The opinion has some really interesting ballot initiative issues, including the timing of election contests, and pre-election v. post-election challenges, with some dissents largely on procedural issues. From Lucas v. Ashcroft (lightly revised):
[T]he only issue in this case is whether the auditor’s fiscal note summary – the very last thing each and every voter saw before voting “yes” or “no” on Amendment No. 4 – fairly and accurately summarized the auditor’s fiscal note as required by section 116.175.3. This Court concludes it did not and, therefore, orders a new election on this question to be conducted as part of the statewide general election on November 5, 2024.
. . .
A dispute arose in 2021 between the City and the Board regarding the use of funds the City appropriated in excess of the statutory maximum. In May 2021, the City Council passed two ordinances reallocating funds appropriated above the cap to certain community policing initiatives. After the City passed these ordinances, the general assembly took up two measures that would change the City’s funding obligation to the Board.
. . .
For Amendment No. 4, the general assembly prepared the summary statement, and the auditor prepared the fiscal note and the fiscal note summary. The ballot title for
Amendment No. 4, in its entirety, read:“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize laws, passed before December 31, 2025, that increase minimum funding for a police force established by a state board of police commissioners to ensure such police force has additional resources to serve its communities?
“State and local governmental entities estimate no additional costs or savings related to this proposal.”
On November 8, 2022, Missouri voters approved Amendment No. 4.
. . .
The fiscal note states, “Officials from the City of Kansas City indicated if this amendment is approved by the voters it will have a negative fiscal impact on their city[.]” (Emphasis added). The fiscal note explains, if Amendment No. 4 is approved, “it will provide authorization to the implementation of the state legislature’s recently passed SB 678 that increases the amount that Kansas City must fund its police department from 20% to 25% of the City’s general revenue.” (Emphasis added). The note then states the “increase for Kansas City in terms of an estimated dollar amount by increasing the amount that Kansas City must fund its police department from 20% to 25% of the city’s general revenue is $38,743,646.” (Emphasis added). Nothing elsewhere in the fiscal note indicates the auditor rejected or even qualified these statements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing excerpts from the fiscal note – uncontradicted there by the auditor or qualified in any respect – the auditor’s summary of the fiscal note tells the voters only that “[s]tate and local governmental entities estimate no additional costs or savings related to the proposal.” That “summary” materially misstates, and materially misrepresents, the fiscal note. A voter reading this summary not only would not understand the portion of the fiscal note describing the fiscal impact on the City, that voter surely would be surprised to discover that a large portion of the fiscal note was devoted to that subject. Whatever one might think about the information the City provided, the auditor chose to include that information (without qualification) in the fiscal note. Having done so, it simply cannot be argued the fiscal note summary fairly and accurately summarized that part of the fiscal note. Because the fiscal impact on the City was the most significant issue addressed in the fiscal note, a summary ignoring that impact was not only inaccurate, it was misleading as well.