Court Opinion

ID: 9772950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:33:56.261713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.473941
License: Public Domain

BILLINGS, Judge,
dissenting.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals held, correctly in my opinion, that Proposition B seeks to amend the Constitution; that because the petition fell short of the requisite number of signatories for submitting an amendment of the Constitution to the electorate, the proposal was not entitled to be placed on the ballot. Consequently, I dissent for the reasons stated in the divisional opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District 1, attached hereto as an appendix, and would affirm the judgment.
APPENDIX
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
WESTERN DISTRICT
No. 36,326
Opinion filed:
October 5, 1984
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI
HONORABLE BYRON L.
KINDER, JUDGE
Before Turnage, C.J., Manford and Lowen-stein, JJ.
The Electric Ratepayers’ Protection Project, a corporation, presented an initiative petition to the Secretary of State for the enactment of a law entitled “A Proposed Act Respecting Electrical Corporations.” The Secretary of State certified the petition was sufficient and designated the proposal as Proposition B.
Pursuant to § 116.200, RSMo Supp.1983, Union Electric Company and James T. Friel filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County seeking to reverse the Secretary’s decision. Thereafter, the court allowed the Project and Steve Sorkin to intervene, and subsequently allowed the Missouri Public Service Company, the Empire District Electric Company, St. Joseph Power & Light Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company, and Arkansas Power & Light Company to intervene. After a hearing, the court reversed the Secretary’s decision and ordered him to remove Proposition B from the November 6, 1984, election ballot. The court held that the proposal in fact and in legal effect was a constitutional amendment, and Mo. Const. Art. Ill, § 50 required it to be signed by eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of Missouri’s congressional districts. The court found the petition did not meet the eight percent requirement.
The Project and Sorkin appealed to the supreme court, but that court transferred the case by an order which stated that jurisdiction was vested in this court. The jurisdictional question was discussed in Yes to Stop Callaway Committee v. Kirkpatrick, — S.W.2d - (Mo.App.1984) (handed down concurrently with this case). The inquiry in the present case concerns the proposed law and does not involve the validity of any statute or constitutional provision. Therefore, jurisdiction is vested in this court.
On this appeal, the Project contends the trial court was not authorized to review the *407constitutionality of the law proposed in the petition, and was required to hold that the petition proposed a law, not a constitutional amendment, because that was what the proposal stated on its face. The Project further contends that a court cannot interfere in the legislative process involved in-an initiative by determining a statute’s constitutionality before the people adopt it. The Project concludes that the Secretary’s only function was to determine whether or not five percent of the legal voters in two-thirds of the congressional districts signed the petition, as required by Mo. Const. Art. Ill, § 50.
The issues in this case were decided in Moore v. Brown, 350 Mo. 256, 165 S.W.2d 657 (banc 1942). The only difference between Moore and this case is that Moore involved a proposed constitutional amendment. That difference is immaterial because the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to initiative petitions for constitutional amendments or laws are identical.
In Moore the court was confronted with the argument that courts cannot interfere with the legislative process by reviewing the constitutionality of a proposed law before its passage. The court began its analysis by stating the fundamental principle that the people are bound by their own constitution, and where they have provided a method for amending it, they must conform to that procedure. Moore, 350 Mo. at 263, 165 S.W.2d at 659[1, 2]. The court noted that any other procedure would be revolutionary. Id. (emphasis in original). The court further stated that whether the prescribed procedure is being followed is a matter for judicial determination when the organic law permits such inquiry while the legislation is in process. 350 Mo. at 263, 165 S.W.2d at 660.
The Moore court drew a distinction between substantive unconstitutionality and procedural unconstitutionality, and relied on State ex rel. Halliburton v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, 130 S.W. 689 (banc 1910).1 The court stated that in Halliburton, the pertinent statute required a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed measure to be attached to each petition, and noted that Halliburton held that this made the words “legally sufficient”, as used in § 6750, RSMo 1909, refer to the proposed measure as well as the initiative petition. Moore, 350 Mo. at 264-65, 165 S.W.2d at 660. The Moore court concluded that, under the law, a court may look to the measure proposed and determine whether or not it meets the constitutional and statutory requirements in order to be legally sufficient.
