According to STC's motion to supplement the record, which was filed after oral argument before this Court and which motion this Court now sustains, the STC, faced with the possibility of a contempt citation, has filed a final rulemaking order with the secretary of state as ordered by the trial court. Nonetheless, the secretary of state, siding with the STC but not a party to this lawsuit, now refuses to publish the rule though publication is required under section 536.021 before the rule can be effective. On appeal, the STC presents 16 points relied on ranging from several alleged jurisdictional defects to the alleged invalidity of the legislative oversight process in section 137.021.1. Because this Court holds that one of the points relied on the propriety of the remedy of mandamus is dispositive and requires reversal, the other points, including the constitutional question, need not be addressed. The law of mandamus is well settled.
Mandamus is a discretionary writ, and there is no right to have the writ issued.
State ex rel. Mandamus will lie only when there is a clear, unequivocal, specific right to be enforced. The purpose of the writ is to execute, not adjudicate. Id. Mandamus is only appropriate to require the performance of a ministerial act. State ex rel.