Billington v. Carnahan
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1141
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellants, Missouri citizens, challenged the Secretary of State's official ballot summary for Amendment 3 to the Missouri constitution in Cole County Circuit Court.
- Amendment 3, arising from SJR 51, would reshape the nonpartisan court plan by changing the Appellate Judicial Commission's composition and Governor involvement.
- The Secretary prepared a fifty-word, nonpartisan summary approved by the Attorney General; the summary stated that the Governor would gain increased authority and could appoint lawyers to the Commission by removing the nonlawyer requirement.
- The circuit court granted judgment for the Secretary, concluding the summary was fair and in compliance with §116.160.2 and §116.190.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the summary was unfair or insufficient for multiple reasons, including misstate of primary legal effect and potential misleading language.
- The Supreme Court amended the circuit court’s judgment to certify the summary statement portion of the ballot title to the Secretary of State, affirming the result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the summary unfair or insufficient under §116.190? | Appellants claim the summary omits primary legal effects. | Secretary's summary fairly and impartially reflects Amendment 3 within fifty words. | No; summary not unfair or insufficient. |
| Does the summary properly identify the amendment’s primary effects on governance of the Commission? | Appellants contend it fails to highlight reduced nonlawyer influence. | Summary focuses on increased Governor authority and nonlawyer participation changes. | Adequate within word limit; not required to list all effects. |
| Does the inclusion of the word 'all' in 'appoint all lawyers' mislead voters? | Word misleading; implies total lawyer control. | Word captures significant change; acceptable under constraints. | Not unfair or inaccurate; acceptable wording. |
| Does the summary mischaracterize Amendment 3 as replacing the 'nonpartisan plan' with a new process? | Amendment merely amendments the plan, not replaces with a new process. | Amendment changes the selection process; terminology is acceptable. | Summary accurately reflects change in process; not unfair. |
| Was the circuit court required to certify the summary portion to the Secretary under Rule 84.14 after dismissal with prejudice? | Certification requirement was not satisfied. | Court must certify; Rule 84.14 applies. | Court can amend judgment to certify; affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coburn v. Mayer, 368 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (rejected insufficiency/unfairness challenges to a ballot summary under §116.190)
- Missourians Against Human Cloning v. Carnahan, 190 S.W.3d 451 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (summary need not include every consequence; fairness standard)
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (balancing sufficiency and fairness of ballot summaries; discretionary language)
- Asher v. Carnahan, 268 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (tests for whether summary informs electorate; word limits)
- Bergman v. Mills, 988 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (burden on opponents to show insufficiency/unfairness)
- Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan, 303 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (standard de novo review of legal conclusions; deference to summary)