Did the Missouri AG approve the form of Winston Apple's version-2 Article III initiative petition 2020-046?

Plain-English summary

Winston Apple filed an Article III initiative petition in late 2018 as part of his broader 2020-cycle effort to restructure the Missouri General Assembly. The version-1 petition had previously been form-reviewed (opinions in the same OP series); this 2019 opinion is the AG's form-review approval of version 2, designated 2020-046. The change number tracks the proponent's filing iteration, not anything substantive the AG decided.

The opinion is the standard short § 116.332 form-review approval. The AG approves the petition as to form, notes that § 116.332 gives the Secretary of State final authority, and includes the standard disclaimer that approval is procedural and does not endorse the petition or its objectives. The AG's role is to confirm the petition's format complies with Chapter 116, not to assess whether the proposed Article III restructuring would actually work as a matter of state-government design.

Apple's broader package included parallel statutory petitions to amend Chapters 143 (Income Tax) and 286 (Labor and Industrial Relations) of RSMo (see Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 57-2019 for the form approval of petition 2020-048, the Apple statutory companion that paired tax and labor changes). The 2020-046 constitutional petition was the centerpiece, addressing the structure of the legislative branch itself.

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

What does Article III of the Missouri Constitution cover?

Article III is the Legislative Department. It establishes the General Assembly's structure (Senate and House), apportionment, term lengths, the initiative and referendum process itself (§§ 49-53), and the rules for enacting laws. A constitutional petition to amend Article III is, by definition, an attempt to restructure how the Legislature itself operates.

Why is this petition "version 2"?

The proponent had filed a prior version of the same proposal (2020-045) which had been separately reviewed. Filing a "version 2" typically means the proponent revised the text after seeing the form review of the first version, or after observing the prior version's progress. The "version 2" label is the proponent's, not the AG's.

Does the AG's form-review approval guarantee the proposal is constitutional?

No. The AG is checking format compliance with Chapter 116. Substantive constitutional questions, such as whether the proposed amendment violates the single-subject rule or conflicts with the federal Constitution, are not finally decided by the AG's form review and remain open to judicial challenge.

Did Apple's broader 2020 package succeed?

The series of opinions in this run (52-2019 through 57-2019 and later) record AG approvals for several Apple petitions, but form approval is the first administrative step in a long process. Whether any of these petitions reached the ballot depended on signature collection, judicial challenges, and the 2020 calendar.

What is the difference between this opinion and Op. 57-2019?

This opinion (55-2019) approves the form of Apple's Article III constitutional petition 2020-046. Op. 57-2019 approves the form of his parallel statutory petition 2020-048, which proposed amendments to RSMo Chapters 143 and 286. The two run on parallel tracks under §§ 116.332 and 116.334, but are independent petitions.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative process runs through Chapter 116. § 116.332 governs AG form review of initiative petitions; the Secretary of State retains final administrative authority. Substantive constitutional standards run through Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53, with Article III generally being the substantive subject of this particular amendment proposal.

The Apple petition cluster in this cycle included 2020-045 (version 1), 2020-046 (version 2, this opinion), 2020-048 (statutory companion, Op. 57-2019), and 2020-049 (sibling statutory petition, Op. 60-2019).

Citations

• § 116.332, RSMo (AG form review of initiative petitions)
• Mo. Const. art. III (Legislative Department, subject of the amendment)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (initiative and referendum process)
• Initiative Petition 2020-046 (Apple, Article III, version 2)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 57-2019 (Apple 2020-048 statutory petition form approval)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 60-2019 (Apple 2020-049 sibling statutory petition)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/55-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

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

March 4, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 55-2019

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 22, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Winston Apple, Version 2 (2020-046).

We approve the petition as to form, but § 116.332 gives the Secretary of State final authority to approve or reject the petition. Therefore, our approval of the form of the petition does not preclude you from rejecting the petition.

Because our review of the petition is simply for the purpose of determining sufficiency as to form, the fact that we do not reject the petition is not to be construed as a determination that the petition is sufficient as to substance. Likewise, because our review is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the petition or of the objectives of its proponents, or the expression of any view respecting the adequacy or inadequacy of the petition generally.

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

OP-2019-0050