Lawyers involved with a lawsuit challenging the proposed 3/4-cent sales tax for transportation will continue to argue their cases before Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem on Thursday.
If voters approve Constitutional Amendment 7 on the Aug. 5 ballot, the sales tax increase would fund hundreds of transportation construction projects throughout the state, as well as help pay for improvements in other transportation modes.
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, argues the summary approved by the Legislature is insufficient and unfair, and asks the court to rewrite it.
In the lawsuit, several state officials were named for their roles within the creation of the ballot language.
Defendants in the case include Secretary of State Jason Kander, Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, state Auditor Tom Schweich and Rep. Dave Hinson, R-St. Clair, who drafted the House resolution that lawmakers ultimately passed, which became Amendment 7.
Beetem accepted Schweich's motion to be dismissed from the case.
State Solicitor General James Layton said Tuesday that he wanted to make it clear in the court record that when attorneys Marc Ellinger and James Deutsch spoke, they were not representing the views of the state.
"The attorney general is not going to object to their presence, but it is important to note the role they are here to play," Layton told Beetem. "They represent two members of the General Assembly, they do not represent the General Assembly."
But, Ellinger countered, state law requires the speaker, senate president pro tem and the original resolution to be named in the lawsuit.
"My clients do not consent to allowing the attorney general's office to speak for them," Ellinger said. "We wish to defend this case, to defend this ballot measure and to argue the merits of it."
Layton said the attorney general's office had "no qualms" with Ellinger and Deutsch taking that position.
Tuesday's scheduled hearing also was snagged in another debate among Ellinger, Carver and Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan, who represented Kander.
Ellinger said he believed the court could not proceed Tuesday because not all defendants had filed their responses to Carver's suit.
Ellinger noted court procedure rules say: "After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings."
Carver disagreed, saying she believed the court could proceed under Chapter 116, the state laws governing initiative petitions and referendums.
"Chapter 116 is the guide," she said. "We all know we have a time crunch. To delay this is to deprive the rights as citizens to challenge a law."
Beetem agreed with Ellinger that responses must be filed, depositions must be taken with any witnesses expected to testify - and scheduled the new hearing for 1:30 p.m. Thursday.