Did the Missouri AG approve the form of the 2020 Steven Reed initiative petition to amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution?

Plain-English summary

Missouri's initiative process has two distinct AG review points. § 116.334 covers review of the Secretary of State's plain-language summary statement (see, for example, Opinion Nos. 78-2019 and 79-2019). § 116.332 is the earlier step, where the AG reviews the proposed petition itself for "sufficiency as to form." The form rules at § 116.050.2 are mostly procedural: the petition must include certain prescribed elements (an enacting clause, the proper layout for signatures, contact information, and so on).

In this opinion, Attorney General Eric Schmitt rejected the form of the Steven Reed initiative petition designated 2020-061, which proposed to amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution. The AG found that the petition did not comply with the formatting requirements in subsections (2) and (3) of § 116.050.2, RSMo. The opinion did not state which specific formatting defects the AG found, and it noted that because the form was rejected on one ground, the AG did not look for any additional deficiencies.

The opinion also pointed to § 116.332.4, RSMo, which gives the Secretary of State final authority to "make a final decision as to the approval or rejection of the form of the petition." The AG's letter is advisory at this step. If the Secretary disagrees with the AG and approves the form, that decision controls.

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 § 116.050.2 require petition form to look like?

Subsection 2 sets out the prescribed format for a petition for an initiative or referendum, including such elements as a heading, an enacting clause, a verbatim copy of the proposed law, and the form for circulator and signer entries. Subsections (2) and (3), the ones the AG flagged, address layout and content elements that the petition either omitted or formatted incorrectly. The opinion is silent on the exact issue, so anyone needing to replicate the deficient form should pull the petition itself from the Secretary of State's docket.

Why does the AG cite only one ground for rejection?

Because § 116.332 lets the AG stop at the first noncompliant element. There is no need to enumerate every defect; the petition fails review once any single element does. Proponents would still need to fix every defect (not just the one identified) before re-submitting.

What is the AG's role at this step versus § 116.334?

§ 116.332 is the review of the petition itself: is the document in the form Missouri law requires? § 116.334 is the review of the summary statement the Secretary of State prepares to describe the petition in plain language. They are sequential reviews of different documents. The AG's role at § 116.332 is purely procedural form review, not policy review.

Can the proponent fix the petition and resubmit?

The opinion does not say so directly, but in practice yes. § 116.332 review is procedural. A petition with a corrected form can be re-submitted and reviewed.

What is § 116.332.4's "final decision" provision?

Subsection 4 makes clear that the AG's review is advisory. The Secretary of State is the official with formal authority to approve or reject petition form. The AG advises; the Secretary decides.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's Chapter 116 governs the initiative and referendum process under Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53. § 116.050 sets the form requirements for a petition. § 116.332 funnels the petition through an AG form review before circulation. § 116.334 funnels the corresponding summary statement through an AG legal-content-and-form review. Together they screen petitions before they go out for signature collection, reducing the number of petitions that have to be re-circulated because of form defects later in the cycle.

Citations

• § 116.050.2(2) and (3), RSMo (petition form requirements)
• § 116.332, RSMo (AG form review of initiative petitions)
• § 116.332.4, RSMo (Secretary of State's final authority over form)
• Initiative Petition 2020-061 (Reed, proposed amendment to Article IV of the Missouri Constitution)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/80-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT

May 2, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 80-2019

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 April 22, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Steven Reed (2020-061).

We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reason:

The petition is not in the form prescribed by § 116.050.2(2) and (3), RSMo.

Because of our rejection of the form of the petition for the reason stated above, we have not reviewed the petition to determine whether additional deficiencies exist. Pursuant to § 116.332.4, RSMo, the Secretary of State is authorized to review this opinion and "make a final decision as to the approval or rejection of the form of the petition."

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

Broadway Building
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov

OP-2019-0086