GOP intensifies battle to make it impossible to pass initiative petitions in Missouri

By Rudi Keller

Missouri Independent

While a judge is rewriting the ballot summary for a proposal to put new barriers in front of Missouri initiative campaigns, opponents are focusing on a new line of attack — the measure cuts financial penalties for accepting foreign contributions or committing petition fraud.

Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green on Thursday ruled that he would remove language opponents call “ballot candy” from the description voters will see at the polls. On Monday, he ordered State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick to revise his fiscal note and summary of the potential cost of the measure sent to voters by Republicans in the General Assembly.

Opponents, backed by the Missouri Association of Realtors, argue the problems go beyond the ballot summary. They point out that the amendment’s text would lower the maximum financial penalty for initiative petition fraud from $10,000 under current law to $1,000, and would reduce the civil penalty for illegal foreign contributions from up to five times the contribution amount to three times the amount, while adding the possibility of up to a year in jail.

Green ruled in a case brought by the Missouri Association of Realtors, which is backing an opposition PAC under the name Missourians for Fair Governance.

“It’s laughable for the legislature to try to peddle this flawed proposal as ‘reform’ when it actually reduces the current financial penalty for petition fraud by 90% and creates legal conflicts within the Constitution,” said Scott Charton, spokesman for the Realtor-financed PAC.

The criticisms of the difference in penalties is nothing more than a diversion, said state Rep. Ed Lewis, a Moberly Republican who sponsored the initiative petition changes.

“They’re attacking the entire amendment,” he said. “That’s just their talking points that they’re trying to develop.”

The deception, Charton said, is hiding the real reason for the amendment — making initiative proposals impossible to pass.

The proposal, which would change the way majorities are calculated for initiative petitions that amend the Constitution, will be Amendment 4 on the November ballot. Instead of a majority of all statewide votes, constitutional amendments put on the ballot by voters would need both a statewide majority and a majority in all eight congressional districts.

The Realtors have been long-time opponents of proposals to change the initiative process, which the organization used twice, first to block sales taxes on real estate transfers and later to extend the ban to all goods and services not already taxed.

The language Green removed touted provisions in the proposed constitutional amendment to ban foreign influence in Missouri elections and set penalties for fraud in initiative petition signature campaigns. Green removed the lines because they don’t say other laws already make those actions illegal.

Lewis said Tuesday he disagrees with Green’s decision to strike the ballot language. It is harder to change the law against petition fraud if it is the Constitution, he said, and that is an important protection for voters.

“The language that we have in statute does not line up with the constitution, necessarily,” said Lewis, a Republican from Moberly. “What we’re saying and what we’re putting in the Constitution will trump what is in statute, and so I don’t know how the court is saying this is somehow misleading, because if we left it out that would have been misleading.”

For the crime of accepting a campaign contribution from a person who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, the proposal would impose a jail term of up to 1 year and a fine of $1,000 plus three times the amount of the illegal contributions.

The Missouri Constitution already contains a prohibition against accepting foreign contributions. The penalty does not include a possible prison term but allows a civil penalty of up to five times the illegal contribution.

For initiative fraud, defined as falsifying signatures, signing another person’s name, deceiving voters about what they are signing or paying people to sign, Amendment 4 would impose a penalty of up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

The prison term would match current state law, but the financial penalty in state law is a fine of up to $10,000.

Under the proposal, an amendment proposed by initiative could be defeated by as few as 5.3% of Missouri voters, equal to a majority of the votes cast in 2024 in the area with the fewest number of voters, the 1st Congressional District.

“The lawmakers are trying to make suckers out of Missouri voters, but our citizens are too smart to surrender their long-held constitutional rights and hand that power to politicians who don’t proofread their own legislation,” Charton said.

Green gave the auditor’s office two days to deliver a revised fiscal note and summary. Fitzpatrick responded promptly, revising tthe underlying fiscal note used to create the summary language and making no changes to the summary itself.

The lawsuit attacks the fiscal summary for not estimating the cost of providing every voter with the full text of all constitutional amendments on that election’s ballot. The secretary of state’s office would be responsible for providing the copies, but its cost narrative for the measure spoke generally about the cost of public notices for elections without specifying the additional expense.

In the lawsuit, the Realtors are asking that the cost be estimated in the millions.

“The state auditor’s office is excluding the response from the office of the secretary of state,” the revised fiscal note states. “The information provided does not address the provisions of (Amendment 4).”

From the bench Thursday, Green said he would also delete a line in the ballot language stating that public hearings will be held before initiative petitions are placed on the ballot. The hearings would be held after signatures are submitted and would not prevent the initiative from making the ballot.

Green has not indicated when he will deliver a written ruling with revised ballot language.