Cady v. Ashcroft

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge
• Citation: Cady v. Ashcroft, 606 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. App. 2020)
• Decision Date: 08 June 2020
• Docket Number: C/w WD 83824,WD 83823
• Parties: Jeremy CADY and Ryan Johnson, Appellants, v. Missouri Secretary of State John ASHCROFT, Respondent, and Heidi Miller and Laura Dominik, Intervenor-Respondents.

606 S.W.3d 659

Jeremy CADY and Ryan Johnson, Appellants,

v. Missouri Secretary of State John ASHCROFT, Respondent,andHeidi Miller and Laura Dominik, Intervenor-Respondents.

WD 83823

C/w WD 83824

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 8, 2020

Marc H. Ellinger and Stephanie S. Bell, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant Cady.

Edward D. Greim and Cody S. Hagan, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant Johnson.

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, and Jason K. Lewis, Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Respondent Ashcroft.

Lowell D. Pearson, R. Ryan Harding, and Alexa B. Barton, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Intervenor-Respondent Miller.

Charles W. Hatfield, Alixandra S. Cossette, and Alexander C. Barrett, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Intervenor-Respondent Dominik.

Before Special Division: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Anthony Rex Gabbert and W. Douglas Thomson, Judges

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge

Jeremy Cady ("Cady") and Ryan Johnson ("Johnson") challenged Secretary of State John Ashcroft's ("Secretary of State") decision to certify as sufficient an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment, which would be placed on the ballot for the August 4, 2020 primary election. Cady and Johnson appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri ("circuit court"), which found in favor of the Secretary of State and intervenor defendants. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On May 2, 2019, Dr. Heidi Miller ("Dr. Miller") submitted to the Secretary of State an initiative petition sample sheet, denominated by the Secretary of State as IP 2020-063, proposing to create a new section 36 within article IV of the Missouri Constitution, expanding access to Medicaid for certain Missouri citizens ("Proposed Measure"). The Proposed Measure proposed the following amendment:

Be it resolved by the people of the State of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

Article IV of the Constitution is revised by adding one new section to be known as Article IV, Section 36(c) to read as follows:

Section 36(c). 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, beginning July 1, 2021, individuals nineteen years of age or older and under sixty-five years of age who qualify for MO HealthNet services under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and as set forth in 42 C.F.R. 435.119, and who have income at or below one hundred thirty-three percent of the federal poverty level plus five percent of the applicable family size as determined under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(c)(14) and as set forth in 42 C.F.R. 435.603, shall be eligible for medical assistance under MO HealthNet and shall receive coverage for the health benefits service package.

2. For purposes of this section, "health benefits service package" shall mean benefits covered by the MO HealthNet program as determined by the department of social services to meet the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage requirement under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(k)(1) and any implementing regulations.

3. No later than March 1, 2021, the Department of Social Services and the MO HealthNet Division shall submit all state plan amendments necessary to implement this section to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

4. The Department of Social Services and the MO HealthNet Division shall take all actions necessary to maximize federal financial participation in funding medical assistance pursuant to this section.

5. No greater or additional burdens or restrictions on eligibility or enrollment standards, methodologies, or practices shall be imposed on persons eligible for MO HealthNet services pursuant to this section than on any other population eligible for medical assistance.

6. All references to federal or state statutes, regulations or rules in this section shall be to the version of those statutes, regulations or rules that existed on January 1, 2019.

On May 23, 2019, the Missouri State Auditor's Office prepared a Fiscal Note and Fiscal Note Summary for the Proposed Measure.¹ On June 13, 2019, the Secretary of State certified the official ballot title for the Proposed Measure. The official ballot title provides:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• adopt Medicaid Expansion for persons 19 to 64 years old with an income level at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, as set forth in the Affordable Care Act;

• prohibit placing greater or additional burdens on eligibility or enrollment standards, methodologies or practices on persons covered under Medicaid Expansion than on any other population eligible for Medicaid; and

• require state agencies to take all actions necessary to maximize federal financial participation in funding medical assistance under Medicaid Expansion?

