State, at Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 58483

Decision Date16 December 1974
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 58483,58483,1
Citation518 S.W.2d 63
PartiesThe STATE of Missouri, at the information of Ralph L. MARTIN, Prosecuting Attorney of Jackson County, Missouri, and at the relation of Glenn H. Binger, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, Missouri, a
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Rufus Burrus, W. Raleigh Gough, Independence, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Howard C. Wright, Jr., City Atty., Springfield, Robert M. Clayton, II, City Counselor, Hannibal, George C. Baldridge, City Atty., Joplin, Aaron A. Wilson, City Counselor, Carrol C. Kennett, Associate City Counselor, Kansas City, for amici curiae.

James S. Cottingham, City Counselor, Thomas D. Cochran, James L. Gillham, Asst. City Counselors, Independence, for defendant-appellant.

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

Appeal from judgment in proceeding in the nature of quo warranto ousting the City of Independence, Missouri, from exercising jurisdiction over territory purportedly annexed to the City by charter amendments approved by the voters at a special election. The questions are whether the legislative body of a constitutional charter city may, by ordinance, initiate a proposed amendment of its charter and submit it to the voters for approval at a special election under Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 20, V.A.M.S.; and, if so, and if the purpose of the proposed amendment as in this instance was annexation of territory to the City of Independence, whether the City was required to submit the proposition of annexation at separate elections held simultaneously in the several territories proposed for annexation under Section 71.870, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

The City of Independence is a constitutional charter city under Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 19. On September 18, 1972, its council passed four ordinances, each of which called for a special election to be held in the City of Independence on December 5, 1972, for submission to the voters of the City of proposals to amend the city charter for the purpose of annexing four separate areas or territories in the unincorporated area of Jackson County to the City. Notice of the time, places of holding and purpose of the election was ordered to be given by publication in at least one daily newspaper published in the City, once a week for four consecutive weeks, with the first publication of said notice to be made at least twenty-eight days before, and the last to be made within two weeks of the election. The effective dates of annexation were to be December 31, 1973, for the first area, December 31, 1974, for the second area, and December 31, 1975, for the remaining two areas.

The special election was held in the City December 5, 1972. A majority of the voters of the City approved the four charter amendments by which the four annexations of territory were to be accomplished. On November 3, 1970, the voters of Jackson County at a special election adopted a constitutional home rule charter form of government for Jackson County to become effective January 1, 1973.

Pursuant to the result of the special election of December 5, 1972, the City of Independence proceeded 'to take all necessary actions to subject to its jurisdiction each of said territories * * * and will on the effective dates * * * subject all the owners of property and residents in said area to the laws and ordinances of the said City of Independence * * *.'

Ralph L. Martin, prosecuting attorney, at the relation of twelve residents and owners of property within the several annexed areas, alleged in the information in the nature of quo warranto that the city of Independence exceeded its powers and unlawfully conducted the charter amendment election at a special election contrary to Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 20, and bacause the City did not hold simultaneous elections in the unincorporated areas subject to the annexation in accordance with Sections 71.870 to 71.920, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

The matter was heard June 27, 1973, after which the court found 'that each of said ordinances as so adopted and ratified at such election was and is void and of nolegal force and effect, because under Sec. 20 of Art. VI of the Constitution, the legislative body of the City had no authority to call for a vote on such questions at a special election, but was confined to calling a vote thereon at the next general election held at least sixty days after the passage of said ordinances, the court further finding that a special election to vote on such questions could only be called and held if requested by a petition signed by at least twenty per cent of the registered qualified voters of the City, praying for such special election (and) that said ordinances and the votes cast thereon at such election held December 5, 1972 were void and of no legal effect, for the further reason that said proposed annexations were not to take effect until long after January 1, 1973, as above stated, and there was no election held in the unincorporated areas sought to be annexed as required by Sec. 71.870 to 71.920 of the Statutes, said unincorporated areas being within Jackson County, Missouri which had in the year 1970 adopted a special charter under Sec. 18 of Art. VI of the Constitution, which special charter was to go into full force and effect on January 1, 1973.'

The court entered its judgment of ouster pursuant to the foregoing findings.

Appellant contends: (I) that under Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 20, the legislative body of a constitutional charter city may, by ordinance, propose a charter amendment for purposes of annexation of territory and call for its submission to the voters at a special election; and (II) that it was not necessary to hold simultaneous elections in the annexed areas because on December 5, 1972, the date of the City's special election, Jackson County was not a first class chartered county.

Appellant is supported on its Point I by amici curiae, the home rule charter cities of Springfield, Hannibal, Joplin, and Kansas City, all of which have construed Missouri Constitution, Article 6, Section 20, to authorize the legislative body of a home rule charter city to initiate an amendment to its charter and to submit it to the electorate at a special election. See also White v. City of Columbia, 461 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. banc 1970), and Seibert v. City of Columbia, 461 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. banc 1970), where the City of Columbia, a constitutional charter city, submitted proposed charter amendments extending the corporate limits of Columbia to the voters at special elections called for that purpose.

Respondents take the same position that they submitted to, and that was adopted by, the trial court.

As suggested by respondents, rules applicable to construction of constitutional provisions are the same as those applied to the construction of statutes, except that the former are given a broader construction, due to their more permanent character, Wring v. City of Jefferson, 413 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. banc 1967); State ex rel. Curators of University of Mo. v. Neill, 397 S.W.2d 666 (Mo. banc 1966); State ex rel Jones v. Atterbury, 300 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. banc 1957); and constitutional provisions must be construed as a whole so as not to destroy the general intent and purpose of the framers, State v. Adkins, 284 Mo. 680, 225 S.W. 981 (1920); State ex inf. McKittrick v. Williams, 346 Mo. 1003, 144 S.W.2d 98 (banc 1940); Stemmler v. Einstein, 297 S.W.2d 467 (Mo....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Keller v. Marion County Ambulance Dist.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1991
    ...Where related provisions and associated words are not in conflict there is no necessity to harmonize them. State ex rel. Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 (Mo.1974). In this case the majority has failed to point out in what way the word "fees" is ambiguous. The majority opin......
  • Associated Industries of Missouri v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, 68671
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1987
    ... ... Gen., Richard L. Weiler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Thomas R. Schwarz, Jr., State Tax Com'n, Jefferson City, ... by the legislature, with its superior means of information about the effects of legislation on the public, and for the ... State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 (Mo.1974). In ... ...
  • Barnes v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1986
    ... ... Tettlebaum, W.B. Tichenor, Jefferson City, for appellant ...         William L ... were submitted to the Secretary of State, he refused to place the proposal on the November ... banc 1982). See also State at Inf. Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 66 ... ...
  • Tichenor v. Missouri State Lottery Com'n
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1988
    ...except that the former are given a broader construction, due to their more permanent character. State at the Information of Martin v. City of Independence, 518 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.1974). In determining the meaning of a constitutional provision the court must first undertake to ascribe to the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT