Ezel / AG Opinions / MO
MO Opinion No. 4-2020 2020-01-16

Why did the Missouri Attorney General reject Mark Parachini's initiative petition (2020-145) on form grounds in January 2020?

Short answer: Attorney General Eric Schmitt rejected the petition for two formatting failures: it was not in the form prescribed by § 116.040, RSMo, and it did not show deletions in brackets and additions underlined as required by § 116.050, RSMo. Because the form failed at the threshold, the AG did not review for any other deficiencies. The Secretary of State retained final authority over the rejection.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2020
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.
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 AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent.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

Mark Parachini submitted an initiative petition to the Missouri Secretary of State in early 2020 (Secretary's tracking number 2020-145). On January 16, 2020, Attorney General Eric Schmitt rejected it on form grounds under § 116.332, RSMo. Two specific failures: the petition did not follow the format prescribed by § 116.040, RSMo (cover sheet, signature page, signature line layout), and it did not mark the changes the way § 116.050 requires (deletions in brackets, additions underlined).

Form rejection at this stage is common for petitions filed without legal counsel. The AG's letter does not list every defect. It rejects on the first ones it finds and stops, because the petition is not viable as filed regardless of any further issues. The Secretary of State retained statutory authority under § 116.332.4 to make a final decision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. 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.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's Chapter 116 sets the rules for citizen-initiated ballot measures. The chapter is unusually procedural; failing the form check is the most common reason a citizen-drafted petition does not make it to the streets for signature collection.

Two statutes did the work in this rejection:

§ 116.040, RSMo, petition format. Specifies cover-sheet content, signature-page layout, signer information requirements, and other format-of-the-instrument rules. A petition that does not follow these rules cannot circulate as written.

§ 116.050, RSMo, text-marking rules. Petitions that amend existing law must show what is being deleted (in brackets) and what is being added (underlined), so signers and ultimately voters can see the change against current statute. A bare clean copy of the proposed new statute, without the redlining, fails this rule.

§ 116.332, RSMo, the AG review process. Subsection 4 lets the Secretary of State make a "final decision" after considering the AG's opinion.

The AG's standard practice when rejecting on form is to list the most obvious defects, decline to do further review, and bounce the petition back to the proponent through the Secretary. The proponent can re-file a corrected version. If you compare this opinion with 5-2020, 6-2020, and 7-2020, you will see the same proponent (Mark Parachini) re-filing successive versions, and the AG continuing to reject. Three of the four cite § 116.050.2(3) specifically, which is the underlined-additions rule.

What this means for you

If you are drafting a Missouri initiative petition

Get the format right before you file. The cover sheet, signature page, and the redlined-text rules are well-defined. Most law firms doing initiative work use templates that comply with §§ 116.040 and 116.050. If you do not have a lawyer, the Secretary of State's office publishes templates that are usually a safer starting point than drafting from scratch.

If you are a proponent who got bounced

You can re-file a corrected petition. The AG's rejection does not bar re-filing, just the version submitted. Mark Parachini's experience shows the limits of this approach: filing four times in a row without fixing the underlying defects produced four sequential AG rejections.

If you are a journalist or researcher

The AG opinion does not describe what Parachini's petition was substantively about. The Secretary of State's office is the authoritative record of the underlying proposal text. Tracking numbers (2020-145, -146, -147, -148) point to specific filings and the Secretary's records.

Common questions

What does "the petition is not in the form prescribed by § 116.040" mean?

Section 116.040 specifies the structural elements of an initiative petition: cover sheet, signature page format, what information must appear about the proponent, etc. A petition missing those elements or arranged differently fails this rule.

What is § 116.050's text-marking rule?

Petitions that amend existing law must show changes in a specific format: deletions enclosed in brackets, additions underlined. The point is to let signers and voters see exactly what would change. § 116.050.2(3) is the additions-underlined rule.

Did the AG say what the petition was about?

No. The opinion says only that it was a Mark Parachini petition tracked as 2020-145. The Secretary of State's records would show the substance.

Could Parachini have appealed the rejection?

Section 116.332.4 gives the Secretary of State the final word on form. If the Secretary affirmed the rejection, the proponent's option would be a court challenge or a corrected re-filing. Parachini chose to re-file (yielding 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020).

Citations

  • § 116.040, RSMo (petition format)
  • § 116.050, RSMo (text-marking rules)
  • § 116.332, RSMo (AG sufficiency-as-to-form review)
  • § 116.332.4, RSMo (Secretary of State's final authority)

Source

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

January 16, 2020
OPINION LETTER NO. 4-2020

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 10, 2020, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Mark Parachini, (2020-145).

We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reasons:

  1. The petition is not in the form prescribed by § 116.040, RSMo.

  2. The petition does not contain "all matter which is to be deleted included in its proper place enclosed in brackets and all new matter shown underlined" as required pursuant to § 116.050, RSMo.

Because of our rejection of the form of the petition for the reasons stated above, we have not reviewed the petition to determine whether additional deficiencies exist. Pursuant to § 116.332.4, RSMo, the Secretary of State is authorized to review this opinion and "make a final decision as to the approval or rejection of the form of the petition."

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-2020-0004