Did Missouri's AG approve the Secretary of State's summary statement for the first Michael Louis labor-union initiative (Petition 2020-012)?

Plain-English summary

This is the first of four AG approvals (18-2019, 19-2019, 20-2019, 21-2019) for Michael Louis's alternative versions of an initiative to amend Article I of the Missouri Constitution. All four were issued on January 18, 2019.

For Petition 2020-012 (version 1), the Secretary of State drafted this summary statement:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit any law or ordinance that would restrict or impair an agreement requiring employees to support a labor union and apply strict scrutiny review to any such restrictions or impairments?

The AG approved its legal content and form under § 116.334, RSMo.

Version 1 is the broadest of the four Louis drafts. It does two things:

1. Substantive prohibition: bars any law or ordinance restricting or impairing an agreement requiring employees to support a labor union.
2. Standard of review: applies strict scrutiny review to any such restrictions or impairments.

The strict scrutiny prong is significant. Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review under U.S. constitutional law: a challenged law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Embedding that standard in the Missouri Constitution would require any future legislation in this area to clear that high bar.

Compare versions 2 through 4 (Opinions 19-2019, 20-2019, 21-2019), which dropped the strict scrutiny prong and used different drafting around the substantive prohibition.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Whether Petition 2020-012 was actually circulated and qualified for the ballot is a separate question; the Missouri Secretary of State's initiative records would show.

Common questions

What is strict scrutiny?

The highest standard of judicial review under U.S. constitutional law. To survive strict scrutiny, a challenged law must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest. Most laws subject to strict scrutiny are struck down. The standard is usually reserved for laws that infringe fundamental rights or use suspect classifications like race.

What would the strict scrutiny language do?

The summary statement says any restriction or impairment of these agreements would get strict scrutiny review. If adopted, that would be the standard a court applies when judging a future law in this area. The AG's review here goes only to the legal content and form of the summary statement, not to whether the amendment is a good idea.

How does version 1 differ from the other Louis versions?

Version 1 is the only one with a strict scrutiny prong. Versions 2-4 (Opinions 19-21) state the substantive prohibition only, with no explicit standard of review.

Did this petition get on the ballot?

The AG opinion does not say. The Missouri Secretary of State's records would track the petition's circulation and signature certification status.

What part of the constitution would this amend?

Article I of the Missouri Constitution, the state Bill of Rights. The summary statement describes an amendment to that article; the AG opinion does not discuss why that article was chosen.

Background and statutory framework

The summary statement review process:

• § 116.334, RSMo: the Secretary of State drafts the summary statement that appears on initiative petitions. The Attorney General reviews and approves or rejects the legal content and form.
• The AG's approval is mandated by statute and is not an endorsement of the policy.
• The summary statement is what voters see on the petition before they sign. A poorly drafted statement that misleads voters can be invalidated in court.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/18-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
JEFFERSON CITY, P.O. Box 899, 65102
(573) 751-3321

January 18, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 18-2019

The Honorable John R. Ashcroft
Missouri Secretary of State
James C. Kirkpatrick State Information Center
600 West Main Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Secretary Ashcroft:

This opinion letter responds to your request dated January 8, 2019, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Michael Louis regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article I of the Missouri Constitution, version 1 (2020-012). The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit any law or ordinance that would restrict or impair an agreement requiring employees to support a labor union and apply strict scrutiny review to any such restrictions or impairments?

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,
ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

OP-2019-0008