IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI LET VOTERS DECIDE, and TRAVIS BROWN, Plaintiffs, vs.

HONORABLE ROBIN CARNAHAN Missouri Secretary of State Capitol Building, Room 208 Jefferson City, MO 65101, and HONORAB'LE THOMAS SCHWEICH Missouri State Auditor Capitol Building, Room 121 P.O. Box 869 Jefferson City, MO 65101, ) ) ) )
) )

\

F I LED
~EP '} 1
<J
l..

'il '11 c..,;"

S9LE COUNTY, MtSSOUR[

CLERf\ Clr~CUiT :':;JURI

BRENDA A UMSTi\:TD

) ) ) )
) ) ) )

Case No.

) )
) )

) ) ) )
) ) )

Defendants.

PETITION TO CHALLENGE OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AND FISCAL NOTE COME NOW Plaintiffs Let Voters Decide and Travis Brown, and for their Petition to Challenge Official Ballot Title and Fiscal Note state as follows: 1. Plaintiff Let Voters Decide ("LVD" hereinafter) is a Missouri Non Profit

Corporation, registered with Defendant Carnahan, with its primary business location in Cole County, Missouri. Commission. It is also registered as a political action committee with the Missouri Ethics

2.

Plaintiff Travis Brown ("Brown"

hereinafter) is a citizen, resident, registered

voter, and taxpayer of the state of Missouri and a resident of St. Louis City, Missouri. 3. Plaintiff LVD is a proponent of the proposed initiative petitions which are the

subject of this litigation and has expended funds in drafting of such initiative petitions and in preparing to advocate in support of the initiative petitions. 4. Plaintiff Travis Brown is the President of LVD and also has a personal interest in

supporting and advocating for the passage of the initiative petitions. 5. Plaintiffs have interests as proponents and Plaintiff Brown has an interest as a

citizen and taxpayer of the state of Missouri in accurate disclosure of the effects and fiscal impact of the proposed amendment, among other interests. 6. Defendant Robin Carnahan is the Missouri Secretary of State and is named as a

party Defendant pursuant to Section 116.190.2, RSMo. 7. Defendant Thomas Schweich is the Missouri State Auditor and is named as a

party Defendant pursuant to Section] 16.190.2, RSMo. 8. RSMo. 9. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Chapters 116, and 527 of the Missouri Venue is proper in Cole County Circuit Court pursuant to Section 116.190.1,

Revised Statutes and Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 87. 10. Plaintiffs have brought this action within 10 days of Defendant Carnahan's

certification of the ballot titles for the two initiative petitions which are the subject of this action, as required by Section 116.190, RSMo.

-2-

11.

On or about August 12, 2011, a sample sheet for a proposed Initiative Petition,

identified as Tax Reform Initiative Petition, Version 10, was received by Defendant Carnahan. A copy of that Initiative Petition is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference ("Version 1Q" hereinafter). 12. On or about August 12, 2011, a sample sheet for a proposed Initiative Petition,

identified as Tax Reform Initiative Petition, Version 11, was received by Defendant Carnahan. A copy of that Initiative Petition is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference ("Version 11" hereinafter). referred to as the "Initiative Petitions." 13. The only difference between Versions 10 and 11 is the inclusion in Version 10 of All other provisions Combined with Version 10, these are cumulatively

a property tax relief measure in Section 6a of Article X of the constitution. of the two versions are identical both substantively and literally. 14.

On or about August 15, 2011, copies of the proposed Initiative Petitions were

concurrently sent to the Attorney General and Defendant Schweich. 15. The Initiative Petitions both contain the text of a constitutional amendment to

Article X of the Missouri Constitution. 16. On or about September 12, 2011, the Attorney General approved the Initiative

Petitions as to form. 17. On or about August 15, 2011, the Secretary of State transmitted copies of the fiscal notes and fiscal note

Initiative Petitions to the Auditor for the purpose of preparing summaries pursuant to Section 116.175, RSMo.

-3-

18.

The State Auditor's duty is to prepare a fiscal note and fiscal note summary for "The fiscal note and fiscal note summary shall state the Section

each of the Initiative Petitions.

measure's estimated costs or savings, if any, to state or local governmental entities.' 116.175.3, RSMo. 19.

