Did the Missouri Attorney General approve the fiscal note summary for Mary Ann Sedey's proposed Article VIII constitutional initiative (petition 2020-134)?
Subject
Review and approval, under § 116.175.4, RSMo, of the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary the State Auditor prepared for Mary Ann Sedey's initiative petition 2020-134, proposing to amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution.
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.
Plain-English summary
Missouri's initiative-petition process moves a citizen-drafted constitutional amendment toward the ballot through several gatekeepers. One of them is the State Auditor, who prepares a fiscal note and a fiscal note summary that voters will eventually see on the ballot. Another is the Attorney General, who under § 116.175.4 reviews the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary the Auditor produced.
In December 2019, AG Eric Schmitt issued a series of these review letters covering five closely-related initiative petitions submitted by Mary Ann Sedey, all proposing to amend Article VIII (Suffrage and Elections) of the Missouri Constitution. Petition 2020-134 was one of those five. The Auditor's fiscal note summary for petition 2020-134 estimated state one-time costs of at least $1 million with possible ongoing costs, and local one-time costs of at least $746,000 with annual costs of at least $138,000 and per-election costs of $149,000.
The AG approved the legal content and form. That approval did three concrete things: confirmed the summary tracked the requirements of § 116.175 in form; cleared the way for the petition to advance through the procedural pipeline; and triggered the next stage of certification.
What it explicitly did NOT do, by the AG's own statement: it did not endorse the petition, did not express any view on the proponent's objectives, and did not examine whether the fiscal estimates were fair or sufficient. Voters who later read the fiscal note summary on the ballot were reading a State Auditor estimate, not an AG endorsement.
What this means for you
If you are an initiative proponent in Missouri
The § 116.175.4 review is procedural, not substantive. The AG's approval clears one box on the path to the ballot. It tells you nothing about whether your petition will survive court challenges, signature gathering, ballot title litigation, or the campaign. Plan for those separately. Your fiscal note summary will be what voters read; if you think it is inaccurate, the path is to challenge the State Auditor's underlying analysis, not the AG's form review.
If you are a Missouri voter trying to evaluate an initiative
The fiscal note summary on your ballot was prepared by the State Auditor and approved as to legal content and form by the Attorney General. That approval is a procedural check, not an endorsement of the cost estimates' accuracy or of the underlying policy. Treat the fiscal note as one input. Look at the Auditor's underlying methodology and the proponent's and opponents' positions for a fuller picture.
If you are an attorney advising on Missouri initiative petitions
The § 116.175.4 review is narrow. Plan client expectations accordingly. AG approval here is not a defense in subsequent litigation over the substance of the petition or the accuracy of the fiscal estimates. It is also not a defense to ballot-title challenges; those go to a different proceeding under § 116.190.
Common questions
Q: What is § 116.175 in Missouri?
A: It is the statute that governs preparation of the fiscal note and fiscal note summary for an initiative petition. The State Auditor prepares both; the Attorney General reviews the legal content and form of the summary under subsection 4.
Q: Why did the AG issue 5 different opinions on the same day for Mary Ann Sedey?
A: Because Sedey submitted 5 closely-related drafts of an Article VIII amendment, each receiving a separate State Auditor fiscal note summary and a separate AG review. Drafting variants is a common technique to keep options open while one moves through the process.
Q: What does "approval as to legal content and form" actually check?
A: It checks that the summary meets the formal requirements of § 116.175 (proper structure, statutory format) and that its legal content is accurate and not misleading. It does not check whether the dollar amounts in the summary are correct, fair, or sufficient.
Q: What happens after this approval?
A: The petition continues through the certification process. The Secretary of State certifies the petition for circulation; proponents gather signatures; if enough valid signatures are collected, the measure goes on the ballot.
Q: Did initiative petition 2020-134 ultimately make the ballot?
A: This opinion does not address that question. To check, consult the Missouri Secretary of State's records for petition 2020-134 and the relevant election cycle.
Background and statutory framework
Missouri's initiative process is governed by RSMo Chapter 116. Petitions for constitutional amendments need signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election in two-thirds of Missouri's congressional districts. Statutory initiative petitions require 5%.
§ 116.175 sits in the middle of the process. After a petition is filed with the Secretary of State, the State Auditor has 20 days to prepare a fiscal note and fiscal note summary. The Auditor solicits cost information from state agencies and local governments. The summary that voters eventually see on the ballot is short (50 words for the summary itself).
§ 116.175.4 then routes the summary to the Attorney General. The AG has 10 days to approve or reject the legal content and form. The AG cannot rewrite the substance of the cost estimate; the review is narrow.
The narrow scope is intentional. The Auditor's fiscal analysis is a factual exercise. Disagreements over cost magnitude go to the Auditor, not the AG. The AG's role is to make sure the summary as written is legally proper and not misleading on its face.
Citations
Statutes:
- § 116.175, RSMo
- Mo. Const. Art. VIII (Suffrage and Elections)
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/258-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Original opinion text
Se ee
verte,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
December 6, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 258-2019
The Honorable Nicole Galloway
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 121
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Auditor Galloway:
This office received your letter dated November 26, 2019, submitting a fiscal
note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted
by Mary Ann Sedey, (2020-134) the fiscal note summary that you submitted is as
follows:
State governmental entities expect one-time costs of at
least $ 1 million and possible ongoing costs. Local
governments are expected to have costs of an unknown
amount totaling at least $746,000 in one-time costs,
$138,000 in annual costs, and $149,000 in costs per
election.
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,
4 6 Saw
ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High Street
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (873) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
WWW.ag0.m0.g0v
OP-2019-0292