Why did the Missouri AG reject Winston Apple's initiative petition 2020-041?

Plain-English summary

This is a companion to Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 48-2019. Winston Apple submitted petition 2020-041 to amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution, alongside the similarly numbered 2020-040 that the AG had rejected three days earlier. The Secretary of State sent 2020-041 to the AG for § 116.332 form review, and the AG rejected it for the same reason: the text did not display deletions in brackets and additions underlined as required by § 116.050, RSMo.

Because the form defect was facial, the AG did not review the petition for any additional deficiencies. Under § 116.332.4, the Secretary of State retains the final administrative call.

Apple appears to have used the rejections as feedback. By March 4, 2019, he had filed a "version 2" petition designated 2020-046, which the AG approved as to form in Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 55-2019. So the formatting issues were correctable, and the rejection pathway functioned as intended (catching defective drafting before the petition entered circulation).

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 did Apple file 2020-040 and 2020-041 so close together?

Missouri permits multiple iterations of similar proposals. Numbering is sequential, so 2020-040 and 2020-041 are consecutive submissions. The most likely explanation is that the proponent was working through variants of the same underlying Article III restructuring concept. Both shared the same § 116.050 defect.

What is the substantive amendment Apple was trying to advance?

Apple's 2019 series of Article III petitions sought to restructure the Missouri General Assembly. The eventual approved version (2020-046) was associated with his broader package, which also included statutory petitions 2020-048 (Op. 57-2019) amending Chapters 143 and 286, and 2020-049 (Op. 60-2019). The substantive aim was legislative reform; the form rejection here did not pass on whether that aim was achievable.

How fast does the AG turn around these reviews?

This opinion was issued three days after the Secretary's referral (referral dated February 1, opinion dated February 11). The previous one (48-2019) was issued eight days after referral. The statutory timelines in Chapter 116 are tight, and the AG meets them.

Did Apple's "version 2" petition (2020-046) ultimately reach the ballot?

Form approval is the first administrative step. Reaching the ballot also requires signature collection within the constitutional deadline, surviving any pre-election challenges, and passing whatever judicial scrutiny the petition draws. The AG's form approval does not by itself put a petition on the ballot.

Could the AG have reviewed the petition's substance and rejected on substantive grounds?

§ 116.332 review is form review, not substantive review. The AG's opinion is limited to whether the petition meets the procedural requirements of Chapter 116. Substantive constitutional challenges (single-subject violations, federal-law conflicts, ambiguity) are usually raised in court, not before the AG.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative process is in Chapter 116. § 116.332 governs AG form review; § 116.332.4 reserves final administrative authority to the Secretary of State. § 116.050 is the drafting-formalities rule (brackets for deletions, underlining for additions). The substantive proposal targeted Article III; the constitutional initiative process is in Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53.

Citations

• § 116.332, RSMo (AG form review of initiative petitions)
• § 116.332.4, RSMo (Secretary of State final authority)
• § 116.050, RSMo (mandatory drafting formalities)
• Mo. Const. art. III (Legislative Department, subject of the amendment)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (initiative and referendum process)
• Initiative Petition 2020-041 (Apple, Article III; rejected for form)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 48-2019 (parallel Apple 2020-040 rejection)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 55-2019 (Apple 2020-046 "version 2," approved as to form)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/49-2019.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 11, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 49-2019

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 February 1, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Winston Apple (2020-041).

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

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

OP-2019-0039