Sweeney v. Ashcroft
| Docket Number | WD 85679 |
| Decision Date | 12 September 2022 |
| Citation | 652 S.W.3d 711 |
| Parties | Joy SWEENEY, Appellant, v. John R. ("Jay") ASHCROFT, in His Official Capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, Respondent, and Legal Missouri 2022 and John Payne, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joshua Boyd Christensen, Springfield, MO, for appellant.
Marc Henry Ellinger, Jefferson City, MO, for respondents (Legal Missouri 2022 and John Payne).
Jason Krol; Lewis, St. Louis, MO, for respondent (John Robert Ashcroft ).
Before Special Division: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge, and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge
Joy Sweeney ("Sweeney") brought challenges to the Secretary of State's ("Secretary") certification of an initiative petition as Amendment 3 for inclusion on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot. Legal Missouri 2022 and John Payne ("Proponent") intervened, and were aligned with the Secretary in defending certification of the initiative petition. Following a trial, the circuit court entered a judgment on the merits pursuant to Rule 73.01(b),1 finding that Sweeney's lawsuit failed for want of jurisdiction because Sweeney failed to put on evidence to establish her standing to challenge the Secretary's certification of the initiative petition. The judgment also determined the substantive merits of Sweeney's challenges, and ruled in favor of the Secretary and Proponent on Sweeney's claims. Sweeney filed this appeal.
We reverse the circuit court's judgment to the extent that it granted Rule 73.01(b) motions to find that Sweeney did not prove she had standing. We affirm the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Secretary and the Proponent and against Sweeney on the merits of Sweeney's challenges to the Secretary's certification of the initiative petition. As a result, we hold that the Secretary's certification of the initiative petition was proper, permitting the initiative petition to be placed on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 general election.
Proponent filed a sample form of an initiative petition with the Secretary on or about August 27, 2021, seeking to amend the Missouri Constitution to legalize the recreational use and possession of marijuana in certain circumstances, and to authorize steps to relieve persons of the criminal consequences of past marijuana use and possession made lawful by the amendment. The initiative was identified by the Secretary as Initiative Petition No. 2022-59, and was given the title "Marijuana Use and Expunging Cannabis Related Criminal Records" (hereinafter "Initiative Petition").2 On October 6, 2021, the Secretary approved the form of the Initiative Petition and certified a ballot title for circulation.
On or about May 8, 2022, Proponent submitted signatures of registered voters in support of the Initiative Petition. The Secretary thereafter sent copies of signature pages to various local election authorities to verify that the persons whose names were listed as signers on the submitted pages were registered voters in their claimed counties and congressional districts. The Secretary determined after this process that some signers designated as unregistered voters by local election authorities were, in fact, registered voters, and treated those signatures as valid. The Secretary then determined that Congressional District numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 had sufficient signatures to satisfy constitutional requirements for certification of the Initiative Petition, and that Congressional District numbers 4 and 8 did not have sufficient signatures to satisfy constitutional requirements. Because the Secretary determined that a sufficient number of valid signatures in favor of the Initiative Petition had been secured in six of Missouri's eight Congressional Districts, the Secretary issued a Certificate of Sufficiency for the Initiative Petition on August 9, 2022, permitting the matter to be placed on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 general election as Amendment 3.
