Legends Bank v. State
2012 Mo. LEXIS 105
| Mo. | 2012Background
- SB 844 sought to amend chapter 37 by adding a section on contracts for purchasing, printing, and services for statewide elected officials and to authorize procurement decisions by the office of administration.
- The final enacted version retained procurement provisions but added ethics, campaign finance provisions, and a capital-dome key provision.
- The circuit court voided SB 844 on single-subject and original-purpose grounds and severed non-procurement provisions, leaving only procurement provisions intact.
- Missouri contends SB 844 was upheld as to procurement and that severance was improper if non-procurement provisions were unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court reviews de novo; statutory presumption of validity applies and severance is a judicial remedy when valid provisions are separable from void ones.
- Concurrence argues severance should be abandoned and severability doctrine discontinued to prevent legislative logrolling and protect separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did SB 844 violate the original purpose clause? | Respondents contend final form altered original purpose. | State argues only non-procurement provisions severable were added. | Yes; SB 844 violated the original purpose clause. |
| Did SB 844 violate the single-subject clause? | Respondents maintain disparate ethics/campaign provisions were unrelated to procurement. | State contends provisions relate to legislative ethics within broader policy scope. | Yes; final bill contained multiple subjects not germane to procurement. |
| Is severance an appropriate remedy to save the procurement provisions? | Respondents argue severance preserves valid provisions only. | State argues severance applicable to uphold procurement provisions. | Yes; severance appropriate; procurement provisions remain, others severed. |
| Should the severance doctrine itself be continued or discontinued? | Severance preserves unconstitutional practices and undermines accountability. | Severance is a valid judicial tool to save legislation. | Concurrence argues severance should be discontinued; majority opinion does not overrule it here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammerschmidt v. Boone County, 877 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1994) (single-subject/severance framework; mandatory vs. directory provisions)
- Club Executives, Inc. v. State, 208 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 2006) (original purpose and severance analysis; logrolling concern)
- St. Louis County v. Prestige Travel, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. banc 2011) (severance and procedural mandates applicability)
- C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka, 12 S.W.3d 322 (Mo. banc 2000) (purpose and description of legislative process safeguards)
- Rentschler v. Nixon, 311 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. banc 2010) (de novo review of constitutional challenges)