Calzone v. Ashcroft
559 S.W.3d 32
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- H.B. 1460 was passed by the Missouri General Assembly and delivered to the Secretary of State on May 30, 2018, with an official ballot title and fiscal summary; the Secretary certified the ballot title on June 1, 2018.
- Appellants (Calzone and Moon) filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on July 2, 2018, arguing H.B. 1460 violated Article III §§ 21 and 23 (original purpose, single-subject, clear-title) because the bill’s title and content changed during amendment.
- The Secretary of State and intervenor (SaferMO.com) defended placement of the measure on the November 2018 ballot; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of ripeness or for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court ruled the case ripe and entered judgment for the Secretary of State; appellants appealed.
- The appellate court analyzed ripeness and held the plaintiffs’ challenges were not proper pre-election review because the contested provisions are not procedural prerequisites to placing a referendum ordered by the legislature on the ballot.
- The petition was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 84.14 because the measure might never be enacted by voters, so no justiciable controversy existed pre-election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants’ Article III §§ 21 and 23 challenges are ripe pre-election | Challenges are procedural limits on legislation and therefore ripe for pre-election review to protect ballot integrity | Pre-election review is limited to procedural prerequisites for placing measures on the ballot; §§ 21 and 23 require substantive review of bill text and are not covered by referendum procedure rules | Not ripe: §§ 21 and 23 challenges are not a proper pre-election basis to remove a legislature-ordered referendum from the ballot |
| Whether statutory/constitutional referendum procedures permit pre-election review of these claims | Article III and Chapter 116 impose procedural requirements that support review | Article III § 52(a) (referendum by legislature) and Chapter 116 do not impose the single-subject/clear-title/original purpose prerequisites; those apply to initiatives, not legislature-ordered referenda | No: the cited referendum provisions do not authorize pre-election adjudication of §§ 21 and 23 challenges |
| Whether Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process controls pre-election review here | Appellants relied on that case to support pre-election review | Defendants distinguished initiative cases as addressing different constitutional provisions and statutory schemes | Distinguished: Missourians controls initiative context but does not extend to referenda ordered by the General Assembly |
| Proper disposition when claim is unripe | Appellants urged merits resolution now | Defendants sought dismissal or judgment on the pleadings for ripeness | Dismissed without prejudice under Rule 84.14 because controversy is not sufficiently developed pre-election |
Key Cases Cited
- Schweich v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. banc 2013) (ripeness and declaratory-judgment standards)
- Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. banc 1990) (permitting pre-election review of procedural prerequisites for initiatives)
- City of Kansas City v. Kansas City Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 505 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. banc 2017) (limits pre-election challenges to procedure for submitting proposals)
- State ex rel. Trotter v. Cirtin, 941 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. banc 1997) (discussing pre-election review of ballot-placement procedures)
- Boeving v. Kander, 496 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. banc 2016) (distinguishing initiative procedural requirements from other challenges)