KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court ruling Tuesday that invalidated portions of a state law that Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office has used to obstruct the citizen-initiated referendum process as unconstitutional.
The state’s high court agreed that a legislative change enacted in 1997, which forbids petitioners from collecting signatures until the secretary of state’s office assigns an official ballot title, “has indeed proved to be a hindrance to the referendum process.”
The law effectively allows the secretary of state’s office to delay a constitutionally protected ballot-initiative petition for 51 days through inaction.
Ashcroft’s office used the tactic to limit No Bans on Choice from challenging an abortion bill in 2019 by stalling the official ballot title and leaving the organization with only 14 days to collect more than 107,000 required signatures.
No Bans on Choice, Sara Baker and ACLU sued Ashcroft.
Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetum ruled in favor of Ashcroft, but in July 2019, that decision was reversed on appeal and the Missouri Supreme Court upheld that reversal.
“The circuit court concluded sections 116.180 and 116.334.2 unconstitutionally ‘interfere with and impede’ the right of referendum ... because they give the legislature the power to make any referendum effort untenable,” according to an opinion written by Missouri Supreme Court Judge Mary J. Russell.
Four other judges concurred with Russell’s opinion for a 5-2 margin.
The signature-collection period for a law passed during a legislative session in Missouri is 90 days, but sections 116.180 and 116.334.2 allow the secretary of state’s office to fritter away 51 days through the review and approval processes, preparation of the “summary statement” and final approval of the “official ballot title.”
Such delays obstruct “the constitutional right of referendum reserved to the people by unreasonably shortening the timeframe for petition circulation,” Russell wrote in the conclusion of her opinion. “As such, the circuit court’s judgment declaring those statutes constitutionally invalid is affirmed."
A secretary of state spokeswoman didn't immediately comment on the ruling Tuesday.
Russell also pointed out that lawmakers can delay passing laws until the end of the roughly five-month legislative session to run out the clock on potential referendum efforts, essentially giving lawmakers "the power to make any referendum effort untenable."
Judges Brent Powell and Zel Fischer dissented, arguing that overturning the referendum laws was an overstep.
Powell wrote that in order to toss out a law as unconstitutional, plaintiffs must prove there's no way for the law to be applied constitutionally. He wrote that there are some circumstances in which the ballot title deadline wouldn't interfere with referendum efforts, such as when lawmakers pass legislation early in session.
Missouri voters and lawmakers have been caught in a power struggle over the right to legislate for years.
Voters in 2018 overturned a new law banning mandatory union fees in Missouri, thwarting a longstanding effort by GOP lawmakers to pass the measure. And following years of inaction by lawmakers, voters used the state's initiative petition process to expand eligibility for the Medicaid health care program and allow medicinal marijuana.
After voters approved changes to the redistricting process in 2018, lawmakers sent an overhaul of those changes to the ballot in 2020. Voters ultimately approved the lawmakers' revamp.
The 2019 abortion law that prompted the latest legal fight sought to ban the procedure at eight weeks of pregnancy, except for cases of medical emergencies. It included a stairstep of other abortion bans at 14, 18, or 20 weeks should one of the earlier-term restrictions get struck down in court. It also sought to ban abortions based solely on race, sex or a diagnosis indicating Down syndrome.
The abortion law has never been enforced, because a federal judge blocked it a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last year on an appeal of the injunction. A ruling has not yet been issued.
—
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
