Jim Pepper v. St. Charles County, Missouri
517 S.W.3d 590
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2014 St. Charles County voters approved a charter amendment (Proposition "Red Light Camera") banning use of red‑light cameras or similar automated traffic‑enforcement systems countywide, including within municipalities. 72.6% voted in favor.
- Plaintiffs (two taxpayers and the Cities of St. Peters, Lake St. Louis, and O'Fallon) sued claiming the amendment exceeded county authority, violated the state constitution and the county charter, invaded the judiciary, and that the ballot/proposition was defective. Plaintiffs also contested the election.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the County, upholding the charter amendment and rejecting the Cities' election challenge. The Cities appealed.
- The central legal question: whether a charter county may adopt a countywide prohibition on red‑light cameras under Mo. Const. art. VI, § 18(c), and whether the ballot/proposition complied with the constitutional requirements.
- The court analyzed: scope of § 18(c) (county power to vest legislative authority over municipal services/functions countywide), whether a contrary statewide policy exists, whether the amendment invades the judiciary, and whether ballot language constituted an "irregularity" invalidating the election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority under Mo. Const. art. VI, § 18(c) to regulate municipal traffic enforcement countywide | Cities: state law/statutes and municipal charters give cities exclusive control over streets/traffic; county cannot regulate within municipalities | County: § 18(c) expressly grants charter counties legislative power over municipal services/functions throughout the county; amendment prohibits enforcement mechanism (not traffic regulation) | Held: County may adopt charter amendment under § 18(c); ban fits within delegated police powers and addresses enforcement mechanisms, not direct traffic regulation |
| Preemption / statewide public policy | Cities: use of red‑light cameras implicates statewide policy and must yield to state law or uniform state interest | County: no enacted statewide statute or controlling policy on red‑light cameras; § 18(c) is part of state policy and permits county action absent contrary statewide law | Held: No statewide policy precludes county action; county authority prevails because legislature has not enacted controlling law on red‑light cameras |
| Violation of county charter or internal charter conflicts | Cities: amendment conflicts with charter provisions reserving municipal powers and other charter sections | County: charter expressly allows amendment; § 18(c) grants necessary authority; newer amendment supersedes inconsistent charter language | Held: Amendment does not violate the charter; amendment process was proper and supersedes conflicting prior charter text |
| Invasion of judicial power / evidence rules | Cities: the ban would create conclusive presumptions or limit courts' ability to consider photographic evidence | County: amendment only prohibits a mode of enforcement; it does not dictate evidentiary rules or limit judicial fact‑finding | Held: No invasion of the judiciary; amendment does not direct courts or evidence admissibility |
| Validity of ballot language / election contest | Cities: ballot title/language misleading; proposition failed to define power/function/financing or hid implicit amendment of other charter sections | County: full text of amendment appeared on ballot; it clearly defined the prohibition and stated there were no financing costs | Held: Ballot met § 18(c) requirement and was not so irregular as to cast doubt on the election; election upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid‑Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard and de novo review on summary judgment)
- Missouri Bankers Assoc., Inc. v. St. Louis County, 448 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. banc 2014) (discusses limits of county charter power where legislature enacted statewide policy)
- Chesterfield Fire Protection Dist. v. St. Louis County, 645 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. banc 1983) (construction of § 18(c) and county charter powers over municipal services)
- Flower Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. St. Louis County, 528 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. banc 1975) (charter county authority cannot invade province of general state legislation)
- State ex rel. Shepley v. Gamble, 280 S.W.2d 656 (Mo. 1955) (noting novelty of art. VI, § 18 and limited utility of pre‑section decisions)
- State ex rel. American Eagle Waste Indus. v. St. Louis County, 272 S.W.3d 336 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (county cannot supersede a general statute evidencing statewide policy)