Missouri tobacco tax hike proposal survives court challenge

The "Raise Your Hand 4 Kids" group celebrated Tuesday afternoon, after Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled its proposed constitutional amendment to raise tobacco taxes and benefit early childhood and health education programs should stay on the Nov. 8 general election ballot.

"(The) decision affirms the will of the more than 200,000 Missourians who signed petitions supporting 'Yes on 3 for Kids' and know that we must start investing in Missouri kids by expanding early childhood education," spokeswoman Jane Dueker said in a news release.

However, within two hours of getting Beetem's ruling, Jefferson City attorney Chuck Hatfield filed notice he's appealing the decision to Missouri's court of appeals in Kansas City.

"We have always planned to argue this matter to the Court of Appeals," said Hatfield, who represents two of the amendment's opponents. "The issue of whether to count signatures gathered using a deceptive ballot title is one that has not been addressed by the Courts before and so an appellate decision makes sense."

"Raise Your Hand" circulated its petitions from January until May 7 and submitted those petitions with more than 209,000 signatures of registered voters.

However, those signatures were being gathered even as opponents were challenging the petition in court.

On July 8 - two months after the deadline to submit completed petitions - the Kansas City appeals court added five words to the ballot title to make it clearer for voters.

Hatfield's clients went back to the Cole County Circuit Court, arguing Secretary of State Jason Kander shouldn't count any of the signatures gathered under the previous ballot language.

"We believe the law is clear that signatures cannot be counted in this case," Hatfield said Tuesday.

Beetem disagreed, ruling as part of a 28-page judgment, the requirements for the form and content of petitions are statutory, not constitutional. He said the constitution requires the official ballot title to be given to the electors at the general or special election, but does not require the ballot title to be part of the initiative petition."

Hatfield also argued during last Friday's hearing the proposed amendment itself violates state constitutional provisions, so the proposal shouldn't go on the ballot.

Beetem again disagreed, saying the plaintiffs didn't prove their case - and can raise the issues after the election, if voters approve the proposal.

Beetem's ruling also noted the tight timelines for getting ballots prepared for military and absentee voting. He also wrote previous rulings have said the courts can't add a proposal to the ballot after a certain time, but can order local election officials to not count votes for an issue they determine should not have been placed on the ballot.