Sinquefield v. Jones
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 251
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Todd Jones submitted an initiative to limit campaign contributions; the Secretary of State certified a ballot title that included a fiscal note and a 50‑word fiscal note summary prepared by the State Auditor.
- Rex Sinquefield challenged the ballot title under §116.190, arguing the fiscal note and summary were insufficient and unfair; the trial court agreed and remanded both to the Auditor for redrafting.
- The State Auditor solicited submissions from many state and local entities; 25 entities responded, 11 reported no fiscal impact, the Department of Revenue (DOR) said the initiative would have no impact on the Department and that it had no way to measure broader economic impacts, and opponent Marc Ellinger submitted a projection estimating multi‑million dollar revenue losses.
- The Auditor listed entity responses verbatim in the fiscal note and summarized them in the fiscal note summary, describing revenue impact as "unknown."
- The trial court found (a) the DOR response was unreasonable and improperly summarized, and (b) the Auditor should have included Ellinger’s negative revenue projections in the summary; it remanded to exclude the DOR submission and to incorporate Ellinger’s numeric estimates.
- Jones appealed; the appellate court reversed, holding the DOR submission was reasonable and the fiscal note summary’s use of "unknown" was sufficient and fair under precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (trial court/ challengers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department of Revenue’s submission to the Auditor was reasonable and permissibly included in the fiscal note | DOR’s response was reasonable; the Auditor reasonably declined to adopt speculative forecasts and properly summarized DOR’s statements | DOR failed to address the Auditor’s request and its response was unreasonable and should not have been included | Reversed — DOR’s submission addressed the issue and was reasonable; inclusion was proper |
| Whether the fiscal note summary was sufficient and fair (fifty‑word summary) | The Auditor properly exercised discretion to characterize revenue impact as "unknown" given conflicting or non‑probative submissions and speculative opponent projections | The fiscal note summary was insufficient and unfair because the Ellinger submission was the only substantive projection and showed concrete negative revenue impacts that should be reported | Reversed — "unknown" adequately and without bias summarized the fiscal note under controlling standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (standard and purpose for fiscal notes and fiscal note summaries for initiatives)
- Overfelt v. McCaskill, 81 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (§116.190 challenges to ballot language)
- Bergman v. Mills, 988 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (procedures for initiative petitions)
- Cures Without Cloning v. Pund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (burden on challenger to show fiscal note/summary is insufficient or unfair)
- Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan, 364 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (appellate standard for court‑tried civil cases)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for bench trials)