Did the Missouri AG approve the form of a 2019 initiative petition to amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution?

Plain-English summary

Heidi Miller resubmitted an initiative petition to amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution (the Executive Department). The petition is numbered 2020-063 and follows the earlier 2020-062 version that AG Eric Schmitt had rejected one week earlier (Opinion No. 84-2019, May 6, 2019) on form grounds.

This second submission cleared the form check. AG Schmitt approved sufficiency as to form under § 116.332, RSMo. He emphasized three caveats. First, § 116.332 gives the Secretary of State final authority to approve or reject the petition; the AG's approval does not preclude the Secretary from rejecting it. Second, sufficiency as to form is about form only, not substance, so the AG's non-rejection is not a determination that the petition is sufficient as to substance. Third, the review is mandated by statute, so no action by the AG should be construed as an endorsement of the petition or its objectives.

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

Q: What does the AG's approval of "sufficiency as to form" mean?
A: It means the petition follows the mechanical formatting requirements of Chapter 116. It does not mean the petition is constitutional, well-drafted, legally sound, or worth voting for.

Q: Can the Secretary of State still reject the petition after the AG approves the form?
A: Yes. § 116.332 gives the Secretary of State final authority. The Secretary can decide to reject the petition for reasons the AG did not consider, or simply disagree with the AG's reading. The Secretary almost always follows the AG, but the legal authority rests with the Secretary.

Q: Does AG approval mean the petition is sufficient on substance?
A: No. The AG's letter explicitly disclaims this: "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." Substance is for the voters (and later, for the courts) to decide.

Q: What was the difference between 2020-062 and 2020-063?
A: The AG opinion does not specify. Presumably the sponsor fixed whatever form defect caused the rejection of 2020-062 in Opinion No. 84-2019. The two petitions appear to address similar subject matter (both amend Article IV) and were submitted by the same sponsor.

Q: What is Article IV of the Missouri Constitution?
A: The Executive Department article. It sets out the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Attorney General, and Treasurer, and establishes various executive boards and departments. Article IV has been amended many times throughout Missouri's history.

Q: What happens next after AG approval of the form?
A: The Secretary of State has to formally approve the petition for circulation, the petition has to be drafted with the AG-approved summary statement (a separate process), and then sponsors can begin collecting signatures.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative review process splits into three statutory steps before a petition can be circulated. First, the Secretary of State accepts the petition draft and refers it to the AG for sufficiency-as-to-form review under § 116.332. Second, the Secretary of State drafts a summary statement and refers it to the AG for review of legal content and form. Third, the State Auditor prepares a fiscal note. Only after all three steps are complete can sponsors begin collecting signatures.

The form check under § 116.332 is the gatekeeper. Chapter 116 prescribes detailed formatting requirements: heading language, statement to the voter, certifications, signature spaces with specific labels, the proposed measure's text, the sponsor's identification, and so on. Petitions that omit or misformat any required element fail sufficiency.

The AG's review is intentionally narrow. It does not address whether the proposal is constitutional, whether it would survive judicial challenge, whether it makes policy sense, or whether the petition will succeed in collecting signatures. It is a check on the mechanics of the document.

The Secretary of State's final-decision authority under § 116.332 provides a check on the AG. In practice, Secretaries almost always follow the AG, both because the AG has staff specializing in this review and because deviating without good reason invites litigation. The structure of dual review is a redundancy that protects the integrity of the initiative process.

The 87-2019 / 84-2019 sequence shows how the process is designed to work. The sponsor submits, the AG identifies a defect, the sponsor fixes the defect, the sponsor resubmits, and the AG approves the corrected version. The cost of the round trip is modest: a few weeks of delay and another filing fee. The benefit is a clean petition that will not be invalidated on technical grounds after circulation.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/87-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT

May 13, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 87-2019

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 May 3, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition to amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution submitted by Heidi Miller (2020-063).

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

Broadway Building
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov

OP-2019-0094