Why did Missouri reject Katherine Floyd's initiative petition 2026-020?

Plain-English summary

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey rejected Katherine Floyd's initiative petition 2026-020 as to form. The petition concerned Chapter 213, but it failed to correctly include only the sections of existing law that would be repealed or amended, as required by Section 116.050 and Article III, Section 50.

The attorney general did not review the petition for additional deficiencies after identifying that defect. Under § 116.332.4, RSMo, the secretary of state retained authority to make the final decision on approval or rejection of the petition's form.

What this means for you

Initiative petition proponents

Opinion 16-2025 treated the existing-law text requirement in Section 116.050 and Article III, Section 50 as a ground for rejecting petition 2026-020 at the form-review stage.

Missouri election officials

The opinion identified one form defect and stopped without deciding whether other deficiencies existed. It also recognized the secretary of state's final decision authority under § 116.332.4, RSMo.

Election lawyers and ballot-measure researchers

The opinion is limited to petition drafting form. It did not address the proposal's substantive validity or identify every possible form problem.

Common questions

Q: Why was petition 2026-020 rejected?
A: It failed to correctly include only the sections of existing law that the proposal would repeal or amend.

Q: Did the attorney general identify every defect in the petition?
A: No. The opinion said it did not review for additional deficiencies after rejecting the petition for the stated reason.

Q: Who had final authority over the petition's form?
A: The opinion said § 116.332.4, RSMo authorized the secretary of state to make the final approval or rejection decision.

Background and statutory framework

The Missouri Secretary of State requested review on January 8, 2025. Katherine Floyd submitted petition 2026-020 concerning Chapter 213.

The attorney general issued the rejection on January 21, 2025. The opinion relied on Section 116.050 and Article III, Section 50, then cited § 116.332.4, RSMo for the secretary of state's final decision authority.

Citations and references

Authorities: Section 116.050; Article III, Section 50; § 116.332.4, RSMo.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/16-2025.pdf

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ANDREW BAILEY

January 21, 2025

OPINION LETTER NO. 16-2025

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 January 8, 2025 for our review under § 116.332, RSMo of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Katherine Floyd, Chapter 213, 2026-020.

We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reasons:

failure to correctly include only those sections of existing law to be repealed or amended as required by Section 116.050 and Article III, Section 50.

Because of our rejection of the form of the petition for the reasons stated above, we have not reviewed the petition to determine whether additional deficiencies exist. Pursuant to § 116.332.4, RSMo, the Secretary of State is authorized to review this opinion and “make a final decision as to the approval or rejection of the form of the petition.”

Very truly yours,

ANDREW BAILEY
Attorney General

OP-2025-016

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