Did the Missouri AG approve the Secretary of State's summary statement for Patricia Thomas's 2020-022 initiative petition combining right-to-work, prevailing-wage repeal, and a criminal penalty?

Plain-English summary

On February 7, 2019, AG Eric Schmitt approved the Secretary of State's proposed summary statement for Patricia Thomas's initiative petition 2020-022, a proposed amendment to Article XIV, Sections 1-5 of the Missouri Constitution. The summary reads:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to provide that:

• employees shall have the freedom to get and keep their jobs without being forced to join or pay any fees to a union (labor organization);

• laws and ordinances cannot require certain wage rates (a prevailing wage) for maintenance or construction of public facilities; and

• it is a crime to purposely violate the provisions of this amendment?

This petition bundles three distinct labor-policy changes into a single constitutional amendment. It is a broader version of Thomas's 2020-019 right-to-work petition (which only locked in the no-forced-union-fees rule). The 2020-022 version adds two new pieces: it would abolish Missouri's prevailing-wage requirement for public construction and maintenance, and it would criminalize purposeful violations.

The AG's approval addresses the summary statement's legal form and content only. The AG took no position on whether bundling three substantive policies in one constitutional amendment could face a "single-subject rule" challenge under Missouri law (Mo. Const. art. III, § 50, which requires initiative petitions to address a single subject).

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

How is this petition different from Thomas's 2020-019 petition?

The 2020-019 petition put right-to-work into Article I as a stand-alone rule. The 2020-022 petition spans Article XIV, Sections 1-5, combines right-to-work with prevailing-wage repeal, and adds a criminal penalty for purposeful violations.

What is a "prevailing wage" requirement?

A prevailing-wage law requires contractors on public-works projects to pay workers at least the locally prevailing wage rate for their craft. Missouri's prevailing wage statute is in Chapter 290 of the RSMo. The Thomas 2020-022 petition would, if enacted, bar both state and local prevailing-wage rules for maintenance or construction of public facilities.

What does "purposely violate" cover?

The summary identifies a criminal penalty for purposeful violations, but does not specify the classification (e.g., misdemeanor, felony) or sentencing range. The petition text itself, not reproduced in this opinion letter, would supply those details.

Could the single-subject rule disqualify this petition?

The single-subject rule (Mo. Const. art. III, § 50) limits initiative petitions to a single subject. A petition that combines right-to-work, prevailing-wage repeal, and criminal penalties could face such a challenge. The AG opinion does not address that question; it would be tested either by the Secretary of State's certification or by post-election litigation. Missouri courts have applied the single-subject rule with some flexibility, but multi-topic petitions are at risk.

Did the AG opine on the petition's federal-law implications?

No. The AG's review under § 116.334, RSMo is limited to the summary statement. NLRA preemption, Davis-Bacon Act interactions, and other federal-law issues that might affect the petition's substance fall outside this opinion.

Background and statutory framework

§ 116.334, RSMo, governs the AG's review of initiative-petition summary statements. The Missouri Constitution allows constitutional amendments to be proposed by initiative under art. III, §§ 49-53, and applies a single-subject rule under art. III, § 50 (initiative petitions "shall be limited to one subject").

The 2020-022 petition would amend Article XIV, Sections 1-5. Article XIV at the time housed Missouri's medical-marijuana provisions added by 2018's Amendment 2 (Section 1), so the petition would either restructure those provisions or supplement them across multiple sections.

Missouri statutory background on the affected policies: Senate Bill 19 (2017), a statutory right-to-work law, was rejected by voters in August 2018 as Proposition A. Missouri's prevailing-wage statute is codified in RSMo Chapter 290.

Citations

• § 116.334, RSMo (AG review of initiative-petition summary statements)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49-53 (initiative process)
• Mo. Const. art. III, § 50 (initiative single-subject rule)
• Mo. Const. art. XIV, §§ 1-5 (article the petition would amend)
• Initiative petition 2020-022 (proposed amendment, 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/39-2019.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

February 7, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 39-2019

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 28, 2019, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Patricia Thomas regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article XIV, Sections 1-5 of the Missouri Constitution, (2020-022). The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to provide that:

• employees shall have the freedom to get and keep their jobs without being forced to join or pay any fees to a union (labor organization);

• laws and ordinances cannot require certain wage rates (a prevailing wage) for maintenance or construction of public facilities; and

• it is a crime to purposely violate the provisions of this amendment?

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.

OP-2019-0029

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General