Ezel / AG Opinions / MO
MO Opinion No. 224-2019 2019-10-18

Did the Missouri AG approve the form of Deirdre Hirner's 2019 recreational-marijuana initiative petition (file 2020-125)?

Short answer: Yes, as to form. AG Schmitt approved the legal form of Hirner's petition 2020-125 to amend Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution (the cannabis article). The petition would have legalized personal recreational use, licensed commercial sales, and imposed a 15% retail tax. Form approval under § 116.332 RSMo is procedural; the Secretary of State retains final authority to approve or reject.
Currency note: this opinion is from 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.
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 AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent.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

Deirdre Hirner filed an initiative petition (file number 2020-125) in October 2019 proposing a constitutional amendment to Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution. The amendment would have legalized personal recreational marijuana use and possession (up to one ounce, three plants for cultivation, persons 21 and over), licensed commercial cultivation and retail sales, imposed a 15% retail tax dedicated to veterans' services, state highways, and addiction treatment, and allowed people with prior marijuana-related sentences to apply for sentence reduction and expungement. (The substance is recited verbatim in the parallel summary-statement opinion 246-2019.)

This opinion is the form-review step. Under § 116.332 RSMo, AG Schmitt's office checks the petition's structural elements (heading, full text, signature pages with statutory recitals, identification of who is circulating). The AG approves the form. It does not endorse the policy, does not bind the Secretary of State (who retains final approval authority), and does not vouch for the petition's substantive constitutionality.

This opinion sits at the front of an unusually visible cluster on the same petition (2020-125): see opinion 233-2019 (fiscal note review, November 14, 2019) and 246-2019 (summary statement review, November 18, 2019).

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. (Notably, Missouri voters approved a different recreational marijuana amendment, Amendment 3, in November 2022, so the legal landscape for cannabis in Missouri has changed substantially since 2019.)

Common questions

Q: What does "sufficiency as to form" cover?
A: The AG checks whether the petition has the structural elements Chapter 116 RSMo requires: a heading, the full text of the proposed amendment, signature pages with the statutory recitals, identification of who is circulating it, and so on. The AG does not review whether the policy is constitutional, whether it conflicts with federal law, or whether it is wise.

Q: How does this opinion connect to the other Hirner Article XIV opinions?
A: This opinion (224-2019) is the form approval for petition 2020-125. The same petition then got a fiscal note review at opinion 233-2019 (approved November 14, 2019, with $20M one-time state cost and $86M-$155M annual revenue projections) and a summary statement review at opinion 246-2019 (approved November 18, 2019, reciting the ballot question text). Hirner also filed three additional Article XIV variants (2020-126, 2020-127, 2020-128), reviewed for form at 231-2019, 232-2019, 234-2019.

Q: Was this the petition that legalized recreational marijuana in Missouri?
A: No. Missouri voters approved a different measure (Amendment 3) in November 2022. The 2019 Hirner petitions tracked here did not become law in this exact form.

Q: Who has final authority on form?
A: The Secretary of State, John R. Ashcroft at the time. The AG's letter is an advisory checkpoint. § 116.332 expressly leaves "final authority to approve or reject the petition" with the Secretary of State.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 116 RSMo lays out the initiative-petition pipeline:

  1. Proponent files the petition with the Secretary of State.
  2. AG reviews sufficiency as to form under § 116.332 RSMo (this opinion).
  3. State Auditor prepares a fiscal note; AG reviews under § 116.175.4 RSMo (next: 233-2019 for this petition).
  4. Secretary of State drafts a summary statement; AG reviews under § 116.334 RSMo (next: 246-2019 for this petition).
  5. Petition certified for circulation; signatures gathered by the constitutional-amendment deadline.

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.332 RSMo (the operative provision); § 116.175 RSMo (fiscal-note pipeline); § 116.334 RSMo (summary-statement pipeline).

Companion opinions on the same petition (2020-125): 233-2019 (fiscal note review), 246-2019 (summary statement review).

Sister Hirner Article XIV opinions on related petitions: 231-2019 (form review of 2020-126), 232-2019 (form review of 2020-127), 234-2019 (form review of 2020-128), 247-2019, 250-2019, 251-2019, 252-2019.

Source

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 18, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 224-2019

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 10, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Deirdre Hirner (2020-125).

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-2019-0256