Dujakovich v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 574

Dujakovich and Schulte appeal a trial court judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment petition challenging amendments to Mo. Rev. Stat. sections 92.105–92.125 (state earnings tax).
Proposition A, placed on the ballot by voters in 2010, amended earnings-tax provisions and limited future city earnings taxes absent voter approval.
Kansas City’s earnings tax dates to 1963 enabling legislation; the initiative petition circulated by Let Voters Decide sought to terminate or restrict earnings taxes.
Proposition A was approved by voters in the November 2, 2010 general election; the trial court later dismissed the petition with prejudice.
The appellate court reviews de novo the constitutional validity of statutes; dismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewed liberally with the petition’s facts treated as true.
The issues center on appropriation of money for election costs, the Hancock Amendment unfunded-m mandate concerns, and whether the initiative improperly amended a city charter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriation of money for election costs	Dujakovich argues Proposition A appropriates money for elections.	State and Intervenor contend there is no de facto appropriation; election costs discretionary.	No defacto appropriation; election costs discretionary and funded by earnings taxes.
Hancock Amendment violation	Proposition A increases local governmental costs without a state appropriation.	Hancock Amendment limits only state actions; initiative power remains intact.	Hancock Amendment not violated; initiative remains constitutionally protected.
Impairment of Kansas City's charter by initiative	Second amended petition asserts the initiative amended Kansas City's charter.	Proposition A repeals/replaces statutes and does not amend the charter.	Proposition A did not amend the city charter; article VI, section 20 not triggered.

Committee For A Healthy Future, Inc. v. Carnahan, 201 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. banc 2006) (authority to fund costs from revenue is permissible)
Fort Zumwalt School Dist. v. State, 896 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. banc 1995) (Hancock Amendment framework and tax-revenue safeguards)
Thompson v. Hunter, 119 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. banc 2003) (Hancock Amendment purpose to restrain increases in revenue/expenditures)
City of Creve Coeur v. Creve Coeur Fire Protection Dist., 355 S.W.2d 857 (Mo.1962) (standard for declaratory relief and procedural posture)
City of St. Louis v. Doss, 807 S.W.2d 61 (Mo. banc 1991) (statutory requirements favored over charter conflicts)
Ocello v. Roster, 354 S.W.3d 187 (Mo. banc 2011) (statutory validity and deference to legislative enactments)