MO Opinion No. 143-2019 2019-07-26

Did the Missouri AG approve the form of Charles Hurth's 2019 Article VIII initiative petition (file 2020-100)?

Short answer: No. AG Schmitt rejected the form of Hurth's petition 2020-100 because it failed two specific § 116 requirements: it was not in the form prescribed by § 116.040 RSMo, and it did not show deletions in brackets and new matter underlined as required by § 116.050 RSMo. The AG declined to review additional possible deficiencies, and § 116.332.4 RSMo gives the Secretary of State final authority to approve or reject the petition.

Disclaimer: This is an official Missouri Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

Most AG sufficiency-as-to-form reviews under § 116.332 RSMo end with approval. This one did not. Charles Hurth filed petition 2020-100 to amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution. AG Schmitt rejected the petition's form for two specific reasons: the petition was not in the form prescribed by § 116.040 RSMo (which sets out the required structure for initiative petitions), and it did not follow § 116.050 RSMo's drafting rule that "all matter which is to be deleted [be] included in its proper place enclosed in brackets and all new matter shown underlined."

The AG specifically declined to review the petition for any additional deficiencies. Under § 116.332.4 RSMo, the Secretary of State retains final authority to approve or reject the petition; the AG's rejection does not bind the Secretary of State, but it gives strong legal cover for a rejection.

The Hurth filings recur in Missouri AG records (see, for example, opinion 246-2019, which rejected another Hurth petition under the same § 116.050 rule). The bracket-and-underline rule is a recurring stumbling block for petitions drafted without legal assistance.

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 the bracket-and-underline rule?
A: § 116.050 RSMo requires initiative petitions that change existing law to show every deletion in brackets in the right place, and every addition underlined. The point is so that voters and election officials can see exactly what the petition would change. A petition that just states the desired final text, without showing what was deleted and what was added, fails this rule.

Q: What does § 116.040 require?
A: § 116.040 sets out the formal structure of an initiative petition: cover sheet, identification of the proposing authority, signatures, and so on. The opinion does not say which specific subpart Hurth's petition violated.

Q: Can Hurth refile?
A: The opinion does not address that. In Missouri practice, proponents whose petitions are rejected on form can usually fix the defects and refile.

Q: What does it mean that the Secretary of State has "final authority"?
A: § 116.332.4 RSMo gives the Secretary of State the last word on form approval. The AG's review is a recommendation. The Secretary of State could in principle approve a petition the AG rejected, though doing so would be unusual.

Q: Is this related to the 116-2019 (Hurth voting petition) opinion?
A: That earlier opinion rejected a different Hurth petition (also dated 2019) on the same § 116.050 ground. The Hurth filings have a pattern of bracket-and-underline issues.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 116 RSMo lays out the initiative-petition pipeline. This opinion sits at step 2:

Proponent files the petition with the Secretary of State.
AG reviews sufficiency as to form under § 116.332 RSMo (this opinion).
State Auditor prepares a fiscal note; AG reviews under § 116.175.4 RSMo.
Secretary of State drafts a summary statement; AG reviews under § 116.334 RSMo.
Petition certified for circulation.

A form rejection at step 2 stops the pipeline. There is no fiscal note or summary statement to follow.

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.332 RSMo (the operative provision); § 116.332.4 RSMo (Secretary of State final authority); § 116.040 RSMo (petition form requirements); § 116.050 RSMo (bracket-and-underline rule).

Source

Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/143-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
July 26, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 143-2019
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 July 18, 2019,
for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative
petition submitted by Charles Hurth (2020-100).
We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following
reasons:
1.

The petition is not in the form prescribed by § 116.040,
RSMo.

The petition does not contain "all matter which is to be
deleted included in its proper place enclosed in brackets
and all new matter shown underlined" as required
pursuant to § 116.050, RSMo.

Because of our rejection of the form of the petition for the reasons
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

Supreme Court Building
207 W. High Street
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov

OP-2019-0168