Did the Missouri Attorney General approve the form of Patricia Thomas's initiative petition to amend Article V (Version 1) of the Missouri Constitution?

Plain-English summary

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt approved the form of an initiative petition submitted by Patricia Thomas (2020-023). The petition proposed amending Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Two versions of the proposed amendment were submitted (Version 1 here, Version 2 in companion opinion 6-2019). Article V is the article that establishes Missouri's judicial system.

The AG's review under § 116.332, RSMo, is limited to whether the petition's paperwork is in the format the statute requires. The AG does not review the substance of the amendment, does not endorse its policy goals, and does not bind the Secretary of State, who has separate approval authority. The boilerplate disclaimer is included to make this clear.

Letter dated January 7, 2019. Internal tracking number OP-2018-129.

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.

Background and statutory framework

Article V of the Missouri Constitution covers the judicial branch: the structure of courts, the qualifications and selection of judges (including the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan), judicial discipline, and related matters.

Section 116.332, RSMo, sets up the statutory form review by the AG. It is mandatory and ministerial. The Secretary of State holds the actual approval authority.

Petition 2020-023 (Article V Version 1) and petition 2020-024 (Article V Version 2) both target the judicial article. Filing alternate versions of a petition is a common tactic in initiative drafting; the AG reviews each version as a separate petition.

Common questions

What did the petition propose to change about the courts?
The form-review opinion does not say. The text of the petition is in the Secretary of State's records for filing 2020-023.

Why two versions of the same petition?
Initiative sponsors often file alternate versions to preserve flexibility. If one version gets struck down in litigation or fails ballot-title review, the other may still be viable. The AG reviews each version as a separate petition.

Does this affect Missouri courts directly?
Not from the form review. Until the petition actually amends the constitution by voter approval, nothing about the judicial branch has changed.

Where would I find what happened next?
Missouri Secretary of State public-petition files for 2020-023, and any litigation around that petition's ballot title or signature certification.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/5-2019.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
Jefferson City, P.O. Box 899, 65102
(573) 751-3321

January 7, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 5-2019

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 December 27, 2018, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article V, Version 1, of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Patricia Thomas, (2020-023).

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

OP-2018-129