State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Blunt

135 S.W.3d 416, 2004 Mo. LEXIS 75, 2004 WL 1208929
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 3, 2004
DocketSC 86013
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 135 S.W.3d 416 (State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Blunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Blunt, 135 S.W.3d 416, 2004 Mo. LEXIS 75, 2004 WL 1208929 (Mo. 2004).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The request of the Attorney General for a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of State is denied at this time, without prejudice. The Secretary of State has a duty to take all necessary actions to properly submit Senate Joint Resolution 29 to the voters of Missouri at the August 3, 2004, election.

BACKGROUND

On March 1, 2004, the Missouri Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 29 (SJR 29), proposing to the voters of Missouri a constitutional amendment to add the following provision to article I of the Constitution of the State of Missouri:

Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.

On May 14, 2004, the Missouri House of Representatives took up and passed SJR 29 without amendment. These actions are reflected in the Senate and House journals for those respective dates.

On May 19, 2004, Governor Bob Holden issued a proclamation pursuant to article XII, section 2(b) of the Missouri Constitution calling for a special election on August [417]*4173, 2004, directing that SJR 29 be voted upon by the people at that election. On May 19, 2004, Secretary of State Matt Blunt wrote Governor Holden a letter, in response to the proclamation, stating that he had not received SJR 29 from the General Assembly and that he would take appropriate action, in accordance with chapter 116,1 upon receipt of the joint resolution. Unstated, but clearly implied by the letter, was a refusal by the Secretary of State to take any action until receipt of the joint resolution.

On May 20, 2004, Attorney General Jay Nixon filed suit in the Cole County Circuit Court seeking to compel the Secretary of State to prepare SJR 29 to be placed upon the ballot for the August 3, 2004, election. The circuit court denied relief on May 21, 2004, holding that the Secretary of State’s duties under chapter 116 were not triggered because he had not received the official copy of SJR 29 signed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tem of the Senate.

On May 21, 2004, the Attorney General sought to bring the matter directly to this Court. The request was denied without prejudice. The Attorney General then sought relief in the Court of Appeals, Western District, which was denied on May 24, 2004.

The Attorney General brought the matter again to this Court on May 24, 2004. The Court entered an order on May 25, 2004, allowing the parties to file any amended or supplemental pleadings on or before May 31, 2004, and scheduling oral argument for June 1, 2004. The order also directed the Secretary of State to “be prepared to take all steps necessary promptly to place Senate Joint Resolution 29 on the August 2004 ballot if this Court so orders.”

On May 28, 2004, the presiding officers of the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives signed SJR 29, and the resolution was delivered to and received by the Secretary of State that afternoon. The Secretary of State promptly delivered a copy of the resolution to the State Auditor for the purpose of preparing a fiscal note and fiscal note summary in accordance with section 116.175. The State Auditor delivered to the Attorney General her note and summary on that same day.

CONTROLLING CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Article XII, section 2(a) of the Missouri Constitution provides,

Constitutional amendments may be proposed at any time by a majority of the members-elect of each house of the general assembly, the vote to be taken by yeas and nays entered on the journal.

Article XII, section 2(b) of the Missouri Constitution provides in part:

All amendments proposed by the general assembly or by the initiative shall be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection by official ballot title as may be provided by law, on a separate ballot without party designation, at the next general election, or at a special election called by the governor prior thereto at which he may submit any of the amendments.... If possible, each proposed amendment shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in two newspapers of different political faith in each county, the last publication to be not more than thirty nor less than fifteen days next preceding the election. If there be but one newspaper in any county, publication for four consecutive weeks shall be made....

Section 2.010 provides:

[418]*418The original rolls of all laws and joint and concurrent resolutions passed by each general assembly shall, immediately after the passage thereof, be deposited in the office of the secretary of state, and every bill and resolution presented to the governor for his approval, and returned by him to the house in which it originated with his approval thereon, shall, immediately after such return, be deposited by the secretary of the senate, or by the chief clerk of the house, as the case may be, in the office of the secretary of state.

Section 115.125 provides, in part:

1. Not later than 5:00 p.m. on the tenth Tuesday prior to any election, except a special election to decide an election contest, tie vote or an election to elect seven members to serve on a school board of a district pursuant to section 162.241, RSMo, or a delay in notification pursuant to subsection 2 of this section, or pursuant to the provisions of section 115.399, the officer or agency calling the election shall notify the election authorities responsible for conducting the election. The notice shall be in writing, shall specify the name of the officer or agency calling the election and shall include a certified copy of the legal notice to be published pursuant to subsection 2 of section 115.127....
2. Except as provided for in sections 115.247 and 115.359, if there is no additional cost for the printing or reprinting of ballots or if the political subdivision or special district calling for the election agrees to pay any printing or reprinting costs, a political subdivision or special district may, at any time after certification required in subsection 1 of this section, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on the sixth Tuesday before the election, be permitted to make late notification to the election authority pursuant to court order, which, except for good cause shown by the election authority in opposition thereto, shall be freely given upon application by the political subdivision or special district to the circuit court of the area of such subdivision or district. No court shall have the authority to order an individual or issue be placed on the ballot less than six weeks before the date of the election, except as provided in sections 115.361 and 115.379.

Section 116.160.1 provides, in part:

If the general assembly adopts a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment or a bill without a fiscal note summary, which is to be referred to a vote of the people, after receipt of such resolution or bill the secretary of state shall promptly forward the resolution or bill to the state auditor.

Section 116.240 states:

Not later than the tenth Tuesday pri- or to an election at which a statewide ballot measure is to be voted on, the secretary of state shall send each election authority a certified copy of the legal notice to be published.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dotson v. Kander
435 S.W.3d 643 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2014)
Pearson v. Koster
359 S.W.3d 35 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2012)
State ex rel. Teichman v. Carnahan
357 S.W.3d 601 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2012)
Cole v. Carnahan
272 S.W.3d 392 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
Missourians Against Human Cloning v. Carnahan
190 S.W.3d 451 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)
State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Blunt
135 S.W.3d 416 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.W.3d 416, 2004 Mo. LEXIS 75, 2004 WL 1208929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-nixon-v-blunt-mo-2004.