The fiscal note summary "shall summarize the fiscal note in language neither Section

argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure."

116.175.3, RSMo. The fiscal note summary shall not exceed fifty words, excluding articles. Id. 20. On or about September 2, 2011, Defendant Schweich issued his Fiscal Note and A copy of the Fiscal Note, which 3 and

Fiscal Note Summary for each of the Initiative Petitions. includes the Fiscal Note Summary, for Version

10 is attached hereto as Exhibit

incorporated herein by reference:

A copy of the Fiscal Note, .which includes the Fiscal Note

Summary, for Version 11, is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by reference. Cumrnulatively, Exhibits 3 and 4 are referred to as "Fiscal Notes" and "Fiscal Note Summaries" herein. 2]. On or about September 12, 2011, Attorney General Christopher Koster approved

the legal content and form of the Auditor's Fiscal Note Summaries pursuant to Section 116.175, RSMo. Copies of the Attorney General's letters approving the Fiscal Note Summaries for

Version 10 and Version 11 are attached hereto as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively. 22. The Secretary of State's duty is to prepare a summary statement for the measure.

The summary statement must be concise and must not exceed one hundred words. The statement must be in the form of a question "using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure." Section 116.334, RSMo.

-4-

23.

On or about September

2, 2011, Defendant Carnahan

issued her Summary

Statements ofthe Initiative Petitions. 24. On or about September 12, 2011, the Attorney General of the State of Missouri

approved the Summary Statements of the Initiative Petitions. Copies of the Attorney General's letters approving the summary statements are attached hereto as Exhibit 7 and 8 for Version 10 and Version 11, respectively. 25. Within three days after receiving the approved summary statement, the approved

fiscal note summary, and the fiscal note, the Secretary of State certifies the official ballot title for the proposed measure. Section 116.180, RSMo. 26. On September 14, 2011, Defendant Carnahan certified the official ballot titles for

the Initiative Petitions. Copies of the Official Ballot Titles are attached hereto as Exhibit 9 and 10 (Version 10 and Version 11, respectively) and are incorporated herein by reference. 2'7. The ballot title consists of two portions, the summary statement written by the

Secretary of State and the fiscal note summary written by the State Auditor. 28. The Official Ballot Title of Version 10 states as follows:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: • • eliminate taxes paid by individuals based on income or earnings and sales and use taxes, including taxes paid by corporations and individuals, with certain exceptions; require the legislature to impose an expanded state sales tax on all sales and services, and allow the legislature to increase taxes up to 512% on purchases of food and 7% on other sales and services, with certain exceptions; require that state and local cumulative sales tax rate not exceed 10%, with certain exceptions; and provide for a real property tax credit for eligible homeowners?

• •

Annual state government revenue under this proposal may increase by up to $300 million, or decrease by up to $1.5 billion. The proposal is estimated to increase state operating costs by at least $15 million, and may accelerate tax credit redemptions. The fiscal impact to local governments is unknown. -5-

29.

The Official Ballot Title of Version 11 states as follows:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: • • eliminate taxes paid by individuals based on income or earnings and sales and use taxes, including taxes paid by corporations and individuals, with certain exceptions; require the legislature to impose an expanded state sales tax on all sales and services, and allow the legislature to increase taxes up to 51h% on purchases of food and 7% on other sales and services, with certain exceptions; and require that state and local cumulative sales tax rate not exceed 10%, with certain exceptions?

Annual state government revenue under this proposal may increase by up to $300 million, or decrease by up to $1.5 billion. The proposal is estimated to increase state operating costs by at least $15 million, and may accelerate tax credit redemptions. The fiscal impact to local governments is unknown.

