IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

WESTERN DISTRICT

NATALIE A. VOWELL, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) WD77591

)

JASON KANDER, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) Opinion filed: June 19, 20214

CAPACITY AS MISSOURI )

SECRETARY OF STATE, )

)

Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI

The Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Judge

Before Special Division: James E. Welsh, Chief Judge,

Joseph M. Ellis, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Natalie A. Vowell appeals from the Circuit Court of Cole County's dismissal of her 

Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive relief filed against Jason Kander, in his 

official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State. 

On March 11, 2014, Appellant filed with Respondent's office her declaration of 

candidacy to serve as the representative in the Missouri General Assembly for the 78th

Representative District, seeking to be listed as a candidate in the Democratic primary 

election to be held on August 5, 2014. Respondent's office accepted, signed, and filed 

that declaration of candidacy. 
2

On May 6, 2014, Respondent's office sent a letter to Appellant questioning her

qualifications to serve as a representative for the 78th District because an examination 

of voter registration records indicated that she had not been a qualified voter for at least 

two years prior to the November 4, 2014 election. The letter stated that, if Appellant did 

not provide Respondent with documentation showing that she had been registered to 

vote in the State of Missouri for the two years required by Article III, Section 4 of the 

Missouri Constitution, Respondent would not certify Appellant's name for the ballot.

On May 13, 2014, Appellant filed her Petition for Declaratory Judgment and 

Injunctive Relief seeking a declaration that Missouri law does not grant Respondent the 

authority to evaluate a candidate's qualifications and to exclude a candidate's name 

from the list of candidates certified to appear on a primary election ballot based on such 

an evaluation. In the alternative, she sought a declaration that Respondent's actions 

denied her reasonable due process to challenge an adverse decision related to her 

candidacy. She also sought a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction 

prohibiting Respondent from excluding her name from the list of candidates certified to 

appear on the primary election ballot.

On May 16, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant's motion for a 

temporary restraining order. Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to "argue the 

motion on the concept of judgment on the pleadings." The parties then presented their 

legal arguments regarding Respondent's authority to determine a candidate's 

qualifications. As part of his argument, Respondent asserted that there was no 

justiciable controversy and that Appellant lacked standing to request a declaration 

regarding Respondent's authority to determine whether Appellant was qualified to serve 
3

as a representative because Appellant was not, in fact, qualified to serve as a 

representative. Appellant responded by arguing that she had standing and that the 

issue of her qualifications was not before the court. She claimed that the only issue 

before the court was whether, after a proper declaration of candidacy had been filed 

and accepted by Respondent, Respondent had the authority to unilaterally investigate 

and adjudge Appellant's qualifications to serve as a representative.

On May 21, 2014, the trial court dismissed Appellant's petition, concluding that 

Appellant lacked standing to pursue a declaration regarding Respondent's authority to 

determine whether Appellant was a qualified candidate because Appellant was not, in 

fact, a qualified candidate. The court stated, "Because Petitioner is not a qualified 

candidate, she cannot claim a justiciable controversy exists between her and the 

Secretary of State and is not entitled to declaratory relief as prayed for in Count I." The 

court also stated, with regard to the due process claim in Count II of Appellant's petition,

that, even if Appellant had standing, due process was satisfied by the provisions of § 

536.150, et seq. related to administrative decisions without a hearing. Appellant brings 

three points on appeal.

In her first point, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that she 

lacked standing. "Standing is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo." St. Louis 

Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Ferguson, 354 S.W.3d 620, 622 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal 

quotation omitted). We determine "standing as a matter of law on the basis of the 

petition along with any other non-contested facts accepted as true by the parties at the 

time the motion to dismiss was argued." State ex rel. Christian Health Care of 
4

Springfield, Inc. v. Mo. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 229 S.W.3d 270, 276 (Mo. 

App. W.D. 2007) (internal quotation omitted).

