JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court of Appeals ordered a new election for Kansas City on a police department fiscal note summary issue from the 2022 General Election.
The court found the fiscal note summary of Amendment No. 4 misleading and ordered a new election, according to the April 30 opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court.
Additionally, the court upheld its jurisdiction over such election contests and rejected procedural arguments raised by the state.
Judge Paul C. Wilson authored the majority opinion. Judge Ginger Gooch concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge Zel Fischer joined Gooch in her separate opinion. Judge Robin Ransom dissented.
Quinton Lucas initiated an original action in court contesting the approval of Amendment No. 4 in the November 2022 General Election.
His contention revolved around the fiscal note summary printed on every ballot, arguing that it inaccurately represented the fiscal implications of the measure.
The case looks at whether the fiscal note summary fairly reflected the auditor’s fiscal note, not into broader questions of police department funding or the fairness of the auditor’s note itself, Wilson notes in his opinion. The court finds the fiscal note summary did not accurately represent the fiscal note and ordered a new election.
Background details how the Kansas City Police Department’s budget, overseen by the Board of Police Commissioners, has historically been funded by Kansas City. A dispute arose in 2021 regarding excess appropriations, prompting legislative action culminating in Senate Bill 678 and Senate Joint Resolution 38. SB 678 increased the city’s funding obligation to the police commissioner board, while SJR 38 aimed to amend the constitution to legitimize such increases. Both passed, with SJR 38 becoming Amendment No. 4.
"The fiscal note includes the City’s estimate that Amendment No. 4 and SB 678 impose new costs, and nothing in the fiscal note explains that this estimate is inaccurate or unreliable," Wilson wrote in the opinion. "In fact, the general assembly plainly understood SB 678 imposed new costs. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Amendment No. 4 to propose a new exception to the constitutional prohibition against unfunded mandates."
However, the crux of the issue lies in the ballot title for Amendment No. 4, which solely contained a summary statement and a fiscal note summary, as is customary for proposed constitutional amendments. The fiscal note and its summary were prepared by the state auditor.
Despite the state and local governmental entities estimating no additional costs or savings, voters approved the amendment. Lucas subsequently contested the election, arguing the fiscal note summary misled voters.
The court’s analysis focuses on whether the fiscal note summary materially misstated the fiscal note to the extent that it cast doubt on the fairness of the election. It concludes that it did, necessitating a new election.
Regarding procedural matters, the court dismissed the state’s motion to dismiss, arguing that its previous ruling on the matter stands unless reconsideration is warranted.
It rejects the state’s contention that Lucas’ contest is time-barred due to an unverified petition, citing legal precedent that allows for relation back of an amended petition to cure such defects.
"This Court orders a special election for that question be conducted as part of the general election on November 5, 2024," Wilson wrote. "The secretary of state is ordered to take all actions necessary to effect this remedy, and notice of the special election is to be given as if the proposal were going before the voters for the first time. The election shall be conducted and the votes counted as in other elections."
In her separate opinion, Gooch concurs with the principal opinion's analysis, stating that the court's original jurisdiction in the election contest is established by precedent.
She argues that binding precedent dictates adherence to Dotson v. Kander and Shoemyer v. Missouri Secretary of State.
Despite acknowledging the compelling dissenting opinion, she asserts that precedent regarding the court's jurisdiction in such contests cannot be dismissed lightly.
She dissents from the principal opinion's decision, arguing against relief for Lucas due to failure to comply with statutory requirements and insufficient evidence to challenge the ballot title for Amendment No. 4.
She contends that the proposed ballot language is misleading and that the remedy of a new election is not justified.
In her dissenting opinion, Ransom contests the jurisdiction of the court to hear an election contest, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation.
She argues that the court's jurisdiction, as outlined in the state constitution, doesn't extend to election contests beyond those involving public officers.
Her dissent emphasizes the importance of adhering strictly to constitutional boundaries, criticizing the reliance on past cases like Dotson v. Kander, which she deems as erroneous interpretations.
Ransom calls for a cautious approach to respecting the limits of the court's jurisdiction, highlighting the need to rectify past errors rather than perpetuate them.
She concludes by expressing her dissenting stance due to her belief in the court's lack of jurisdiction.
Attorneys noted they could not comment on the matter, noting comments had to come from the client or the city. The city declined to comment.
Missouri Supreme Court of Appeals case number: SC99931