COUNT I - THE FISCAL NOTE SUMMARY, VERSION 10 ,IS UNFAIR AND INSUFFICENT 30. herein. 31. Section 116. 175.1, RS Mo, requires that the "auditor shall assess the fiscal impact Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as if more fully stated

ofthe proposed measure." 32. Section 116.175.3, RSMo, (emphasis added) states as follows:

The fiscal note and fiscal note summary shall state the measure's estimated costs or savings, if any, to state and local governmental entities. The fiscal note summary shall contain no more than fifty words, excluding articles, which shall summarize the fiscal note in language neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure. 33. The Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10 states:

Annual state government revenue under this proposal may increase by up to $300 million, or decrease by up to $1.5 billion. The proposal is estimated to increase -6-

state operating costs by at least $15 million, and may accelerate tax credit redemptions. The fiscal impact to local governments is unknown. 34. Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version lOis insufficient and/or

unfair because it includes and identifies a potential revenue decrease of $1.5 billion which is based on insufficient, incorrect and erroneous 'data submitted by the Office of Administration, Division of Budget and Planning ("ONBP" hereinafter), to wit: a. The OA/BP data was for 2011 and not for 2013 or 2014 as is required by

Section 116.190, RSMo; and b. The OA/BP data erroneously states the sales tax base in the State of

Missouri under Version 10. 35. Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10 is insufficient and/or

unfair because it states that Version 10 "may accelerate tax credit redemption," which is not a statement of cost or revenue to the State of Missouri, in that such tax credits have already been issued and are an already incurred cost of the State of Missouri, to wit: a. terms of Version 10; b. The outstanding tax credits are expenditures of state government The tax credit liability has been incurred by the State not through the

authorized by the General Assembly and issued by state agencies; and c. The liability to the State of Missouri has already occurred and redemption

should have no effect on the costs or revenues of the state, since the State must reserve funds to account for such outstanding liabilities. 36. The insufficiency and unfairness of the Fiscal Note Summary will unfairly create

prejudice in the public, potential petition signers, and the voters against the proposed amendment.

-7-

37.

The requirements of Section 116.175, RSMo, are mandatory and have not been

complied with by Defendant Schweich. 38. Proposed language for the Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10, which Plaintiff

believes corrects. the insufficiency and unfairness is as follows: . Annual state government revenue under this proposal may remain the same or increase by up to $300 million. The proposal is estimated to increase state operating costs by at least $15 million which is less than expected new revenues. The fiscal impact to local governments is unknown. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court find that the Summary Statement of the

ballot title is insufficient and unfair; order that the current ballot title be stricken and replaced with the new ballot title provided by Plaintiffs or by such ballot title written by this Court; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II - THE FISCAL NOTE AND THE FISCAL NOTE SUMMARY FOR VERSION 10 ARE INSUFFICENT AND UNFAIR 39. herein. 40. Since the Fiscal Note is insufficient and/or unfair, that the Fiscal Note Summary Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 as if more. fully stated

is insufficient and/or unfair, and consequently, the Official Ballot Title is insufficient and/or unfair. 41. Section 116.175.1, RSMo, requires that the "auditor shall assess the fiscal impact

of the proposed measure." 42. Section 116.175.3, RSMo, states as follows:

The fiscal note and fiscal note summary shall state the measure's estimated costs or savings, if any, to state and local governmental entities. The fiscal note summary shall contain no more than fifty words, excluding articles, which shall -8-

summarize the fiscal note in language neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure. 43. The Fiscal Note, the Fiscal Note Summary, and the Official Ballot Title fail to More particularly, but

assess the measure's estimated costs and revenues the State of Missouri. without limitation, that: a.

Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10 is insufficient

and/or unfair because it includes and identifies a potential revenue decrease of $1.5 billion which is based on insufficient, incorrect and erroneous data submitted by the Office of Administration, Division of Budget and Planning ("OAlBP" hereinafter), to wit:
1.

The OAfBP data was for 2011 and not for 2013 or 2014 as is required by Section 116.190, RSMo; and

11.

The OAlBP data erroneously states the sales tax base Missouri under Version 10.

in

the State of

b.

Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10 is insufficient

and/or unfair because it states that Version 10 "may accelerate tax credit redemption," which is not a statement of cost or revenue to the State of Missouri, in that such tax credits have already been issued and are an already incurred cost of the State of Missouri, to wit:
1.

The tax credit liability has been incurred by the State not through the terms of Version 10;

11.

The outstanding tax credits are expenditures of state government authorized by the General Assembly and issued by state agencies; and

111.

