Did Missouri approve ballot wording protecting initiatives regardless of when approved and limiting single-measure special elections?

Plain-English summary

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey approved the legal content and form of the proposed summary statement for Jamie Howard's initiative petition 2026-065. The statement described prohibiting legislative changes to citizen-initiated measures or enactment of laws similar to those rejected by referendum unless 80% of legislators referred the change to voters, regardless of when the measure was approved or rejected.

It also described barring legislatively referred amendments from restricting initiative or referendum rights through higher signature thresholds, narrower topics, or delayed judicial review. Most measures would appear at general elections unless 80% of legislators and the governor approved a single-measure special election, and courts would rewrite misleading ballot titles. The opinion did not endorse the petition.

What this means for you

Missouri voters and initiative proponents

The reviewed statement described protection for citizen measures regardless of when they were approved or rejected and protection against higher signature thresholds or narrower permitted topics.

State legislators and election officials

The statement described an 80% referral threshold and an 80% threshold, with the governor, for a single-measure special election.

Courts and election lawyers

The statement described protection against delayed judicial review and required courts to rewrite misleading ballot titles.

Common questions

Q: Did the statement depend on when a measure was approved or rejected?
A: No. It described protection regardless of when approval or rejection occurred.

Q: Which initiative restrictions did the statement identify?
A: Higher signature thresholds, narrower topics, and delayed judicial review.

Q: What did it say about special elections?
A: A single-measure special election would require approval by 80% of legislators and the governor.

Q: What did it say about misleading ballot titles?
A: It described requiring courts to rewrite them.

Background and statutory framework

The Missouri Secretary of State requested review on July 2, 2025. The attorney general reviewed the proposed summary statement under § 116.334, RSMo and approved it on July 11, 2025.

The proposal was identified as Jamie Howard's petition 2026-065. The opinion reproduced the statement's four provisions concerning legislative changes, initiative rights, election timing, and ballot titles.

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/126-2025.pdf

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ANDREW BAILEY

July 11, 2025

OPINION LETTER NO. 126-2025

The Honorable Denny Hoskins
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 July 2, 2025 for our review under § 116.334, RSMo of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Jamie Howard, 2026-065. The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Prohibit the legislature from changing citizen-initiated measures or enacting laws similar to those rejected by referendum, unless 80% of legislators refer the change to voters, regardless of when the measure was approved or rejected;

• Bar legislatively referred amendments from restricting initiative or referendum rights, including by raising signature thresholds, narrowing topics, or delaying judicial review;

• Require most ballot measures to be decided at general elections, unless a single-measure special election is approved by 80% of legislators and the governor; and

• Require courts to rewrite misleading ballot titles?

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,

ANDREW BAILEY
Attorney General

OP-2025-138

Supreme Court Building
207 W. High Street
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov