Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt

THE MISSOURIANS TO PROTECT INI- PROCESS,

TIATIVE a Not-For-Profit Missouri,

Corporation al., et Plain-

tiffs-Respondents,

Roy BLUNT, capacity D. in his

Secretary of State the State of

Missouri, Defendant-Appellant, Committee,

Yes For Ethics

Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 73148. Missouri,

Supreme

En Banc.

Oct. 1990.

Dissenting Opinion Dec. 1990.

Rehearing Denied Dec. but, jurisdict

in this due to a lack of Court ion,1 the cause transferred the Mis was Appeals, souri District. Western questions Because of statewide concern involved, granted were this Court transfer 83.06, opinion. before Rule Mo.Const. art. V, judgment The circuit court is §10. affirmed.

I. 9, 1990, May On the “Yes for Ethics Secretary Committee” submitted proposed State a initiative peti- The amend the state’s constitution. tion, 2, 9, 16, adopted, repeal if would §§ 20, 20(a), 21, 22, III, 23 and 25 of article adopt would nine new sections lieu there- sections, of, 54, adopt and would three new Secretary III. 55 and 56 of article The Attorney delivered the to the Gen- peti- eral. Both officials “review[ed] sufficiency ap- for as to form” and tion proved Secretary it. The 116.332.1.2 § title proposed State also drafted a ballot Attorney and transmitted it to the General. Attorney approved The General and re- Secretary title to the turned the ballot 11, May 116.334.2. State on 1990. On 1, 1990, Secretary September of State certified that a sufficient number of voters Gen., Webster, Atty. William L. James B. signed petitions require had that the Buckner, Deutsch, Attys. B. Asst. Simon placed initiative be on the ballot at Gen., City, defendant-appel- for Jefferson general the November 1990 election. lant. 116.150.1. Levison, Bardgett, E. Mark H. John 5, 1990, September plaintiffs filed an On Clayton, plaintiffs-respondents. County. in the circuit court of Cole action Green, Iverson, Clay- H. Martin M. Todd relief, enjoin Among they sought to other ton, League for amicus curiae of Women placing from of State Voters. proposal on the November ballot. inter- The “Yes for Ethics Committee” Bartlett, Tettlebaum, M. Harvey Alex vened. intervenor-appellant. City, for Jefferson judgment on The trial court entered Oc-

PER CURIAM. 1990, 11, Secretary of enjoining the tober placing measure on the bal- injunction pro State from appeal is an from an This several judgment The was based on appellant Secretary of State lot. hibiting the Among court’s conclu- grounds. the trial placing 6, sions, peti- that the initiative it determined “No. 5” on November amendment comply with the proposal does not appeal initially filed tion The was ballot. situations, 116.200.3, of which purports none and limited RSMo specific 1. Section V, § art. 3. exists here. See Mo.Const. right grant party action such as this the to an However, appeal Supreme our Court. to RSMo 1986 un- to statutes are 2. References jurisdiction constitutionally appellate defined otherwise noted. less provisions requiring than one properly and matters con petitions for constitutional amend- nected therewith. Mo. Const. art. ments contain no “more than one competing constitution has created two and matters connected therewith.” and contradictory concepts: the inherent appeal expedited. has been right constitution, people to alter the stable, permanent, organic and the need for II. law. Buchanan reaching Before presented the issues 1981). S.W.2d 11 Neither con appeal, important to make some cept may ignored other, to advance the general regarding observations the initia but the two must be balanced. process provided by the constitution. understandably Courts are reluctant Nothing in our constitution closely so mod pre-election become involved in debates els participatory democracy in pure its over proposals. initiative Courts do not sit form. Through process, initiative those judgment folly on the wisdom or who have no access to or influence with proposals. give Neither will courts adviso- representatives elected may take their ry opinions particular as to whether pro- directly cause to the people. people, The would, posal adopted, whom all authority constitutional violate some su- if derived, have “power law, reserved the pro perseding fundamental such as the pose reject and enact or laws and amend United States Constitution. State ex rel. ments to the Constitution.” Mo. Const. art. 7, (Mo. Lange, Dahl v. 661 S.W.2d 8 banc III, When upon courts are called 49. 1983); Brown, State ex rel. Cramer v. 7 intervene in the process, they initiative 5, 1321, (1983). Ohio St.3d 454 N.E.2d 1322 restraint, must act with trepidation and a single Our function is to ask whether the healthy suspicion partisan who requirements and limits of judiciary would use the prevent the ini power, expressed provisions in the relat- process tiative from taking its course. ing procedure and form of initiative statutory Constitutional and provisions rel petitions, regarded. have been Edwards v. ative to initiative are liberally construed to Lesueur, 410, 1130, 132 Mo. 33 S.W. 1133 make people’s effective the reservation of (banc 1896). power. that State ex rel. Blackwell v. Travers, 110, 600 S.W.2d (Mo.App. 113 III. 1980). place Statutes that impediments on power the initiative that are inconsistent pivotal question The here is whether this with the reservation language found proposed constitutional amendment violates of the constitution will be declared uncon requirement petition that an initiative stitutional. contain no more than one and mat- people, The speaking equal ters vigor with connected therewith. through constitution, the same placed have Appellants argue that the trial court limitations on the power. initiative That jurisdiction prior had no to the election to mandatory those limitations are is clear reach the merits of the claim that the initia explicit. petition tive contains more than one sub may This constitution be revised and ject. authority suggesting, There is but provided. amended as therein holding, not that ini substantive defects in XII, added). (emphasis Among Article 1§ proposals may only tiative be raised after prerequisites other found the constitu- election, multiple and that a claim of tion, petition (1) the initiative must Burns, subjects is substantive. State v. signed by of the voters in each 8% 163, 259, (1943); 351 Mo. 172 S.W.2d 266 congressional