On August 19, 2022, Sweeney filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri pursuant to section 116.200.1,3 challenging the Secretary's certification of the Initiative Petition for placement on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot ("Election Challenge"). Sweeney's petition alleged that Sweeney was a "citizen, legal voter, resident, and taxpayer of the State of Missouri." Sweeney's petition alleged that the Secretary improperly certified the Initiative Petition for two reasons: (i) because the Secretary violated section 116.130 by certifying and counting signatures that were marked through by local election authorities, and absent this, the Initiative Petition would not have had a sufficient number of valid signatures to permit its certification; and (ii) because the Initiative Petition contains multiple subjects in violation of the single subject requirement described in article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution. Sweeney's petition asked the circuit court to enjoin the Secretary from certifying the Initiative Petition for placement on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 general election.4
Proponent was granted leave to intervene in the Election Challenge on September 1, 2022, and filed an answer to Sweeney's petition on September 2, 2022, aligning with the Secretary in defending certification of the Initiative Petition. Proponent's answer denied that Sweeney was a citizen, legal voter, resident, and taxpayer of the State of Missouri. The Secretary filed an answer to Sweeney's petition on September 6, 2022. The Secretary's answer denied on information and belief that Sweeney was a citizen, legal voter, resident, and taxpayer of the State of Missouri. The circuit court expedited resolution of the Election Challenge as required by section 116.200.1.
Following an abbreviated trial to the court on the afternoon of September 8, 2022, the circuit court entered its judgment on September 9, 2022 ("Judgment"). The Judgment reflected the circuit court's grant of the Secretary's and Proponent's motions for directed verdict at the close of Sweeney's case ("Rule 73.01(b) Motions")5 because Sweeney failed to put on any evidence that she is a "Missouri resident," and thus failed to prove that she had standing to bring the Election Challenge under section 116.200.1.6 The Judgment went on to explain that immediately after the Rule 73.01(b) Motions were made, Sweeney orally moved to reopen the evidence to permit her to put on testimony establishing Sweeney's standing to bring a section 116.200.1 challenge. The Judgment explained that the Secretary and Proponent objected to Sweeney's motion to reopen the evidence. Direct and cross-examination testimony was then taken from Sweeney as an offer of proof on the issue of her standing to file a section 116.200.1 action. The circuit court took the Rule 73.01(b) Motions and the request to reopen the evidence under advisement. The Judgment sustained the Secretary's and Proponent's objections to Sweeney's motion to reopen the evidence, and granted the Rule 73.01(b) Motions, and entered judgment against Sweeney on the merits on the grounds that Sweeney failed to put on evidence that she had standing. The Judgment expressly noted that in granting the Rule 73.01(b) Motions, the circuit court had not relied on or considered the offer of proof testimony.
The Judgment further noted that "since the issues raised in this matter are of significant importance and due to the expedited nature of a Section 116.200, RSMo challenge" it was appropriate for the circuit court to "to enter ... supplemental findings of fact, [and] conclusions of law as a part of the ruling herein" to determine the substantive merits of Sweeney's Election Challenge. The Judgment made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of Sweeney's claims, and held that the Initiative Petition did not violate the single subject requirement set forth in article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution, and that the Secretary properly certified that the Initiative Petition had sufficient signatures to place the measure on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 general election as Amendment 3.
Sweeney immediately filed this appeal late in the afternoon on September 9, 2022, pursuant to section 116.200.3.7
Pursuant to section 115.125.3 RSMo. Supp 2018, "[n]o court shall have the authority to order an ... issue be placed on the ballot less than eight weeks before the date of the election." In this appeal, we are being asked to determine whether the Secretary should certify the Initiative Petition for placement on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 general election, or be enjoined from certifying the Initiative Petition, with all other officers being commensurately enjoined from printing the measure on the ballot. Section 116.200.2; section 116.200.3. September 13, 2022 is thus the last date that this or any court will have the authority to order the Initiative Petition to be placed on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 general election. Section 115.125.3. We have therefore substantially expedited the disposition of this appeal.
This " " Maly Commercial Realty, Inc. v. Maher , 582 S.W.3d 905, 910 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Glasgow Sch. Dist. v. Howard Cnty. Coroner , 572 S.W.3d 543, 547 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (citations and internal quotations omitted)). Our authority to hear appeals is influenced by whether the issues raised are ripe for review, and by whether the issues raised are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court by article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution.
The power of the initiative is expressly reserved to the people in article III, section 49 of the Missouri Constitution. "When courts are called upon to...
To continue reading
Request your trial