Missouri Supreme Court Ruling Allows Reproductive Ballot Initiatives to Move Forward

On Thursday, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected GOP Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s stance on an abortion-rights initiative, after Bailey’s disagreement with Republican Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick over an estimated cost proposal delayed an effort to expand reproductive rights in the state.  

Earlier this week the state Supreme Court heard arguments in an appeal of a Cole County Circuit Court decision regarding a proposed amendment to enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution. This effort, however, was stalled following Bailey’s refusal to sign off on Fitzpatrick’s cost estimate of the proposed amendment. 

Fitzpatrick estimated the cost of the initiative to be minimal to the state, but Bailey argued that the cost would be significantly higher than Fitzpatrick’s proposal—estimating it could cost at least $12 billion annually. 

Last month, in response to legal actions from the ACLU of Missouri, the Cole County Circuit Court ruled that Bailey needed to sign off on Fitzpatrick’s fiscal summary within 24 hours, saying that Bailey had an “absolute absence of authority” to revise the proposal. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday upheld the Cole County Circuit court’s decision, noting that “it is the Auditor, and not the Attorney General” who bears the responsibility of authorizing and estimating the fiscal impact of a proposed initiative petition.

The court emphasized that Bailey’s refusal to sign the fiscal summary delayed supporters of the ballot initiatives from starting to collect signatures, which is needed in order to place the initiative on the 2024 ballot. 

“If the Attorney General had complied with his duty to approve the Auditor’s fiscal note summaries in the time prescribed by section 20 116.175.4,” the ruling said, “the Secretary would have certified the official ballot titles for Fitz-James’s initiative petitions nearly 100 days ago.”

“While today is a tremendous victory for Missourians and the right to direct democracy, it is clear that some who hold office will not hesitate to trample the constitution if it advances their personal interests and political beliefs,” executive director at the ACLU of Missouri, Luz María Henríquez said in a statement on Thursday.

A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office told the St. Louis Post- Dispatch that “we disagree with the court’s decision, as we believe Missourians deserve to know how much this amendment would cost the state,” but that they will comply with the Court’s ruling.

Bailey was required by the court to approve the fiscal note by Friday afternoon.