two-thirds of the districts in Brown, 256, Moore v. 350 Mo. 165 S.W.2d state, (2) be filed with (banc 1942). 662 The rule alluded to in State no less than four months an before any language those cases was not based on election, (3) proper enacting contain a in the constitution or statutes relative to clause, (4) contain no more than one article, petitions. principle arises out amended and revised constitutional general relating or one new article which policies judicial contains not more re- economy judicial statutory provisions relating straint and the ini- resources. Appellants rely on various statements in process. dichotomy tiative between saying the cases that courts will not render procedural process defects in the initiative advisory opinion propos- an as to whether a process and substantive defects adopted, al would if be constitutional Un- language not found in the of the constitu- ion Elec. Co. v. 678 S.W.2d Among prereq- tion or the statutes. other or that the initia- uisites, III, provides, “Petitions process, being legislative tive akin to the for constitutional amendments shall not process, interrupted should not be until the more one and re- contain than amended complete, labor is Pitman v. constitution, vised article of this or one new Drabelle, 267 Mo. 183 S.W. than article which shall not contain more (banc 1916). Neither of those cases nor connected one matters by appellants others cited hold Any construction therewith.” reasonable authority courts of this state lack to con- quoted language leads to the ines- pre-election duct a examination of an initia- regardless capable conclusion that to determine whether com- proposition, of a if meritorious substance plies provisions with the of article prerequisites are not of article 50§ equally compelling There reasons met, the is not to be on the ballot. grant pre-election review. The cost and Any controversy prereq- to whether the elections, energy expended relating to III, uisites of article 50 have been met is § public generated by avoiding confusion ripe judicial when the determination speedy question a militate in resolution of a Secretary of State makes a decision to sub- pre-election favor of a limited review. mit, submit, issue or refuse to an initiative There are also several cases point, judicial At that to the voters. pre-election courts conducted a review have opinion as to whether the constitutional precedent plac to determine if conditions to requirements longer met is no have been ing proposal the ballot have met. been hypothetical advisory. or Brown, Moore v. 350 Mo. See (banc 1942); S.W.2d 657 State ex rel. Payne v. Appellants contend Roach, v. 190 S.W. 277 Stokes 1916); (Mo.App. Kirkpatrick, 685 S.W.2d Stop Callaway Yes to Committee (Mo.App. 685 S.W.2d 209 prohibits the of State from 1984). Moore, actually struck In than considering matters other the suffi this. the ballot because of defects an issue from That case does ciency signatures. to those asserted here. Buchan similar state, claim consistent not so nor is the 12-13, an, at the Court said: 615 S.W.2d reading of 116.120. awith reasonable § provides safeguard art. Ill Mo.Const. statute, Secretary of State Under that against petitions containing “more than determining whether the charged is with matters con- one “complies petition with Constitution added.) (Emphasis nected therewith.” Chapter.” Missouri and with re- 126.081 now Section [RSMo legislature If the had 116.120.1. § anyone authorizes “dissat- pealed] ... count Secretary of State intended that the resort to title to isfied” with [ballot] have so stated. But signatures, it could is Either of these matters the courts. mandates a more exten language used prior elec- by the courts to reviewable minimum, At sive examination. tion. Secretary of State requires the 116.120.1 § has proposition The claim that no insure that the petition examine the prior from the ballot or can be struck been III, of article requirements threshold § in a it submits issues to election because necessarily requires met. That have been is by the constitution prohibited manner pro Secretary of State to examine cases. unsupported multiple not contain posal to insure it does grant rationales for Ultimately, the subjects. refusing pre-election judicial review ing or after a determi- provide that The statutes language way plain give must sufficiency, the Sec- petition’s nation of the of the constitution construction reasonable

«29 retary of State is to issue a certificate that V. petition signatures contains sufficient Appellants argue plain further comply with requirements. constitutional standing. tiffs lack authoriz statute certified, petition 116.150.1. After the is § ing injunctive permits “any relief citizen” “any may apply citizen to the circuit court bring Plain the action. 116.200.1. § County compel of Cole Secretary of [the required any particu tiffs are not to show to reverse his decision.” 116.200. State] § lar harm. Defendant’s answer admits noted, previously As an essential element plaintiffs are Missouri citizens. The claim Secretary’s decision is the determina- plaintiffs standing that the lack individual petition complies tion that with the is without merit. requirements found article

