The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously struck down a controversial law enacted last year that shifted control over ballot summaries to political officials and expanded the attorney general’s authority to appeal court rulings.
In an opinion issued Friday, the court concluded that the legislation violated the Missouri Constitution because it was fundamentally altered as it moved through the General Assembly. Chief Justice W. Brent Powell wrote that lawmakers exceeded constitutional limits by transforming the bill far beyond its original scope, a procedural flaw that required the entire law to be voided.
When first introduced, the measure was narrow in focus. It addressed a single issue: preventing courts from rewriting ballot descriptions for measures placed before voters by the legislature. By the time it reached the governor’s desk, however, the bill had expanded dramatically. The final version amended five separate statutes, overhauled how courts review ballot summary challenges, and granted the attorney general sweeping authority to appeal preliminary injunctions blocking state laws or regulations across all subject areas.
That expansion, the court found, ran afoul of the state constitution’s “original purpose” requirement, which prohibits legislators from using amendments to fundamentally reshape a bill.
During oral arguments in early January, lawyers for the state attempted to defend the law by characterizing all of its provisions as part of a broader effort to revise judicial review procedures. Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Freedlund argued that changes to ballot summary litigation were reasonably connected to provisions allowing the attorney general to appeal injunctions.
The court firmly rejected that rationale.
“This argument stretches the boundaries of logic,” Powell wrote, concluding that the two policy areas were neither closely related nor constitutionally compatible within a single bill.
Court Declines to Salvage Portions of the Law
The justices also considered whether parts of the statute could remain in effect even if other provisions were unconstitutional. That approach had been taken earlier by a Cole County circuit judge, who ruled that while the attorney general’s new appeal power was invalid, the ballot summary provisions could stand.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Powell noted that while it is possible the legislature might have enacted the ballot changes on their own, speculation is insufficient to preserve portions of a law adopted through unconstitutional means.
“Mere possibility is not enough,” the opinion stated, emphasizing that courts cannot rewrite legislation to save non-offending sections when the bill’s passage was procedurally flawed as a whole.
Litigation Highlighted Longstanding Procedural Warnings
Attorney Chuck Hatfield, who represented the plaintiff challenging the law, said the ruling reinforces principles lawmakers should already understand.
“Every few years, the Supreme Court has to remind the legislature that constitutional procedures matter,” Hatfield said. “If lawmakers want to change multiple policies, they need to vote on them separately.”
The lawsuit was brought by Sean Nicholson, who argued that the revised ballot summary process imposed unnecessary costs and delays on citizens seeking to place initiatives before voters. Under the invalidated statute, judges would no longer revise biased or misleading ballot language directly. Instead, the secretary of state was given up to three attempts to correct problematic summaries.
Those provisions were adopted in response to a series of court rulings in 2023 and early 2024, when judges rewrote ballot language related to abortion rights after finding that official summaries contained overtly partisan phrasing.
Practical Impact on Ongoing Ballot Disputes
The now-invalidated law was put to use during litigation over a proposal to revive Missouri’s near-total abortion ban. In that case, a circuit judge approved a ballot summary after multiple revisions by the secretary of state, only for an appellate court to later replace it with court-drafted language.
With the statute struck down, responsibility for revising ballot summaries in current and future disputes returns to the courts. One immediate consequence is that a pending referendum related to Missouri’s redistricting plan will now be reviewed under the prior legal framework. Attorneys for the secretary of state have already acknowledged in court filings that the existing summary language is close to being inherently argumentative.
Standing and Taxpayer Costs
The state also urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit altogether, arguing that Nicholson lacked standing. State attorneys claimed he was not directly involved in any ballot initiative litigation and therefore had not suffered a concrete injury. They further argued that no one had standing to challenge the attorney general’s expanded appeal authority because it did not require new state expenditures.
The court rejected that reasoning.
Powell explained that while routine use of salaried state employees often does not establish taxpayer injury, this case was different. The legislature added the new appeal authority specifically to allow the attorney general to challenge injunctions in a high-profile abortion-related case. After the law took effect, the attorney general immediately exercised that authority, filing appeals that would not have been permitted under prior law.
Those appeals required the expenditure of state funds, Powell wrote, and that spending was sufficient to establish taxpayer standing.
“Tax dollars necessarily have been spent on the pursuit of that appeal when no appeal was previously allowed,” the opinion stated.
Broader Significance
Hatfield said the decision provides useful guidance on when citizens may challenge newly enacted laws and regulations.
“That clarification matters,” he said. “Especially for those of us who pay close attention to how power is exercised and expanded.”
The ruling not only invalidates a significant election-related statute but also serves as a pointed reminder that procedural shortcuts in the legislative process carry constitutional consequences.
