Ezel / AG Opinions / MO
MO Opinion No. 7-2020 2020-02-03

Why did the Missouri Attorney General reject Mark Parachini's fourth initiative petition (2020-148) on form grounds in February 2020?

Short answer: Same defect as 6-2020. Attorney General Eric Schmitt rejected the petition for failing to comply with § 116.050.2(3), RSMo, the rule requiring that all new matter being added to existing law be shown underlined. The Secretary of State retained final authority over the rejection.
Currency note: this opinion is from 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.
Disclaimer: This is an official Missouri Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

This is the fourth in a sequence of AG rejections of Mark Parachini-filed initiative petitions in early 2020. Like Opinion 6-2020, Opinion 7-2020 rejected the petition (Secretary's tracking number 2020-148) under § 116.050.2(3), RSMo, the rule requiring new matter to appear underlined.

After four rejections in roughly three weeks, Parachini's petitions did not advance through the initiative process. The AG opinions do not tell us what the petitions were substantively about, only that they consistently failed the format check.

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

Same as in Opinion 6-2020. Section 116.050.2(3) requires that any new statutory text being proposed by an initiative petition appear underlined in the petition's redlined text. The reason for the rule is voter protection: signers have to be able to see what is being added.

§ 116.332, RSMo, gives the AG the role of catching these defects before petitions go out for circulation. § 116.332.4 leaves the Secretary of State with the final word.

The Parachini sequence (4-2020 through 7-2020) is a useful case study for what happens when a proponent files repeatedly without addressing the underlying drafting defect. Three weeks of filings, four rejections, no petition advancing. A proponent in this position has options: hire counsel to draft a compliant version, work from the Secretary of State's published templates, or stop and consider whether the policy goal can be advanced through some other route (legislative bill, local action, etc.).

What this means for you

If you are a serial filer

The AG's pattern is consistent: identify the defects, reject, decline further review, let the Secretary of State act on the rejection, and wait for a corrected re-filing. Re-filing the same defective format twice (5-2020 had the same § 116.050 defect as 4-2020) wastes the AG's time and your filing window.

If you are observing initiative drafting trends

Form rejection rates vary by year. The 2020 cohort had a relatively heavy rejection load, with the Parachini sequence and others. Looking at what petitions get rejected and why is one of the few publicly available signals about the technical drafting capacity in the citizen-initiative ecosystem.

Common questions

What's the practical difference between this rejection and Opinion 6-2020?

The substance is identical: § 116.050.2(3), additions-underlined rule. Different tracking numbers (2020-147 in 6-2020, 2020-148 in 7-2020), but the same format defect.

How long does the AG have to issue a form opinion?

§ 116.332 sets the AG's review window. The opinions are typically issued within 1-2 weeks of the Secretary of State's referral.

Could the proponent have appealed to court?

Yes, but it is uncommon. § 116.332.4 makes the Secretary of State's decision final on form, and challenges typically come on substantive issues (sufficiency, ballot title) rather than form.

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

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. 7-2020

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 24, 2020, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Mark Parachini, (2020-148).

We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following reasons:

  1. 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-2020-0007