III, Thus, 50. the trial court committed §

no authority error and had the under VI. consider, prior 116.200.1 to elec- § claiming An additional basis for tri

tion, whether complied with the placement al error assertion that the requirements found article the comma and arti XII, 2(b)

cle of the 1945 Constitution meaning language modified the IV. XV, those sections. Article 2 of the con Ancillary arguments, other appel provision predating provid stitutional present complex argument lants that the ed, “No amendment shall contain plaintiffs’ remedy untimely because the more than one amended and revised article pre-election remedy relating to dual of this Constitution or one new article matter is limited to a proceeding to test the which not contain more than shall one sub sufficiency of the ballot title under ject properly and matters connected there provision 116.190. That authorizes an § 1945, language with.” In the same became challenge title, action although the ballot XII, part of article 50 and article § injunction stop it does not authorize an 2(b), but a comma was added between If challenge election. the ballot title the word “Constitution” and the word “or.” filed, timely the court is authorized to do Appellants apply would have us for the certify no more than a correct ballot title. grammatical first time a strict rule3 so Section 116.190 not does authorize a review phrase that the “shall contain no more than as to prerequi whether the constitutional subject” apply one does not to revisions or legislature sites have been met. The has article, pre-existing amendments of a but provided remedy, remedy another and that proposals seeking add a new is found previously under 116.200. As appellants’ article to the constitution. If noted, permits that section the trial court punctuation argument accepted, a were proceed to determine whether the initia could, proposed long amendment so as it is petition here at issue violated the sin single a denominated as an amendment to gle subject challenge rule. An action to article, repeal entire document and en Secretary’s brought decision must be act a constitution. new days within ten after certification. ease, appellants’ argument In does not take 116.200.1. this of What 1, September State issued his certificate on into account is that the cases decided both 1990, consistently plaintiffs petition and filed a for in before after 1945 have 5, junction September 1990. The not contain more than treated the “shall injunction subject” phrase applicable to revised for the was filed within the ten- one day and has time limit. The claim that the action is or amended constitutional articles untimely phrase is without merit. not limited that to new constitution- precedes conjunction." conjunction connects two coor- the clause which "[W]hen 1036, pre- Graham, phrases, Mo.App. dinate clauses or a comma should Application 199 239 conjunction prevent cede the if it is intended to (1946). S.W.2d 74 following qualifying phrases modifying See,

al e.g., articles. range Buchanan v. Kirk- assurance that within the of a sub- patrick, 1981); 615 S.W.2d 6 ject and related matters a measure must Brown, Moore v. 350 Mo. 165 S.W.2d pass or fail on its own merits. State ex (banc 1942). Maitland, Callaghan rel. 296 Mo. (banc 1922). pur- 246 S.W. That addition, In organized constitution is XII, 2(b), pose is restated by subject into various arti- articles. Each portion cle is relevant reads: subdivided into sections. The sec- specific tions relate to matters connected More than one amendment at the same general heading with the of the article. election shall be so submitted as to en- concept of “one amended or revised able the electors to vote each amend- on article” carries with it the connotation of a separately. ment single subject and connected To matters. The records of the constitutional debates say an amendment must be limited to “one support also the conclusion that draft- amended and revised article which shall ... ers had modify no intent to the historical not contain more than one and mat- meaning of the article.4 In the absence therewith,” ters connected something suggest that the 1945 addi- somewhat redundant. modify tion of the comma intended was importantly, More di courts are purpose, give this Court continues to by something gram rected more than strict prohibition meaning. its historical construing matical rules when the constitu tion. are Courts reluctant to determine VII. deep solely upon matters of concern consid noted, previously dispos As punctuation grammar eration of if the question pro itive is whether the initiative purpose provision may be otherwise posal than one contains more Graham, Application determined. determining matters related thereto. In situation, pur S.W.2d at 75. whether the constitutional amend pose prohibition multiple subjects rule, subject” ment violates the “one there single prevent ballot is to general certain that have principles “logrolling,” practice legisla familiar to A will lib been established. whereby subjects that tive bodies unrelated erally nonrestrictively construed so individually might enough sup not muster provisions or incident that connected with port pass generate are combined to effectuating purpose the central of the Brown, necessary support. Moore v. 165 separate proposal will not be treated as prohibition at 662. The is intended S.W.2d subjects. Buchanan v. See discourage position placing voters 1981); Oregon 615 S.W.2d 6 having of matter vote for some which Phillips, 727 Educ. Ass’n v. 302 Or. they support do not in order to enact that (1986). any P.2d 602 An amendment to earnestly support. single they The subject may changing have the effect of matter rule is the constitutional Also, apply to the initiative. 4. Volume Debates the Missouri Constitution ment shall of (March justly discus- change, contains contains the mentioned, which I believe is provision: sion of the publications that there are to be the usual re- newspapers The Constitution also contains in two Otherwise, for two consecutive weeks. amendments must be sub- strictions present it is the substance of people may express that the their mitted so Constitution, provided that Section 2 of the upon proposition upon rather than views one Assembly may the General have general many propositions. It is amendments, they providing also that if are more one amendment must contain not than proposed by Initiative that it shall contain not Article of the Constitution amended or revised arti- than one amendment to the revised more the ballot that the choice and be so stated on present as the cle. It is the same substance may independently of the other be made again part Constitution and that has been the propositions. of the Constitution ever since 1875. I should adopted that that section be and like to move Now, as Section 2 of the Section 2 is the same call for amendments. Article, exception present with the that it am- (from the of Mr. PP. 583-84 statement by directing plifies attention to the the article Jackson). Phillips of separate requirement that the of a state- fact Finally, the new several articles or sections of the constitu- the executive branch. of tion, germane single to a con- all provisions imposition authorize of sanctions if Brown, trolling purpose. Moore Assembly, against members of the General Ultimately proposal S.W.2d at 662. each branch, and oth- members the executive amend the constitution must turn on the public er officials for ethical conduct viola- particular language subject and the matter description propos- of the tions. From this involved. al, apparent it is that the amendment would case, any The Buchanan more than oth- legislature substantially reorganize the er, probed the outer limits of what matters and, time, impose at the same constitution- may single be included in a officials, officers, al ethical restrictions proposition violating single without execu- employees and of the and subject proposition The under rule. there departments. X, relating amended article consideration Arguably, proposal taxation. included sep is dividedinto constitution 1) subjects: six a taxation lid on state legislative department arate articles. The 2) government; spending lid on state provided for in article III. The executive 3) government; a directive that state officers, department, responsi its and their government support continue financial under article IV of provided bilities are 4) government; local a tax lid on local officials, gener the constitution. Public 5) government; governments limits on local al, conduct, regulation of their and sanc obtaining revenues based on assessments against tions their misconduct have hereto 6) property; grant original and subject fore of article VII. The been jurisdiction Supreme to the to hear organization of the constitution creates taxpayer provisions suits to enforce the presumption pertaining sep that matters the amendment. The contained subjects therein should be arate described limiting matters that had the effect of applicable in the article to that set forth authority legislature granted commingled under un and not jurisdiction judiciary, subjects previ- headings. organizational head related V, ously found article III and article strong ings of the constitution are evidence Nevertheless, respectively. the Court adopted drafted and of what those who readily reasonably found a identifiable subject.” constitution meant “one purpose narrow that knitted all the diverse provisions together. purpose The central single The fact that a spending by was to limit taxes and state petition amending article has the effect one government. local Buchanan v. Kirk- article of the patrick, amending 615 S.W.2d at 13. more than one constitution does not render Court, In the case now before multiple per se violation portions proposal revising §§ however, having proposal a prohibition; exclusively through 25 of article III focus suspect. proposal such effect is When Assembly. regulation the of the General the previously that were deals with matters things, Among other the revised sections the one the of an article other than would reduce the number of members beginning in Assembly amended, the the of General the must scrutinize being 2003, modify length legisla- of the year the if included proposal the to see all matters relat- regulations and establish tive session readily identifiable and reason relate to a appointments. The new ing to committee purpose. ably narrow central beginning provisions proposal, of the with explanation first to the The Court looks having ethics commission create an single appellants to determine what of the 1) regulate lobby who authority those pro- in the subject they assert is contained legislators executive or members the of agree on the posal. appellants The do not branch, 2) require legislators, members of petition. brief subject of the initiative and other state offi- the executive branch sug- of the “Yes for Ethics Committee” employees to file financial disclo- cials and proposal is single subject of the gests the 3) sures, specified re- enforce ethical “legislative matters.” that all sections are against legislators and members strictions 832

