🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
MO Opinion No. 143-2025 July 25, 2025

Did Missouri approve the form of Jamie Howard's initiative petition 2026-084?

Short answer: Yes. The attorney general approved petition 2026-084 as to form, but the secretary of state retained final authority to approve or reject it, and the opinion did not decide substantive sufficiency.

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.

Disclaimer: This is an official Missouri Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey approved Jamie Howard's initiative petition 2026-084 as sufficient as to form. The petition proposed an amendment to Article III of the Missouri Constitution.

The approval was limited. Under § 116.332, RSMo, the secretary of state retained final authority to approve or reject the petition. The opinion also said that form approval did not decide substantive sufficiency or endorse the petition's objectives.

What this means for you

Initiative petition proponents

Petition 2026-084 passed the attorney general's form review under § 116.332, RSMo. The opinion did not decide whether the proposal was substantively sufficient.

Missouri election officials

The attorney general's form approval did not remove the secretary of state's final authority to approve or reject the petition.

Election lawyers and ballot-measure researchers

Opinion 143-2025 records a form-sufficiency approval for petition 2026-084 and expressly limits the effect of that approval.

Common questions

Q: Was Jamie Howard's petition 2026-084 approved as to form?
A: Yes. The attorney general approved it as sufficient as to form.

Q: Could the secretary of state still reject the petition?
A: Yes. The opinion said § 116.332 gave the secretary of state final authority to approve or reject it.

Q: Did the opinion decide whether the proposal was substantively sufficient?
A: No. The attorney general expressly declined to treat form approval as a substantive determination.

Background and statutory framework

The Missouri Secretary of State requested review on July 16, 2025. The petition was identified as an Article III constitutional amendment and as petition 2026-084.

The attorney general reviewed sufficiency as to form under § 116.332, RSMo and issued the approval on July 25, 2025. The opinion preserved the secretary of state's final approval authority.

Citations and references

Statute: § 116.332, RSMo.

Source

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ANDREW BAILEY

July 25, 2025

OPINION LETTER NO. 143-2025

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 16, 2025 for our review under § 116.332, RSMo of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article III, of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Jamie Howard, 2026-084.

We approve the petition as to form, but § 116.332 gives the Secretary of State final authority to approve or reject the petition. Therefore, our approval of the form of the petition does not preclude you from rejecting the petition.

Because our review of the petition is simply for the purpose of determining sufficiency as to form, the fact that we do not reject the petition is not to be construed as a determination that the petition is sufficient as to substance. Likewise, because our review is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the petition or of the objectives of its proponents, or the expression of any view respecting the adequacy or inadequacy of the petition generally.

Very truly yours,

ANDREW BAILEY
Attorney General

OP-2025-155

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

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.