State government entities are estimated to have one-time costs of approximately $6.4 million and an unknown annual net fiscal impact by 2026 ranging from increased costs of at least $200 million to savings of $1 billion. Local governments expect costs to decrease by an unknown amount.

On May 22, 2020, the Secretary of State examined the Proposed Measure and the submitted signatures for compliance with Chapter 116² and certified the Proposed Measure.

Missouri's appropriations of money for expenses relating to Medicaid, among other programs, for Fiscal Year 2020 are contained in House Bills No. 10 and No. 11. Missouri's appropriations for expenses relating to Medicaid, among other programs, for Fiscal Year 2021, are contained in House Bills No. 2010 and No. 2011, and its supplemental appropriations for the same categories of expenses for Fiscal Year 2020 are contained in House Bill No. 2014.

On May 26, 2020, Missouri Governor Michael L. Parson issued a proclamation pursuant to article XII, section 2(b), placing the Proposed Measure on the ballot for the August 4, 2020 primary election. Pursuant to article XII, section 2(b) and section 116.260, the Secretary of State is required to publish the full text of the Proposed Measure in local newspapers.

On May 22, 2020, a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief was filed in the circuit court, against the Secretary of State under case number 20AC-CC00210. The plaintiff named in the petition was Johnson, "a Missouri citizen and taxpayer." Four days later, on May 26, 2020, a second petition for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the circuit court against the Secretary of State under case number 20AC-CC00209. The plaintiff named in the second petition was Cady, "a citizen, taxpayer, and registered voter of the state of Missouri." Both petitions were filed pursuant to section 116.200.1, which permits any citizen to apply to the Circuit Court of Cole County to compel the Secretary of State to reverse his decision to certify an initiative petition as sufficient or insufficient to be included on the ballot. On May 28, 2020, the circuit court entered a stipulated order consolidating the two cases.

The Petition³ alleged two counts. Count I alleged that the Proposed Measure "is facially unconstitutional because it appropriates money without creating or providing for any new revenues in violation of Article III, Section 51 of the Missouri Constitution." Count II alleged that the Proposed Measure "fails to set forth the full and correct text of the measure in violation of § 116.050, RSMo ; Article III, § 50; and Article XII, § 2(b)."

On May 28, 2020, Dr. Miller, the proponent of the Proposed Measure, filed an unopposed motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 52.12. On May 29, 2020, Laura Dominik, "a Missouri resident and eligible voter [who] signed the Medicaid Expansion initiative petition that is the subject of this litigation," filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 52.12(b). Both motions were granted by the circuit court on May 29, 2020. (Dr. Miller and Ms. Dominik will be referred to collectively as "Intervenors.")

On May 29, 2020, the Secretary of State filed his answer to the Petition and requested that judgment be entered in the State's favor. On the same day, Intervenor Dominik filed her answer to the Petition, and asserted as affirmative defenses that Count I failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and was not ripe for review because the Proposed Measure had not yet been adopted by vote of the citizenry, the election in question had not yet occurred, and it was not possible to determine whether any appropriation would be required until after the measure is adopted; and that Count II failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

On May 31, 2020, Cady and Johnson filed a joint pre-trial brief, renewing their arguments that the Proposed Measure facially mandated spending without new revenues in violation of article III, section 51 and, alternatively, that the Proposed Measure violated the "full text" requirement of article III, section 50 because it did not expressly identify all provisions of the Missouri Constitution to be amended.

On June 1, 2020, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts and exhibits to the circuit court, and the circuit court heard arguments. The circuit court entered its judgment on June 2, 2020 ("Judgment"), based on the stipulated facts and exhibits, arguments presented, and applicable law. The Judgment found in favor of the Secretary of State and the Intervenors and against Cady and Johnson on all counts of the Petition. The Judgment concluded that Cady and Johnson's pre-election challenges under article III, section 51 were not ripe; the Proposed Measure did not on its face or by necessary implication require the appropriation of existing funds and did not violate article III, section 51 ; and the Proposed Measure satisfied the requirements of article III, section 50 and section 116.050.2.

Cady filed an immediate appeal on June 2, 2020, and Johnson did so on June 3, 2020....