Did the Missouri AG approve the form of Christopher Pieper's initiative petition 2020-042 to restructure local government under Article VI?

Plain-English summary

Christopher Pieper's initiative petition 2020-042 proposed to amend Article VI of the Missouri Constitution, the article that governs local government, including counties, municipalities, and consolidated city-county structures. Under § 116.332, RSMo, the Secretary of State sends each newly filed petition to the AG for review of its form. This 2019 opinion is the AG's form-review approval of the Pieper Article VI petition.

The opinion is short because the AG's role is narrow. The AG checks that the petition meets the form requirements in Chapter 116 (proper signature line layout, single-subject compliance on its face, accurate references to the constitution or statutes being amended, no facial defects). The AG explicitly notes that approval as to form is not a determination of substantive sufficiency, and § 116.332 gives the Secretary of State final form authority, so the Secretary can still reject the petition. The AG also restates the standard caveat that approval is not an endorsement of the petition's objectives.

Pieper filed several iterations of Article VI petitions in this cycle; the same 2020-042 designation appears in the fiscal-note opinion at Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 56-2019. The underlying initiative effort centered on St. Louis County governance reform.

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 does "sufficiency as to form" actually mean?

It means the petition's structure and formatting comply with Chapter 116's procedural requirements: signature pages laid out correctly, references to the constitution or statutes formatted properly, single-subject not facially violated, and so on. It does not mean the proposal is substantively constitutional or that it accurately describes its own effects.

What does Article VI of the Missouri Constitution cover?

Article VI is the local-government article. It governs counties, municipalities, the city of St. Louis, charter cities, and the rules for consolidating or restructuring local entities. Pieper's 2020-042 petition was the formal expression of his broader proposal to restructure St. Louis County's governance.

Why does the Secretary of State get the final say if the AG already approved it?

§ 116.332 splits the form-review responsibility. The AG provides an opinion; the Secretary of State (as the chief election officer) makes the final administrative decision on whether to certify the petition for circulation. If the AG approves and the Secretary still sees a defect, the Secretary can reject. The two-step structure means the AG's opinion is more like a legal sign-off than a final ruling.

Does this opinion say anything about the petition's substance?

No. The AG is explicit: "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." Anyone reading this opinion to support a substantive claim about the petition's policy merits is reading more into it than the document says.

How does this opinion fit into the broader Pieper 2020-042 record?

There are two AG opinions on petition 2020-042. This one (Op. 52-2019) approves the petition's form. Op. 56-2019 approves the fiscal note summary the Auditor later prepared for the same petition. Both are mandatory statutory reviews; neither is an endorsement.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative process is in Chapter 116. § 116.332 governs AG form review of initiative petitions and gives the Secretary of State final form authority. Substantive constitutional standards run through Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (the initiative and referendum process), with Article VI being the substantive subject of this particular petition.

The parallel petitions in this cycle included other Article VI initiatives by the same proponent, plus separate petitions from other proponents addressing Articles III, VII, and X. The AG processed each through the same statutory form-review channel.

Citations

• § 116.332, RSMo (AG form review of initiative petitions; Secretary of State final form authority)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (initiative and referendum process)
• Mo. Const. art. VI (local government, subject of the amendment)
• Initiative Petition 2020-042 (Pieper, Article VI)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 56-2019 (Pieper 2020-042 fiscal note summary approval)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/52-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

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

February 22, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 52-2019

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 February 13, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article VI of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Christopher Pieper (2020-042).

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-2019-0043