Court Opinion

ID: 9755228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:30:52.569754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:05.440974
License: Public Domain

JAMES M. SMART, Jr., J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The standard of review calls for this court to determine whether the trial court misapplied the law. Once the trial court determines that the Secretary’s statement cannot be approved, the trial court can adjust the Secretary’s draft, or, if it determines it to be necessary, draft its own summary, seeking to comply with the requirements of law. See section 116.190 RSMo 2000.
I agree with my colleagues that the phrase “repeal the current ban on human cloning” would have been likely to confuse rather that to enlighten. I also agree with the majority’s ruling on the constitutional claims of the proponents of the amendment. I differ from my colleagues only in that, in my view, the trial court was justified in drafting her own summary in her effort to improve sufficiency and fairness.