Mo. Const. Art. XII, § 1 provides that the constitution may be revised and amended only as therein provided. Section 2(b) provides for amendments to the constitution by the initiative process. Mo. Const. Art. Ill, § 50 requires initiative petitions proposing laws to be signed by five percent of the legal voters in two-thirds of the congressional districts, and petitions proposing constitutional amendments to be signed by eight percent. Section 116.050, RSMo Supp.1983, requires that each page of an initiative petition shall be attached to or shall contain a full and correct text of the proposed measure. Section 116.120, RSMo Supp.1983, requires the Secretary to examine the petition to determine whether it complies with the Missouri Constitution and chapter 116. Section 116.150, RSMo Supp.1983, provides that after the Secretary determines the sufficiency of the petition, he must issue a certificate setting forth the number of valid signatures and stating whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to comply with the constitution and chapter 116. Section 116.200, RSMo Supp.1983, states that after the Secretary certifies a petition as sufficient or insufficient, any citizen may apply to the circuit court of Cole County to compel him to reverse his decision.
*408The present initiative law is substantially the same as it was at the time of the Halliburton and Moore decisions. Under Halliburton and Moore, and indeed as required by Section 116.120, the Secretary is to examine the petition to determine if it complies with the constitution and chapter 116. This includes not only the question of whether or not there is a sufficient number of signatures, but also the question of procedural constitutionality. The latter requires the Secretary to examine the proposal contained in the petition to determine whether it in fact proposes a law or a constitutional amendment.
Section 5.1 of the Project’s proposal states:
Section 5.1. After the effective date of this act, no part of the cost of any nuclear fission thermal powerplant may be added to the rate base of any electrical corporation, nor shall any part of such cost be otherwise recovered from the consumers, until conditions (a) and (b) have been met:
(a) The public service commission finds, after public hearing, that there has been developed and that the United States through its authorized agency or agencies has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of the high-level nuclear waste expected to be generated by the plant, and an acceptable geologic medium for such disposal. Such finding shall be subject to judicial review as proved in § 386.510, R.S.Mo.1978.
(b) The public service commission has reported its findings and the reasons therefor pursuant to condition (a) to the Genera] Assembly. Such reports of findings shall be assigned to appropriate committees for review. The commission may proceed to permit the inclusion in the rate base of the allowable cost 100 legislative days after reporting its findings unless within those 100 legislative days either house of the General Assembly adopts a resolution disaffirming the findings of the commission made pursuant to condition (a).
A resolution of disaffirmance shall set forth the reasons for the action and shall provide, to the extent possible, guidance to the commission as to an appropriate method of bringing the commission’s findings into conformance with condition (a).
If a disaffirming resolution is adopted, the commission shall reexamine its original findings consistent with matters raised in the resolution. On conclusion of its re-examination, the commission shall reduce its findings to writing with the reasons therefor and shall transmit them to the General Assembly.
If the findings are that the terms of condition (a) have been met, the commission may proceed to permit the inclusion in the rate base of such allowable cost 100 legislative days after reporting its findings to the General Assembly unless within those 100 legislative days both houses of the General Assembly act by statute to declare the findings null and void.
To allow sufficient time for the General Assembly to act, the reports of findings of the commission shall be submitted to the General Assembly at least six calendar months prior to the adjournment of the General Assembly sine die.
In summary, section 5.1 prohibits including any cost of a nuclear fission thermal powerplant in any electrical corporation’s rate base unless both conditions (a) and (b) are met. Section 5.1(a) provides that the public service commission shall determine if there has been developed and the United States has approved, the existence of a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste, and an acceptable geologic method for such disposal. This sub-section provides for judicial review of the public service commission finding.