"A declaratory judgment action requires a justiciable controversy." Mo. Alliance 

for Retired Ams. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 277 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Mo. 

banc 2009). "A justiciable controversy exists where (1) the plaintiff has a legally 

protectable interest at stake, (2) a substantial controversy exists between the parties 

with genuinely adverse interests, and (3) that controversy is ripe for judicial 

determination." Schweich v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal 

quotation omitted). "The first two elements of justiciability are encompassed jointly by 

the concept of 'standing.'" Id.

The term "standing" "means that the parties seeking relief must have some 

personal interest at stake in the dispute, even if that interest is attenuated, slight or 

remote." St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors, 354 S.W.3d at 622-23 (internal quotation 

omitted). "To have standing in a declaratory judgment action, the party must have a 

legally protectable interest at stake." Gerken v. Sherman, 276 S.W.3d 844, 853 (Mo. 

App. W.D. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). "A legally protectable interest means a 

pecuniary or personal interest directly in issue or jeopardy which is subject to some 

consequential relief, either immediate or prospective." Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

"A legally protectable interest exists only if the plaintiff is affected directly and adversely 

by the challenged action or if the plaintiff's interest is conferred statutorily." St. Louis 

Ass'n of Realtors, 354 S.W.3d at 623. "There is no litmus test for determining whether 

a legally protectable interest exists; it is determined on a case-by-case basis." Mo. 

Alliance for Retired Ams., 277 S.W.3d at 676. 
5

Respondent contends, and the trial court found, that no justiciable controversy 

existed because Appellant does not satisfy the candidate qualifications for the Missouri 

House of Representatives set forth by the Missouri Constitution. However, Appellant's 

qualifications for candidacy were not at issue in the underlying declaratory judgment 

action. Appellant's petition requests a declaration only as to whether Respondent had 

the authority, under Missouri law, to unilaterally pass judgment on her qualifications as a 

candidate, not whether she was, in fact, a qualified candidate. A declaration as to 

whether Respondent can, under Missouri law, assess a candidate's qualifications for 

office bears no relation to whether Appellant actually satisfies the candidacy 

qualifications. Thus, Appellant's qualifications for candidacy are irrelevant to the 

question of whether Appellant's declaratory judgment action presents a justiciable 

controversy. 

Instead, whether there is a justiciable controversy that Appellant had standing to 

raise turns on whether Appellant had a legally protectable interest at stake and whether 

a substantial controversy existed between the parties. Our evaluation of Appellant's 

petition establishes that both elements are present in this case. 

First, official candidacy for public office is most certainly a protectable, legal 

interest. That is why there are official, statutory procedures for challenging and 

terminating such candidacy. See § 115.526 (establishing a procedure for candidates in 

a primary, general, or special election to challenge declarations of candidacy and 

qualifications of their opponents); see also § 115.563.2 (giving the Missouri state house 

of representatives authority to adjudicate contests based on the qualifications of a 

candidate for the office of state representative that have not been adjudicated prior to 
6

the general election). The petition in this case clearly reflects that Appellant had such a 

protectable interest at stake. Specifically, Appellant alleges that she timely complied 

with the requirements for filing her declaration of candidacy for representative of the 78th

District with Respondent and that she was subsequently listed as a candidate on 

Respondent's website. She further asserts that Respondent accepted her paperwork 

without objection but later sent her a letter asserting that, based upon his assessment of 

the "qualified voter" requirement, she was not a qualified candidate. That letter 

indicated that Respondent would not certify Appellant's name to be on the primary ballot 

unless she established that she had been a "qualified voter" for the previous two years. 

Thus, the petition clearly alleged Appellant had a protectable interest in appearing on 

the primary ballot and that her interest was directly and adversely affected by the 

challenged action, namely Respondent's decision to pass judgment upon her 

qualifications as a candidate.