The liability to the State of Missouri has already occurred and redemption should have no effect on the costs or revenues of the state,
-9-

smce the State must reserve funds to account for such outstanding liabilities. 44. Because the Fiscal Note for Version 10 is insufficient and unfair, the Fiscal Note an

Summary for Version 10 must likewise be set aside on the grounds that it summarizes insufficient and unfair fiscal note. 45.

Plaintiffs therefore request a different fiscal note summary that sufficiently and

fairly summarizes a sufficient and fair fiscal note for Version 10. 46. Because the Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10 is insufficient and unfair, the

Secretary of State's certification of the Official Ballot Title for Version 10, which includes the Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10, must also be set aside. After a new, sufficient and fair

fiscal note and fiscal note summary are created, a new Official Ballot Title for Version 10 must be certified. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court find that the Fiscal Note and the Fiscal Note Summary for Version 10 are insufficient and unfair and order that the current ballot title be stricken and replaced with the new ballot title provided by Plaintiffs or by such ballot title written by this Court, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT III-THE SUMMARY STATEMENT FOR VERSION 10 IS INSUFFICENT AND UNFAIR I through 46 as ifmore fully stated

47. herein.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs

-10-

48. intentionally

The statement must be in the form of a question "using language argumentative

neither

nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed

measure." Section 116.334, RSMo. 49. The Summary Statement of the Official Ballot Title of Version] 0 certified by

Defendant Carnahan is insufficient, unfair, and likely to deceive and mislead voters. 50. Given that only the Official Ballot Title will be affixed to the page where voters

sign the initiative petition, a large majority of the voters to whom Version 10 will be presented for their signature will consider the Summary Statement when making their decision whether to sign the Initiative Petition. 51. The Summary Statement reads as follows:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: • • eliminate taxes paid by individuals based on income or earnings and sales and use taxes, including taxes paid by corporations and individuals, with certain exceptions; require the legislature to impose an expanded state sales tax on all sales and services, and allow the legislature to increase taxes up to 5Y:z% on purchases of food and 7% on other sales and services, with certain exceptions; require that state and local cumulative sales tax rate not exceed 10%, with certain exceptions; and provide for a real property tax credit for eligible homeowners?

• •

52.

The Summary Statement for Version lOis insufficient and/or unfair and is likely The summary is insufficient and unfair in at least the

to create prejudice against the measure. following ways: a. b.

The Summary Statement is an insufficient summary of Version 10. The Summary Statement is an unfair summary of Version 10.

-11-

c.

The Summary Statement does not note that there is only one new sales tax

authorized and implies that two new sales taxes are authorized. d. new sales tax. e. The Summary Statement is insufficient and unfair SInce it does not The Summary Statement does not state that there are exemptions from the

indicate that the new sales tax replaces the existing individual income tax and the existing state sales tax. 53. The Summary Statement insufficiently and unfairly reflects the actual provisions

of the actual text of the Petition. 54. The Summary Statement to be included in the ballot title should be rewritten by

this Court and should state as follows: Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: • eliminate taxes paid by individuals based on income or earnings and sales and use taxes, including taxes paid by corporations and individuals, with certain exceptions; replace the repealed taxes with an expanded state sales tax and allow the legislature to set the rate of the new state sales tax at up to 5~% on purchases of food and 7% on other sales and services, with certain exceptions; require that state and local cumulative sales tax rate not exceed 10%, with certain exceptions; and provide for a real property tax credit for eligible homeowners? Plaintiffs pray that this Court find that the Summary Statement of the

• •

WHEREFORE,

Official Ballot Title for Version lOis insufficient and unfair; order that the current ballot title be stricken and replaced with the new ballot title provided by Plaintiffs or by such ballot title written by this Court; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

-12-

COUNT IV - THE FISCAL NOTE SUMMARY, VERSION INSUFFICENT 55. herein. 56.

