The Missouri Supreme Court has reversed and remanded a Cole County Circuit Court decision that would have allowed House Bill 1446 to stand, finding the 2018 law violated the state constitution's single-subject provision.
When the City of De Soto and plaintiff James Acres sued the state of Missouri and Gov. Mike Parson, they challenged the sections of HB 1446 that addressed tax money, fire protection districts and annexation in counties within particular population parameters.
“Any law that's passed in Missouri can only really have one topic,” said Joplin attorney Timothy Intessimone who has also worked in fire services. "That's what the Missouri Constitution spells out in Article 3. You can have one topic per section of the law, and this case was brought based on HB 1446 which approved three changes within it.”
The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously invalidated HB 1446 because the sections applying to elections cannot be judicially severed from the remaining portions of the bill that apply to fire protection districts.
“The doctrine of judicial severance is not available to rescue any portion of HB 1446 from the consequences of the multiple-subject violation caused by the addition of the amendments to Section 321.320 or the creation of 32.315. Accordingly, the entire bill is invalid and may not be enforced,” wrote Chief Justice Paul C. Wilson in the July 22 opinion.
As a result of the Missouri Supreme Court’s 6-0 decision, lawmakers will likely draw up a new proposal to replace HB 1446, according to Intessimone.
“It really is a separation of powers issue where the legislature, in passing laws, is subject to the scrutiny of the court,” Intessimone told the St. Louis Record. “The court checks for constitutional validity. For the people that vote in these elected officials, they want to make sure these bills do not contain a bunch of unnecessary things.”
The plaintiffs also challenged Section 321.30 alleging it violates the Missouri Constitution’s prohibition against special laws but the state’s highest court stopped short of addressing it.
“Annexations and tax collected could have been brought forward as its own separate section instead of being under elections,” Intessimone said. “If it had been under annexations, the Court would have looked at it separately and it likely would have passed this test. The court just doesn't get that far because HB 1446 fails the multi-subject provision standard.”