Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 116
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 116.190 (2026)

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

  *116.190.  Ballot title may be challenged, procedure — who are parties defendant — changes may be made, procedure — appeal to supreme court, when — action extinguished, when. — 1.  Any citizen who wishes to challenge the official ballot title or the fiscal note prepared for a proposed constitutional amendment submitted by the general assembly, by initiative petition, or by constitutional convention, or for a statutory initiative or referendum measure, may bring an action in the circuit court of Cole County.  The action shall be brought within ten days after the official ballot title is certified by the secretary of state in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, in the case of an initiative petition and not later than the twenty-second Tuesday prior to the general election at which the ballot measure will be submitted to the voters, in the case of all other statewide ballot measures.

  2.  The secretary of state shall be named as a party defendant in any action challenging the official ballot title prepared by the secretary of state.  When the action challenges the fiscal note or the fiscal note summary prepared by the auditor, the state auditor shall also be named as a party defendant.  The president pro tem of the senate, the speaker of the house and the sponsor of the measure and the secretary of state shall be the named party defendants in any action challenging the official summary statement, fiscal note or fiscal note summary prepared pursuant to section 116.155.

  3.  The petition shall state the reason or reasons why the summary statement portion of the official ballot title is insufficient or unfair.  Alternatively, the petition shall state the reasons why the fiscal note or the fiscal note summary portion of the official ballot title is insufficient or unfair and shall request a different fiscal note or fiscal note summary portion of the official ballot title.

  4.  (1)  The action shall be placed at the top of the civil docket.

  (2)  (a)  Insofar as the action challenges the summary statement portion of the official ballot title, the court shall consider the petition, hear arguments, and in its decision certify the summary statement portion of the official ballot title to the secretary of state as originally written if the court finds the summary statement to be sufficient and fair.  If the court finds the summary statement to be insufficient or unfair, the court may offer suggested revisions for the summary statement to remedy the legal flaws, but it shall, in its decision, order the secretary of state to write a first revised summary statement that is sufficient and fair.

  (b)  The secretary of state shall submit a first revised summary statement to the court within seven days.  If, after submission to the court of a first revised summary statement by the secretary of state, the court finds the first revised summary statement to be sufficient and fair, the court shall certify to the secretary of state that statement and order it to appear on the ballot.  If the court finds the first revised summary statement to be insufficient or unfair, the court may offer suggested revisions for the statement to remedy the legal flaws, but it shall, in its decision, order the secretary of state to write a second revised summary statement that is sufficient and fair.

  (c)  The secretary of state shall submit a second revised summary statement to the court within five days.  If, after submission to the court of a second revised summary statement by the secretary of state, the court finds the second revised summary statement to be sufficient and fair, the court shall certify to the secretary of state that statement and order it to appear on the ballot.  If the court finds the second revised summary statement to be insufficient or unfair, the court may offer suggested revisions for the statement to remedy the legal flaws, but it shall, in its decision, order the secretary of state to write a third revised summary statement that is sufficient and fair.

  (d)  The secretary of state shall submit a third revised summary statement to the court within three days.  If, after submission to the court of a third revised summary statement by the secretary of state, the court finds the third revised summary statement to be sufficient and fair, the court shall certify to the secretary of state that statement and order it to appear on the ballot.  If the court finds the third revised summary statement to be insufficient or unfair, or if the secretary of state neglects or refuses to submit any of the revised summary statements within the times mandated by this subdivision when so ordered, the court shall revise the summary statement in a manner that is sufficient and fair and order the secretary of state to place that summary statement on the ballot with the measure.

  (e)  During all revisions as provided in this subdivision, the case shall remain open.

  (f)  Any nonprevailing party may make appeals as provided by law only following:

  a.  The finding of the circuit court that a summary statement was sufficient and fair; or

  b.  The circuit court ordering its own summary statement to be placed on the ballot pursuant to paragraph (d) of this subdivision.

  (g)  Any action brought pursuant to this section challenging a statewide ballot measure appearing on the ballot at an election called by the governor pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(b), Missouri Constitution, whether at the primary election or at a special election, or at a special election for a referendum petition measure called by the general assembly pursuant to Article III, Section 52(b), Missouri Constitution, shall be expedited by the court to bring a resolution of the matter prior to the printing of ballots.  The court may shorten any timeframe under this section to achieve this purpose.

