A Kansas City appeals court heard arguments Wednesday afternoon in a case challenging the legality of a referendum that could repeal Missouri's new right-to-work law.
Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green found June 22 that language on a referendum seeking to repeal the right-to-work law was insufficient and did not adequately describe changes that would be made to the existing law. Green also found the referendum language contained several grammatical errors. His ruling meant the referendum could not continue with its current language.
Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Mike Louis, head of the Jefferson City-based labor union AFL-CIO, appealed the ruling because they felt the language was accurate and did not confuse voters.
Lawyers for both sides of the referendum spoke for about 13 minutes at the hearing at Missouri's Western District appeals court in Kansas City. Cameras were not allowed in the courtroom and recordings, and transcripts were not made available. In written arguments before the hearing, Ashcroft and Louis argued Green erred in his judgment.
"Missouri courts are not tasked to wade into disputes between proponents and opponents of a cause," Ashcroft's office wrote in written arguments to the appeals court. "Rather, the court's singular task is to consider the summary of a given ballot initiative."
Months before Gov. Eric Greitens signed Missouri's right-to-work law in February, Louis preemptively filed three petitions with the office of then-Secretary of State Jason Kander. Those petitions proposed amending the state Constitution to ban laws that give local or state government the ability to restrict the financial support between employees and unions.
Backed by the Washington-based National Right to Work Foundation, Missouri nurse Mary Hill and Kansas City police officers Roger Stickler and Michael Briggs filed a lawsuit against Louis, arguing the language on petitions to repeal Missouri's then-proposed right-to-work law was "insufficient and unfair."
Greitens signed the bill, known as Senate Bill 19, in February which allows unions to continue representing workers but provides employees the ability to opt out of paying union dues. With the bill signed into law, Louis submitted a referendum petition in February that would repeal SB 19 after a statewide vote next November.
Green cited poor grammar in his ruling saying the summary of the referendum's effects did not explicitly state the ballot measure was a referendum, despite the fact the header on the petition above the summary reads PETITION FOR REFERENDUM.
He also cited poor grammar in his decision to halt attempts to move forward with the referendum's current language. Green concluded Louis and Ashcroft were asking voters to vote "yes" to repeal the law and vote "no" to affirm the law.
"It is improperly constructed insofar in identifying SB 19's effect, noting what it prohibits, but also stating that it 'make' activity illegal and 'allow' legal remedies," Green said in his ruling.
Ashcroft told the appeals court, though, fair ballot language would be created and posted in polling places, which will explain what a vote for and what a vote against the referendum represents.
Louis told the appeals court the General Assembly always requires the measure receiving the most yes votes be adopted.
"The Secretary's phrasing of the summary asking voters whether they approve, rather than reject Senate Bill 19, find support in every conceivable source," Louis said in written arguments to the appeals court.
Attorneys for Hill, Stickler and Briggs argued the referendum, as approved by Ashcroft, asks voters whether they should approve a law already passed by the General Assembly. Rather, they said, the referendum should ask voters to reject the law.
"The law was already adopted by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor," attorneys for Hill, Stickler and Briggs said in written arguments to the appeals court. "In essence, the Secretary's summary statement suggests that voters do what has already been achieved."
Ultimately, Ashcroft said, Green ruled incorrectly because he re-wrote parts of the summary and ballot language without changing the meaning of the language.
"In every respect, the Circuit Court's judgment is a perfect example of using different words to rewrite an otherwise fair and sufficient summary statement," Ashcroft's office wrote.
Louis also argued minor errors are not grounds for rejecting a referendum of this importance.
"Minor clerical errors would not render this summary statement insufficient and unfair because they do not alter the summary statement's meaning," Louis said in written arguments. "Grammar errors can be overlooked in these constitutionally required contexts where liberty is at stake."
Green ordered Ashcroft's office to immediately certify the new language suggested by him, which would mean Louis and other referendum proponents would need to start the process of gathering signatures again. Instead, Ashcroft appealed. On July 5 the appeals court stayed Green's ruling until an expedited ruling in the case could be made.
A ruling is expected within the next few weeks.
The AFL-CIO and other groups that support the referendum continue to collect signatures as they near an Aug. 28 deadline when SB 19 will take effect. If proponents gather enough signatures, about 90,000 statewide are needed, SB 19 would not take effect until after a vote in the November 2018 general election.