Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 116.110 (2026)

Signature may be withdrawn, when, how, effect, penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  116.110.  Signature may be withdrawn, when, how, effect, penalty. — Any voter who has signed an initiative or referendum petition may withdraw his or her signature from that petition by submitting to the secretary of state, before the petition is filed with the secretary of state, a sworn statement requesting that his or her signature be withdrawn and affirming the name of the petition signed, the name the voter used when signing the petition, the address of the voter and the county of residence.  It is a class A misdemeanor punishable, notwithstanding the provisions of section 560.021* to the contrary, for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year in the county jail or a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars or both, to knowingly file a false withdrawal statement with the secretary of state.

­­--------

(L. 1980 S.B. 658, A.L. 1999 H.B. 676)

Effective 6-16-99

*Section 560.021 was repealed by S.B. 491, 2014, effective 1-01-17.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2004 · leading case: Rekart v. Kirkpatrick, 639 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1982).
Rekart v. Kirkpatrick, 639 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 20× “Plaintiffs filed suit against the Secretary of State to challenge the constitutionality and application of section 116.110, RSMo Supp.1981, which authorizes withdrawal of signatures from an initiative petition after the deadline set by the Missouri Constitution for filing…”
Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, Inc. v. State, 2004 UT 32 (Utah 2004). “1982) (quoting Mo.Rev.Stat. § 116.110 (Supp.1981)) (holding that signatures may be withdrawn only up until the time that the initiative petition is completed and filed).”
Missouri Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Kirkpatrick, 603 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 2× “658 (codified as § 116.110, RSMo), effective January 1, 1981, to control such cases in the future.”
Payne v. Kirkpatrick, 685 S.W.2d 891 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). “These two statutory sections perhaps need further consideration by the General Assembly and this court suggests a revision of both sections aimed toward a direct and clear definition of any time requirements upon either the local election authorities or the Secretary, along with…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.