Five alleged violations of Missouri Constitution detailed
Count IV of the complaint filed Oct. 19 in Cole County Circuit Court by Cures Without Cloning alleges that Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and Missouri State Auditor Susan Montee violated five sections of the Missouri Constitution in writing the ballot summary, fiscal note and fiscal note summary for an initiatiave proposal concerning embryonic stem cell research. Those alleged violations are in Article I, Sections 2, 3, 8 and 25, and in Article III, Section 49. Here is that portion of the complaint:
Article 1, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution provides that “the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their Constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary.” Defendants’ conduct in drafting, reviewing, approving, certifying, transmitting, and publishing the summary statement, fiscal note summary, and fiscal note, violates this provision because it frustrates the ability of Plaintiffs to communicate to their supporters and other Missouri citizens regarding their proposal to “alter… their Constitution.” For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ summary statement, fiscal note summary, and fiscal note present an inaccurate, incomplete, unfair, prejudicial, and biased argument regarding Plaintiffs’ proposal, but purport to be unbiased and fair and carry the imprimatur of the state. The Defendants’ conduct will therefore require Plaintiffs to undertake substantially more expensive and extensive efforts to communicate with their supporters and fellow citizens about their proposal. Because Plaintiffs do not have unlimited resources, the additional burdens imposed by Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct will decrease the number of voters Plaintiffs are able to reach and ultimately persuade with their message. This burden is so heavy that it frustrates Plaintiffs’ right to alter the Constitution. It also frustrates the rights of Missouri citizens, with whom Plaintiffs would communicate, to alter the Constitution.
Article 3, Section 49 of the Missouri Constitution provides that “the people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the Constitution by the Initiative, independent of the General Assembly…” Defendants’ conduct in drafting, reviewing, approving, certifying, transmitting, and publishing the summary statement, fiscal note summary, and fiscal note, violates this provision because it frustrates the ability of Plaintiffs to communicate to their supporters and other Missouri citizens regarding their proposal to “enact…amendments to the Constitution by the Initiative…” For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ summary statement, fiscal note summary, and fiscal note present an inaccurate, incomplete, unfair, prejudicial, and biased argument regarding Plaintiffs’ proposal, but purport to be unbiased and fair and carry the imprimatur of the state. The Defendants’ conduct will therefore require Plaintiffs to undertake substantially more expensive and extensive efforts to communicate with their supporters and fellow citizens about their proposal. Because Plaintiffs do not have unlimited resources, the additional burdens imposed by Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct will decrease the number of voters Plaintiffs are able to reach and ultimately persuade with their message. This burden is so heavy that it frustrates Plaintiffs’ right to amend the Constitution by the initiative. It also frustrates the rights of Missouri citizens, with whom Plaintiffs would communicate, to amend the Constitution by initiative.
Article 1, Section 25 of the Missouri Constitution provides that “all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” The right of suffrage applies to ballot measure elections as well as to candidate elections. By frustrating Plaintiff’s right to amend the Constitution by the initiative, as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45 of this Petition, Defendants will deprive Plaintiffs and other Missouri citizens of the right to vote on the Cures Without Cloning Amendment, denying Plaintiffs and other Missouri citizens of their rights under Article I, Section 25.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution provides that “no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communicated…” This includes the right to engage in political speech and association for purposes of gathering support for legislative and political change. Speaking to one’s supporters and the public at large regarding an initiative petition is conduct that lies at the core of the freedom of speech. By using the summary statement, fiscal note summary, and fiscal note to present an inaccurate, incomplete, unfair, prejudicial, and biased argument regarding Plaintiffs’ proposal, but purporting to be unbiased and fair and carry the imprimatur of the state, Defendants have unduly burdened Plaintiff’s free speech rights without any compelling government interest. They have made it much more expensive and much more difficult for Plaintiffs to leverage their resources to communicate with their supporters and the Missouri public. Because Plaintiffs do not have unlimited resources, the additional burdens imposed by Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct will decrease the number of voters Plaintiffs are able to reach and ultimately persuade with their message. Defendants’ conduct violates Plaintiffs’ free speech rights.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution provides that “all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunities under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its
chief design.”
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ summary statement, fiscal note summary, and fiscal note present an inaccurate, incomplete, unfair, prejudicial, and biased argument regarding Plaintiffs’ proposal, but purport to be unbiased and fair and carry the imprimatur of the state. pon information and belief, based on the severe inadequacies and evident bias in Defendants’ performance of their duties, Defendants acted with the intent to produce and publish to Missouri voters inaccurate, incomplete, unfair, prejudicial, and biased arguments in an effort to burden and frustrate their fundamental rights to engage in political speech, association, petition the government, and amend the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, Defendants have, upon information and belief, acted against Plaintiffs on the basis of Plaintiffs’ political beliefs on the issue of cloning and stem cell research, which are in opposition to the publicly expressed beliefs of Defendants. Defendants have, upon information and belief, given preferential treatment to political allies who share their views on cloning and stem cell research. Defendants’ unequal treatment of Plaintiffs when compared to their treatment of opponents to the Cures Without Cloning Amendment is based on Defendants’ political viewpoint and not on any rational basis. Defendants’ unequal treatment of Plaintiffs has damaged and will damage them by making it much more expensive and much more difficult for Plaintiffs to leverage their resources to communicate with their supporters and the Missouri public. Defendants’ conduct violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law.