Did the Missouri AG approve the ballot summary for a 2019 initiative to cut minimum prison terms for dangerous felonies from 85% to 50% on a first conviction?

Plain-English summary

Shetova Hayes submitted an initiative petition (2020-056) to amend Chapter 558 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, the sentencing chapter, to change minimum prison terms for "dangerous felonies." The summary statement prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by AG Eric Schmitt under § 116.334, RSMo, asked voters:

"Do you want to amend Missouri law regarding minimum prison terms for offenders found guilty of dangerous felonies (includes arson, assault, rape, child molestation, murder and robbery) as follows:

• for the first conviction, the offender must serve 50% of the court sentence (current law is 85%);
• for the second and subsequent convictions, the offender must serve 85% of the court sentence (no change to current law);
• this amendment will be effective for all dangerous felonies occurring on or after August 28, 1994; and
• require parole to be granted to offenders with the best possible institutional score?"

The AG approved the summary's legal content and form. The approval was a statutory step in the initiative process, not an endorsement: "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."

The retroactive effective date (August 28, 1994) is striking: it would have applied the reduced 50% minimum to anyone convicted of a dangerous felony since 1994, potentially affecting thousands of currently incarcerated offenders.

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 did the proposed initiative change?
A: It would have amended Chapter 558 of the Missouri Revised Statutes to reduce the minimum time served by first-conviction dangerous-felony offenders from 85% to 50% of the court-imposed sentence. Second and subsequent convictions would have stayed at 85%. The amendment would also have required granting parole to offenders with the best possible institutional score.

Q: What is a "dangerous felony" in Missouri?
A: Chapter 558, RSMo, defines the term. The category historically includes the most serious violent offenses: arson, assault in the first degree, rape, child molestation, murder, robbery, kidnapping, and similar offenses against persons. The exact list has changed over time as the Legislature has reclassified specific crimes.

Q: What does "must serve" mean in this context?
A: It refers to "truth in sentencing" rules that set a minimum percentage of the court-imposed sentence an offender must actually serve before becoming eligible for parole. Current law (as of the opinion) set 85% for dangerous felonies; the proposal would have cut that to 50% for first convictions.

Q: Why is the effective date August 28, 1994?
A: That is the date Missouri's current truth-in-sentencing rules for dangerous felonies took effect. By making the amendment retroactive to that date, the initiative would have allowed currently incarcerated dangerous-felony offenders whose first conviction occurred at any point since 1994 to apply the new 50% rule, potentially seeking immediate release or earlier parole eligibility.

Q: What does "best possible institutional score" mean?
A: Missouri Department of Corrections evaluates inmates on behavioral, programmatic, and risk-assessment criteria. An inmate with a "best possible institutional score" has, by definition, demonstrated the best record available within the system: no major disciplinary issues, completion of programs, low risk to reoffend. The proposal would have mandated parole for these offenders, not merely allowed it.

Q: Does AG approval of the summary mean the proposal would be constitutional?
A: No. The AG's § 116.334 review checks the summary statement, not the underlying constitutional or legal validity of the proposal. Retroactive sentencing reductions raise issues under the ex post facto clauses, separation of powers, and other doctrines that the AG did not address.

Q: Was the initiative ultimately placed on the ballot?
A: This opinion is one of several procedural steps. After AG approval of the summary, sponsors must collect signatures, which the Secretary of State then validates. Many initiative proposals do not collect enough signatures to reach the ballot. The opinion does not address the petition's later fate.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's truth-in-sentencing system for dangerous felonies dates to 1994 reforms. The current statutory framework (in Chapter 558, RSMo) requires offenders convicted of dangerous felonies to serve a minimum percentage of their court-imposed sentence before becoming eligible for parole. The standard minimum has been 85% for most dangerous-felony convictions, reflecting a policy choice to limit early release for the most serious violent offenses.

The Hayes initiative (2020-056) would have rewritten that framework in three ways. First, it would have cut the first-conviction minimum from 85% to 50%, effectively halving mandatory time served for first offenders. Second, it would have preserved the 85% rule for repeat offenders, on the theory that those who reoffend after a prior dangerous felony conviction warrant longer time served. Third, it would have required parole for offenders with the best institutional score, transforming a parole-board discretionary decision into a mandatory one for the highest-scoring inmates.

The retroactive August 28, 1994 effective date is the proposal's most dramatic feature. It would have created an immediate population of currently incarcerated offenders eligible for resentencing or parole reconsideration under the new rules. The administrative and legal logistics of applying retroactive sentence reductions to thousands of cases would have been substantial. Ex post facto issues run in the opposite direction (the Constitution forbids retroactively increasing punishments, not retroactively reducing them), but separation-of-powers questions about legislative interference with final criminal judgments could still arise.

Missouri's initiative process for statutory amendments (as opposed to constitutional amendments) requires fewer signatures but lets the Legislature later modify or repeal the result. § 116.334 review by the AG addresses the summary statement only. The petition itself underwent a separate "sufficiency as to form" review. The Secretary of State retained final approval authority for circulation.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/86-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT

May 10, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 86-2019

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 Shetova Hayes regarding a proposed amendment to amend Chapter 558, Revised Statutes of Missouri (2020-056). The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Do you want to amend Missouri law regarding minimum prison terms for offenders found guilty of dangerous felonies (includes arson, assault, rape, child molestation, murder and robbery) as follows:

• for the first conviction, the offender must serve 50% of the court sentence (current law is 85%);
• for the second and subsequent convictions, the offender must serve 85% of the court sentence (no change to current law);
• this amendment will be effective for all dangerous felonies occurring on or after August 28, 1994; and
• require parole to be granted to offenders with the best possible institutional score?

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-2019-0093