Did the Missouri AG approve the State Auditor's fiscal note summary for Patricia Thomas's initiative petition (20-023) amending Article V of the Missouri Constitution?

Plain-English summary

On January 25, 2019, AG Eric Schmitt approved the State Auditor's fiscal note summary for Patricia Thomas's initiative petition 20-023, a proposed amendment to Article V of the Missouri Constitution (the judicial-branch article). The summary reads:

State court officials estimate cost savings of approximately $8,000 annually, increased training costs ranging from approximately $29,000 to $55,000 annually, and unknown annual costs related to judicial vacancies. Local governments estimate no costs or savings.

Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, the AG's review reaches only the fiscal note summary's legal content and form. The letter states expressly that this statutory review "should be construed" neither as an endorsement of the petition nor as any view on its objectives. It does not address the accuracy of the cost estimate or the substantive merits of the 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

What did the AG actually approve here?

Only the legal content and form of the State Auditor's fiscal note summary, the short statement of estimated cost or savings that appears on the ballot. The AG did not pass on whether the estimate is accurate or on the petition itself.

What does the summary's estimate say?

State court officials estimated about $8,000 in annual savings, $29,000 to $55,000 in increased annual training costs, and unknown annual costs tied to judicial vacancies; local governments estimated no costs or savings. Those figures are the officials' and the Auditor's; the AG reviewed only the summary's legal content and form.

Background and statutory framework

§ 116.175, RSMo and § 116.175.4, RSMo set up the fiscal note and AG review framework: the State Auditor prepares a fiscal note and fiscal note summary for an initiative petition, and the AG reviews the summary for legal content and form.

Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49-53 establish Missouri's initiative process. The petition here proposed an amendment to Article V, the Missouri Constitution's judicial article.

Citations

• § 116.175, RSMo (fiscal note and fiscal note summary requirement)
• § 116.175.4, RSMo (AG review of fiscal note summary)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49-53 (initiative process)
• Mo. Const. art. V (judicial article)
• Initiative petition 20-023 (proposed amendment to Article V, submitted by Patricia Thomas)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/28-2019.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 25, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 28-2019

The Honorable Nicole Galloway
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 121
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Auditor Galloway:

This office received your letter of January 16, 2019, submitting a fiscal note and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted by Patricia Thomas, (20-023). The fiscal note summary that you submitted is as follows:

State court officials estimate cost savings of approximately $8,000 annually, increased training costs ranging from approximately $29,000 to $55,000 annually, and unknown annual costs related to judicial vacancies. Local governments estimate no costs or savings.

Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary. Because our review of the fiscal note summary is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents.

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General