The Secretary 2) of general regulation State’s brief avers the the of the conduct of single subject regulation officials, public public matter, is “the of an article VII are officials’ appellants conduct.” As would provisions both related. These are di- so have us construe subjects, they defy being these are single verse as to connected to a extremely Thus, broad. purpose. central proposal the fails comply single subject with the require- multiple If may matters ment of article lumped together under excessively general headings, the single subject restriction of VIII. 50 would be rendered mean Appellants suggest ingless. though specific provisions the provisions Even of proposal proposal given may of the be severable as an a liberal and non-re invalidating strictive alternative to the entire initia determining construction what They tive. cite particular matters are two Missouri cases that connected to a sub ject, severability provisions have of adopt discussed of Court will not a construction Thompson, an amendment. subject” of the words “one State v. that renders the (banc 1929), 323 Mo. prohibition S.W.2d 642 against multiple Furthermore, paragraph appro this Court severed a subjects meaningless. priated subject “legislative fees the state road fund without matters” is not connect legislative action from an amendment au ed to the ethical restrictions on officials of thorizing an additional bond issue for the department. Similarly, the executive highways. of construction state This “regulation public officials’ con complete Court found the amendment duct” is unconnected to the number of accomplish pur itself and sufficient to its Assembly members the General or the pose appropriation provision. length Thus, without sessions. even suggested, under the broad rubrics provision The factors that make a comply fails to with the constitu severable are set out in footnote prerequisite proposed tional case. These include whether Buchanan amendment contain no more than one sub provision efficacy is essential to the ject. appellants agree of the The failure amendment, provision whether is a purpose on the identification of a central which the amendment without would be strong proposal’s indicator of the multi unworkable, incomplete and and whether plicity. provision is one without which the vot Notwithstanding explanations ap- adopted the amend ers would not have indepen- pellants, the Court must make an ment. Buchanan proposed dent examination of the amend- at n. 8. S.W.2d ment if there is a to determine diseernable hand, proposed In the case at amend- single subject provisions to which all single subject. than a ment contains more proposed are connected. The revi- impossible say signers intended It is through sions of 25 of article III are §§ only support provisions those related to organization legis- all related to operation legislature or the internal department. lative new provisions to endorse those related amendments, beginning with 54 of article general regulation of the conduct of and enforce- relate to establishment public officials. ment of standards of conduct on a broad impossible identify single it a Since is officials, range public a hereto- of necessarily impossible purpose, central it is true, being fore found in article VII. That identify provisions those that are essen- necessary readily to find a identifiable it is efficacy of the amendment so tial to the reasonably single purpose to and narrow The they may segregated be out. that 1) general reorganization severability argument is without merit. department including the num- that the of the trial court length of and session conclusion ber members more matters, proposal contains Assembly, article III and initiative General happiness, provided safety than one is not Accord- to their and erroneous. repugnant be not ingly, judgment is change the of the trial court such Constitution the United States. affirmed. added). (Emphasis BLACKMAR, C.J., HIGGINS, Labor Mo. v. United Committee of COVINGTON, BILLINGS and (Mo. 449, 454 572 S.W.2d HOLSTEIN, JJ., MAUS, Special and 1978), prior deci- banc the Court stated Judge, concur. importance of sions “have discussed the J., RENDLEN, separate dissents referendum, emphasizing the initiative and J., ROBERTSON, opinion to follow. not procedures designed to effectuate sitting. concepts liberal- these democratic should be RENDLEN, Judge, dissenting. every the ly construed to avail voters with rights.” opportunity to exercise these following, respectfully For the reasons I ability further: “The Court went dissent. their fellow voters get voters to before Missouri, among many the states with they significant deem should not be issues provisions the initiative and refer preference for technical for- thwarted endum, opportunity affords its citizens the malities,” 454, id. at and concluded “the by repeal direct vote to enact or constitu process is too akin to our basic Here, provisions. majority tional as in a process have this made democratic ideals to enjoying system popular legisla states unduly power burdensome.” The initiative tion, may constitutional amendments reach prescribed in the has been Constitution wending the ballot without a course broadly construed and “is not laden with through legislature. populist sys This detail.” Id. Statutes implementing the ini- personifies tem concept power that the tiative are not to “limit or restrict allowed govern ultimately people; resides in the rights by conferred the constitutional sovereign. precisely the citizen is It is ex rel. Elsas v. Missouri State provision,” “power” described as a reserved Commission, Compensation Workmen’s them, see Mo. people, “right” granted not a 1004, (Mo. 796, 318 Mo. S.W.2d banc Const. art. jealously one to be two, contest between “[i]n guarded by the courts. Memorialized in right if the statute restricts a by conferred preamble to the United States Constitu Constitution, prevails the latter ...” by “We, phrase, people,” tion Walden, Randolph County ex rel. State principle eloquently enunciated in the 357 Mo. 206 S.W.2d Constitution, opening provision of our art. 1947) (emphasis original). I, 1:§ is vested in political power That all Typically, arrayed against free ex- those people; govern- derived that all popular legislation are right ercise of the from people, right originates ment of public private entrenched forces in the or upon their is founded will may their domains sectors who sense solely good instituted for the by the operations invaded or threatened whole. connection, has initiative. In this been aptly stated: added). (Emphasis sovereign people, These government, empow- very source of or refer- A lawsuit to strike an initiative I,