Secondly, a substantial controversy exists between Appellant and Respondent 

with respect to Respondent's authority to evaluate candidates' qualifications. Appellant 

contends in her petition that § 115.526 provides the exclusive mechanism by which a 

candidate's qualifications can be adjudicated and that Respondent has no statutory 

authority to assess a candidate's qualifications. Respondent avers that he has the 

discretionary authority to determine whether individuals satisfy the candidacy 

requirements pursuant to Article IV, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution and § 

115.378. This disagreement as to Respondent's authority is sufficient to establish a 

substantial controversy exists between the parties in this case. Accordingly, the trial 

court erred in dismissing the case.
7

Ordinarily, where the trial court has improperly dismissed a declaratory judgment 

action, this Court will reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings, allowing 

the trial court to determine the issue in the first instance. However, when a trial court 

fails to make a declaration settling rights, as when it dismisses the petition without a 

declaration, a reviewing court may, in its discretion, make the declaration that should 

have been made. Nicolai v. City of St. Louis, 762 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Mo. banc 1988). 

If there are no disputed facts and the issue is purely a legal one, as in the case at bar,

this Court may undertake to declare the rights and duties of the parties. Id. The parties 

inform us that June 24, 2014, is the "drop dead date" because § 115.125.2 provides that 

"[n]o court shall have the authority to order an individual or issue be placed on the ballot 

less than six weeks before the date of the election, except as provided in sections 

115.361 and 115.379."

1

 Missouri's 2014 Primary Election date is August 5th. Because 

time is of the essence, we undertake to declare the rights and duties of the parties.

Preliminarily, it is important to understand what this case is and is not about. 

First, as noted supra, it does not involve a determination of whether Appellant is, in fact,

qualified to be a candidate for the office she seeks. Secondly, it is likewise not about 

whether Respondent was correct in his determination that Appellant was unqualified. 

Those issues are wholly irrelevant to the justiciable controversy presented in Appellant's 

petition, that being whether the Secretary of State has authority to investigate and 

adjudicate whether candidates for office have all the constitutional or statutory 

qualifications required for the office they seek. 

Appellant asserts in her petition that § 115.526 provides the exclusive 

mechanism by which a candidate's qualifications can be challenged prior to a primary 

 

1

The referenced sections relate to the death of a candidate.
8

election. Section 115.526 certainly provides a mechanism by which "[a]ny candidate for 

nomination to an office at a primary election" can challenge an opponent's qualifications 

or declaration for candidacy. § 115.526.1. Nevertheless, the Missouri Supreme Court 

has indicated that the language of § 115.526 does not reflect a clear intent on the part 

of the legislature that this be the exclusive method for contesting a candidate's 

qualifications. State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386, 394 (Mo. banc 2012) (holding that § 

115.526 did not supersede the right for a prosecuting attorney or the attorney general to 

pursue a quo warranto action). Rather, the plain language of section 115.526 simply 

"permits other candidates to challenge their opponents' qualifications in a private cause 

of action." Id. Thus, Appellant's reliance on § 115.526 is misplaced. 

Appellant also asserts in her petition that Respondent has no authority under 

Missouri law to assess a candidate's qualifications prior to a primary election. Analysis 

of this contention begins with the proposition that the Secretary of State derives his or 

her authority to act from statute. Beavers v. Recreation Ass'n of Lake Shore 

Estates, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 702, 710 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). In claiming that he has the 

authority to unilaterally assess a candidate's qualifications before a primary election,

Respondent relies solely on § 115.387. As will be seen, Respondent's reliance of this 

interpretation of § 115.387 is misplaced.

"[T]he primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent 

as reflected in the plain language of the statute." State ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh, 380 

S.W.3d 557, 565 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotation omitted). "Absent a statutory 

definition, the primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent 

as reflected in the plain language of the statute." Akins v. Dir. of Revenue, 303 
9

S.W.3d 563, 565 (Mo. banc 2010). "[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of a term may be 

derived from a dictionary and by considering the context of the entire statute in which it 

appears." State ex rel. Burns v. Whittington, 219 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Mo. banc 2007) 

(internal citation omitted). "In determining the intent and meaning of statutory language,

the words must be considered in context and sections of the statutes in pari materia, as 

well as cognate sections, must be considered in order to arrive at the true meaning and 

scope of the words." S. Metro. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Lee's Summit, 278 S.W.3d 

659, 666 (Mo. banc 2009) (italics added). 

