Did the Missouri AG approve the form of the Winston Apple initiative petition to amend Chapters 143 and 286 (version 2020-049)?

Plain-English summary

This is the form-approval companion to Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 57-2019. Winston Apple filed two parallel statutory petitions in the 2019-2020 initiative cycle, one designated 2020-048 (approved as to form in Op. 57-2019) and one designated 2020-049 (approved here in Op. 60-2019). Both proposed amendments to Chapter 143 (Income Tax) and Chapter 286 (Labor and Industrial Relations) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.

The two petitions are likely substantive variants of the same underlying proposal: a multi-pronged statutory package that, paired with Apple's Article III constitutional petition (20-046, addressed in Ops. 58-2019 and 66-2019), would have produced a coordinated reform of Missouri's tax code, retirement administration, and legislative structure. Proponents sometimes file multiple variants of a petition to let the Secretary of State and AG flag preferred drafting before signature collection starts in earnest.

The AG approved 2020-049 as to form under § 116.332. The standard caveats applied: approval is not a determination of substantive sufficiency, and is not an endorsement. § 116.332 reserves final form authority to the Secretary of State.

(The opinion's own ag_subject_title field misdescribes the opinion as a fiscal-note-summary approval, but the body of the letter is a form-review approval under § 116.332. The fiscal-note summary for a related Apple petition appears in Op. 58-2019.)

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 would the same person file two near-identical petitions?

Proponents sometimes file multiple drafting variants to test which version clears form review most cleanly, or to keep options open while signature collection is being planned. Each variant gets its own designation (2020-048, 2020-049), and the proponent can choose which to circulate after seeing how each fared.

What is the difference between Op. 57-2019 and Op. 60-2019?

They are form-approval opinions for two different petitions (2020-048 and 2020-049) covering the same chapters of Missouri statutes. The opinions are nearly identical because the AG's review is mechanical: does the petition meet the structural requirements of Chapter 116, yes or no.

Does multiple-filing pose any risk?

If both petitions are circulated and both gather enough signatures, the Secretary of State has to decide whether multiple ballot questions on the same general subject can coexist. In practice, proponents typically pick one variant to actually circulate after the form review is done.

Does the AG's approval carry over from one variant to another?

No. Each petition is reviewed on its own. A formatting fix made between drafts could move a petition from rejection to approval (or vice versa).

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative-petition process is in Chapter 116 of RSMo. § 116.332 covers AG form review and reserves the final form decision to the Secretary of State. The constitutional initiative process is governed by Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53. Chapter 143 is Missouri's Income Tax chapter; Chapter 286 covers Labor and Industrial Relations and certain retirement administration. Apple's parallel petitions in this cycle included 2020-046 (Article III, Ops. 58-2019 and 66-2019) and 2020-048 (Op. 57-2019).

Citations

• § 116.332, RSMo (AG form review; Secretary of State final authority)
• Chapter 143, RSMo (Income Tax)
• Chapter 286, RSMo (Labor and Industrial Relations)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (initiative and referendum process)
• Initiative Petition 2020-049 (Apple, Chapters 143 and 286)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 57-2019 (sibling form approval for Apple petition 2020-048)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 58-2019 (Apple Article III fiscal note summary)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 66-2019 (Apple Article III summary statement)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/60-2019.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 28, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 60-2019

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 March 18, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Chapters 143 & 286, Revised Statutes of Missouri, submitted by Winston Apple (2020-049).

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-2019-0060