Why did Missouri AG Opinion 21-2024 reject Andrew Lynn's proposed Ch. 513 initiative petition?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2024. Ask about yours and see what current Missouri law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey rejected the form of Andrew Lynn's proposed initiative petition to amend Ch. 513, identified as 2026-001. The petition did not reproduce the measure's full text using the markings required by section 116.050.2.
The submission had to place brackets around all material to be deleted and underline all material to be added. Because that defect required rejection, the Attorney General did not review the petition for additional deficiencies.
The Secretary of State retained final authority under section 116.332.4 to approve or reject the petition's form after reviewing the opinion.
What this means for you
Initiative sponsors
The opinion treats complete marked text as a form requirement. A submission that fails to show every deletion and addition in the prescribed way can be rejected before any other defects are considered.
Election officials
The Attorney General identified one sufficient basis for rejection and stopped. The opinion does not state that the petition had no other defects.
Common questions
What was missing from the petition?
It failed to include the full measure with deletions in brackets and additions underlined.
Did the Attorney General review every possible defect?
No. After rejecting the petition for the stated form problem, the office did not determine whether additional deficiencies existed.
Who made the final form decision?
The Secretary of State, under section 116.332.4.
Background and statutory framework
Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft requested review of Andrew Lynn's petition to amend Ch. 513, RSMo. Section 116.050.2 supplied the text-marking requirements, and section 116.332 governed the Attorney General's review and the Secretary's final decision.
Citations and references
- § 116.332, RSMo
- § 116.050.2, RSMo
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/21-2024.pdf
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ANDREW BAILEY
November 19, 2024
OPINION LETTER NO. 21-2024
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 November 8, 2024 for our review under § 116.332, RSMo of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Andrew Lynn, Ch. 513, 2026-001. We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reasons: failure to recite the full text of the measure, including by bracketing all matters to be deleted and underlining all matters to be added as required in Section 116.050.2 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,
ANDREW BAILEY
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-2024-023
What does Missouri law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2024. Ezel checks the current Missouri statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace