Jim Boeving, Patty Arrowood, Robert E. Pund, and Robert A. Klein v. Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, Raise Your Hand for Kids, and Erin Brower
2016 Mo. LEXIS 295
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Proponents (Raise Your Hand For Kids and a director) submitted an initiative petition (Amendment No. 3) to amend Article IV by creating section 54; Secretary certified an official ballot title on Jan 5, 2016 and Proponents affixed it to petition pages and gathered signatures, submitting them May 7, 2016.
- A ballot-title challenge by Boeving under §116.190 produced a trial-court ruling (May 19) and appellate mandate (July 15) that revised the summary statement; Secretary re-certified the revised title July 18, after Proponents had already submitted signatures.
- On August 9 the Secretary issued a Certificate of Sufficiency finding Proponents had enough valid signatures to qualify Amendment No. 3 for the November 2016 ballot; Opponents (Boeving, Arrowood, Pund, Klein) sued under §116.200.1 to compel reversal.
- Opponents’ claims: (1) signatures gathered under the Jan 5 title are invalid because a later court-ordered title (July 18) controlled; (2) Amendment No. 3 violates the single-article/subject rule in art. III §50; (3) it unlawfully effects an appropriation in violation of art. III §51; (4) it would conflict with other constitutional provisions (premature challenge).
- Trial court rejected the signature-invalidity and single-article claims and deemed appropriation/other substantive challenges premature; this Court affirmed, holding statutes did not unambiguously require invalidation of signatures gathered under the then-official title and many substantive objections are premature pre-election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether signatures gathered/ submitted under the Jan 5 ballot title are invalid after a later court-ordered title was certified | Boeving: §116.180/§116.120/§116.190.4 require the Secretary to count only petition pages bearing the final court-certified title, so Pre-July 18 signatures are invalid | Secretary/Proponents: statutes do not clearly require retroactive invalidation; Proponents complied with the then-official title when circulating and submitting petitions | Court: rejected plaintiff; no clear & unequivocal statutory requirement to invalidate signatures gathered under the official title in effect when circulated/submitted; Secretary properly certified sufficiency |
| Whether Amendment No. 3 amends or creates more than one article of the constitution (art. III §50) | Opponents: even if labeled as amending Article IV, Amendment No. 3 amends by implication other articles (e.g., art. IX §8) | Proponents: Amendment on its face amends only Article IV; references to other provisions (e.g., stating §8 does not limit distributions) do not themselves amend those articles | Court: affirmed trial court; on its face Amendment No. 3 complies with the single-article rule; noting courts will not require proponents to list every constitutional provision that might be affected if enacted |
| Whether Amendment No. 3 improperly effects an appropriation (art. III §51) | Opponents: the measure will appropriate or redirect funds contrary to the prohibition on appropriation by initiative | Proponents: the amendment does not plainly and unavoidably appropriate existing funds; any dispute over actual appropriation is speculative | Court: rejected pre-election appropriation claim as not plainly unavoidable on the face of the amendment; such substantive challenges are generally premature unless unavoidable |
| Whether other claimed conflicts with the constitution justify pre-election relief | Opponents: the amendment would authorize actions prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution | Defendants: these are hypothetical, would arise only if amendment is adopted and implemented | Court: held these challenges premature; courts should not issue advisory rulings on speculative post-enactment conflicts prior to voter approval |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Wiggins, 454 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. banc 1970) (jurisdictional principle regarding constitutional claims and appellate assignment)
- Mayes v. Saint Luke’s Hosp. of Kansas City, 430 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2014) (standards for preserving constitutional claims on appeal)
- Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. banc 1990) (initiative provisions construed liberally to preserve people’s amendment power)
- Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick, 615 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. 1981) (proponents need not anticipate and list all constitutional provisions possibly affected by an amendment)
- Comm. For A Healthy Future, Inc. v. Carnahan, 201 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. banc 2006) (pre-election appropriation-by-initiative analysis; plain and unavoidable conflict standard)
- Moore v. Brown, 165 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. banc 1942) (limits on pre-election review; proponents not required to ferret out all possibly affected provisions)
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (courts should avoid advisory rulings on speculative effects of proposed initiatives)
- State ex rel. Trotter v. Cirtin, 941 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. banc 1997) (pre-election review focuses on procedural/formal compliance with initiative requirements)
- Craighead v. City of Jefferson, 898 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. banc 1995) (discouraging premature substantive pre-election challenges except where issues are matters of form)