Did Missouri's Attorney General approve the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary for petition 2024-171?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2023. Ask about yours and see what current Missouri law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey approved the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary submitted for Deidre Hirner's initiative petition 2024-171. The State Auditor had sent the fiscal note and summary under § 116.175, RSMo. The quoted summary said state and local governmental entities estimated no direct costs or savings, but that attempts to implement or modify a local tobacco tax might change revenue or increase election-related and other costs that could not be estimated.
The letter defined its review narrowly. Approval under § 116.175.4, RSMo, did not mean that the AG endorsed the initiative or agreed with its proponents. It also expressly said the review did not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact. The opinion therefore records a decision on the summary's legal content and form, not an independent finding about the projected revenue or costs.
What this means for you
Missouri voters and petition researchers
The opinion records the fiscal note summary submitted for petition 2024-171. Its statements about possible local tobacco-tax effects came from the submitted fiscal note summary; the letter described the petition only as amending Article X. The Attorney General did not validate those estimates.
Local officials and election officials
The letter approved the summary's legal content and form under the statute. It gave no conclusion that any local tobacco tax had been adopted or that the stated fiscal effects would occur.
Common questions
Q: Did the AG approve the fiscal note summary for petition 2024-171?
A: Yes. The letter approved its legal content and form under § 116.175.4, RSMo.
Q: Did the AG find the estimate of no direct costs or savings reliable?
A: The opinion says the AG's review did not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact.
Q: Did the AG endorse petition 2024-171?
A: No. The letter expressly disclaimed endorsement of the initiative or a view on its proponents' objectives.
Background and statutory framework
The State Auditor submitted the fiscal note and summary in December 2023. The Attorney General quoted the summary, approved its legal content and form under § 116.175.4, and stated the limits of that review. The letter contains no further analysis of the proposal's policy merits or the estimated fiscal impact.
Citations and references
- § 116.175, RSMo: provision under which the fiscal note and summary were prepared.
- § 116.175.4, RSMo: provision cited for the AG's review decision.
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/439-2023.pdf
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ANDREW BAILEY
December 21, 2023
OPINION LETTER NO. 439-2023
The Honorable Scott Fitzpatrick
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 229
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Auditor Fitzpatrick:
This office received your letter of December 11, 2023, submitting a fiscal note and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted by Deidre Hirner, 2024-171. The fiscal note summary that you submitted is as follows: State and local governmental entities estimate no direct costs or savings. Attempts to implement a local tobacco tax, or to modify an existing local tobacco tax, could result in changes in revenue or increased election related or other costs for these entities that cannot be estimated. 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,
ANDREW BAILEY
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-2023-431
What does Missouri law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2023. 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