"Section 115.349.1 . . . requires a person wishing to run in a primary election for 

state office to file 'a written declaration of candidacy in the office of the [Secretary of 

State]2by 5:00 p.m. on the last Tuesday in March immediately preceding the primary 

election." In re Impeachment of Moriarty, 902 S.W.2d 273, 273 (Mo. banc 1994). 

"[T]he declaration should include the candidate's name, residence address, office for 

which he or she proposes to be a candidate, the party ticket on which he or she wishes 

to be a candidate, and that if nominated and elected, he or she will qualify." State ex 

rel. Thomas v. Neeley, 128 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). "The law 

expressly forbids the printing of any candidate's name on a ballot 'unless his written,

signed and sworn declaration of candidacy has been filed in the office of the appropriate 

election official.'" In re Impeachment of Moriarty, 902 S.W.2d at 274 (quoting § 

115.347). 

 

2

Section 115.353 mandates that declarations of candidacy for state representatives be filed with the 

Secretary of State. State ex rel. Walton v. Blunt, 723 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986).
0

10

Section 115.387 states: 

Not later than the tenth Tuesday before each primary election, the 

secretary of state shall transmit to each election authority a certified list 

containing the name and address of each person who has filed a 

declaration of candidacy in the secretary's office and is entitled to be voted 

for at the primary election, together with a designation of the office for 

which the person is a candidate and the party the person represents.

 

Respondent contends that the language requiring him to certify that a candidate "is 

entitled to be voted for" invests him with discretionary authority to investigate and 

adjudicate whether candidates who file declarations of candidacy are qualified to serve 

in the office they seek.

The language relied upon by Respondent is, however, stated in the context of 

expressing the Secretary of State's ministerial duty to certify the names and addresses 

of candidates for the primary ballot. Indeed, the Missouri Supreme Court has 

recognized that "[t]he vast majority of the duties assumed by the Secretary of State are 

ministerial." In re Impeachment of Moriarty, 902 S.W.2d at 277; see also State ex rel. 

Stokes v. Roach, 190 S.W. 277, 278 (Mo. 1916); State ex rel. Farris v. Roach, 150 

S.W. 1073, 1076 (Mo. 1912). This is especially true with regard to election related 

duties. In re Impeachment of Moriarty, 902 S.W.2d at 277. In fact, the Missouri 

Supreme Court has intimated that the Secretary of State's duty to certify a name for a

ballot is "purely ministerial."

3

 Farris, 150 S.W. at 1076.

 

3

In Farris, the relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to certify his name as a 

nominee for presidential elector at large. 150 S.W. at 1073. The relator had been nominated for the 

elector position by the Democratic Party, and his nomination was timely filed with the Secretary of State. 

Id. However, it was subsequently determined that the relator was unqualified to serve as a presidential 

elector because he was serving in the state legislature at the time. Id. at 1073-74. The Court ultimately 

issued the peremptory writ upon finding that "regardless of [the relator's] qualifications, it [was] the duty of 

[the Secretary of State] to certify out [the relator's nomination]." Id. at 1077. In doing so, the Court 

explained that allowing the eligibility of a candidate to be challenged upon mere certification of nomination 

would establish "a dangerous precedent for the assumption of judicial functions by ministerial officers and 

central committees." Id. 
1

11

Section 115.387 pertains to the ministerial task of certifying the names and 

addresses of candidates for the ballot. Section 115.387 does not purport to grant the 

