Appropriates money for the expenses, grants, refunds, and distributions of statewide elected officials, the Judiciary, the Office of the State Public Defender, and the General Assembly
HB 12 is the state’s fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill for the Governor’s office, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Attorney General, the judiciary, the Office of the State Public Defender, and the General Assembly. It authorizes spending from General Revenue, federal funds, and numerous dedicated funds for salaries, operating expenses, grants, refunds, transfers, and capital projects for the period July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.
The bill includes large recurring appropriations for core government functions such as election administration, public libraries, state courts, public defense, prosecution services, and legislative operations. It also contains several one-time appropriations and fund transfers, including major support for the Missouri State Capitol Commission, treatment courts, court technology and case management systems, public broadcasting, arts and humanities grants, and the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Fund. In addition, it directs money to specific local or nonprofit projects, including museums, cultural institutions, arts organizations, and courthouse improvements.
HB 12 affects state law primarily by implementing appropriations and fund transfers already authorized in statute, rather than creating broad new regulatory requirements. It uses Article IV, Section 28 of the Missouri Constitution as the spending authority and references multiple RSMo provisions governing transfers, grants, and program administration. The bill also sets staffing limits, flexibility provisions between line items, and conditions on the use of certain funds, thereby shaping how agencies and courts may spend money during the fiscal year.
The general sentiment around the bill appears to be mixed but ultimately favorable enough to pass both chambers, with substantial support in the House and Senate but notable opposition in the House. The vote history shows the bill cleared the House 95-48 on third reading, passed the Senate 27-7, and later returned from conference with a narrower House vote of 84-55, suggesting some disagreement over the final package. Overall, the bill was treated as a necessary annual budget measure, but not one that drew unanimous support.
The main points of contention likely centered on the size and targeting of appropriations, especially the large one-time capital and grant items and the inclusion of specific projects for arts, cultural, and local institutions. Another likely area of debate was the scale of funding for the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Fund and the substantial transfer to the State Capitol Commission. Supporters likely viewed the bill as funding essential government operations and statewide priorities, while critics may have objected to earmarked spending, policy choices embedded in appropriations, or the distribution of funds across favored institutions and programs.
HB 12 makes the annual appropriations and fund transfers that finance statewide elected offices, the judiciary, public defense, and legislative operations for fiscal year 2026. It authorizes spending from General Revenue, federal funds, and numerous special funds, and it directs transfers into or out of funds such as the Missouri Arts Council Trust Fund, Missouri Humanities Council Trust Fund, Election Administration Improvements Fund, Treatment Court Resources Fund, Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Fund, and the State Capitol Commission fund. The bill therefore has a direct budgetary impact on the agencies and programs named in the act, while also establishing spending limits, flexibility between line items, and one-time versus ongoing appropriation treatment for future fiscal years.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears cautiously supportive in both chambers, but with meaningful partisan or policy-based opposition, especially in the House. It passed the House twice with significant yes margins but also a sizable minority of no votes, and it passed the Senate by a strong margin. That pattern suggests broad acceptance of the need for an appropriations bill, combined with disagreement over specific spending choices and earmarks.
The most notable contention appears to involve the bill’s many targeted appropriations and one-time projects, including funding for museums, arts organizations, public broadcasting, courthouse renovations, and the State Capitol Commission. The Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts funding is also likely to have been controversial because it is a large transfer tied to school-choice policy. Opponents may have objected to the concentration of funds in selected institutions or to the inclusion of policy-adjacent spending in a budget bill, while supporters likely emphasized statewide services, capital needs, and support for courts, libraries, and public safety-related functions.