Norman Seay v. Tim Jones
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1014
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- HJR 90 is a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to allow in-person or mail advance voting during the six business days ending on the Wednesday before a general election, with other implementation rules (registration cutoff, mail‑ballot request rules, judges, secrecy restrictions).
- Section 11.5 conditions any local conduct of advance voting on a state appropriation and disbursement to reimburse local costs (i.e., advance voting will not occur unless the legislature and governor fund it).
- The General Assembly drafted a 50‑word official summary: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in all general elections?" together with a fiscal note summary.
- Plaintiffs Seay and Chapel sued under §116.190 to challenge the summary as insufficient and unfair for omitting the funding contingency and the limitation to local regular business hours; defendants included legislative leaders and the Secretary of State.
- The circuit court granted defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, finding the summary sufficient; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed as to the funding‑contingency issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the summary is insufficient for failing to state advance voting is contingent on state appropriation/disbursement | Seay: omission misleads voters into thinking advance voting will occur in all general elections; summary must disclose the funding contingency | Defendants: word "permit" signals authorization, not a guarantee; cannot fit every detail in 50 words; fiscal note discloses costs | Held: Summary is insufficient and unfair for failing to disclose that advance voting occurs only if legislature and governor appropriate and disburse funds; court modified and certified corrected summary |
| Whether the summary is insufficient for failing to state advance voting will occur only during local election authorities’ regular business hours | Seay: omission hides a significant limitation on availability | Defendants: hour limitation is an implementation detail; "business days" signals difference from election‑day hours; 50‑word limit prevents full detail | Held: Summary omission as to hours is not fatal—not insufficient or unfair |
| Whether the court may modify a legislature‑drafted summary statement | Seay: §116.155.2 makes the legislature’s summary the official ballot title; court lacks authority to change it | Defendants: §116.190 allows judicial review and remedy | Held: Court has authority under §116.190 to modify and certify a corrected summary to the Secretary of State |
| Whether plaintiffs were prejudiced by Legislators’ separate counsel participation | Seay: separate counsel was improper because Attorney General represents officials sued in official capacity | Defendants: separate counsel merely advocated issues; no prejudice | Held: Issue unnecessary to decide; no reversible prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Overfelt v. McCaskill, 81 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. App. W.D.) (challenger bears burden to show summary language is insufficient and unfair)
- Hancock v. Secretary of State, 885 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. W.D.) (definition of insufficient and unfair in ballot‑title context)
- Cures without Cloning v. Pund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. W.D.) (court may correct and certify deficient ballot summary)
- Coburn v. Mayer, 368 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. App. W.D.) (legislature must prepare summary to promote informed understanding)
- Billington v. Carnahan, 380 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. App. W.D.) (summary need not be best possible, but must give sufficient idea of effect)
- Mo. Mun. League v. Carnahan, 303 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. App. W.D.) (context may require referencing existing state of law to show effect of change)
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc) (de novo review of summary statement legal conclusions)