What kinds of formatting mistakes will get a Missouri initiative petition rejected by the Attorney General on form?

Plain-English summary

AG Eric Schmitt rejected the form of an initiative petition submitted by Steven Reed, designated 2020-066, to amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution. The rejection cited § 116.050.2(2) and (3), RSMo. Subsection (2) governs the petition's caption and required statements; subsection (3) governs the form in which the proposed constitutional language must be presented.

Once the AG identifies a fatal form defect, the review stops. The letter is explicit on that: "Because of our rejection of the form of the petition for the reason stated above, we have not reviewed the petition to determine whether additional deficiencies exist." That means a proponent who fixes only what is named in the rejection letter may still have other latent defects that will surface when a corrected version is refiled.

Article IV of the Missouri Constitution covers the executive department, including the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, attorney general, treasurer, and the executive branch agencies. The specific substantive change Reed proposed is in the petition filed with the Secretary of State, not in this AG opinion.

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 do § 116.050.2(2) and (3), RSMo actually require?
A: Subsection (2) of § 116.050 prescribes a specific caption and required statements that have to appear at the top of every initiative petition. Subsection (3) governs how the proposed constitutional or statutory text is laid out, including the bracket-and-underline rule that requires deleted language to be shown in brackets and new language to be underlined. A petition that gets either the caption or the text-layout requirements wrong fails sufficiency as to form.

Q: Why doesn't the AG list every defect at once?
A: The form review's job is to give the Secretary of State a sufficient ground to refuse the petition. Once one fatal defect is identified, listing the rest is not necessary for that purpose, and it ties up AG time the office uses to review other petitions. The downside, from the proponent's perspective, is that fixing the named defect does not guarantee the next version will pass.

Q: If I'm filing a petition, how do I avoid this?
A: Read § 116.050, RSMo line by line against your draft before filing. Pay attention to the required caption and statements, the bracket-for-deletions / underline-for-additions formatting, and any subject-matter or single-subject limits. Many proponents file successive versions with small changes precisely because the AG won't flag everything in one pass.

Q: What's the difference between this rejection and substantive review?
A: Form review checks whether the petition complies with the procedural and structural rules of Chapter 116 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Substantive review, which happens later in the process (and in litigation if challenged), addresses whether the proposed amendment is constitutional, internally consistent, and properly limited to a single subject. A petition can clear form and still lose on substance.

Background and statutory framework

Section 116.050 sets out the format requirements for initiative petitions in Missouri. Section 116.332 makes the AG's form review a mandatory step in the petition certification process. Section 116.332.4 places the final form decision with the Secretary of State. The combination produces a workflow where the proponent files with the Secretary of State, the Secretary forwards to the AG, the AG opines on form, and the Secretary ratifies (or in rare cases overrides) that opinion.

In May and June 2019 the AG office issued a cluster of form opinions on petitions filed for the 2020 election cycle. The Reed petition (2020-066) was rejected the day after a related rejection of the Hurth petition (2020-065), and both turned on § 116.050 compliance.

Citations

• § 116.332, RSMo (initiative petition form review by AG)
• § 116.050.2(2) and (3), RSMo (caption and text-layout requirements)
• § 116.332.4, RSMo (Secretary of State's final authority on form decision)
• Mo. Const. art. III, § 50 (initiative power)
• Mo. Const. art. IV (executive department, the target of Reed's proposed amendment)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/90-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT

May 24, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 90-2019

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 15, 2019,
for our review under § 116.332, RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative
petition submitted by Steven Reed (2020-066).
We conclude that the petition must be rejected for at least the following
reason:
The petition is not in the form prescribed by
§ 116.050.2(2) and (3), RSMo.

Because of our rejection of the form of the petition for the reason
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
Broadway Building
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-3321
Fax: (573) 751-0774
www.ago.mo.gov

OP-2019-0099