Six attorneys delivered often-conflicting oral arguments to Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem Thursday in the lawsuit challenging the proposed transportation sales tax that voters will see on the Aug. 5 ballot as Constitutional Amendment 7.
If voters approve, the proposed ¾-cent sales tax would fund major transportation projects around the state, including road and bridge construction and safety improvements.
At the heart of the arguments during Thursday's hearing were the lawmakers' ballot language and the attached fiscal note.
The lawsuit, filed by Jefferson City attorney Gaylin Rich Carver on behalf of former state Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford, now the director for Missouri Association of Social Welfare, challenges Amendment 7 on two fronts.
First, Carver called the summary statement voters will see on the ballot "misleading to the public and fails to convey what is actually contained within the amendment."
Her lawsuit also questioned the sufficiency of the fiscal note summary, arguing it is not accurate.
She listed those problems as failing to mention an increase of the use tax as well as the sales tax, failing to accurately identify the true
percentage increase of the proposed tax, misusing the word "temporary" because voters can renew the tax every 10 years, failing to explain the amendment's impact on other funds and omitting the requirement that the Transportation department create a ""prioritized project list" before the election.
The lawsuit names several state officials as defendants, including Secretary of State Jason Kander and three lawmakers involved in crafting the ballot language. State Auditor Tom Schweich was named in the original suit, but Beetem removed him as a defendant during a hearing Tuesday.
In Thursday's hearing, Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan, representing Kander, countered Carver's claims, saying he believes "the voters are put on notice for exactly what they are voting on."
"Fifty words is the limit" for lawmaker-passed ballot language, Morgan said. "Everything in the summary statement is true - the plaintiff is requesting additional details that are not required or necessary for the public's understanding."
Mickey Wilson, the longtime director of the Oversight Division of the Committee on Legislative Research, was the only witness, called by Carver on the fiscal note issue.
Carver questioned Wilson for almost 20 minutes, asking how fiscal notes are prepared and especially about the ballot language's claim that no funds would be diverted from transportation projects to other expenditures.
She said lawmakers wrote the fiscal note summary for the ballot before Wilson's Oversight Division had prepared a new fiscal note based on changes in the proposed amendment.
"For them to have prepared the fiscal note summary, before they had the fiscal note, just confuses me," Carver said. "It is like the tail wagging the dog. For that reason, this should be rejected."
In cross-examination, Wilson told the court it is not uncommon for his office to draft fiscal notes after bills have passed the General Assembly, calling it "normal practice and procedure."
Attorney Dane Martin, representing the group promoting the amendment, argued the entire case was moot because the deadline expired for ballot issues to go to election officials.
"The deadline was Tuesday, June 24, and the court no longer has the authority to rule," Martin argued.
But Carver was quick to object, stating the original hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, the final day of the deadline and a date previously agreed upon by all attorneys.
Morgan also asked Beetem to consider what would happen to votes already cast - including military and some absentee ballots that already have been mailed and completed - if the judge orders a change in the ballot language.
Beetem acknowledged he must rule quickly, but didn't say Thursday when he would release his ruling.