Opinion ID: 2822782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ballot Title Was Sufficient and Fair

Text: To be sufficient and fair, “the summary statement must be adequate and state the consequences of the initiative without bias, prejudice, deception, or favoritism.” Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637, 654 (Mo. banc 2012). It should accurately reflect both the legal and probable effects of the proposed initiative and be fair and impartial so that the voters are not deceived or misled, although it is not necessary to set out every detail of the proposal. Id. at 654, 656. Here, the ballot summary in the ballot title was sufficient and fair. It asked the voters: Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? 4 HJR 11 proposed adding the following language to the constitution: That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri. Plaintiffs first argue that the summary statement in HJR 11 was insufficient or unfair as it omitted that the right was subject to article VI of the constitution, which governs local governments. They rely on Seay v. Jones, which involved a challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow early voting, but only if funds were so appropriated. 439 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. App. 2014). In Seay, the proposed constitutional amendment stated, in relevant part, that no local election authority would “conduct any activity or incur any expense” for facilitating early voting “unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed to pay the local election authority . . . for the increased cost or expense of the activity.” Id. at 885 (emphasis added). The summary statement proposed by the General Assembly did not reference the fact that early voting would only be available if the state appropriated funds. See id. at 889-90. The court of appeals found that this omission made the summary statement insufficient and unfair because the funding contingency was a significant limitation on the early voting rights and its omission was misleading to voters. Id. at 892. Seay is distinguishable from the instant case. The right at issue in Seay – the availability of early voting – was expressly conditioned on whether the General 5 Assembly would fund it. Here, however, the “right to farm” is not expressly conditioned on a third-party action. While it is subject to local government regulation under article VI, the availability of the right is not dependent on local governments passing an appropriation or other condition precedent. Further, the omission of a reference to limitations by article VI in the summary is not problematic as each section of the constitution is subject to limitations that may be found elsewhere in the constitution. See State ex rel. Gordon v. Becker, 49 S.W.2d 146, 147 (Mo. banc 1932) (stating that the constitutional grant of legislative authority to the General Assembly is “subject to all the limitations, express or implied, contained in the Constitution”). In this context, local governments have always had the powers enumerated in article VI, and the addition of this amendment does not alter or change article VI in any way. Nor, conversely, does article VI limit the “right to farm” in such a way that it was necessary to include this limitation in the summary statement because local governments have always had the authority granted to them under article VI. As there was no change in the law, this omission did not render the ballot title insufficient or unfair. See Dotson, --- S.W.3d at --- (Slip op. at 9). Additionally, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the “right to farm” “shall be forever guaranteed in this state.” MO. CONST. art. I, sec. 35. This was effectively communicated to voters by asking them “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure [the enumerated rights] shall not be infringed?” “Shall not be infringed” does not imply that the right would be unlimited or completely free from regulation, as no constitutional right is so broad as to prohibit all regulation. See Dotson, 6 --- S.W.3d at --- (Slip op. at 12) (noting restrictions on the right to bear arms). As any limitation on the “right to farm” by article VI did not go to the purpose of the amendment, it did not need to be referenced in the summary statement. The plaintiffs next argue that the summary statement inaccurately identified “citizens” as the beneficiaries of the rights enumerated in the amendment while the actual amendment applies to “farmers and ranchers.” These terms are not defined in the amendment, and the plaintiffs contend that the terms “farmers and ranchers” are broad enough to include any entity engaged in farming or ranching regardless of whether it is a Missouri citizen. Even if the plaintiffs are correct, this would not render the ballot title insufficient or unfair or insufficient. If the amendment affords protection for more classes of people than “citizens,” it also makes the right available to Missouri citizens. It was not insufficient or unfair to use “citizens” rather than “farmers and ranchers” in the ballot title.