City of Kansas City, Missouri v. Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners, Rev. Samuel E. Mann, 2017 Mo. LEXIS 4

Background

Reverend Samuel E. Mann and others (the "Committee") used the Kansas City Charter initiative process to propose a local minimum wage ordinance and submitted it to the City Council.
The City Council declined to adopt the ordinance and the Committee exercised its right to place the measure on the November 3, 2015 ballot; the city clerk notified local election authorities accordingly.
The City filed a petition under §115.127.3 seeking removal of the ordinance from the ballot, arguing the measure would conflict with newly enacted state statute §285.055 (House Bill 722) which preempts higher local minimum wages.
The Committee intervened and, as an affirmative defense, challenged the constitutionality of §285.055 (claiming House Bill 722 violated article III single-subject/clear-title rules); it also argued that substantive preelection review was premature.
The trial court held the proposed ordinance conflicted with §285.055 and ordered it removed from the ballot; the Committee appealed.
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding challenges to a proposal’s substantive validity (and challenges to the statute that might preempt it) are premature before voter approval when charter initiative procedures were followed.

Issues

Issue	City’s Argument	Committee’s Argument	Held
Whether this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal	City accepted the Committee raised a constitutional challenge but argued the trial court did not explicitly decide it, so exclusive jurisdiction may not apply	Committee contended it properly raised a statutory-constitutionality claim, invoking this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Mo. Const. art. V, §3	Held that a general judgment for one party is deemed to resolve all issues properly before the court; this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal
Whether the court may adjudicate preelection substantive challenges to a ballot initiative’s validity (including whether it would conflict with state law)	City argued substantive defects that are clear on the face of a proposal can be resolved preelection (citing pre-Boeving precedent)	Committee argued such substantive challenges are premature and advisory until voters adopt the measure; courts should wait to avoid usurping the democratic process
Whether the trial court properly removed the ordinance from the ballot based on conflict with §285.055	The City urged removal because the ordinance, if enacted, would be invalid as conflicting with §285.055	Committee urged denial of removal and that any challenge to §285.055’s constitutionality is not ripe preelection	Held removal was improper; because Charter procedures were followed, preelection adjudication of the ordinance’s substance and of §285.055’s validity was premature; voters must be allowed to decide first

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Wiggins, 454 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. banc 1970) (general judgment deemed to resolve all issues properly before the court)
Boeving v. Kander, 496 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. banc 2016) (limits preelection review to procedural defects; substantive preelection rulings are generally inappropriate)
State ex rel. Dahl v. Lange, 661 S.W.2d 7 (Mo. banc 1983) (refused preelection substantive invalidation of a ballot measure as advisory or speculative)
Craighead v. City of Jefferson, 898 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. banc 1995) (noted preelection substantive challenges may be allowed where legal defect is clear on the face)
Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (refused advisory opinions on whether a proposal, if adopted, would violate superseding law)
Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick, 615 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. banc 1981) (courts lack power to enjoin placement of an amendment on the ballot on the ground it would be unconstitutional if passed)