456 S.W.3d 27
Mo.2015Background
- In Feb 2008 Missouri approved for circulation Proposition C, a citizen initiative creating a Renewable Energy Standard requiring all electric utilities to meet portfolio targets including a 2% solar "carve-out" and solar rebates.
- While Proposition C was certified for circulation but before the Nov 2008 election, the legislature (May 2008) passed § 393.1050 (S.B.1181), effective Aug 28, 2008, exempting utilities that met a 15% renewable capacity threshold from any solar carve-out or rebate requirements and prefaced with "notwithstanding any other provision of law."
- Voters approved Proposition C on Nov 4, 2008, which took effect immediately under the Missouri Constitution.
- Renew Missouri challenged Empire District Electric’s claimed exemption under § 393.1050, arguing the statute was invalid because the legislature could not preempt a pending initiative, that § 393.1050 conflicted with Proposition C and was impliedly repealed, and that § 393.1050 was an unconstitutional special law.
- The Public Service Commission upheld the legislature’s authority to enact § 393.1050, harmonized the two measures (giving effect to the exemption for Empire), and rejected the special-law claim; Renew Missouri appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.
- The Missouri Supreme Court (majority) held that the legislature may enact laws while an initiative is pending but may not preemptively negate an initiative approved for circulation; because § 393.1050 conflicted with Proposition C, the initiative (adopted by the people) impliedly repealed the statute upon passage. The special-law challenge was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Renew Missouri's Argument | Empire/Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the legislature could enact § 393.1050 after Proposition C was approved for circulation but before the election | The legislature may not nullify or limit an initiative once it is approved for circulation; such preemptive repeal infringes initiative rights | Legislature had authority to legislate on the subject while initiative was pending; § 393.1050 is validly enacted | Legislature may enact laws while initiative is pending, but it cannot preemptively negate an initiative’s future effect; enactment is allowed but cannot bind the people’s later vote |
| Whether § 393.1050 (with a "notwithstanding" clause) and Proposition C are irreconcilably in conflict or can be harmonized | Proposition C impliedly repealed § 393.1050 because the initiative requires all utilities to satisfy solar requirements | § 393.1050 is the more specific statute and its "notwithstanding" language precludes conflict; both can be harmonized so Empire retains exemption | The measures conflict as to solar requirements; the initiative, adopted later by the people, controls and impliedly repealed the conflicting statute |
| Effect of timing: does legislature’s use of "notwithstanding any other provision of law" defeat a subsequently adopted initiative | The phrase cannot be used by the legislature while an initiative is pending to defeat the people’s later vote | The clause would control under normal statutory-construction canons (specific over general) | The "notwithstanding" clause in a statute enacted after an initiative is approved for circulation but before its adoption cannot preempt the people’s later enactment; such a statute is impliedly repealed to the extent it conflicts with the adopted initiative |
| Challenge that § 393.1050 is a special law (unequal treatment) | § 393.1050 is a special law favoring Empire (or specific utilities) and violates MO Const. art. III, § 40 | § 393.1050 is not a special law; court need not reach it if statute is repealed | Moot — court did not decide the special-law claim because it found § 393.1050 impliedly repealed by Proposition C |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley, 236 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. banc 2007) (explains effect of a prefatory "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause in statutory construction)
- State ex rel. Drain v. Becker, 240 S.W. 229 (Mo. 1922) (legislature may not preemptively nullify a referendum/initiative once the people have invoked the process)
- County of Jefferson v. Quicktrip Corp., 912 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. banc 1995) (later inconsistent statute repeals earlier one to the extent of repugnancy)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (specific statute generally governs over a later general statute absent contrary indication)
- RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (U.S. 2012) (general/specific canon can be overcome by textual indications)
- Office of Public Counsel v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 409 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. banc 2013) (standards for judicial review of PSC orders)