  (3)  Insofar as the action challenges the fiscal note or the fiscal note summary portion of the official ballot title, the court shall consider the petition, hear arguments, and in its decision, either certify the fiscal note or the fiscal note summary portion of the official ballot title to the secretary of state or remand the fiscal note or the fiscal note summary to the auditor for preparation of a new fiscal note or fiscal note summary pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 116.175.  Any party to the suit may appeal to the supreme court within ten days after a circuit court decision pursuant to this subdivision.

  5.  Any action brought under this section that is not fully and finally adjudicated within one hundred eighty days of filing, and more than seventy days prior to election in which the measure is to appear, including all appeals, shall be extinguished, unless a court extends such period upon a finding of good cause for such extension.  Such good cause shall consist only of court-related scheduling issues and shall not include requests for continuance by the parties.

­­--------

(L. 1980 S.B. 658, A.L. 1985 H.B. 543, A.L. 1993 S.B. 350, A.L. 1997 S.B. 132, A.L. 1999 H.B. 676, A.L. 2003 H.B. 511 merged with S.B. 623, A.L. 2013 H.B. 117, A.L. 2015 S.B. 104, A.L. 2025 S.B. 22)

*Revisor's Note:  This section was declared unconstitutional in Nicholson v. State of Missouri, et al. (see 2026 annotation below).

(2026)  Provisions of S.B. 22 from 2025 declared unconstitutional as violating the original purpose requirement of Article III, § 21 of the Missouri Constitution.  Finding the offending provisions cannot be severed, the Court declared S.B. 22 invalid in its entirety.  Nicholson v. State of Missouri, et al., No. SC101308, January 23, 2026 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Dotson v. Kander, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dotson v. Kander, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 24× “Section 116.190, RSMo Supp. 2013, in relevant part, allows any citizen to challenge the official ballot title proposed by the General Assembly before ah election takes place.”
Cures Without Cloning v. Pund, 259 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 20× “See section 116.190 RSMo 2000. I agree with my colleagues that the phrase "repeal the current ban on human cloning" would have been likely to confuse rather that to enlighten.”
Missourians Against Human Cloning v. Carnahan, 190 S.W.3d 451 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 28× “section 116.190. [2] Affirmed. Facts and Procedural Background The "Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" proposes to amend the Missouri Constitution by citizens' initiative, as provided in Chapter 116 of the Missouri Revised Statutes.”
Brown v. Missouri Sec'y of State, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 9× “205 statement prepared by the secretary of state, and the statements can be challenged in accordance with section 116.190, RSMo Supp.2011. . All references to section 116.”
Wes Shoemyer, Darvin Bentlage, & Richard Oswald v. Missouri Sec'y of State Jason Kander, 464 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 26× “Any citizen may challenge the summary statement in a pre-election challenge under section 116.190, RSMo Supp. 2013, and the challenger bears the burden of 2 This Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to MO.”
Hill v. Ashcroft, 526 S.W.3d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “Briggs, and Roger Bruce Stickler (collectively, the “Hill Plaintiffs”), along with John Paul Evans (“Plaintiff Evans”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought suit in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, claiming that the ten ballot summaries drafted for the initiatives were…”
Jim Boeving, Patty Arrowood, Robert E. Pund, & Robert A. Klein v. Missouri Sec'y of State Jason Kander, Raise Your Hand for Kids, & Erin Brower, 496 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 7× “2013, and section 116.190, RSMo Noncum. Supp. 2015.”
Knight v. Carnahan, 282 S.W.3d 9 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “Cole’s request because his petition to the trial court had sought relief under section 116.190, which did not authorize remedies other than the certification of a corrected ballot title, and because we may not grant relief on appeal not sought in the trial court.”
Overfelt v. McCaskill, 81 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “Appellant’s challenge to the fiscal note was brought under § 116.190. “[Section] 116.190 provides a means for citizens wishing to challenge the language of the official ballot title or fiscal note to bring an action in circuit court.”
Hancock v. Sec'y of State, 885 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 14× “§ 116.190, RSMo Supp.1993. 1 The parties stipulated to the facts presented to the Circuit Court.”
Laura Reeves v. Jason Kander & John Watson & Returning Gov't to the People & Todd S. Jones, 462 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 20× “Plaintiff Laura Reeves, an opponent of the Initiative, filed a petition challenging the ballot title for *856 the Initiative, pursuant to section 116.190, and asserting constitutional claims against the Initiative itself.”
Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. 1990). · cites it 6× “Ancillary to other arguments, appellants present a complex argument that the plaintiffs' remedy is untimely because the pre-election remedy relating to dual subject matter is limited to a proceeding to test the sufficiency of the ballot title under § 116.190. That provision…”
Show all 51 citing cases →
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.