Yes to Stop Callaway Committee v. Kirkpatrick

• Decision Date: 05 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 36299,36299
• Citation: 685 S.W.2d 209
• Parties: YES TO STOP CALLAWAY COMMITTEE, An Unincorporated Association, and David Harris, an Individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James C. KIRKPATRICK, Secretary of State of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent, and Union Electric Company, a Corporation, and James T. Friel, an Individual, Intervenors-Respondents-Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 209

685 S.W.2d 209

YES TO STOP CALLAWAY COMMITTEE, An Unincorporated Association, and David Harris, an Individual Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James C. KIRKPATRICK, Secretary of State of Missouri Defendant-Respondent and Union Electric Company, a Corporation, and James T. Friel an Individual, Intervenors-Respondents-Cross-Appellants.

No. 36299.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 5, 1984.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Overruled and Denied

Oct. 18, 1984.

Application to Transfer Denied

Oct. 25, 1984.

Danieal H. Miller, Columbia, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.

Francis X. Duda and Ann E. Buckley, St. Louis, Schlafly, Griesdedieck, Ferrell & Toft, St. Louis, for intervenors-respondents-cross-appellants.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and MANFORD and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

TURNAGE, Chief Judge.

Yes to Stop Callaway Committee, an unincorporated association, and David Harris, a Committee member, appealed the circuit court judgment which had affirmed the Secretary of State's decision to not place an initiative petition on the ballot at the November 6, 1984, election.

The Committee presented a petition to the Secretary of State to have placed on the ballot a proposed law which would prohibit the operation of nuclear power plants in Missouri. The Secretary of State denominated the proposal as Proposition A, and certified that the petition lacked 331 signatures from Greene County to attain the required number of signatures to place Proposition A on the ballot.

At the outset, this court is confronted with a question of its jurisdiction. The Committee originally appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, but that court transferred the case to this court because jurisdiction was vested here.

Section 116.200.3, RSMo Supp.1983, provides that actions brought in the circuit court of Cole County concerning initiative and referendum petitions may be appealed to the supreme court. That section can be traced to Laws of 1909, at 556 in which it was first provided that such appeals could be taken to the supreme court. Subsequent enactments of that statute resulted in the present Section 116.200, which simply carried over the provision allowing an appeal to the supreme court.

Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, as amended on November 2, 1982, provides that in civil cases the supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction only in cases involving the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States, of a statute or provision of the constitution of this state, the construction of the revenue laws of this state, and the title to any state office. Article V, Section 3 of the 1945 Constitution provided for enlarging the supreme court's jurisdiction by law. However, the August 3, 1976, amendment of Article V, Section 3 dropped that provision. Since that time, the constitution has not allowed the supreme court's jurisdiction to be enlarged or changed by law. Section 116.200.3 is simply a carryover from previous law, and the legislature has inadvertently failed to change the section to reflect the supreme court's present constitutional jurisdiction. The supreme court, by transferring the appeal to this court, clearly held that section is not controlling on the jurisdiction of this appeal. The November 2, 1982, amendment gave the court of appeals general appellate jurisdiction in all cases except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court. This case does not present any matter encompassed within the supreme court's exclusive jurisdiction, thus, jurisdiction over this appeal is properly in this court.

The question presented in this case is whether the Secretary of State correctly refused to count 822 signatures of persons in Greene County, located in the 7th Congressional District, because the addresses they listed on the initiative petition differed from the addresses on their registration records. The precise question is thus whether or not the Secretary of State can count a person's signature on an initiative petition when that person is registered to vote at one address, but lists a different address on the petition.

Article III, Section 50 of the constitution provides that an initiative petition shall be signed by the legal voters in the state. Section 116.060, RSMo Supp.1983, provides that any registered voter of the state may sign an initiative petition. In Scott v. Kirkpatrick, 513 S.W.2d 442 (Mo. banc 1974), the court construed the term "legal voter" as used in Article III, Section 50 and the term "qualified voter" as used in section 126.011(2), RSMo Supp.1971. The court concluded that the two terms meant registered voters. The court stated at 444-45 It follows from this that the signature of a person otherwise qualified, but not registered, to vote is not acceptable on an initiative petition proposing an amendment to the constitution, because he is not at the time legally entitled to vote on the measure it proposes. Accordingly, we hold that the signers of an initiative petition are required to be registered voters.

The Committee contends that a person is a registered voter once his name is placed on the registration records of the election authority, and the fact that he moves and does not transfer his registration has no effect on his standing to sign an initiative petition.

By section 116.060, RSMo Supp.1983, the legislature adopted the holding in Scott and provided that any registered voter may sign an initiative petition. Section 115.139, RSMo 1978, prohibits any person who is not registered from voting, with two exceptions not material here. Sections 115.155 and 115.159, RSMo 1978, require a person to list his home address on his registration application.

Section 115.165, RSMo Supp.1983, provides that any registered voter who changes his place of residence...