🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
MO Opinion No. 204-2019 September 23, 2019

Did the Missouri AG approve the form of DeeAnn Aull's 2019 Article IX education-funding initiative petition (version 2, file 2020-118)?

Short answer: Yes, as to form. AG Schmitt approved the legal form of Aull's petition 2020-118 (version 2) to amend Article IX of the Missouri Constitution (the public education article). Form approval under § 116.332 RSMo is procedural; the Secretary of State retains final authority to approve or reject. Fiscal-note and summary-statement reviews followed in October.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2019. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Missouri law, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 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. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent.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

DeeAnn Aull filed several drafts of an initiative petition in fall 2019 to amend Article IX of the Missouri Constitution, the public-education article. Petition 2020-118 is version 2.

Under § 116.332 RSMo, the Secretary of State sends each filed petition to the AG for a "sufficiency as to form" review. AG Schmitt's letter here approves the form of version 2. Form approval is structural; it does not endorse the policy and it does not bind the Secretary of State, who retains final approval authority under the same § 116.332.

This is the form-review step that came before the fiscal-note review (213-2019, on October 10) and summary-statement review (225-2019, on October 18) for the same petition.

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. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What does "sufficiency as to form" actually check?
A: Whether the petition has the structural elements Chapter 116 RSMo requires: a heading, the full text of the proposed amendment, signature pages with statutory recitals, identification of who is circulating it, the bracket-deletion / underline-addition format under § 116.050. The AG does not assess the policy or constitutionality.

Q: Where in the cluster does this opinion sit?
A: Earliest. Version 2 of petition 2020-118 got its form approval here in September 2019. Fiscal note and summary statement reviews for the same petition followed in October 2019.

Q: What is Article IX?
A: Public education. It establishes the duty of the General Assembly to maintain free public schools, the State Board of Education, the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the local school-district structure, and section 3(b)'s requirement that "not less than twenty-five percent of the state revenue" go to public schools (the floor referenced in Aull's petitions' "exceed the current minimum of 25%" language).

Q: Who has final authority on form?
A: The Secretary of State, John R. Ashcroft at the time. § 116.332 expressly reserves "final authority to approve or reject" to him.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 116 RSMo lays out the initiative-petition pipeline. This opinion covers step 2:

  1. Proponent files the petition with the Secretary of State.
  2. AG reviews sufficiency as to form under § 116.332 RSMo (this opinion).
  3. State Auditor prepares a fiscal note; AG reviews under § 116.175.4 RSMo.
  4. Secretary of State drafts a summary statement; AG reviews under § 116.334 RSMo.
  5. Petition certified for circulation.

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.332 RSMo (the operative provision).

Sister Aull Article IX form-review opinions in this cluster: 203-2019 (version 1, 2020-117), 205-2019 (version 3, 2020-119), plus 206-2019 (v4, 2020-120), 207-2019 (v1, 2020-121), 208-2019 (v2, 2020-122).

Fiscal-note opinions for the same Aull cluster (later in the pipeline): 213-2019 (v1, 20-117), 214-2019 (v2, 20-118), 215-2019 (v3, 20-119), 216-2019 (v4, 20-120), 222-2019 (v1, 20-121), 223-2019 (v2, 20-122).

Summary-statement opinions for the same Aull cluster: 225-2019 (v1, 2020-117), 226-2019 (v2, 2020-118), 227-2019 (v3, 2020-119), 228-2019 (v4, 2020-120), 229-2019 (v1, 2020-121).

Source

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

September 23, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 204-2019

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 September 16, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article IX of the Missouri Constitution submitted by DeeAnn Aull, version 2 (2020-118).

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,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

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

OP-2019-0234

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2019 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.