Secretary of State any discretionary power. He or she must certify the name of "each 

person who has filed a declaration of candidacy in the secretary's office and is entitled 

to be voted for at the primary election." § 115.387. "The statutes prohibit the printing of 

the name of a candidate on a ballot unless "his written, signed and sworn declaration of 

candidacy has been filed." In re Impeachment of Moriarty, 902 S.W.2d at 274

(emphasis added). Those same statutes say nothing expressly or implicitly about 

investigating declarants and adjudicating whether they have all the constitutional or 

statutory qualifications for the office they seek. Rather, consistent with the ministerial 

nature of the Secretary of State's election duties, in certifying that a person is "entitled to 

be voted for," § 115.387 simply requires Respondent to certify that filers have timely 

filed their declaration of candidacy with all the information required. In other words, it is 

a certification that the declarant's paper work is in proper order and was timely filed.4

Indeed, § 115.563.2 states that "[a]ny contest based on the qualifications of a 

candidate for the office of . . . state representative which have not been adjudicated 

prior to the general election shall be determined by the . . . state house of 

representatives." This statute presupposes that the qualifications of a candidate may 

well not be adjudicated until after the general election, if ever. If the Secretary of State 

were required to adjudge the qualifications of all candidates prior to certifying their name 

 

4

At oral argument, Respondent asserted that it would only be necessary to review the Secretary's own 

records to determine compliance with most constitutional or statutory candidate qualifications and that 

such a review amounts to nothing more than a ministerial act. However, Respondent acknowledged that 

some candidate requirements could not be verified from those records and that it would be necessary to 

go beyond the Secretary's records in order to determine all aspects of whether a candidate "is entitled to 

be voted for." Thus, if the Secretary were vested with authority to investigate and adjudicate candidate 

qualifications as he asserts, it would, of necessity, mean confirming all qualifications and require the 

Secretary to engage in discretionary decision making.
2

12

for the ballot, then § 115.563 would serve no purpose because the qualifications of 

candidates would always have been adjudged prior to the election. "[C]ourts do not 

presume that the legislature has enacted a meaningless provision." Edwards v. 

Gerstein, 237 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo. banc 2007). 

As a ministerial officer, the Secretary of State is required to carry out his or her 

statutory duties to the letter of the law and must treat all persons filing properly executed 

legal documents with his office equally. See In re Impeachment of Moriarty, 902 

S.W.2d at 274. "In elections particularly, the legislature has established specific criteria 

outlining the manner in which candidates declare for office and the time within which 

such declarations can be received by the Secretary of State." Id. at 277. As noted by 

our Supreme Court in a similar context, the legislature's limiting of the Secretary of 

State's role in election matters avoids "the assumption of judicial functions by ministerial 

officers," Farris, 150 S.W. at 1077, which in turn minimizes the partisan political 

mischief that can result from ministerial officers adjudicating candidate qualifications.5

In short, the plain language of § 115.387 does not reflect that the legislature 

intended the Secretary of State to judge a candidate's qualifications. Respondent does 

not identify any other statutory authority to support his position that he has the power to 

unilaterally pass judgment on a candidate's qualifications,

6

and we have found none. 

Accordingly, we hold and declare that Respondent is without authority to refuse to 

 

5

There is certainly nothing in the record before this Court that would even remotely indicate any 

misconduct on the part Secretary of State in this matter, nor does this Court mean to intimate such in any 

way.

6 Respondent does cite to Article IV, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution, which sets forth the 

Secretary of State's general authority to "perform such duties . . . in relation to elections . . . as provided 

by law." However, Respondent does not contend that the constitutional provision, in and of itself,

provides him with the authority to determine a candidate's qualifications for office. 
3

13

certify Appellant's name for the primary ballot on the basis of his investigation of and 

determinations regarding her voter registration history.7 

_______________________________

Joseph M. Ellis, Judge

All concur.

 

7

Because our resolution of Appellant's first point sufficiently resolves the case, we need not address 

Appellant's Point II related to whether the trial court erred in declining to enter an injunction against the 

Secretary of State and her Point III in which she claims that a durational voter registration requirement is 

unconstitutional and would violate her rights to due process, free travel, and free speech.