11 ,IS UNFAIR AND

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as if more fully stated

Section 116.175.1, RSMo, requires that the "auditor shall assess the fiscal impact

of the proposed measure." 57. Section 116.175.3, RSMo, (emphasis added) states as follows:

The fiscal note and fiscal note summary shall state the measure's estimated costs or savings, if any, to state and local governmental entities. The fiscal note summary shall contain no more than fifty words, excluding articles, which shall summarize the fiscal note in language neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure. 58. The Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11 states:

Annual state government revenue under this proposal may increase by up to $300 million, or decrease by up to $1.5 billion. The proposal is estimated to increase state operating costs by at least $15 million, and may accelerate tax credit redemptions. The fiscal impact to local governments is unknown. 59. Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11 is insufficient and/or

unfair because it includes and identifies a potential revenue decrease of $1.5 billion which is based on insufficient, incorrect and erroneous data submitted by the Office of Administration, Division of Budget and Planning ("OAlBP" hereinafter), to wit: a. The OAlBP data was for 2011 and not for 2013 or 2014 as is required by

Section] 16.] 90, RSMo; and b. The OAIBP data erroneously states the sales tax base
in

the State of

Missouri under Version 11. 60. Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11 is insufficient and/or -13-

unfair because it states that Version II "may accelerate tax credit redemption," which is not a statement of cost or revenue to the State of Missouri, in that such tax credits have already been issued and are an already incurred cost of the State of Missouri, to wit: a. terms of Version I I; b. The outstanding tax credits are expenditures of state government The tax credit liability has been incurred by the State not through the

authorized by the General Assembly and issued by state agencies; and c. The liability to the State of Missouri has already occurred and redemption

should have no effect on the costs or revenues of the state, since the State must reserve funds to account for such outstanding liabilities. 61. . The insufficiency and unfairness of the Fiscal Note Summary will unfairly create

prejudice in the public, potential petition signers, and the voters against the proposed amendment. 62. The requirements of Section 116.175, RSMo, are mandatory and have not been

complied with by Defendant Schweich. 63. Proposed language for the Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11, which Plaintiff

believes corrects the insufficiency and unfairness is as follows: Annual state government revenue under this proposal may remain the same or increase by up to $300 million. The proposal is estimated to increase state operating costs by at least $15 million which is less than expected new revenues. The fiscal impact to local governments is unknown. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court find that the Summary Statement of the ballot title is insufficient and unfair; order that the current ballot title be stricken and replaced with the new ballot title provided by Plaintiffs or by such ballot title written by this Court; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. ~14~

COUNT V - THE FISCAL NOTE AND THE FISCAL NOTE SUMMARY FOR VERSION 11 ARE INSUFFICENT AND UNFAIR 64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 and 55 through 63 as

if more fully stated herein. 65. Since the Fiscal Note is insufficient and/or unfair, that the Fiscal Note Summary the Official Ballot Title is insufficient and/or

is insufficient and/or unfair, and consequently, unfair. 66.

Section 116.175.1, RSMo, requires that the "auditor shall assess the fiscal impact

of the proposed measure." 67. Section 116.175.3, RSMo, states as follows:

The fiscal note and fiscal note summary shall state the measure's estimated costs or savings, if any, to state and local governmental entities. The fiscal note summary shall contain no more than fifty words, excluding articles, which shall summarize the fiscal note in language neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure. 68. The Fiscal Note, the Fiscal Note Summary, and the Official Ballot Title fail to

assess the measure's estimated costs and revenues the State of Missouri. More particularly, but without limitation, that: a. Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11 is insufficient

and/or unfair because it includes and identifies a potential revenue decrease of $1.5 billion which is based on insufficient, incorrect and erroneous data submitted by the Office of Administration, Division of Budget and Planning ("OAlBP" hereinafter), to wit:
1.

The OAlBP data was for 2011 and not for 20] 3 or 2014 as is required by Section 116.190, RSMo; and - 15-

11.

The OAlBP data erroneously states the sales tax base in the State of Missouri under Version 11.

b.

Defendant Schweich's Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11 is insufficient

and/or unfair because it states that Version 11 "may accelerate tax credit redemption," which is not a statement of cost or revenue to the State of Missouri, in that such tax credits have already been issued and are an already incurred cost of the State of Missouri, to wit:
1.

The tax credit liability has been incurred by the State not through the tenns of Version 11;

11.

The outstanding tax credits are expenditures of state government authorized by the General Assembly and issued by state agencies; and

111.

