Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1142
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Calzone submitted three ballot petitions to Missouri Secretary of State; two Article I petitions on eminent domain, one Article VI petition on blight-related powers.
- Secretary prepared summary statements; State Auditor prepared fiscal notes and summaries after soliciting agency input; public input not sought directly.
- Plaintiffs (MML and others) challenged the fairness and sufficiency of the summary statements, fiscal notes, and fiscal note summaries.
- Circuit Court ruled in favor of Calzone/State Auditor; Plaintiffs appealed to Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
- Issue focused on whether statements and fiscal materials fairly summarize the measure and whether Auditor procedures require rulemaking under Chapter 536.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I summary statement is fair and impartial | MML argues 'just compensation' reference misleads voters. | Carnahan argues statement fairly summarizes change and existing constitution. | Point One denied; statement fair and non-prejudicial. |
| Whether Auditor procedures constitute rules under Chapter 536 | Procedures are rules requiring notice-and-comment. | Auditor acts under statute with discretionary process; not a rulemaking requirement. | Point Two denied; no promulgation as rule required. |
| Whether fiscal note summaries adequately convey costs | Summaries are unfair/inadequate and fail to convey magnitude of costs. | Summaries are fair; need not detail every amount; can indicate potential significant costs. | Points Three and Six denied; summaries fair and not inherently prejudicial. |
| Whether Article I summary statements are unfair/insufficient and will prejudice | Second–fourth bullets misstate scope and changes; fail to identify central purposes. | Court previously rejected similar challenges; statements fair and informative. | Point Four denied; statements not unfair or misleading. |
| Whether Article VI summary statements are unfair/insufficient and will prejudice | Statement misstates powers to abate nuisances and scope of eminent domain changes. | Prevailing analysis from prior MML I applies; statements fair. | Point Five denied; statements fair and not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan, 303 S.W.3d 573 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (affirmed trial court; challenged summary statements and fiscal notes in prior term)
- Cures Without Cloning v. Pund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008) (tests whether language fairly and impartially summarizes measure)
- Hancock v. Sec'y of State, 885 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.App. W.D. 1994) (fiscal note fairness not based on maximum detail but absence of prejudice)
- Bergman v. Mills, 988 S.W.2d 84 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) (court’s review of ballot language for fairness; no deception)
- Missouri National Education Association v. Missouri State Bd. of Educ., 34 S.W.3d 266 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (administrative guidelines not automatically deemed rules)
- Coyle v. Dir. of Revenue, 181 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2005) (statutory interpretation of review standards for agency actions)
- Artman v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, 918 S.W.2d 247 (Mo. banc 1996) (general principle on agency rulemaking not always required)