gaming establishments remain authorized if they comply with state law);
-
authorize one additional gambling location on the Osage River, defined by specific parcel and boundary descriptions and subject to approval by Miller County and the City of Lake Ozark; and
-
require all operations to comply with all existing Missouri gaming laws, including tax, fee, and adjusted gross receipts obligations which will be transferred to the state of Missouri and the local community?
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-2025-367
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.