Dotson v. Kander
2015 Mo. LEXIS 101
| Mo. | 2015Background
- SJR 36 amended Mo. Const. art. I, § 23 to add “ammunition and accessories,” delete a clause about concealed weapons, declare the right “unalienable,” and subject restrictions to “strict scrutiny.”
- The General Assembly drafted the official 50‑word ballot summary asking whether to “include a declaration” that the right to keep and bear arms is unalienable and that the state must uphold it.
- Dotson and Morgan filed a pre‑election challenge under §116.190; this Court dismissed it as moot in Dotson v. Kander because the six‑week pre‑election cutoff had passed before meaningful relief could be ordered.
- After voters approved SJR 36 on Aug. 5, 2014, the plaintiffs brought a post‑election contest under chapter 115 alleging the ballot summary was insufficient and unfair (an election irregularity).
- The Court held that chapter 115 post‑election contests may adjudicate ballot‑title sufficiency (if not previously litigated and finally determined), and it examined whether the summary met chapter 116 sufficiency standards.
- The Court concluded the summary was sufficient and fair and therefore did not void the election result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a challenge to ballot‑title sufficiency may be brought post‑election under chapter 115 | Dotson: Pre‑election remedy under chapter 116 is not the sole avenue; chapter 115 election contest is available after adoption | State: Chapter 116 is the exclusive mechanism; chapter 115 covers only conduct during an election | The Court: Post‑election challenge under chapter 115 is available for ballot‑title sufficiency when issue not previously litigated and finally decided |
| Whether the 50‑word summary was insufficient for omitting strict scrutiny, concealed‑weapons deletion, and ammunition/accessories | Dotson: Omissions hide substantial legal changes (strict scrutiny, concealed‑carry implications, explicit protection for ammunition/accessories) | State: Omissions were not central; summary need not list all textual changes; many effects follow from existing law | The Court: Omissions did not render summary unfair or insufficient; none were central features requiring inclusion |
| Whether use of the phrase “include a declaration” and wording about obligation to uphold misled voters | Dotson: Phrasing implied declarations were new legal obligations and disguised substantive changes | State: The summary accurately asked whether to add declarations; it did not mislead because it signals amendment to an existing right | The Court: Wording was not misleading; it properly presented that declarations would be added to an existing right |
| Whether adoption of “strict scrutiny” meaningfully changed law so as to require explicit mention | Dotson: “Strict scrutiny” is a term of art that would materially alter judicial review and should have been disclosed | State/majority: McDonald already made the right fundamental; strict scrutiny was a declaration consistent with federal developments and not necessarily dispositive | The Court: The phrase did not make the summary insufficient — strict scrutiny can be understood as a general guideline and did not require disclosure as a central change |
Key Cases Cited
- Dotson v. Kander, 435 S.W.3d 643 (Mo. banc 2014) (addressing pre‑election challenge mootness and noting post‑election review may be available)
- Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick, 615 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. banc 1981) (ballot‑title challenges protect informed voter decisionmaking)
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (summary must state legal and probable effects without bias)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (individual right to possess firearms recognized; limits acknowledged)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment right applies to the states)
- Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. banc 2004) (interpreting concealed‑weapons clause as not removing legislative authority to regulate conceal carry)
- Marre v. Reed, 775 S.W.2d 951 (Mo. banc 1989) (post‑election contest appropriate for certain election disputes)
- United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo. v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. banc 2000) (pre‑election chapter 116 is not necessarily exclusive for post‑election remedies)