Case Summary for June 21, 2007

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for June 21, 2007

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

1:30 p.m. Thursday, June 21, 2007

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Letter Briefs filed following the opinion

SC88476
James Trout v. State of Missouri, et al.
Cole County
Challenge to constitutionality of House Bill 1900

House Bill 1900 (H.B. 1900) was passed in May 2006 and signed into law in July 2006. This bill impacts campaign contributions including a ban on candidates for statewide office, state representative or state senator from accepting contributions during the legislative session. The bill also disqualified tax delinquents from candidacy. James Trout was a candidate for the Missouri General Assembly in 2006 and intends to run in 2008. Trout sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to invalidate the bill in its entirety, arguing it violated Missouri Constitution article III, sections 21 and 23, the original purpose rule and single-subject rule, respectively. Trout also claimed enacting the bill violated his equal protection rights and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States and Missouri constitutions. In March 2007, the trial court held that the bill did not violate the single-subject rule and that while it was changed from its original purpose, the sections that were added and changed the original purpose could be severed from the bill. Ultimately the trial court severed two sections from the bill and enjoined their enforcement, sustained Trout's First Amendment challenge and overruled Trout's equal protection and candidate qualifications challenge because Trout lacked standing. Trout appeals.

Trout argues the bill's title, "relating to ethics," violates article III, section 23, in that the plain meaning of the word "ethics" is broad and obscures the content of the act. He contends that the title violates the single-subject requirement and that it cannot be reformulated by reference to the bill's content or by judicial interpretation. Trout asserts the bill contains multiple subjects that cannot constitutionally be combined under a single broad heading. He asserts that there are provisions relating to both candidate disqualification and campaign contributions. He further argues the trial court should have found the entire bill violates the constitution because it contained multiple subjects from its inception and added multiple other provisions not related or germane to the original purpose in violation of article III, section 21. The trial court erred, he contends, in upholding portions of the bill and severing only the provisions relating to candidate disqualification. He claims the original purpose cannot be isolated by severing some of the provisions. Trout asserts it cannot be presumed that the legislature would have enacted one portion of the bill without the others.

The state responds that the bill's title was clear and not overly inclusive, comporting with article III, section 23. It argues the trial court erred in severing two sections from the bill because the sections were reasonably related to the bill's general, core purpose and, therefore, the bill did not violate the single-subject rule. The state contends all of the bill's sections fall within or were relating to regulating and promoting the ethical conduct of lobbyists, officials and candidates. It asserts the bill also did not violate article III, section 21. The state argues the trial court, therefore, erred in severing these same sections because the sections were germane to its original purpose. It asserts that the trial court properly selected a narrow remedy in striking only one section.

Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants argues, as a friend of the Court, that the bill was unconstitutional because its final title, "relating to ethics," was not sufficiently clear to provide notice of what the bill contained. It claims the original purpose of the bill was campaign finance but that the bill was altered during the legislative process to contain multiple subjects. The society asserts that this Court should find that provisions of the bill not related to the subject of campaign finance reform must be stricken. It further argues that the Court should declare that all revisions to the bill not related to campaign finance are void and unenforceable.

Missouri Republican State Committee argues, as a friend of the Court, that this Court should exercise its inherent authority to remand this case to the trial court because the state is represented by conflicted counsel. It claims the state's counsel, the attorney general, has personal and official interests in accepting contributions during the legislative session and, therefore, the attorney general has an interest in the bill being found unconstitutional. This interest, the committee argues, conflicts with the state's interest in the bill being found constitutional. It further contends that Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.11 prohibit government attorneys from entering or continuing in representations when their personal and official interests conflict or foreseeably could conflict. The committee contends the attorney general and his client's conflicting interests require a remand to trial to allow the conflict to be resolved.