ered art. with: endum from a ballot is one of the deadli- pf weapons in the arsenal the mea- inherent, est right sole and exclusive [i ]he increas- political opponents. sure’s With government and regulate the internal pro- ing frequency, opponents of ballot police thereof and to alter and abolish finding weapon irresistible govern- posals are their Constitution form of stop they necessary, deem it suing and are elections. ment whenever the Mo. otherwise indicated. 1. All constitutional references to and amendments unless Constitution of 1945 added). (emphasis approved Pre-election Judicial Review Initiatives 116.332.1 If § of Referendums, and 64 Notre by Attorney Dame Law form, the General as to the (1989). persuasive- Review 298 The author Secretary makes “a the final decision as to ly opines generally improper “it for approval petition.” of the ... form adjudicate pre-election challenges courts to added). (emphasis Section 116.332.2 to a validity,” measure’s substantive be- 116.334, requirement the that the Attor- § cause: ney petition General shall examine the as pre-election review involves issu- and, [s]uch ap- to is reiterated when so form ing an advisory opinion, ripeness violates proved, Secretary the submits a requirements, policy undermines the of (this “petition title” of 100 or less words avoiding unnecessary title”) later serves as the to the “ballot questions, and constitutes unwarranted Attorney approval legal for as to General

judicial legislative interference with a phrase “legal content and form. The con- process. provision requires tent” of this the at Id. 298. concisely fairly state the title refer to general subject items included in the pre-election The suit at bar such a petition. challenge designed keep the (the article) amending Article III bar, prescribed steps In the the case at from the ballot. The erroneous result and, signatures were followed after were by reached the trial court and affirmed gathered, petitions presented the were majority judi- the constitutes unfortunate Secretary the of State for his examination popular legisla- cial interference with they complied to determine whether with process certainly undermines most “the Constitution of Missouri and with this policy avoiding unnecessary constitu- stage, he was chapter.” 116.120. At this § questions. tional required verify signatures through a Plaintiffs, initiative, opponents of the demanding process described in 116.130 § brought suit in the of Cole Circuit Court and strike those determined invalid under County2 pursuant provisions Completing process, 116.140.4 § 116.200, 1986,3 days ten RSMo within § Secretary his deter- declared the results of following Secretary of State’s certifica- by issuing: mination tion under 116.150. § setting by congres- forth certificate step for an initiative occurs first the number the valid sional district sample petition proponents when submit stating signatures voter whether containing Secretary “to the petition number contains sufficient in which it will be of State the form signatures comply valid with added). (emphasis 116.332.1 circulated.” § with this Missouri and Constitution of sample Secretary refers the “to added). (emphasis Section 116.- chapter id.,

