Coburn v. Mayer
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 815
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- HJR 2 proposed a constitutional amendment revising article I, section 5 on religious freedom in Missouri.
- The proposed amendment restates the existing right and adds specifics on prayer, expression, and school-related religious activity.
- The General Assembly provided an official summary statement under Section 116.155.1,2 stating the purposes to protect expression, allow school prayer, and display the U.S. Bill of Rights.
- The Secretary of State certified the summary statement.
- Plaintiffs challenged the summary as insufficient and unfair; the circuit court granted summary judgment for the state.
- This appeal affirms the circuit court’s decision on de novo review of a purely legal question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the summary statement fairly summarizes the measure's purposes | Coburn/Bredemeier argue it deceives by implying a new or changed right | State contends it accurately states the purpose to safeguard a preexisting right | Summary statement fair and sufficient |
| Whether the summary statement adequately addresses prisoners' rights | Statement should note repeal of prisoner rights beyond federal law | Amendment makes prisoner rights coextensive with federal law; not a repeal | Summary statement not unfair for lack of explicit prisoner-right repeal |
| Whether the summary statement correctly covers students' rights to refrain from assignments | Statement should create a right for students to refuse assignments on religious grounds | Statement broad enough to cover this provision; details not required | Summary statement sufficiently covers student's right to express religious beliefs without distortion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mo. Mun. League v. Carnahan, 364 S.W.3d 548 (Mo.App.2011) (reference to current constitution right does not render summary unfair)
- United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo. v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. banc 2000) (summaries limited to purposes; must give notice of proposal's purpose)
- Overfelt v. McCaskill, 81 S.W.3d 732 (Mo.App.2002) (limits on detail within fifty-word summary; not deceptive)
- Bergman v. Mills, 988 S.W.2d 84 (Mo.App.1999) (defines 'insufficient' and 'unfair' in summary contexts)
- United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo. v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. banc 2000) (test for clarity and notice; purpose-focused)
- Cures Without Cloning v. Pund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo.App.2008) (legislature must promote informed understanding of probable effect)
- Adams v. Moore, 861 S.W.2d 680 (Mo.App.1993) (prisoner rights principles applied to state constitution claims)