Did the Missouri AG approve the ballot summary for Patricia Thomas's Article V petition 2020-024 (version 2) making appellate judges run in nonpartisan-but-endorsable elections?

Plain-English summary

The version-2 companion to petition 2020-023 (Op. 40-2019). Patricia Thomas filed petition 2020-024 with a tweaked first element: instead of formally partisan judicial elections, the petition would create "nonpartisan elections" where candidates could still "declare their support for a political party and be endorsed by a political party." The other four elements were identical to 2020-023: 6-year terms (instead of 12), a two-term cap per seat, gubernatorial appointment of vacancies without commission input, and unrestricted campaign contributions.

The version-2 design is a halfway house. Strictly speaking, the elections would be nonpartisan, so there would be no D/R designation on the ballot. But candidates could publicly declare party support and accept party endorsements, so the practical effect would track partisan elections in many respects. The version-2 design likely aimed to appeal to voters wary of fully partisan judicial elections while still loosening the current Nonpartisan Court Plan's structural constraints.

The AG approved the form of the summary statement under § 116.334 and added the standard disclaimer that approval is not an endorsement.

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

Why file two versions of the same petition?

Because proponents often hedge by filing variants. The version-1 (partisan) and version-2 (nonpartisan-endorseable) drafts give the proponent flexibility to circulate whichever version polls or signs best, or to fall back on the milder version if the more aggressive one draws challenges.

How is a "nonpartisan election with party endorsement" different from a partisan election?

In a formally partisan election, the ballot lists each candidate with a party label (D/R/I). In a nonpartisan election, no party label appears on the ballot. The version-2 design keeps the no-label ballot but explicitly permits the candidate to campaign with party endorsement, which often gets that party label into mailers, ads, and slate cards. The legal status is nonpartisan; the campaign reality is partisan-adjacent.

Why does this matter under Missouri constitutional law?

Mo. Const. art. V uses a Missouri Plan retention-vote model that is formally nonpartisan. Replacing it with a partisan-elections model (version 1) is a sharper constitutional change than replacing it with a formally-nonpartisan-but-endorseable model (version 2). The version-2 design tries to thread a narrower constitutional needle.

Does this affect circuit-court (trial-level) judges?

The petition targeted appellate courts (Missouri Supreme Court and Court of Appeals). Missouri has a mixed system: some circuit-court judges are selected by the Missouri Plan in certain populous circuits, others run in partisan elections. The 2020-024 petition did not modify the circuit-court selection system.

Did the AG endorse either version?

No. Both Op. 40-2019 and Op. 41-2019 contain the standard § 116.334 disclaimer that the AG is not endorsing the petition or its objectives.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative process runs through Chapter 116. § 116.334 governs AG review of summary statements. The substantive proposal targets Mo. Const. art. V, with the Nonpartisan Court Plan in § 25 as the structural target. The parallel version-1 petition is at Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 40-2019.

Citations

• § 116.334, RSMo (AG review of summary statement)
• Mo. Const. art. V (Judicial Department)
• Mo. Const. art. V, § 25 (Nonpartisan Court Plan)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (initiative and referendum process)
• Initiative Petition 2020-024 (Thomas, Article V "version 2," nonpartisan-with-endorsement)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 40-2019 (Thomas 2020-023 "version 1," partisan elections)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/41-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
JEFFERSON CITY
P.O. Box 899
ATTORNEY GENERAL
65102
(573) 751-3321

February 7, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 41-2019

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 V of the Missouri Constitution, version 2 (2020-024). The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to provide that:

• appellate court (supreme court and court of appeals) judges shall be elected in nonpartisan elections, but can declare their support for a political party and be endorsed by a political party;
• the term of an appellate court judge shall be reduced from 12 years to 6 years;
• no appellate court judge can be elected to a particular judicial seat for more than two consecutive terms;
• the governor fills appellate court vacancies without recommendations from the appellate judicial commission; and
• all judicial candidates can receive and make campaign contributions?

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.

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

OP-2019-0031