Why did the Missouri Attorney General reject Mark Parachini's third initiative petition (2020-147) on form grounds in February 2020?
Plain-English summary
Attorney General Eric Schmitt rejected Mark Parachini's third filed initiative petition (Secretary's tracking number 2020-147) on February 3, 2020. The single reason cited was § 116.050.2(3), RSMo, which requires that any new matter being added to an existing statute appear underlined in the proposed text so signers can see what is being added.
This is the third in a sequence of four rejections (Opinions 4-2020, 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020) of Parachini-filed petitions. The earlier two cited both § 116.040 (general format) and § 116.050 (text marking). This one, like 7-2020, drops the § 116.040 citation, which suggests the proponent corrected the format issues but did not fix the redlining.
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
Section 116.050.2(3), RSMo, contains the additions-must-be-underlined rule. The full text of § 116.050 requires that any petition amending existing law show the changes in a way readers can easily decode against the current statute:
- Deletions are enclosed in brackets.
- Additions are underlined.
The reason behind the rule is voter-protection: initiative petitions are signed by people on sidewalks, often in passing, and the people signing have to be able to see what change is being proposed. A bare clean copy of the new statutory language without redlining hides the existing text being deleted, which can mislead.
The AG's role under § 116.332, RSMo, is to check whether the petition complies with this and other format rules. The AG either approves or rejects, and the Secretary of State has final authority under § 116.332.4 to act on the rejection. Re-filing is the standard remedy.
What this means for you
If you are drafting a petition to amend existing Missouri law
Use the redlined-text format. If you are amending §123.456, your petition has to show the existing text with the words you want to remove enclosed in brackets, and the words you want to add underlined. Software-generated redlines from Word or comparable tools usually work, provided you remember to convert "strikethrough deletions" into bracketed deletions to comply with the bracket rule.
If your petition keeps getting rejected on this rule
The AG opinion does not tell you which specific lines in your petition fail. You should compare your text against the underlying statute side by side and confirm every additional word, comma, or section number is underlined. Even a missed comma can produce a rejection.
Common questions
What does "underlined" mean exactly?
The text-marking rule does not specify a font weight or color, just that additions appear underlined when the petition is read. Standard underlining done at the typesetting stage is the customary practice.
Why didn't the AG mention § 116.040 this time?
Compare to Opinions 4-2020 and 5-2020, which cited both. The most plausible reading is that Parachini fixed the format problems between the second and third filings but did not fix the underline-additions issue.
Is the underline rule strict?
Yes. AG opinions consistently reject petitions that fail this rule, even when the rest of the petition is well-drafted. The rule exists to protect signers, and the AG enforces it on filing rather than waiting for a court challenge.
Citations
- § 116.050.2(3), RSMo (additions-underlined rule)
- § 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/6-2020.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
February 3, 2020
OPINION LETTER NO. 6-2020
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 23, 2020, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Mark Parachini, (2020-147).
We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reasons:
i. The petition is not in the form prescribed by § 116.050.2(3), 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-2020-0006