Did the Missouri AG approve the ballot summary for Winston Apple's 2019 initiative letting Missouri cities and counties set local minimum wages above state and federal floors (file 2020-093)?
Plain-English summary
Petition 2020-093 was Winston Apple's initiative to amend Mo. Const. art. III, § 39, which lists categories of laws the General Assembly cannot pass. The petition would have added a provision allowing any county, city, town, or village to require employers to pay a minimum wage or employment benefit higher than the floor set by federal or state law, "regardless of any action of the Missouri General Assembly."
The petition responds to a long-running fight over local-government authority to set wages above state law. The General Assembly passed laws in the mid-2010s preempting cities and counties from setting their own minimum wages, blocking ordinances that St. Louis and Kansas City had enacted. The Apple petition would constitutionally re-empower local governments to do so, and would override any future state preemption attempt.
After the Secretary of State drafted the ballot summary, the AG reviewed it under § 116.334 RSMo. AG Schmitt's letter here approves the legal content and form of that summary. The AG's review is narrow, a legal-form check on the ballot question voters would see, not an endorsement of the policy.
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.
The exact ballot summary the AG approved
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to give any county, city, town, or village the right to require employers to pay a minimum wage or employment benefit that exceeds federal or state law, rules, or regulations, regardless of any action of the Missouri General Assembly?
Common questions
Q: Why constitutional, not statutory?
A: A statutory grant could be repealed by the next General Assembly. A constitutional amendment cannot, except by another constitutional amendment. Apple's petition takes the local-authority question off the table for routine legislative repeal.
Q: What benefits would this cover?
A: The summary references "minimum wage or employment benefit." That phrasing is broad enough to include sick leave, paid leave, scheduling rules, and other employment standards, in addition to the basic minimum wage. The exact scope of "employment benefit" would likely have been litigated.
Q: Did this petition reach the ballot?
A: The opinion does not say. Apple's 2019 petitions do not appear to have advanced to the 2020 ballot.
Q: How does this compare to similar fights elsewhere?
A: Many states have passed minimum-wage preemption statutes blocking cities from setting local wages. Constitutional carve-outs of the kind this petition proposes are unusual. New Jersey, Illinois, and California have at various times allowed local minimum wages by statute; constitutional protection is rarer.
Q: Who can challenge the summary statement?
A: § 116.190 RSMo lets any registered voter challenge the official ballot summary as "insufficient or unfair" by filing suit in Cole County circuit court within ten days of certification.
Background and statutory framework
Chapter 116 RSMo lays out the initiative-petition pipeline:
- Proponent files the petition with the Secretary of State.
- AG reviews sufficiency as to form under § 116.332 RSMo.
- 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 (this opinion).
- Petition certified for circulation.
Citations and references
Statutes: § 116.334 RSMo (the operative provision); § 116.190 RSMo (judicial challenges); § 116.175 RSMo (fiscal-note pipeline); § 116.332 RSMo (sufficiency-as-to-form); Mo. Const. art. III, § 39 (limits on legislative power, the section the petition would amend); § 290.502 RSMo (state minimum wage).
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/160-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
August 2, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 160-2019
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 25,- 2019, for our review
under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition
submitted by Winston Apple regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend
Article III, Section 39 of the Missouri Constitution (2020-093). The proposed summary
statement is as follows:
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to give any
county, city, town, or village the right to require employers to
pay a minimum wage or employment benefit that exceeds
federal or state law, rules, or regulations, regardless of any
action of the Missouri General Assembly?
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.
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-2019-0185