Did the Missouri AG approve the official ballot summary for the 2019 proposal to end daylight saving time?

Plain-English summary

Steven Reed submitted an initiative petition (2020-055) to amend Article I of the Missouri Constitution to eliminate daylight saving time in Missouri. The Secretary of State sent the proposed summary statement to AG Eric Schmitt for review under § 116.334, RSMo. The summary statement is the short question that appears on petition forms and ballots, asking voters: "Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to eliminate daylight saving time in Missouri?"

AG Schmitt approved the legal content and form. The approval is a statutory step in the initiative process, not an endorsement of the proposal. The opinion notes expressly: "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."

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

Q: What is a summary statement in a Missouri initiative petition?
A: The short, voter-facing description of what the petition does. It appears on the petition signature pages and on the ballot if the petition qualifies. § 116.334, RSMo, requires AG review of the summary statement's legal content and form. The summary must be accurate, fair, and not argumentative.

Q: What did Steven Reed's proposal do?
A: It would have amended Article I of the Missouri Constitution to eliminate daylight saving time in Missouri. The full effect of such an amendment depends on the proposed text; the opinion only reproduces the summary, not the underlying petition language.

Q: Does AG approval of the summary statement mean the AG supports eliminating DST?
A: No. The AG explicitly disclaimed any endorsement. His role is limited to checking whether the summary statement is legally accurate and properly formed. He has no authority to express a view on the merits.

Q: Does AG approval of the summary mean the proposal is otherwise legal?
A: No. Summary review under § 116.334 is separate from the petition's sufficiency-as-to-form review and separate from later court review for compliance with the single-subject rule and other constitutional limits on initiatives. Each gate stands alone.

Q: Did Missouri ever eliminate daylight saving time?
A: Not as of this opinion. Missouri remained subject to the federal Uniform Time Act, which sets DST rules for all states that observe DST. Any Missouri amendment would have to navigate federal preemption issues and might require federal action or opt-out provisions under federal law.

Q: What is the standard for AG approval of summary statements?
A: The summary must accurately reflect the proposal in a fair and impartial way that does not deceive or persuade voters. Missouri case law on summary statements has elaborated this standard over time. The AG's approval is not the last word: courts can later strike a summary that misleads voters.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative process generates two distinct documents that need AG review. The petition itself is checked for "sufficiency as to form" in a separate review. The summary statement (which appears on petition signature pages and on the ballot) is checked for legal content and form under § 116.334. Both checks are statutory gates before circulation.

The Secretary of State drafts the official summary statement. § 116.334 then requires the Secretary to refer the draft to the AG for review. The AG can approve, can recommend changes, or can reject. The Secretary of State retains the authority to make the final call but typically follows the AG's lead.

The standards for summary statements have been litigated extensively in Missouri courts. The general rules: the summary must be fair, accurate, and not argumentative; it must give voters enough information to understand the proposal; it cannot exceed the statutory word limit; and it cannot be drafted in a way that prejudices voters either way. Where a summary is challenged after circulation, the court reviews under those standards.

Article I of the Missouri Constitution is the Bill of Rights, covering individual rights like free speech, due process, jury trial, and so on. An amendment to Article I that addressed daylight saving time would be an unusual placement; DST is typically a matter of state code, not constitutional rights. The opinion does not address the substance.

The federal Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. § 260a) creates the basic DST framework. States can opt out of DST entirely (Arizona and Hawaii do), but states that observe DST must follow the federal schedule. A state cannot adopt year-round DST without federal authorization. Whether Missouri's initiative would have effected a permissible opt-out or run into preemption was not part of the AG's summary review.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/85-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT

May 10, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 85-2019

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 May 1, 2019, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Steven Reed regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article I of the Missouri Constitution (2020-055). The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to eliminate daylight saving time in Missouri?

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.

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-2019-0092