John R. Ashcroft, et al Missouri Cases

Nancy Copenhaver challenged the sufficiency and fairness of an official summary statement drafted by the Missouri General Assembly for Senate Joint Resolution 71 (SJR 71), which proposes to amend the Missouri Constitution regarding the levying of costs and fees to support certain law enforcement personnel. The trial court found the summary statement insufficient and unfair and rewrote it. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing with some of the trial court's findings of insufficiency but modifying the rewritten summary statement to be more limited in its revisions.

Jacob Hummel challenged the Missouri Secretary of State's summary statement for an initiative petition, arguing it was insufficient and unfair. The trial court found the summary statement insufficient and unfair, certifying a revised version. On appeal, the Secretary of State raised three points of error, but during the appeal, the deadline for submitting signatures for the initiative to appear on the November 2022 ballot passed without any signatures being submitted. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate its judgment.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri appealed the dismissal of its petition, which sought to compel the Secretary of State to approve a referendum petition sample sheet. The Secretary of State had rejected the sample sheet on constitutional grounds, asserting the underlying act was ineligible for referendum due to an emergency clause. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Secretary of State's authority at the pre-signature collection stage is limited to reviewing the sample sheet for "sufficiency as to form" as defined by statute, not constitutional compliance. The court entered judgment compelling the Secretary of State to approve the sample sheet and proceed with the referendum process.

Ronald Calzone and Michael Moon sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from placing a ballot measure, H.B. 1460, on the November 2018 general election ballot, arguing it was unconstitutional due to procedural infirmities. The circuit court entered judgment on the pleadings for the Secretary of State, finding the case ripe. On appeal, the Western District determined that the case was not ripe for pre-election judicial review because the challenges were substantive, not procedural, and the measure might not be enacted by voters. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice, issuing the judgment the trial court should have entered.