Opinion ID: 6323494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Purpose Challenge

Text: “[N]o bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.” Mo. Const. art. III, sec. 21. The original purpose requirement seeks to protect against hasty litigation, ensure bills are fairly considered, require greater particularity in passed bills, prevent the passage of amended statutes that deceive legislators as to their effects, and allow the public to become informed regarding changes in the law. Calzone, 584 S.W.3d at 316-17. Original purpose claims have been consistently rejected when “the content of the introduced bill remained substantially 9 Because the circuit court properly ruled on the free speech basis, this Court need not address the State’s other arguments attacking the judgment. 15 intact throughout the legislative process as germane amendments were added[;]” as a result, legislation is rarely invalidated based on such challenges. Id. at 317. In analyzing such challenges, this Court focuses on the bill’s general, or overarching, purpose, not details that simply manifest and effectuate the purpose. Id. The introduction of amendments germane to the original purpose are permissible. Id. Material is germane when it is closely related or pertinent to the initial legislation. Id. If these standards are met, changes extending or limiting the scope of the bill are appropriate. Id. Upon introduction, SB 569 was titled “AN ACT To repeal section 595.220, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to evidentiary collection kits.” It initially created an electronic system, which allowed sexual assault victims to track and obtain information regarding the status of their evidentiary collection kits; required certain persons and entities to participate in the electronic evidence tracking system; and established a repository for unreported kits. All records in the electronic system were also deemed confidential. Challengers allege that, originally, SB 569 was meant to increase transparency and accountability in processing evidentiary collection kits in sexual assault cases. They contend amendments (i.e., provisions that created a telehealth network for conducting forensic examinations in sexual offense cases; required defense attorneys to inform survivors—which they alleged applies to victims of almost any crime—of various rights; and established a task force regarding best practices and procedures for interactions between various personnel and survivors) are unrelated to that purpose because they have a limited relation to evidentiary collection kits. 16 Challengers’ statement of SB 569’s original purpose is too narrow. This Court’s precedent is to “broadly and liberally interpret[] a bill’s original purpose so as to uphold the bill’s constitutional validity.” Id. at 319. “[E]xpanding the title of a bill to reflect the commonality of all of the subjects contained in the bill is not a novel proposition. It is the process the legislature has routinely used to accommodate amendments to a bill and a process this Court has consistently approved.” Id. at 318 (alteration in original). Upon introduction, SB 569 addressed various aspects of an electronic evidence tracking system for evidentiary collection kits and gave sexual assault victims corresponding rights. Taken broadly, SB 569 originally addressed issues relevant to victims of sexual assault offenses. Subsequent amendments established a telehealth network for conducting forensic examinations in sexual offense cases; required individuals to inform survivors—which, as explained below, is properly limited to victims of sexual assault offenses—of various rights; and created a task force to study and recommend best practices regarding various aspects of addressing sexual assault claims. These amendments were germane to that purpose. Challengers cite two cases for support. See Legends Bank v. State, 361 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. banc 2012); Mo. Ass’n of Club Execs. v. State, 208 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 2006). In Legends Bank, this Court determined a bill’s original purpose “pertained to procurement of necessary goods and services for elected officials” and held “[e]thics, campaign finance restrictions[,] and keys to the capitol dome are not germane to” that purpose. 361 S.W.3d at 386. In Club Executives, the bill’s original purpose involved alcohol-related traffic offenses. 208 S.W.3d at 888. This Court determined subsequent 17 revisions—which addressed non-traffic related alcohol offenses, like the sale of alcohol to minors—were permissible but found three provisions regulating adult entertainment did not fall under the original purpose of the bill. Id. Challengers argue that, similar to the amendments discussed in Legends Bank and Club Executives, the additions to SB 569 were too remote, resulting in a constitutional violation. Challengers’ contentions are misplaced. In the above cases, this Court declared invalid amendments that were completely unrelated to the original purpose of the bill. See Legends Bank, 361 S.W.3d at 386; Club Executives, 208 S.W.3d at 888. By contrast, the amendments at issue here are related to and connected with the original purpose of SB 569. In fact, the alterations are more similar to those upheld in Club Executives, 208 S.W.3d at 888 (finding amendments relating to “certain non-traffic related alcohol offenses, such as the sale of alcohol to minors,” were germane to an original purpose relating to alcohol-related traffic offenses). This Court’s holding is further supported by Stroh Brewery Co. v. State, 954 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. banc 1997). There, a bill was originally titled “an act to amend chapter 311, RSMo, by adding one new section relating to the auction of vintage wine, with penalty provisions.” Id. at 325. Subsequent amendments altered various provisions of chapter 311, and one alteration regulated the required label for the sale of malt liquor. Id. The final bill was titled “an act to repeal sections 311.102, 311.176, 311.300, 311.330, 311.360, 311.680 and 311.691, RSMo 1994, and section 311.070, RSMo Supp.1995, relating to intoxicating beverages, and to enact in lieu thereof nine new sections relating to the same subject, with penalty provisions.” Id. This Court rejected an original purpose 18 challenge, holding that, because all subsequent amendments altered Missouri’s liquor control law, they were germane to “an act to amend chapter 311.” Id. at 326. Much like Club Executives and Stroh, SB 569’s original purpose was more specific than the lateradopted amendments, but the changes expanding the bill encompassed logically connected and related material. SB 569 was not amended as to change its original purpose.