The liability to the State of Missouri has already occurred and redemption should have no effect on the costs or revenues of the state, since the State must reserve funds to account for such outstanding liabilities.

69.

Because the Fiscal Note for Version 11 is insufficient and unfair, the Fiscal Note be set aside on the grounds that it summarizes an

Summary for Version I 1 must likewise insufficient and unfair fiscal note. 70.

Plaintiffs therefore request a different fiscal note summary that sufficiently and

fairly summarizes a sufficient and fair fiscal note for Version 11. 71. Because the Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11 is insufficient and unfair, the

Secretary of State's certification of the Official Ballot Title for Version 11, which includes the

-16-

Fiscal Note Summary for Version 11, must also be set aside.

After a new, sufficient and fair

fiscal note and fiscal note summary are created, a new Official Ballot Title for Version 11 must be certified. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court find that the Fi,scal Note and the Fiscal Note Swnmary for Version 1] are insufficient and unfair and order that the current ballot title be stricken and replaced with the new ballot title provided by Plaintiffs or by such ballot title written by this Court, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT VI - THE SUMMARY STATEMENT FOR VERSION 11 IS INSUFFICENT AND UNFAIR 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 and 55 through 71 as

if more fully stated herein. 73. intentionally measure." 74. The statement must be in the form of a question argwnentative "using language neither

nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed

Section 116.334, RSMo. The Summary Statement of the Official Ballot Title of Version 11 certified by

Defendant Carnahan is insufficient, unfair, and likely to deceive and mislead voters. 75. Given that only the Official Ballot Title will be affixed to the page where voters

sign the initiative petition, a large majority of the voters to whom Version 11 will be presented for their signature will consider the Summary Statement when making their decision whether to sign the Initiative Petition. 76. The Summary Statement for Version 11 reads as follows:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: -17-

• •

eliminate taxes paid by individuals based on income or earnings and sales and use taxes, including taxes paid by corporations and individuals, with certain exceptions; require the legislature to impose an expanded state sales tax on all sales and services, and allow the legislature to increase taxes up to 5~% on purchases of food and 7% on other sales and services, with certain exceptions; and require that state and local cumulative sales tax rate not exceed 10%, with certain exceptions?

77.

The Summary Statement for Version 11 is insufficient and/or unfair and is likely The summary is insufficient and unfair in at least the

to create prejudice against the measure. following ways: a. b. c.

The Summary Statement is an insufficient summary of Version 11. The Summary Statement is an unfair summary of Version 11. The Summary Statement does not note that there is only one new sales tax

authorized and implies that two new sales taxes are authorized. d. new sales tax. e. The Summary Statement is insufficient and unfair since it does not The Summary Statement does not state that there are exemptions from the

indicate that the new sales tax replaces the existing individual income tax and the existing state sales tax. 78. The Summary Statement insufficiently and unfairly reflects the actual provisions

of the actual text of the Petition. 79. The Summary Statement to be included in the ballot title should be rewritten by

this Court and should state as follows: Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: -18-

eliminate taxes paid by individuals based on income or earnings and sales and use taxes, including taxes paid by corporations and individuals, with certain exceptions; replace the repealed taxes with an expanded state sales tax and allow the legislature to set the rate of the new state sales tax at up to 5Y:!%on purchases of food and 7% on other sales and services, with certain exceptions; . require that state and local cumulative sales tax rate not exceed 10%, with certain exceptions? Plaintiffs pray that this Court find that the Summary Statement of the

WHEREFORE,

Official Ballot Title for Version 11 is insufficient and unfair; order that the current ballot title be stricken and replaced with the new ballot title provided by Plaintiffs or by such ballot title written by this Court; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, BLITZ, BARDGETT & DEUTSCH,

t.c

By:

~~

Marc H. Ellinger, #40828 James B. Deutsch, #27093 Thomas W. Rynard, #34562 Stephanie S. Bell, #61855 308 East High Street, Suite 301 Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone No.: (573) 634-2500 Facsimile No.: (573) 634-3358 E-mail: mellinger@blitzbardgett.com E-mail: jdeutsch@blitzbardgett.com E-mail: trynard@blitzbardgett.com E-mail: sbellla)blitzbardgett.com

!

-19-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful