Did the Missouri Attorney General approve the form of Patricia Thomas's initiative petition to amend Article V (Version 2) of the Missouri Constitution?

Plain-English summary

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt approved the form of an initiative petition submitted by Patricia Thomas (2020-024). The petition proposed amending Article V of the Missouri Constitution, the judicial-branch article. This is the companion to AG Opinion 5-2019, which approved Version 1 of the same general proposal; this opinion covers Version 2.

The review under § 116.332, RSMo, is limited to whether the petition's paperwork is in the statutory format. The AG does not approve, endorse, or otherwise comment on the substance of the proposed amendment. The Secretary of State retains separate authority to approve or reject the petition. The "not an endorsement" disclaimer is required boilerplate.

Letter dated January 7, 2019. Internal tracking number OP-2018-130.

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

This opinion covers Version 2 of Patricia Thomas's Article V (judicial-branch) petition; Version 1 is in companion opinion 5-2019. Filing related petitions in alternative versions is a common drafting strategy: if one version fails court review, ballot-title review, or signature-gathering, the alternate version may still proceed.

Section 116.332, RSMo, gives the Attorney General a mandatory, ministerial role at this stage. The AG checks the petition's format against the statutory requirements. If the format is correct, the AG approves. If not, the AG rejects, and the petitioner can revise.

The substantive judicial-branch content (Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, retention elections, judicial qualifications) sits in Article V's various sections. The AG opinion does not summarize what Version 2 of the Thomas petition would have changed.

Common questions

Is Version 2 different from Version 1?
Presumably yes, or it would not be a separate filing. The differences are not described in the AG opinion. To compare, see Missouri Secretary of State filings for petitions 2020-023 and 2020-024.

Does form approval mean the petition was well drafted as policy?
No. Form approval means the petition's headings, recitations, and structure comply with statute. It is silent on whether the proposed amendment would work in practice or survive a substantive legal challenge.

Could the petition still fail at the next stage?
Yes. The Secretary of State has separate approval authority. Ballot-title disputes are common. Signature thresholds are high. Many form-approved petitions never reach the ballot.

Where can I track what happened to 2020-024?
Missouri Secretary of State public records for initiative petition 2020-024, and any judicial filings around its 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/6-2019.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. 6-2019

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 2, of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Patricia Thomas, (2020-024).

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-2018-130