Did the Missouri AG approve the form of Mary Anne Sedey's 2019 Article VIII voting-access initiative petition (version 5, file 2020-109)?
Plain-English summary
Mary Anne Sedey filed eight parallel initiative petitions in August 2019 (numbers 2020-105 through 2020-112) to amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution (suffrage and elections) with a package of voting-access reforms: automatic voter registration from state agency lists, permanent vote-by-mail signup, in-person voting the weekend before elections, and various per-version add-ons. Petition 2020-109 is version 5.
Under § 116.332 RSMo, the Secretary of State sends each filed petition to the AG for a "sufficiency as to form" review. AG Schmitt's letter here approves the form of version 5. Form approval is structural; it does not endorse the policy and it does not bind the Secretary of State, who retains final approval authority.
This is the form-review step that came before the fiscal-note review (187-2019, September 6) and the summary-statement review (199-2019, September 19) for the same petition.
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: How does version 5 differ from the rest?
A: Per the parallel summary-statement opinion 199-2019, version 5 (file 2020-109) includes 16-17 year old pre-registration, requires voter-method list publication, and excludes the Department of Corrections from registration sources. It is the corrections-excluded mirror of version 3.
Q: What does Article VIII cover?
A: Suffrage and elections (voter qualifications, secret ballot, election administration, recall, initiative, and referendum).
Q: Who has final authority on form?
A: The Secretary of State, John R. Ashcroft at the time. § 116.332 expressly reserves "final authority to approve or reject" to him.
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.
Citations and references
Statutes: § 116.332 RSMo (the operative provision); § 116.175 RSMo (fiscal-note pipeline); § 116.334 RSMo (summary-statement pipeline); § 116.050 RSMo (drafting requirements).
Companion opinions on the same petition (2020-109): 187-2019 (fiscal note review), 199-2019 (summary statement review).
Sister Sedey Article VIII cluster opinions in the August 2019 wave (versions 1-8): form-review opinions 169-172 (v1-v4), 174-176 (v6-v8); fiscal-note opinions 183-190; summary-statement opinions 195-202.
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/173-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
August 19, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 173-2019
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 August 9, 2019,
for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of
an initiative petition to amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution
submitted by Mary Anne Sedey, version 5 (2020-109).
We approve the petition as to form, but § 116.332 gives the Secretary of
State final authority to approve or reject the petition. Therefore, our approval
of the form of the petition does not preclude you from rejecting the petition.
Because our review of the petition is simply for the purpose of
determining sufficiency as to form, the fact that we do not reject the petition
is not to be construed as a determination that the petition is sufficient as to
substance. Likewise, because our review is mandated by statute, no action
that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an
endorsement of the petition or of the objectives of its proponents, or the expression
of any view respecting the adequacy or inadequacy of the petition generally.
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-2019-0200