456 S.W.3d 27
Mo.2015Background
- Proposition C (certified Feb 4, 2008; approved Nov 4, 2008) created a Renewable Energy Standard requiring all electric utilities to meet portfolio targets, including a 2% solar "carve out" and a solar rebate program.
- While Proposition C was certified for circulation but before the election, the legislature enacted § 393.1050 (effective Aug 28, 2008) exempting any electrical corporation that reached a 15% renewable capacity threshold by Jan 20, 2009 from solar carve-out and rebate requirements; Empire was the sole utility claiming that exemption.
- Renew Missouri filed a complaint at the Public Service Commission (PSC) arguing § 393.1050 was invalid because (1) the legislature could not preempt a pending initiative, (2) § 393.1050 conflicted with Proposition C and was therefore impliedly repealed by the later-adopted initiative, and (3) § 393.1050 was a forbidden special law.
- The PSC concluded the legislature could act while an initiative is pending, the two measures could be harmonized, and § 393.1050 was not a special law; Renew Missouri appealed.
- The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed that the legislature may enact laws while an initiative is pending but held that a statute enacted after an initiative is approved for circulation cannot preempt portions of that initiative once the people adopt it; because Proposition C conflicted with § 393.1050, the initiative's adoption impliedly repealed § 393.1050.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the legislature could validly enact § 393.1050 after Proposition C was approved for circulation but before the election | Legislature cannot preempt or negate a pending initiative; doing so infringes the people’s initiative power | Legislature has authority to pass laws on same subject while initiative is pending; such statutes stand unless inconsistent after people act | Legislature may legislate while an initiative is pending, but it may not preemptively negate initiative provisions; preemptive conflict is ineffective once the initiative is adopted |
| Whether § 393.1050 and Proposition C are irreconcilably in conflict (and whether the statute’s "notwithstanding" clause controls) | Proposition C repealed § 393.1050 to the extent of conflict; the people’s later vote controls despite the statute’s "notwithstanding" language | § 393.1050 is a specific exemption and its "notwithstanding any other provision of law" shows legislative intent to prevail; the statutes can be harmonized | The measures conflict as to solar requirements; a statute enacted after an initiative was approved for circulation cannot use "notwithstanding" to nullify the people’s later-enacted measure — Proposition C controls and impliedly repealed § 393.1050 |
| Timing effect: does an initiative adopted by voters impliedly repeal intervening statutes enacted during circulation period? | Yes — when initiative becomes law upon adoption, it impliedly repeals prior inconsistent statutes enacted after initiative was approved for circulation | No — statutes enacted by the legislature retain force and can be harmonized or given effect as specific exceptions | When the people adopt an initiative, it takes effect on adoption and impliedly repeals earlier intervening statutes to the extent of any conflict |
| Special-law challenge under Mo. Const. art. III, § 40 | § 393.1050 is a special law and unconstitutional | § 393.1050 is a valid general/specific legislative choice | Moot: court did not reach the special-law claim because resolution on repeal made it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley, 236 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. banc 2007) ("notwithstanding" clause eliminates conflict between competing statutes)
- State ex rel. Drain v. Becker, 240 S.W. 229 (Mo. banc 1922) (legislature may not nullify referendum/initiative rights by preemptive repeal while measure is pending)
- County of Jefferson v. Quiktrip Corp., 912 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. banc 1995) (later inconsistent statute impliedly repeals earlier statute)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (specific statute will prevail over general statute absent contrary intent)
- RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (U.S. 2012) (general/specific canon is a strong indication but not absolute)
- State ex rel. Rothermich v. Gallagher, 816 S.W.2d 194 (Mo. banc 1991) (in pari materia — statutes on same subject are construed harmoniously)
- Office of Pub. Counsel v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 409 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard of review for PSC orders)