Why did the Missouri AG reject Mark Pedersen's 2019 initiative petition to amend Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution?

Plain-English summary

Mark Pedersen submitted an initiative petition (2020-064) to amend Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution. Article XIV is the Missouri Constitution's marijuana article, added by initiative in 2018 to legalize medical use of marijuana and create a regulatory framework. Petitioners proposing amendments to Article XIV typically address expansion of the existing framework, decriminalization, or adult-use authorization.

AG Eric Schmitt rejected the petition. The reason: it failed to follow § 116.050, RSMo, which requires that all matter to be deleted from existing law appear in its proper place enclosed in brackets, and all new matter to be added appear underlined. This is the bracket-and-underline convention that lets voters and reviewing officials see exactly what the proposal changes.

Without bracketed deletions and underlined additions, a reviewer cannot tell which words are existing law staying the same, which are being struck, and which are being added. The convention is fundamental to legislative drafting and serves both transparency and review purposes.

The AG did not look for additional defects because this one was enough to reject. Under § 116.332.4, the Secretary of State retains final authority to approve or reject the form of the petition. The sponsor remained free to fix the formatting and resubmit.

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 is the "bracket and underline" rule?
A: § 116.050, RSMo requires that initiative petitions show every change to existing law explicitly. Words being deleted go in brackets, like this: "the [old word] shall be replaced." Words being added are underlined. Words that stay unchanged appear in normal text. The convention is borrowed from standard legislative drafting practice.

Q: Why is this rule important?
A: Because it makes proposed changes transparent. A voter or reviewer can see at a glance what the petition does to existing law. Without the convention, a sponsor could submit a petition that looks like a clean rewrite without disclosing how it changes specific words or rules. The convention is a check on hidden modifications.

Q: Can Pedersen resubmit a fixed petition?
A: Yes. The AG identified the form defect; the sponsor can mark up the petition with brackets and underlining and resubmit. Resubmission goes through the same § 116.332 review.

Q: What is Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution?
A: Article XIV was created by Amendment 2 of 2018, which legalized medical marijuana in Missouri. The article establishes a regulatory framework for medical cannabis, including licensing, taxation, patient registration, and dispensary rules. Subsequent initiatives proposing amendments to Article XIV typically address expansion (recreational use, decriminalization, additional patient access) or modification of the regulatory rules.

Q: Did the AG say anything about the substance of the proposal?
A: No. § 116.332 sufficiency review is about form only. The AG did not address whether the substantive proposal would be constitutional or whether it would survive judicial challenge.

Q: Why is § 116.332 review so narrow?
A: To respect the initiative right. Missouri voters have a constitutional right to propose laws by initiative (Article III, § 49). The AG's role is to check formal compliance, not to second-guess the substance. Substantive challenges are reserved for the courts after circulation.

Q: What happens if the sponsor never fixes the form defect?
A: The petition cannot be circulated. The Secretary of State will not issue an official form for signature gathering without sufficiency approval. The sponsor's options are to fix and resubmit, give up, or seek judicial review of the rejection.

Background and statutory framework

§ 116.050, RSMo is one piece of Chapter 116's overall scheme for initiative petitions. It addresses how proposed amendments must show their changes to existing law. The rule: "all matter which is to be deleted included in its proper place enclosed in brackets and all new matter shown underlined." The text is mandatory; petitions that violate it fail sufficiency as to form.

The bracket-and-underline convention is standard in American legislative drafting. Bills introduced in nearly every state legislature use it, as do federal bills. The convention serves three purposes. First, transparency: anyone reading the bill can see what it does to existing law. Second, drafting discipline: the convention forces sponsors to confront exactly how their proposal interacts with existing text. Third, judicial review: courts evaluating challenged enactments use bracketed deletions and underlined additions as evidence of legislative intent.

Initiative petitions face the same expectations. Voters signing a petition or marking a ballot are entitled to know what the proposal changes. A petition that omits the convention can hide modifications. The AG's enforcement of § 116.050 is procedural but consequential.

Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution was added by initiative in 2018 (Amendment 2). It legalized medical marijuana and created a regulatory framework administered by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. The article specifies which conditions qualify patients for medical cannabis, licenses cultivators and dispensaries, sets tax rates, and limits local interference. Amendments to Article XIV have been proposed regularly since 2018, including for adult-use authorization, expanded patient eligibility, and modifications to the regulatory rules. Pedersen's petition was one of many such proposals; the AG opinion does not describe the substance.

The opinion sequence 84-2019 (rejected on form grounds), 87-2019 (approved on resubmission), and 88-2019 (rejected for § 116.050 form defect) illustrates the rolling pace of initiative review in Missouri. AG offices issue dozens of these opinions during active initiative cycles. Each takes only a few days. The procedural review is meant to be quick and routine, not adversarial.

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/88-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT

May 17, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 88-2019

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 9, 2019, for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition submitted by Mark Pedersen (2020-064).

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

The petition does not contain "all matter which is to be deleted included in its proper place enclosed in brackets and all new matter shown underlined" as required pursuant to § 116.050, 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."

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-2019-0097