Did the Missouri AG approve the Secretary of State's ballot summary for the Winston Apple petition to shrink the House and adopt party-list voting?

Plain-English summary

This opinion is the ballot-summary half of the Apple Article III package. Two reviews happen for any initiative that clears form review. § 116.334 has the Secretary of State write a "summary statement" that will appear on the ballot to describe the measure in plain language for voters, and the AG reviews that summary statement for legal accuracy and form. The State Auditor separately handles the fiscal-note summary, which the AG also reviews (and which for this same petition came up in Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 67-2019 a few days later).

The Apple petition (2020-046, version 2) would have done three substantive things. First, it would have reduced the Missouri House of Representatives from 163 members to 80, distributed as ten representatives from each of the state's eight congressional districts. Second, it would have changed Missouri State Senators from district-based seats to statewide at-large seats. Third, it would have replaced single-winner elections with a party-list proportional-representation system: candidates would appear on an ordered list from each party's primary, voters in the general election would vote for a party's whole list, and seats would be filled in list order based on each party's vote share, with vacancies going to the highest-ranking unelected candidate on the list.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt approved the summary statement as to legal content and form. The AG's opinion notes the standard caveats: approval is not an endorsement of the petition, and the AG's review is mandated by statute rather than discretionary.

The summary statement the AG approved is reproduced verbatim in the original opinion text below.

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 the summary statement do?

It is the plain-language description of the measure that appears on the ballot. Voters who do not read the full text of a constitutional amendment will see the summary statement; for many voters that is the only thing they ever read about the measure.

Why does the AG review the summary statement?

The Secretary of State drafts the summary under § 116.334, but the AG reviews it for legal accuracy and form. The dual review is meant to keep the summary from being misleading.

What was Apple's proposal in concrete terms?

Three structural changes to the Missouri General Assembly: shrink the House from 163 to 80 (ten reps per congressional district), make state senators statewide rather than district-based, and switch to a party-list proportional system. It was a major restructuring of how Missouri voters elect their state legislators.

Did this measure ever get on the ballot?

That outcome lay in the future when this opinion issued. Form-approval and summary-statement approval are early-stage process milestones, not a guarantee of ballot placement.

What is "version 2" about?

The "version 2" notation in the petition designation (2020-046, version 2) suggests Apple had submitted an earlier version and then resubmitted with changes. The AG opinion does not detail what changed.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative-summary regime is in § 116.334, which directs the Secretary of State to prepare a summary statement of 100 words or less for the ballot. The AG reviews under the same section for legal content and form. The fiscal-note summary process is handled separately and reviewed in another AG opinion. The substantive proposal sat in Article III (the Legislative Department article) of the Missouri Constitution.

Citations

• § 116.334, RSMo (Secretary of State drafts summary statement; AG reviews)
• Mo. Const. art. III (Legislative Department, the article the Apple petition proposed to amend)
• Mo. Const. art. III, §§ 49 to 53 (initiative and referendum process)
• Initiative Petition 2020-046, version 2 (Apple, Article III)
• Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. 67-2019 (fiscal-note summary review for the same Apple petition cycle)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/66-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

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

April 5, 2019

OPINION LETTER NO. 66-2019

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 26, 2019, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Winston Apple regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution, version 2 (2020-046). The proposed summary statement is as follows:

Do you want to amend Missouri's Constitution regarding state legislators as follows:

• reduce the number of state representatives from 163 to 80 (10 representing each of the eight congressional districts);
• instead of a district, state senators will represent the entire state;
• primary elections result in an ordered list of candidates for each office;
• at the general election, a voter casts a vote for one political party's ordered list of candidates;
• the proportion of votes received per political party determines the candidates elected from each party's list, in the order on the list; and
• fill vacancies with the highest-ranking unelected candidate?

OP-2019-0066

The Honorable John R. Ashcroft
Page 2

Pursuant to § 116.334, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the proposed statement. Because our review of the statement is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the petition, nor as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents.

Very truly yours,

ERIC S. SCHMITT
Attorney General

OP-2019-0066