What is the Missouri Attorney General's role in approving the fiscal note summary that voters see for a ballot initiative?

Plain-English summary

The Missouri State Auditor prepares a fiscal note and a fiscal note summary for every initiative petition. The fiscal note estimates the dollar impact on state and local governments if the petition becomes law. The summary is the shorter, voter-facing version that ends up on the ballot. Under § 116.175, RSMo, the AG reviews the legal content and form of that summary.

In this letter, AG Eric Schmitt approved the fiscal note summary the State Auditor had prepared for Heidi Miller's initiative petition 20-063, a proposed amendment to Article IV of the Missouri Constitution. The summary the AG approved reads, verbatim: "State government entities are estimated to have one-time costs of approximately $6.4 million and an unknown annual net fiscal impact by 2026 ranging from increased costs of at least $200 million to savings of $1 billion. Local governments expect costs to decrease by an unknown amount."

The AG opinion is explicit about what the review is not: "Because our review of the fiscal note summary is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents." The AG is checking that the summary is in proper legal form and that it accurately reflects the fiscal note. The accuracy of the underlying fiscal estimates is the State Auditor's call, not the AG's.

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 a fiscal note summary and why does it matter?
A: A fiscal note summary is a short, plain-language statement of the financial effect a proposed initiative would have on state and local governments. It is one of the few pieces of information about a measure that voters see right next to their ballot question, so getting it accurate and legally defensible matters. Missouri courts have struck down ballot questions whose fiscal summaries misled voters about the financial stakes.

Q: What does the AG actually check?
A: Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, the AG reviews the "legal content and form" of the summary. That means: does the summary fairly reflect the underlying fiscal note? Is the language neutral rather than advocacy? Does it meet the statutory length and structural requirements? The AG does not re-do the State Auditor's arithmetic.

Q: Can the fiscal note summary be challenged in court?
A: Yes. Missouri's election code provides a fast-track court challenge for ballot titles and fiscal note summaries. Challenges typically argue that the summary is misleading, inaccurate, or unfairly skewed. The AG's approval is procedural and does not insulate the summary from substantive judicial review.

Q: Why does the dollar estimate have such a wide range?
A: The summary the AG approved said the annual net impact could be "at least $200 million" in increased costs to a "$1 billion" savings. That huge range reflects genuine uncertainty about Medicaid expansion fiscal effects, including federal match rates, enrollment behavior, and offsetting savings on existing state programs. Missouri requires the summary to disclose that uncertainty rather than pick a single midpoint.

Background and statutory framework

Missouri's initiative process is in Chapter 116 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Section 116.175 governs preparation of the fiscal note and fiscal note summary. The State Auditor drafts both; the AG reviews the summary's legal content and form. Section 116.175.4 specifically calls out the AG's mandate to approve the legal content and form of the summary.

Petition 20-063 was one of several Medicaid-expansion initiative variants filed during 2019 for placement on the 2020 ballot. The substance, as the approved fiscal summary indicated, was Medicaid expansion to adults 19-64 at incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level (matching the Affordable Care Act expansion population). A related summary statement was the subject of Opinion 92-2019, issued two weeks after this one.

Citations

• § 116.175, RSMo (fiscal note and fiscal note summary preparation)
• § 116.175.4, RSMo (AG review of fiscal note summary legal content and form)
• Mo. Const. art. III, § 50 (initiative power)
• Mo. Const. art. IV (executive department)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/91-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ERIC SCHMITT
May 31, 2019
OPINION LETTER NO. 91-2019
The Honorable Nicole Galloway
Missouri State Auditor
State Capitol, Room 121
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Auditor Galloway:
This office received your letter of May 23, 2019, submitting a fiscal note and
fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative
petition submitted by Heidi Miller (20-063). The fiscal note summary that you
submitted is as follows:
State government entities are estimated to have one-
time costs of approximately $6.4 million and an
unknown annual net fiscal impact by 2026 ranging from
increased costs of at least $200 million to savings of $1
billion. Local governments expect costs to decrease by an
unknown amount.
Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of
the fiscal note summary. Because our review of the fiscal note summary is
mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should
be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression
of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents.

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-2019-0101