Two petitions pertaining to Missouri’s public education system won appeals in cases that began with ‘misleading’ ballot titles
By: Annelise Hanshaw
Missouri Independent
Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out part of Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’s ballot language on Thursday for an initiative petition that would bar state funding of private education.
The decision, written by Judge Douglas Thomson, says that Hoskins’s summary statement was “misleading” because of a bullet point that says the petition would “eliminate existing programs that provide direct aid to students with special education needs.” The petition, filed by attorney Duane Martin with public education law firm EdCounsel, expressly allows public aid to private entities to educate students with disabilities.
“The failure to account for the disability exception in bullet point two — and instead state that special education programs would be eliminated — is insufficient and unfair,” Thomson wrote.
Hoskins, presumably, was referring to the state’s voucher program, MOScholars. The program pays for school tuition for students with and without disabilities, though those who need learning accommodations receive priority and an increased scholarship amount.
The petition seeks to dramatically restrict MOScholars by barring the state from funding scholarships for nondisabled students. Martin told The Independent in August that he views state funding of private school vouchers as a threat to public education.
“We’re watching the statewide elected officials from Missouri slowly dismantle public schools, this public school system that Missourians have built,” he said.
The court revised the ballot language to say the petition would “eliminate certain expenditures that provide direct or indirect aid to students for their educational needs by prohibiting the use of public funds for educational services provided by nonpublic schools, except for services provided to disabled students.”
The decision comes a week after the Missouri Supreme Court tossed out a law passed last year that would have allowed Hoskins to rewrite ballot titles three times before a judge could remedy the language.
The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment, saying it “does not comment on active litigation.”
Missouri Right to Education Initiative
A second pro-public-education petition is making its way through the courts, securing a win Thursday over a parent and voucher advocate who sought to intervene in the case.
The Missouri Right to Education Initiative seeks to label education a fundamental right in the State Constitution, charging the government with “maintaining adequate, thorough and uniform high quality free public schools.”
Spencer Toder, who filed the petition, told The Independent that the initiative is not aimed at changing MOScholars.
“Our intent is not to get involved in the voucher dialog,” he said in August. “It is to ensure that no matter if vouchers exist, it doesn’t come at the expense of public school students’ quality of education.”
But the ballot language from Hoskins’s office said the petition would eliminate the voucher program. Toder challenged the summary in Cole County Circuit Court, where Judge Chris Limbaugh ordered Hoskins to rewrite part of the summary twice.
In that case, Becki Uccello intervened as a mother of a disabled student who receives MOScholars funds and an advocate with the American Federation for Children, which pushes for vouchers and similar programs nationwide. She sought to defend Hoskins’s original summary statement.
The initiative, if approved by voters, would be used in court to challenge the voucher program, her attorneys wrote in an appeal of Limbaugh’s decision.
But Uccello had no right to appeal, Toder’s attorney, Heidi Vollet, argued.
The Western District Court of Appeals threw out Uccello’s arguments, saying she lacked standing to defend the Secretary of State’s ballot language.
Private parties only have a right to challenge ballot titles, not defend them, the court said in a unanimous decision written by Judge Gary Witt.
“Since Uccello’s grounds for intervention were to advocate for the same language that was proposed by the secretary initially, and which the secretary was defending on the same grounds, she has not established that she has any defense beyond the secretary, as party defendant,” wrote Witt.
Alix Cossette, an attorney with Stinson LLP who represented Uccello, told The Independent that Thursday’s decision carries ramifications for future ballot title cases.
“This is going to affect how people challenge or defend the secretary’s language,” she said. “If you want to defend what the secretary is doing, you are going to have to let the secretary just do that.”
In a footnote, Witt clarifies that individuals can intervene on ballot title cases when they oppose the secretary’s proposed language, writing: “The rule cannot be that if a petitioner friendly to the secretary’s summary files a specious challenge, a citizen with legitimate complaints as to the fairness and sufficiency of the proposed ballot summary cannot intervene to raise those legitimate challenges.”
