488 S.W.3d 665
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Gary D. Witt, judge, authored the opinion.
- Initiative petition relates to MO HealthNet in-home services and consumer-directed services providers in Missouri.
- Petition would require 85% of state-reimbursed revenue to be paid to personal care attendants as wages/benefits.
- Plaintiffs challenged the Secretary of State’s Summary Statement, Auditor’s Fiscal Note, and Fiscal Note Summary as unfair or insufficient.
- Trial court certified the Official Ballot Title and the Summary/Fiscal documents; the appeal seeks reversal in part and remand for corrected summary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Summary Statement sufficient and fair? | Plaintiffs contend it misleads voters. | Secretary’s summary fairly describes measure. | No; remanded for corrected summary. |
| Is the Fiscal Note Summary fair and sufficient? | Auditor misstates costs; tax impact omitted. | Auditor’s role is to summarize submissions, not source merits. | Partially denied; upheld with adjustments? (see summary) |
| Does the Fiscal Note include small-business impact as required? | Yes, required by statute. | Statutory language does not require it in the note. | Denied; no mandatory small-business impact in note. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (de novo review for summary/fiscal note propriety; standard applied)
- Mo. Mun. League v. Carnahan, 364 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (insufficiency/unfairness standard for summary statements)
- Cures Without Cloning v. Fund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (definition of insufficient/unfair in ballot statements)
- Bergman v. Mills, 988 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (language sufficiency standard for ballot summaries)
- Overfelt v. McCaskill, 81 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (subject matter notice requirement for ballot summaries)
- United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo. v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. banc 2000) (subject-matter notice and fairness standards for ballot titles)
- Hancock v. Secretary of State, 885 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. 1994) (auditor’s role in fiscal note drafting; submission review)