Brown v. Missouri Secretary of State
370 S.W.3d 637
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Consolidated appeals challenge three Missouri ballot initiatives: tobacco tax, minimum wage, and payday loan, all under section 116.175 requiring the auditor to prepare a fiscal note and summary.
- Section 116.175 authorizes the auditor to assess fiscal impact and prepare notes within 20 days, with input from proponents and opponents; secretary of state must provide a concise summary subject to AG approval.
- Opponents argue the statute conflicts with Mo. Const. art. IV, sec. 13 (no duty beyond supervising receipt and expenditure of public funds).
- Court holds section 116.175 constitutional; auditor’s notes and summaries fair and sufficient; secretary of state’s summaries fair and sufficient; no barrier to placing initiatives on the ballot.
- Trial court outcomes: tobacco affirm; minimum wage affirmed in part and reversed in part; payday loan affirmed in part and reversed in part; issues include res judicata and intervention moot in places.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of section 116.175 under art. IV, sec. 13 | Brown argues the statute impermissibly expands the auditor’s duties | Brown argues against but Court finds within related to funds | Constitutional; duties related to funds approved |
| Auditor’s authority as “investigation” under sec. 116.175 | Allred contends the auditor only “assesses” not “investigates” | Auditor’s process is a formal investigation using submissions | Constitutional; process fits investigation under the constitution |
| Fairness and sufficiency of secretary of state’s summary | Opponents claim unfairness or insufficiency in tobacco and payday cases | Secretary’s summaries are concise and fair within 100-word limit | Summary statements fair and sufficient in tobacco and payday loan contexts |
| Fairness and sufficiency of auditor’s fiscal notes and summaries | Opponents argue notes are biased or incomplete (e.g., payday loan 510 lenders) | Notes reflect verbatim submissions and auditor’s assessment; not required to be best language | Notes fair and sufficient overall; specific criticisms rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. banc 1990) (limits on judicial intervention in the initiative process; focus on form and integrity of election)
- Thompson v. Committee on Legislative Research, 932 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. banc 1996) (legislature cannot expand duties beyond constitutional authorization; informed why auditor’s duties were questioned)
- Farmer v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. banc 2002) (limits on official powers; related-to vs broad expansions of duties under constitutional provisions)
- United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Missouri v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. banc 2000) (threshold form issues; ballot title review standards for fairness and clarity)
- Missouri Mun. League v. Carnahan, 364 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. App. 2011) (standards for evaluating fairness/sufficiency of ballot summaries and fiscal notes)
- Cures Without Cloning v. Fund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. 2008) (courts may rewrite insufficient/fair ballot summaries under certain contexts)