Attorney approval,” his General for 150.1. here, importance those officers: and of peti- “only could issue for a His certificate must each for suffi- review 116.332.” approved pursuant tion See reject ciency approve or § form petition. 116.150.2. § form court, originally statutory appeal All references are to RSMo 1986 the circuit 3. 2.The here, Ap- indicated. unless otherwise filed was transferred to the Court District, beyond peals, as the cause fell Western original Supreme appel- petition may bring Court’s person submitting the ambit of the an 4. A Const., V, jurisdiction. County How- Mo. art. 3. late in the circuit court of Cole action compel ever, appeals immediately request- cause the court of of State to show V, provision why United Labor ed under the of Article names were stricken. See retransfer, S.W.2d 449 take the case on Mo. v. this Court Committee of brought possible a suit was shortest time and the where such was done 126.071, prede- Supp.1975, argument RSMo was set and heard October under case to current 116.200. cessor recurring retary certify validity theme is examination and shall other than the approval petition, by cou- signatures of and the numbers of the form pled investigation sig- awith meticulous of I congressional regard, districts. In this natures to ensure that the number of voter if suggest legislature would that had signatures required by the Constitution Secretary under intended that the of State congression- from the minimum number of certify 116.120 or 116.150 to more § § required by al districts the Constitution by signatures of valid than number Quite simply, have been met. the refer- congressional districts “it could have so ap- ence to the “Constitution of Missouri” stated.” Are we not bound to read the pearing in 116.120and 116.150is neces- §§ unambiguous language of this statute ac- sary to direct the reader to the Constitu- cording plain to its words and from those tion, specifies signa- the number of meaning? determine its words Shoe Wolff required petition (eight tures for a valid Revenue, v. Director 762 S.W.2d Co. of percent legal voters in each of two- (Mo. 1988). legislature banc Did not the districts, congressional art. thirds of mean what it said 116.150 that § Ill, 50). findings These are the and con- § Secretary certify shall and state: may clusions under that 116.150 § certified whether the contains a sufficient challenged by brought suit within ten signatures comply number of valid days County. in the Circuit Court of Cole chap- with the Constitution and with this procedure requires This streamlined that ter? seeking suits reversal of the certification Unfortunately, appears majority it is be “advanced” on the court’s docket and speculate legis- determined to on what the by quickly possi- “decided the court as might lature have said rather than what expeditious, pre- ble.” 116.200.1. This § clear, say. language When the we did proceeding specially election tailored for permitted luxury casting of our are not challenging by those matters certified spin might to find what have been intend- and, Secretary under in- 116.150 § majority noted the in its ed. It should be stance, signatures the number of valid suf- discussion of 116.120 is con- truncated § satisfy ficient to the Constitution was not spicuously silent as to the correlation of contested, hence, issue, as to that the Sec- 116.130, 116.140, 116.150, 116.332 §§ retary’s determination became final. How- 116.334, which, toto, when read in rein- ever, afield, straying the trial court under- reference in force the conclusion took to consider not those matters certified 116.120 and 116.150 to the Constitution §§ 116.150, erroneously under but threw necessarily directs the reader to that doc- open proceeding perceived to include required of ument to learn number substantive defects of the initiative that specified signatures from the number neither were determined nor certified districts, in that doc- congressional for it is Secretary of State. I such is- submit appear. The requirements ument those beyond scope statutory sues are of this Chapter 116 are in enumerated sections action. materia; accordingly, pre-election pari By unduly broadening language certi- challenges Secretary of State’s 116.150, majority in 116.120 and its §§ chapter be con- fication under this should Secretary per opinion curiam maintains the summary proceeding delineat- fined to the certify do more than of State is intended to ed therein. there were a number of sufficient erroneously court ex- Because the circuit required signatures from the number valid statutory range special of this tended the majority congressional districts. As the judgment should proceeding, I submit it, puts legislature only “if the had intend- be reversed. signa- count ed that the State This, however, say opponents of is not to (emphasis tures it could have so stated proceedings mark, limited an initiative are supplied).” This misses the v. Kirk- nothing Chapter indicating under 116.200. Buchanan there is 1981),this patrick, 116.120 or 116.150the Sec- 615 S.W.2d that under 836 appeal an hearing. Appellants’ objections

