Reaffirming Original Jurisdiction and the “Cast Doubt” Standard in Post-Election Ballot Title Challenges

Introduction

Raymond McCarty and three fellow registered Missouri voters (“Contestants”) filed an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Missouri challenging the ballot title—both the summary statement and the fiscal-note summary—for Proposition A (Missouri’s 2024 minimum-wage and paid-sick-leave initiative). They argued that misleading language in those summaries constituted an “irregularity” under chapter 115 and cast doubt on the fairness of the election. They also raised separate claims under the single-subject and clear-title clauses of article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution. The Court was tasked with (1) confirming its original jurisdiction over post-election ballot-title contests, (2) determining whether any ballot-title irregularity warranted setting aside the November 2024 vote, and (3) deciding whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional validity challenges to Proposition A itself.

Summary of the Judgment

The en banc Court unanimously held:

It retains original jurisdiction over chapter 115 post-election contests to statewide statutes via article VII, section 5 of the Missouri Constitution and § 115.555, reaffirming Dotson v. Kander, Shoemyer v. Secretary of State, and Lucas v. Ashcroft.
Neither the summary statement nor the fiscal-note summary was materially inaccurate or so misleading as to constitute an “irregularity” that casts doubt on the entire election under § 115.593. The contested references to indexing the minimum wage, sick-leave details, private costs, and Clay County’s enforcement costs were either accurate, immaterial, or beyond the statutory scope of what must be summarized.
Because Contestants could not satisfy the heightened post-election standard—namely, that any irregularity must be of sufficient magnitude to undermine confidence in the overall results—they were not entitled to a new election.
The single-subject and clear-title claims address the measure’s validity, not an election irregularity, and fall outside the Court’s original jurisdiction under chapter 115. Those counts were dismissed without prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Dotson v. Kander, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. banc 2015): Held the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over post-election contests of statewide ballot measures under § 115.555 and art. VII, § 5.
Shoemyer v. Missouri Secretary of State, 464 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. banc 2015): Reiterated the Court’s constitutionally derived original jurisdiction in chapter 115 contests.
Lucas v. Ashcroft, 688 S.W.3d 204 (Mo. banc 2024): Reaffirmed Dotson and Shoemyer, set forth the two-step test for post-election ballot-title challenges (chapter 116 sufficiency plus election-irregularity standard of § 115.593), and emphasized stare decisis.
Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012): Defined sufficiency and fairness standards for a summary statement under § 116.190.
Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan, 303 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. App. 2010): Explained that a summary statement need not include every detail and may reference existing law without misleading voters.

Legal Reasoning

1. Original Jurisdiction. Article VII, section 5 empowers the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction over contests of statewide elections. Section 115.555 directs that all post-election contests of statewide statutes be heard by the Supreme Court. Despite calls to revisit Dotson and Shoemyer, Lucas confirmed that stare decisis precludes discarding those holdings absent a manifest injustice or intervening change—neither of which exists here.

2. Two-Step Contest Analysis. Under Lucas and Dotson, a post-election ballot-title challenge requires:

Proof of an underlying chapter 116 violation—that the summary statement or fiscal-note summary was insufficient or unfair; and
Proof that any such deficiency constitutes an “irregularity” casting doubt on the entire election’s validity, thus justifying a new election under § 115.593.

3. Summary Statement. The 100-word summary (indexing to CPI, paid sick leave accrual, enforcement authority, exemptions) accurately described Proposition A’s central features. Absent deception or bias, it passed the “fair and impartial” test. Missing details—such as employer-size variations, domestic-violence leave, or criminal-enforcement nuances—were peripheral and beyond the detail required by § 116.334’s word limit.

4. Fiscal-Note Summary. Section 116.175 mandates a 50-word summary of state and local governmental impacts. The auditor complied by reporting one-time costs of up to $53,000 and ongoing annual costs up to $256,000, plus indeterminate tax-revenue changes. Omitting private-sector costs (e.g., Missouri Budget Project estimates) or Clay County’s $2,000 enforcement estimate did not render the summary materially inaccurate. Those figures were either outside the statutory focus on governmental entities or immaterial relative to the state’s projected costs.

Impact

This decision cements a high procedural bar for post-election ballot-title challenges in Missouri:

Courts will not grant new elections unless a ballot title is not only insufficient under chapter 116 but also so misleading that it casts doubt on the entire vote.
Election-irregularity claims remain distinct from substantive constitutional challenges to initiative measures (single subject, clear title), which must be brought in an appropriate forum with original jurisdiction over measure validity.
Secretaries of state and state auditors enjoy deference in crafting summary statements and fiscal-note summaries, provided core statutory requirements—accuracy, impartiality, attention to state and local governmental impacts—are met.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court’s power to hear certain cases first, without them starting in lower courts. Article VII, § 5 and § 115.555 give it that power for election contests over statewide statutes.
Chapter 116 Sufficiency: Pre-election rules requiring ballot titles to fairly and neutrally summarize an initiative’s main features, within strict word limits.
Election Irregularity (Chapter 115): A post-election defect so serious that the entire outcome is in doubt, justifying a new vote under § 115.593.
Stare Decisis: The legal principle that courts should follow prior decisions unless there is a compelling reason to overrule them.

Conclusion

McCarty v. Missouri Secretary of State reaffirms the Supreme Court of Missouri’s original jurisdiction over post-election ballot-title contests and clarifies that only materially misleading summaries—ones that cast doubt on the entire election—can trigger a new election under chapter 115. By dismissing the single-subject and clear-title counts for lack of jurisdiction, the Court distinguishes between election-process challenges and substantive validity challenges. This judgment upholds robust deference to the summary-preparation processes under §§ 116.334 and 116.175, reinforcing procedural stability for future ballot-title disputes.