Did the Missouri AG approve the ballot summary for DeeAnn Aull's 2019 Article IX education-funding initiative petition (version 4, file 2020-120)?

Plain-English summary

DeeAnn Aull filed a set of parallel initiative petitions in October 2019 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), the AG reviewed its legal content and form under § 116.334 RSMo. AG Schmitt's letter here approves the summary statement for petition 2020-120 (version 4).

The five-bullet summary the AG approved for this version would allow the General Assembly to enact state taxes to fund public schools without voter approval; require "adequately and equitably" funded public schools (and "certain voluntary early childhood education programs") in an amount that could exceed the current minimum of 25% of state revenue; remove the requirement to fund schools not governed by a publicly elected board, "such as charter schools or unaccredited school districts"; make "equality of educational opportunity" a fundamental right; and bar state and local governments from financially supporting 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;
• remove the requirement to fund schools not governed by a publicly elected board, such as charter schools or unaccredited school districts;
• 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 sets out the General Assembly's duty to maintain free public schools and the funding rules for them, including a minimum share of state revenue for public schools, the floor referenced in this petition's "exceed the current minimum of 25%" language.

Q: What sets version 4 apart in its summary?
A: Version 4's summary carries both extra bullets seen in the cluster: it extends the funding duty to "certain voluntary early childhood education programs," and it would "remove the requirement to fund schools not governed by a publicly elected board, such as charter schools or unaccredited school districts."

Q: What did the AG actually decide here?
A: Only that the Secretary of State's summary statement for petition 2020-120 passes legal muster as to content and form under § 116.334. The letter does not assess whether the petition is constitutional, whether it should pass, or what its policy effects would be.

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 in the process. None of these specific Aull versions appears to have advanced to the 2020 ballot.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 116 RSMo governs the initiative-and-referendum pipeline:

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

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.334, RSMo (the operative provision).

Constitutional provisions referenced: Mo. Const. art. IX (public education).

Sister Aull Article IX summary statement opinions: 226-2019, 227-2019, 229-2019.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/228-2019.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. 228-2019

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 4 (2020-120). 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;
• remove the requirement to fund schools not governed by a publicly elected board, such as charter schools or unaccredited school districts;
• 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-2019-0260