Court entertained from the Cir- the sub- County cuit Court of Cole in which the trial proposed stantive content the amend- enjoin court had refused Secretary the question ment included the of whether the placing proposed of State from the amend- encompassed amendment more than one (Hancock ment No. 5 Amendment—a broad subject, argument equal protec- and in oral complicated changing amendment process challenges and due tion were many parts adding many new sections Court, noting raised. The these substan- X) November, 1980, to Article on the elec- questions, refused consider them previous tion ballot. Two suits had been the election and the “Hancock before filed. The first stemmed from the Secre- ap- Amendment” was submitted to and tary of State’s certification that the num- proved by the The voters. cause was held signatures inadequate. ber of was The 29, 1981, abeyance January in until and on proponents immediately brought manda- heard, day arguments were followed require replace signatures mus to him he 3, by opinion April the Court’s 1981. This Congressional had stricken from the Sixth sharply against pro- stands in contrast petitions. District This Court entertained employed in judice, cess the case sub mandamus, original proceeding an in procedural where not issues but sub- 19, 1980, September on in Missouri Farm challenges stantive were considered Bureau Federation v. 603 immediately ruled before the election. S.W.2d 947 ordered re- precedent by Buchanan established this, placement signatures. From determining for substantive issues extraordinary learn that resort to an we period following calm elections relative legal remedy originally filed this Court is question preferable course. is without litigants proceed- available to in initiative authority pre-election While there ings. issues, consideration of substantive Moore week, 24, September Within Brown, 350 Mo. 165 S.W.2d 657 brought again suit in this second was (banc 1942), long decided before the enact- mandamus, seeking by oppo- this time 116, experience Chapter ment of demon- nents, Kirkpat- State ex rel. Buchanan v. addressing strates that substantive chal- (# 62514), in that rick but instance lenges post-election proceedings provides by prej- was denied order “without environment, appropriate one a more allow- subsequent litigation udice to of issues not deliberation, ing room for which avoids the by Implicit mooted the election.” in that days of the final time-pressured constraints suggestion that other actions order was election.5 If we had but followed before might to raise other issues. Re- be utilized Buchanan, precedent 615 S.W.2d sponding suggestion, opponents to that harried, post-election the Court in a less (more than a month before on October deliberately have ex- setting could more action, election), Bu- filed still another I now ad- plored the substantive issues chanan, seeking time an 615 S.W.2d this dress. injunction in the Circuit Court of Cole dispositive identifies the majority plac- County to restrain the the initiative question as “whether on the ing amendment ballot. subject and matters later, more than one eight the cause contains days When denied references Article related thereto” and appeal came here on October and on XII, 2(b).6 Though Article appellants sought expedited an 50 and October justitiae connected there- and matters Festinatio est noverca infortunii. added). (emphasis with Constitution, (see recently also 6. The Article before the has been added The comma XII, 2(b)) provides initiative: separated Article disjunctive or and the clauses However, majority disjunctive discrete. petitions amendments shall for constitutional provision conform to its construed the has interpretation and re- contain more than one amended not effect, and, Constitution, meaning or one new vised article of this which are shown would add thirteen words which shall not contain more than one qualifying language government “shall not contain cost to the counties or other 22) subdivisions; (5) (§ subject proper- political more than one and matters Taxation lid (6) ly government; connected therewith” of those is local on local sections on Limitation 22) grammatically governments (§ obtaining connected to its antecedent revenues phrase “one upon property; new article” and modifies based assessments and and antecedent, though (7) its grant original jurisdiction and the earlier a novel of phrase Court, V, Supreme amending amended and revised Article article” “one separated by is both the comma and the 3 and Missouri Constitution. §§ disjunctive Mingled among subjects “or” and is not so modified or those was bi- limited; nevertheless, purpose repayment for the here zarre method for of all reve- arguendo I assume the limitation is intend- nues collected in excess of the constitution- apply proposal ally ed to to this for amendment limit to a group established select taxpayers. of an article. existing Buchanan, supra, proposal the Court searched I submit that the instant for justify ap- amending pur-

for central theme that could III Article contains central proving the Hancock pose readily Amendment under as discernible as that of the subject” requirement the “one of Article Hancock Amendment to Article X. Inas- search, 50. In its the Court found much as the found a Court Buchanan Hancock, what it running purpose assuredly considered a thread central through many-faceted propos- purpose proposal. be such can found this al. It declared the purpose” responsibility requires “central was Judicial that the cen- identified, purpose reasonably “to limit taxes” but conceded the amend- tral if be i.e., ment an subject, possible, properly fairly contained additional and then and be spending.” manifestly “to limit Taxing light articulated. It is in the of such artic- different from spending, but the common ulation that the Court determines if the purpose proclaimed by put- parts “properly the Court are was connected” with ting applied purpose. a “lid” on each. This lid

taxing spending practices and of state This initiative is limited to the amend- government governments. and for local single ment of a constitutional article. The Assigning purpose, as the this central are, opening of the title words ballot “Shall justified separate subjects in the Article III of the Constitution of Missouri proposal necessary accomplish “to amended_”, i.e., be the article establish- purpose,” central at id. described Department.” ing “Legislative subjects properly them as “connected with central theme of the is modifica- primary purpose the central or of the regulation legislative func- tion and of the expendi- amendment to control taxes and framework, designs tion. Article III tures.” Id. at composition Legislative size and De- arguably partment. provisions encompass than

Hancock contained more Its broad 16,17 (1) (§§ proceedings, legis- subjects: legislative six Taxation lid limitations 18) (2) leg- government; power, lid lative standards of conduct for Spending on state referendum, 20) (3) islators, (§§ government; initiative and and a 19 and on state legislative myriad the manner in which funds of items related to the Controls on (4) may spent by government; any state function. An amendment of all or modify shifting part Article III crafted to against Prohibitions burden contends, following majority emphasized parenthetically and If were as the could SO: version in this form: have been drafted shall Petitions for constitutional amendments for constitutional amendments shall Petitions more than one amended and re- not contain amended and re- not contain more than one (WHICH vised article of this Constitution Constitution, or one new vised article of SHALL NOT CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE more than article and neither shall contain CON- SUBJECT AND MATTERS PROPERLY matters connected one THEREWITH), NECTED or one new therewith. not contain more than one which shall properly connected therewith. and matters regulate legislative ap- including' function is an recommendations for a code of propriate subject for an ethics, initiative. Each of promulgation regulating of rules sections, the amended as well as the new lobbyists power suspend and the violat- provisions, intimately tied to modifi- 54.5(5), ors. Under Section the commission regulation cation and empowered require members by restricting legislature, function its Assembly General and other state officials operation. activities and manner of Wheth- carry to make financial disclosures. To out improve er the legisla- would functions, its the commission is authorized judgment function should be a left to investigate and seek civil enforcement of the voters. report its rules and evidence of certain activity. criminal

