What memorial-related ballot summary did the Missouri Attorney General approve for petition 2020-021?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2019. Ask about yours and see what current Missouri law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary of State submitted a proposed summary statement for Patricia Thomas’s petition 2020-021 to amend Article XIV, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution. The statement asks whether certain historic memorials of any age on public property, including named or dedicated statues, schools, streets, bridges, and buildings, should be protected against removal, renaming, or certain other changes unless provided by law.
The Attorney General approved the statement’s legal content and form under § 116.334, RSMo. The letter expressly disclaims endorsement of the petition and a view on its proponents’ objectives. It does not decide which particular memorials would qualify, how a city or school board would act under the proposed amendment, or what “unless provided by law” would require.
Currency note
This letter was issued in 2019. Read the petition text and current law before relying on the proposal’s details or present rules.
The proposed summary statement
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to require that certain historic memorials of any age on public property, such as statues, names of schools, streets, bridges and buildings named or dedicated in honor of any historic conflict, entity, event, or figure, may not be removed, renamed, or otherwise changed in certain ways unless provided by law?
Common questions
Q: Does this letter say every historic memorial on public property would be covered?
A: No. The proposed statement refers to “certain historic memorials” and does not define the full scope. The letter does not analyze which memorials qualify.
Q: Could a city or school board remove or rename a covered memorial?
A: The summary says the proposed restriction would apply “unless provided by law,” but the letter does not interpret that phrase or a local government’s authority. The petition text would be needed to assess a specific case.
Q: Did the Attorney General endorse the petition?
A: No. The letter approves the statement’s legal content and form and expressly disclaims endorsement of the petition or its proponents’ objectives.
Background and statutory framework
The Secretary of State requested review of a proposed summary statement under § 116.334, RSMo. The Attorney General approved that statement’s legal content and form. This letter does not review the petition’s substantive legal effect.
Citations and references
Statute cited: § 116.334, RSMo.
Constitutional provision identified: Article XIV, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution.
Source
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
Eric Schmitt
Attorney General
JEFFERSON CITY
P.O. Box 899
65102
(573) 751-3321
February 7, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 38-2019
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 January 28, 2019, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Patricia Thomas regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article XIV, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, (2020-021). The proposed summary statement is as follows:
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to require that certain historic memorials of any age on public property, such as statues, names of schools, streets, bridges and buildings named or dedicated in honor of any historic conflict, entity, event, or figure, may not be removed, renamed, or otherwise changed in certain ways unless provided by law?
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.
OP-2019-0028
Very truly yours,
ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General
What does Missouri law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2019. Ezel checks the current Missouri statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace