Missouri Wants Federal Court to Impose Sanctions on Plaintiffs’ Attorney in Redistricting Case

On December 12, Missouri’s Attorney General asked a U.S. District Court to impose sanctions on the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the redistricting case. The state says that the attorneys for the plaintiffs told the court at oral argument that the plaintiffs agree that laws subject to referenda are not suspended until the referendum petition is checked to see if it has enough valid signatures. But the Attorney General says the following day, the plaintiffs’ attorney told the press that laws subject to referenda are suspended as soon as the signatures have been submitted.

Here is the Attorney General’s filing. The case is Missouri General Assembly v Glahn, e.d., 4:25cv-1535.

The referendum process in Missouri is over 100 years old. One would think that the question of when the law is suspended would have been answered decades ago.


Comments

Missouri Wants Federal Court to Impose Sanctions on Plaintiffs’ Attorney in Redistricting Case — 12 Comments

  1. Knapp is now telling those who disagree with him to kill themselves. He also doesn’t want to stop communism. What a retarded asshat.

  2. MO CONST ART III

    Section 52(a). Referendum—exceptions—procedure.—A referendum may be
    ordered (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
    peace, health or safety, and laws making appropriations for the current expenses of
    the state government, for the maintenance of state institutions and for the support of
    public schools) either by petitions signed by five percent of the legal voters in each
    of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, or by the general assembly, as
    other bills are enacted. Referendum petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state
    not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general
    assembly which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.
    Source: Const. of 1875, Art. IV, Sec. 57.

  3. The General Assembly and SOS (the plaintiffs in the case) are making the preposterous argument that the referendum does not apply to ordinary legislation. SCOTUS has interpreted “Legislature” in Article I, Section 4 to mean the legislative process.

  4. In Missouri, laws go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns. 90 days is also the deadline for petitioning for a referendum.

    If a law did go into effect after 90 days but prior to certification of the petition it would be contrary to the whole purpose of a popular veto.

    Imagine that a bill enacted a new criminal statute. If a referendum petition had been submitted prior to the deadline, but had not been certified, the legislature argues that the crime could be prosecuted. But then when the petition was certified, it would no longer be a crime, but criminal prosecutions for the interim period would be valid. And then if the referendum failed, the law would once again go into effect.

  5. JR-

    BETTER TO NOT HAVE ANY REFERENDUMS ???

    JUST INITS – POSITIVE LAWS BY VOTER PETS. – OR NEW ELECTIONS BY VOTER PETS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.