Did the Missouri AG approve the ballot summary for DeeAnn Aull's 2019 Article IX education-funding initiative petition (version 2, file 2020-118)?
Plain-English summary
DeeAnn Aull filed four parallel initiative petitions in October 2019 (numbers 2020-118 through 2020-121) to amend Article IX of the Missouri Constitution, the article governing public education. After the Secretary of State drafted a summary statement (the ballot question voters would see) for each version, the AG reviewed each summary's legal content and form under § 116.334 RSMo. AG Schmitt's letter approves the summary statement for petition 2020-118 (version 2).
The four versions test different combinations of two policy variables. Version 1 (2020-118 family) is the bare base proposal. Version 2 adds language about funding "certain voluntary early childhood education programs." Version 3 adds a carveout removing the duty to fund schools not run by an elected board (which would target charter schools and unaccredited districts). Version 4 includes both the early-childhood funding and the charter-school carveout. Petition 2020-118 is the 2-variant (early-childhood programs included, no charter carveout).
What every version of the petition would do at minimum: (1) let the General Assembly impose state taxes for public schools without voter approval, removing the Hancock Amendment's voter-consent requirement for that subject; (2) require "adequate and equitable" funding for public schools above 25% of state general revenue; (3) make equality of educational opportunity through public schools a fundamental right under state law; and (4) bar state and local financial support for private schools.
The AG's role here is narrow. It is a legal-form check on the ballot summary, not a policy endorsement and not an opinion on whether the petition's substance is constitutional or wise.
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:
- allow the General Assembly to enact state taxes to fund public schools without voter approval;
- require the General Assembly to "adequately and equitably" fund public schools (and certain voluntary early childhood education programs), in an amount that could exceed the current minimum of 25% of state revenue;
- make "equality of educational opportunity" through public schools a fundamental right; and
- prohibit state and local governments from financially supporting private schools?
Common questions
Q: What is "Article IX" of the Missouri Constitution?
A: It is the article that governs public education. It establishes the duty of the General Assembly to maintain free public schools, the State Board of Education, the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the local school-district structure, and various funding rules. Section 3(b) of Article IX requires that "not less than twenty-five percent of the state revenue" go to public schools, the floor referenced in this petition's "exceed the current minimum of 25%" language.
Q: What does "adequate and equitable" funding mean here?
A: The petition would have written that standard into Article IX as a constitutional requirement, judicially enforceable. Variations of "adequate and equitable" school-funding mandates exist in other states, where they have driven decades of school-funding litigation. The petition does not define the standard; courts would have had to.
Q: Why does the petition let the legislature raise school taxes "without voter approval"?
A: Currently, Missouri's Hancock Amendment (Article X, §§ 16-24) requires voter approval for new state taxes (and new local taxes). The Aull petition would have carved out school taxes from that requirement, letting the legislature impose them by statute. This was likely the petition's most politically charged element.
Q: How does this version differ from Aull's other three?
A: Version 2 includes early-childhood program funding and does not carve out charter and unaccredited schools. Filing four versions lets proponents pick the one that survives the AG and ballot-summary litigation pipeline.
Q: Did this petition reach the ballot?
A: The opinion does not say. AG approval of the form of a summary statement is one early step. The petition still needed to gather the constitutional-amendment signature threshold (8% of votes cast for governor in two-thirds of Missouri's congressional districts) by the May 2020 deadline. None of these specific Aull versions appears to have advanced to the 2020 ballot.
Q: Who can challenge the summary statement after the AG approves it?
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. Many Missouri ballot summaries trigger such suits, and the courts often rewrite them.
Background and statutory framework
Chapter 116 RSMo governs the initiative-and-referendum 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 and fiscal-note summary; AG reviews legal content and form under § 116.175.4 RSMo.
- Secretary of State drafts a summary statement; AG reviews legal content and form under § 116.334 RSMo (this opinion).
- Petition is certified for circulation; signatures gathered by deadline.
- Pre-election challenges go to Cole County under § 116.190 RSMo.
Constitutional amendments require signatures from 8% of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election, in two-thirds of Missouri's congressional districts, per Mo. Const. art. III, § 50.
Citations and references
Statutes: § 116.334, RSMo (the operative provision); § 116.175 RSMo (fiscal-note pipeline); § 116.332 RSMo (sufficiency-as-to-form); § 116.190 RSMo (judicial challenges to summary).
Constitutional provisions referenced: Mo. Const. art. IX (public education); art. X §§ 16-24 (Hancock Amendment); art. III § 50 (initiative).
Sister Aull Article IX summary statement opinions: 227-2019 (version 3, 2020-119), 228-2019 (version 4, 2020-120), 229-2019 (version 1, 2020-121).
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/226-2019.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 18, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 226-2019
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 § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by DeeAnn Aull regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article IX of the Missouri Constitution, version 2 (2020-118). The proposed summary statement is as follows:
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
- allow the General Assembly to enact state taxes to fund public schools without voter approval;
- require the General Assembly to "adequately and equitably" fund public schools (and certain voluntary early childhood education programs), in an amount that could exceed the current minimum of 25% of state revenue;
- make "equality of educational opportunity" through public schools a fundamental right; and
- prohibit state and local governments from financially supporting private schools?
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-2019-0258