MO Opinion No. 250-2019 2019-11-22

Did the Missouri AG approve the fiscal note summary for the second variant of the 2020 Hirner marijuana legalization petition (2020-127)?

Short answer: Yes. AG Eric Schmitt approved the legal content and form of the Auditor's fiscal note summary for petition 2020-127, a sister version of the Hirner Article XIV marijuana legalization initiative. The estimate projected one-time state costs of $21 million, annual costs of up to $6 million, and annual state revenues of $86 to $155 million by 2025. The AG's approval is a narrow form check, not an endorsement.

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 AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent.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

This is the second AG opinion in a cluster of four Deirdre Hirner petitions filed for the 2020 Missouri ballot to legalize recreational marijuana by amending Article XIV of the state constitution. Petition 2020-127 differed from 2020-126 (covered in opinion 247-2019) in details that produced slightly different fiscal note language: state annual costs were now estimated at "up to $6 million" rather than "$6 million to unknown."

AG Schmitt's review was narrow: he checked that Auditor Galloway's fiscal note summary met the legal-content-and-form requirements of § 116.175.4 RSMo. He did not pass on whether the dollar projections were accurate or fair, and his approval does not endorse marijuana legalization or any other position on the petition's substance.

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: Why are there four nearly identical AG opinions on the Hirner petitions?
A: Proponents often file multiple variants of the same initiative concept. Each variant is a separate petition with its own number, its own fiscal note, and its own AG opinion letter. Filing multiple variants gives proponents flexibility in deciding which version to circulate for signatures.

Q: How did petition 2020-127 differ from 2020-126?
A: The opinion does not describe the substantive differences. The fiscal note language did differ: 2020-127 capped projected annual state costs at "up to $6 million," while 2020-126's range was "$6 million to unknown." Both projected the same $86 to $155 million state revenue range by 2025 and the same one-time $21 million state costs.

Q: Did this version reach the 2020 ballot?
A: No initiative under the 2020-126 to 2020-128 numbers appeared on the 2020 ballot. Recreational legalization eventually reached the Missouri Constitution through Amendment 3 in 2022, a separate effort with its own petition.

Q: What standard did the AG use for "legal content and form"?
A: The opinion does not articulate a detailed test. In practice, the § 116.175.4 RSMo review is a narrow check on whether the summary uses appropriate legal language and meets statutory format requirements; it is not a substantive review.

Background and statutory framework

The interplay among the State Auditor (fiscal note), the Secretary of State (ballot summary), and the Attorney General (legal-form review) is laid out in chapter 116 RSMo. For each variant of an initiative petition, the Auditor prepares a fiscal note and summary, the AG reviews them, and only then can the petition circulate for signatures. The same pipeline runs in parallel for the Secretary of State's ballot summary statement under § 116.334 (see opinion 251-2019 for the parallel marijuana-petition summary-statement opinion).

The narrowness of the AG's review is by design. Missouri places policy review with voters and substantive challenges with courts, leaving the AG only the form-and-content gate.

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.175, RSMo; § 116.175.4, RSMo.

Related AG opinions in this petition cluster: 247-2019 (Hirner 2020-126); 251-2019 (Secretary of State summary statement for 2020-126, with ballot-question text); 252-2019 (Hirner 2020-128).

Source

Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/250-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
Eric SCHMITT
November 22, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 250-2019
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 18, 2019, submitting a fiscal note
and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative
petition submitted by Deirdre Hirner, (2020-127) the fiscal note summary that you
submitted is as follows:

State government entities are expected to have one-time
costs of $21 million, annual costs of up to $6 million, 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,

if fas

ERIC S. SCHMITT

Supreme Court Building Attorney General

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-2019-0284