Subparagraph (b) provides that the public service commission shall report its findings and reasons made under subpara-graph (a) to the General Assembly. It provides that either house of the General Assembly may adopt a resolution disaf-*409firming the commission’s findings. On the adoption of a disaffirming resolution, the commission is to reexamine its original findings consistent with the matters raised in the resolution. After concluding its reexamination, the commission shall make findings with the reasons therefor and again transmit them to the General Assembly.
If the public service commission finds that condition (a) has been met, both houses of the General Assembly may act by statute to declare the findings of the public service commission null and void.
Mo. Const. Art. V, § 18 provides that all final decisions of administrative bodies existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. It is well settled that this constitutes a constitutional guarantee, rather than a statutory right, to judicial review of decisions of administrative bodies, including the public service commission. State ex rel. Missouri Power & Light Co. v. Riley, 546 S.W.2d 792, 797[7] (Mo.App.1977). Further, Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 52-53[1-7] (Mo.App.1975), held that the constitutional provision for judicial review is self-enforcing and requires no legislation to make it effective.
It is abundantly clear that under Mo. Const. Art. V, § 18, decisions of the public service commission are subject only to judicial, and not legislative, review. Although subparagraph (a) provides for judicial review of the public service commission’s finding that a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of nuclear waste has been developed, such review becomes meaningless in light of the provisions of (b), which provides for review of the public service commission’s decision by the General Assembly, and provides for absolute reversal of the public service commission’s decision by the passage of a statute by the General Assembly. It is plain that Section 5.1(b) provides for review of the public service commission decision on nuclear waste technology by the General Assembly, and gives to the General Assembly the absolute right to nullify the public service commission decision.
Section 5.1 clearly constitutes a departure from Mo. Const. Art. V, § 18, and such a change can only be made by amending that section to provide for review of certain administrative decisions by the General Assembly, rather than by judicial review. This follows from Mo. Const. Art. XII, § 1 and the fact that the constitution does not provide for its amendment by a law.
It is clear that under Halliburton and Moore the Secretary and the court had the duty to examine the Project’s petition to determine whether or not it proposed a law or a constitutional amendment. The Project’s argument that the Secretary and the court are bound by the language of the petition was forcefully answered in Halliburton. The court stated that the nature and character of the measure proposed in the petition must be determined by looking at the subject matter with which it deals, and held that merely calling a proposal an amendment to the constitution is not binding upon either the Secretary or the court. 230 Mo. at 435, 130 S.W. at 695. The same holds true in this case. Merely calling the proposal a law does not make it so when it would in fact amend the constitution in a manner not provided by the constitution.
The court correctly held that Proposition B constitutes an amendment to the constitution and not the proposal of a law. This resulted in the proposal being procedurally unconstitutional under Moore. The court correctly held that an amendment to the constitution proposed by the initiative requires the signatures of eight percent of the legal voters in two-thirds of the congressional districts. It is undisputed that the petition did not contain the signatures of eight percent of the legal voters in the required number of districts. Therefore, the court correctly reversed the Secretary’s finding that the petition was sufficient.
Union Electric raises a number of other grounds on which the judgment may be *410affirmed. It is not necessary to discuss or decide those issues.
Union Electric and Friel filed a cross-appeal to this court to make certain the appeal was lodged here. In view of the disposition of the jurisdictional question, that appeal is dismissed.
The judgment ordering the Secretary to remove Proposition B from the ballot is affirmed.
All concur.
William E. Turnage, Chief Judge

. Appellants’ motions for rehearing were denied but the Western District voted 6 to 5 to transfer the case to this Court.

. The Project has expressed concern about the continued vitality of Halliburton. That subject was fully explored in Moore and the court con-eluded that Halliburton had not been overruled and continued to be good law. No case since Moore has overruled Halliburton.