Did the Missouri AG approve Charles Hurth's 2019 Article VIII initiative petition (2020-124)?

Plain-English summary

This is one of the Chapter 116 letters where the AG rejects an initiative petition on form rather than approving it. Charles Hurth filed a petition (file number 2020-124) to amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution (the suffrage and elections article). On the AG's § 116.332 RSMo review, AG Schmitt's office found that the petition did not comply with § 116.050 RSMo's drafting requirements: it did not bracket the matter the petition would delete from the existing text, and it did not underline new matter the petition would add.

The opinion is short. It identifies the one defect, declines to look for additional defects, and notes that the Secretary of State (not the AG) makes the final call on form under § 116.332.4 RSMo.

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 does § 116.050 RSMo actually require?
A: When an initiative petition proposes to amend an existing law or constitutional provision, § 116.050 says the petition must reproduce the existing language with deletions enclosed in brackets and additions shown underlined. The point is that voters who read the petition can see exactly what would change. Hurth's petition did not do that.

Q: Could the proponent fix this and refile?
A: The opinion does not address refiling. What it does make clear is that the rejection is on form grounds, not the merits: the AG rejected how the petition was drafted, not the idea behind it. A proponent in that position would revise the petition to comply with § 116.050 (bracket deletions, underline additions) before any further review.

Q: Why didn't the AG check for other defects?
A: The opinion says: "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." Once one fatal defect is identified, the office stops. So the proponent knows about this defect; if they refile, they could still hit other defects on the next pass.

Q: Does the rejection bind the Secretary of State?
A: No. § 116.332.4 RSMo expressly says the Secretary of State has authority to "make a final decision as to the approval or rejection of the form of the petition." The AG's view is advisory; the letter quotes that provision directly.

Background and statutory framework

This letter is the form-review step of the Chapter 116 RSMo initiative process: the AG reviews a filed petition for sufficiency as to form under § 116.332 RSMo and returns an approval or a rejection, while the Secretary of State keeps the final decision under § 116.332.4 RSMo. Here the defect was a § 116.050 RSMo drafting failure. That section's bracket-and-underline rule requires a petition that amends existing text to show deleted matter in brackets and new matter underlined, so a reader can see exactly what would change.

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.332 RSMo (the operative provision for AG form review); § 116.050 RSMo (the bracket-and-underline drafting rule the petition violated); § 116.332.4 RSMo (Secretary of State's final decision). All three are cited in the letter.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/217-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI

ERIC SCHMITT

October 11, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 217-2019

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 October 1, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Charles Hurth (2020-124).

We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reason:

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-2019-0249