Why did the Missouri Attorney General reject Mark Parachini's second initiative petition (2020-146) on form grounds in late January 2020?
Plain-English summary
Mark Parachini's second initiative petition filing (Secretary's tracking number 2020-146) was rejected by Attorney General Eric Schmitt on January 27, 2020, for the same reasons his first attempt was rejected eleven days earlier (see Opinion 4-2020). The petition still did not match the format prescribed by § 116.040, RSMo, and still did not mark deletions and additions in the way § 116.050 requires. The AG declined to look further into other potential defects.
Parachini went on to file two more versions in February (2020-147 and 2020-148, addressed in Opinions 6-2020 and 7-2020). Both were also rejected, with the AG narrowing in each subsequent rejection to the underline-addition rule in § 116.050.2(3) specifically.
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
Form review under § 116.332, RSMo, is the threshold check on every initiative petition filed in Missouri. The AG checks two technical statutes:
- § 116.040, required format of the petition (cover sheet, signature pages, layout).
- § 116.050, required marking of changes (deletions in brackets, additions underlined).
When the AG rejects, § 116.332.4 lets the Secretary of State make the final call. The petition can be re-filed with corrections.
The Parachini sequence (2020-145 through 2020-148) shows what happens when a proponent re-files without fully fixing the underlying drafting issues. The AG keeps rejecting; the bare § 116.040 violation drops out of the analysis as Parachini iterates, but the § 116.050 underline rule keeps tripping the petition.
What this means for you
If you are an initiative proponent re-filing after rejection
Read the AG's rejection letter carefully. The reasons are listed numerically and tied to specific statutory subsections. Address each one before you re-file. The AG's standard practice is to reject on the first defects found and not look further, so a corrected re-filing may surface defects not mentioned in the prior letter.
If you are tracking citizen initiatives
The four-petition Parachini sequence (4-2020 through 7-2020) shows a common scenario: a proponent attempting to draft without legal help, hitting the same drafting rule each time. The substance of the proposal does not appear in any of the AG opinions, but the Secretary of State's records track the actual text.
Common questions
Why does the AG reject for "the form prescribed by § 116.040" without saying which part?
This is consistent across the AG's form-rejection letters. The opinions list the statute and stop. Specific defects often live in the cover sheet's identification of the proponent or in the signature page format.
Why did the AG cite § 116.050.2(3) specifically in 6-2020 and 7-2020 but only § 116.050 generally in 4-2020 and 5-2020?
The earlier rejections cite both § 116.040 (general format) and § 116.050 (text marking). The later ones drop § 116.040, suggesting Parachini fixed that piece. § 116.050.2(3) is the specific subsection requiring additions to be underlined; the later rejections imply that was the persisting issue.
Could Parachini have asked the AG to reconsider?
The AG's role under § 116.332 is advisory; the Secretary of State has final authority. Reconsideration ordinarily comes through corrected re-filing or, less often, court challenge.
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
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/5-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=2
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 27, 2020
OPINION LETTER NO. 5-2020
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 16, 2020, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Mark Parachini, (2020-146).
We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reasons:
-
The petition is not in the form prescribed by § 116.040, RSMo.
-
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-2020-0005