Did the Missouri AG approve the fiscal note for Hirner's 2019 recreational-marijuana initiative petition (2020-125)?
Plain-English summary
Deirdre Hirner filed an initiative petition (file number 2020-125) in late 2019 to amend Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution to legalize recreational cannabis, license commercial sales, and impose a 15% retail tax. As part of the standard initiative pipeline, the State Auditor prepared a fiscal note and a fiscal-note summary; under § 116.175.4 RSMo, the AG reviews the summary's legal content and form. AG Schmitt's letter approves it.
The Auditor's projected fiscal impact (which the AG approved as legally sufficient, not as accurate) was:
- State governmental entities: one-time costs of $20 million, ongoing annual costs from $6 million to unknown amount, and annual revenues from $86 million to $155 million by 2025.
- Local governments: unknown costs, with annual revenues from $17 million to $27 million by 2025.
Those numbers are projections by the Auditor, not by the AG. The AG's review is narrow: confirm the summary statement reads as a legally sufficient fiscal note summary, check it for legal-form defects. The AG explicitly disclaims any review of the "fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact."
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: Are these revenue projections accurate?
A: The opinion does not say. The State Auditor compiles projections from input by affected agencies and stakeholders. The AG specifically disclaims any review of accuracy: "our review under § 116.175.4 does not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact." Anyone challenging the fiscal note's accuracy must do so under § 116.190 RSMo in Cole County circuit court within ten days of certification.
Q: How does this fiscal note compare to what Missouri's actual recreational cannabis law produces?
A: The 2022 Amendment 3 (a different proposal) imposes a 6% state tax (not 15%) plus optional local taxes up to 3%. Missouri's first full year of Amendment 3 retail sales (FY2024) generated roughly $100 million in state cannabis tax revenue. The Hirner 2019 fiscal note's $86M-$155M projection was for a 15% rate by 2025, so the order of magnitude is in the same range, but the policy framework is different.
Q: Why does the AG say "no endorsement"?
A: § 116.175.4 mandates the AG's review, so doing the review cannot be read as a political endorsement. Schmitt's office repeats this disclaimer in every Chapter 116 letter to make clear the AG is acting as a checkpoint.
Q: What is a "fiscal note summary" versus a "summary statement"?
A: The fiscal note summary (this opinion) tells voters what the petition would cost or earn the state. The summary statement (the related opinion 246-2019) is the question text voters see on the ballot. Both go on the ballot when the petition qualifies.
Background and statutory framework
Chapter 116 RSMo lays out the initiative-petition 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 (this opinion).
- Secretary of State drafts a summary statement; AG reviews under § 116.334 RSMo.
- Petition certified for circulation.
Citations and references
Statutes: § 116.175 RSMo, § 116.175.4 RSMo (the operative provisions); § 116.332 RSMo (form review pipeline); § 116.334 RSMo (summary statement pipeline); § 116.190 RSMo (judicial challenges).
Companion opinion on the same petition (2020-125): 246-2019 (summary statement review).
Sister opinions on related Hirner Article XIV 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
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/233-2019.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
November 14, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 233-2019
The Honorable Nicole Galloway
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 121
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Auditor Galloway:
This office received your letter of November 4, 2019, submitting a fiscal note and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted by Deirdre Hirner, (2020-125). The fiscal note summary that you submitted is as follows:
State government entities are expected to have one-time costs of $20 million, annual costs from $6 million to unknown, and annual revenues from $86 million to $155 million by 2025. Local governments estimate unknown costs and are expected to have annual revenues from $17 million to $27 million by 2025.
Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary. Because our review of the fiscal note summary is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents. Furthermore, our review under § 116.175.4 does not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact.
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-2019-0267