Referring to the by amendment section'numbers, its 2 Section reduces the special Section 55 adds ethical restric- legislature provides size of the and the applicable legislators tions and other machinery doing. for so 9 relates Section officials, pertaining state in- to conflict of part played by legislative process improper dealings. terest and financial candidacy public declarations of for of- These merely “properly matters are not legislature fice. The is limited in its au- connected,” vitally but are crucial to and thority setting filings, for dates for such purpose connected with the central necessarily impact filings by which candi- However, proposal. majority dates for the House or Senate as well as concludes that because several of the con- for other state officials. It cannot serious- placed legislators appli- straints are also ly suggested be that such limitation on cable to “members of the executive legislative authority should be other public lobby- branch” or other and officials III, properly than Article or that it is not ists, I must fail. submit that connected pur- with the initiative’s central regulation legislators and others outside pose. The same must be said of the follow- legislative department proper be- ing: relating legislators’ Section 16 com- regulation cause such is tied to their con- pensation, process leg- and the audit of for legislative nection with the function. Not diem; per islative salaries and Sections 20 only legislators public but other officials 20(a) relating and to the time for com- lobbyists closely are involved and vital- adjournment legislative mencement and function; ly affect that all so involved sessions, plus deadlines for bills within the should be to control and accounta- table; legislative relating time 21 Section majority ble for their actions. The also matters; style of bills and similar suggests references “members the internal Section which has to do with in- executive branch” should be committee, referring by method of bills cluded in a for an amendment of membership of committees and conduct of against Article IV and sanctions miscon- Houses; business within Section “public duct of officials” limited to amend- containing subject” requirement the “one concludes, ments of Article VII. It “the plus requirements related concern- bills organization of the creates a Constitution ing appropriation process; and Section presumption pertaining sep- that matters placing time limits for introduction of subjects arate therein described should be special provisions regarding ap- bills applicable set forth the article propriation bills. Section 54 relates to the commingled un- subject and not under legislative conduct of those in the involved headings.” Maj. Opinion related process, intimately a matter connected with majority apparently has overlooked the legisla- regulation modification and provisions regulating activities of fact that only regu- tive function. This section not in Article conduct, the “executive branch” are found lates such but establishes an eth- intimately III those activities are in- activity. when ics commission to monitor this function, e.g., duties, has volved with Among other the commission any per- prohibits Article rule-making power authority to recom- (members legislation Assembly, holding any son lucrative office mend to the General branch) by any provision If of a statute is found employment of the executive or jurisdiction to competent (governmental employees in the a court state unconstitutional, remaining provi- branches) judicial executive or from becom- unless the sions of the statute are valid ing legislator. Similarly, Article provisions of the court finds the valid 31, prescribes certain duties of the Gov- essentially inseparably statute are so those duties are connected with ernor when with, upon dependent and so connected However, legislative process. if the pre- provision that it cannot be void proposal point- scattered references in this legislature would have branch,” sumed that the ing to “members of the executive provision without the enacted the valid legislators state officials other than and to one, or unless the court finds void lobbyists beyond purpose are the central alone, standing are provisions, the valid and not matters connected there- being incapable are incomplete and with, readily scattered references such legisla- executed in accordance with the severable. tive intent. Buchanan, 6, In the Hancock S.W.2d County This Court has declared Boone Amendment, spending adding tax and lids 321, Missouri, 631 v. S.W.2d State of X, governments to state and local Article applicable that rules grant original jurisdic- contained a novel essentially construction are Court, Supreme amending tion to the thus applied statutory con- the same as those V, Article 3 and 4. Confronted with §§ are to be except struction former offending protruding thorn Hence, this given a broader construction. Hancock, side of the Court concluded constitutional amendment proposal for a severable, unacceptable provision was stat- genial at least the same should receive ing: as that afforded en- treatment provision purporting place juris- people If the had been afforded actments. diction of such suits in this Court is not proposal opportunity voting on the efficacy amend- essential to the adopted, it have been and it had been would eliminated, ment. If the remainder is entitled to the same consideration as complete still in itself and sufficient to proposals considered Buchanan and purpose accomplish the for which was County. Boone adopted. provision It is not a without subsection, 56.1, provides separate A adopted which the voters would not have appropriation of at least the automatic and without which the amendment $240,000 the ethics commission’s to fund incomplete amendment would be and un- This subsection stands operations. (Citations omitted.) short, workable. provides, athwart Article provision, with which is ineffectual not be used for “the initiative shall respect being to suits filed in this Court money than rev- appropriation of other new earlier is severa- for the reasons stated thereby provided ...” enues created ble. obvious, re- Though of this is purpose Highway ex rel. Com- See State State salutary or gardless of how obvious 742, 751; Thompson, 323 Mo. mission beyond permit- purpose, is a matter (banc 1929). 19 S.W.2d III, and should range of Article ted severance could not con- severed. Such at 13 n. 8. Id. efficacy. proposal’s ceivably affect the Here, to “execu- shorn of the references judgment trial reverse the I would legisla- and officials other than tive branch permitted have submission court and would tors,” complete and worka- people. to a vote of the ble; intact. The the structure remains “severability” invoked Buchan- doctrine proposals can regarding constitutional

an 1.140, codified in RSMo

be found statutory provides: It enactments.

Case Details

Case Name: Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Dec 7, 1990

Citation: 799 S.W.2d 824

Docket Number: 73148

Court Abbreviation: Mo.