Missouri Proposition A, Right to Work Referendum (August 2018)

Elections in Missouri, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 10
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Missouri Proposition A (August)
Election date August 7, 2018
Topic Labor and unions
Status d Defeated
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens
List of Missouri measuresMissouri Proposition A - AugustMissouri Amendment 1Missouri Amendment 2Missouri Amendment 3Missouri Amendment 4Missouri Proposition BMissouri Proposition CMissouri Proposition DSubmit

Missouri Proposition A, the Right to Work Referendum, was on the ballot in Missouri as a veto referendum on August 7, 2018. The ballot measure was defeated, thus repealing the right-to-work law.

A "yes" vote was to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 19, which would have enacted a right-to-work law to mandate that no person can be required to pay dues to a labor union or join a labor union as a condition of employment.

A "no" vote was to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 19, thereby rejecting a right-to-work law to mandate that no person can be required to pay dues to a labor union or join a labor union as a condition of employment.

Election results

Missouri Proposition A
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		453,283	32.53%
No		939,973	67.47%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition A have changed about labor law in Missouri?

Proposition A would have made Missouri the 28th state to enact a right-to-work law. Defeat of Proposition A repealed the state's right-to-work law, passed as Senate Bill 19 (SB 19) in 2017. Supporters of the right-to-work law advocated for a "yes" vote, while opponents advocated for a "no" vote. Opponents of the right-to-work law collected signatures to get the legislation placed on the ballot as a veto referendum.

SB 19, which was initially slated to go into effect on August 28, 2017, would have mandated that no person can be required to pay dues to a labor union as a condition of employment. As of 2018, the state permitted collective bargaining agreements between employers and unions that require a workplace's employees, whether or not an employee is a union member, to make payments (known as dues) to cover the union's financial costs of negotiating salaries, benefits, and workplace conditions.

SB 19 would have also added language to state code mandating that no person can be required to join a labor union—a mandate that had been in effect since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in NLRB v. General Motors Corporation (1967) but was not referenced in state law. Anyone convicted of violating SB 19 would have been charged with a Class C misdemeanor.

How did the state pass the right-to-work bill?

Between 2012 and 2017, three states in the Midwest—Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin—passed right-to-work laws. Republicans claimed state government trifectas, controlling both chambers of the state legislature and governor's office, in each of the three states following elections in 2010. Missouri, however, had a divided government until 2017, when Democrats lost the governor's office to Republican Eric Greitens at the 2016 election. Legislative Republicans passed right-to-work legislation in 2015, but Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the bill. The prospect of the state passing a right-to-work law was an important issue in the election, with Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, saying the issue made the race the most important gubernatorial election in the nation in 2016. Rep. Todd Richardson (R-152), the speaker of the House, and Sen. Ron Richard (R-32), the Senate president pro tempore, said passing right-to-work legislation would be prioritized in 2017. The state Senate passed SB 19 in a vote of 21-12, and the state House approved the bill 100-59. Eighteen of 140 Republicans and 53 of 55 Democrats voted against SB 19. Gov. Greitens signed the bill into law. As enough signatures were collected to put SB 19 on the ballot as Proposition A, the law did not go into effect. Proposition A was the third veto referendum on right-to-work to appear on the ballot in the United States. Electors in Arizona (1948) and Idaho (1986) voted to uphold their states' right-to-work laws. With the defeat of Proposition A, Missouri became the first state to repeal a right-to-work law through a ballot measure.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

The combined total raised for and against Proposition A was $24.07 million. Four PACs were advocating for a "Yes" vote on Proposition A, raising a combined $5.17 million. The largest contributions included $2.00 million from A New Missouri—a 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with former Gov. Greitens' (R) political team; $765,000 from The National Right to Work Committee; and $600,000 from Richard Uihlein—a conservative political donor.

The PAC advocating for a "No" vote on Proposition A, We Are Missouri, had raised $18.89 million. The largest contributions included $2.35 million from the Missouri AFL-CIO; $1.47 million from the Committee to Protect MO Families, a committee affiliated with the Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity; and $1.15 million from the labor union International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Does the outcome of Proposition A affect the future of right-to-work in the U.S.?

Liz Shuler, the second-highest ranking official of the national AFL-CIO, flew to Missouri to speak at rallies advocating a "no" vote on Proposition A. She asked the crowd, "Everyone is wanting to write the labor movement’s obituary. Are we going to let that happen?" Shuler described the referendum as ground zero in the fight over organized labor's future. Rep. Rick Brattin (R-55), a right-to-work supporter, also described the referendum as ground zero for labor unions. He said the issue "is going to be the ground zero for every labor organization in the United States to try to turn the tide back into their favor because of all these states starting to adopt right to work." Shuler said that the rejection of right-to-work in Missouri would signal that "there's a turnaround and that we are a powerful movement." Dave Robertson, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, stated, "If the opponents of right to work lose this, it’s a big setback for organized labor, and it’ll be felt throughout the country." He added, "And that's what I think unions are concerned about — a domino effect of gradually losing power over time because laws will impede their ability to raise money and use it for political campaigns and organizing." According to Judy Ancel, director of the Institute of Labor Studies at the University of Missouri, the more states that pass right-to-work laws, "the more likely it is that we will see federal legislation attempting to do the same thing, and so I think that Missouri is very important." The editorial board of the St. Joseph News-Press wrote that unions "have reason to be concerned about their declining influence nationally and where their movement is headed. But this was true before Proposition A was placed on the Aug. 7 ballot in Missouri, and it still will be true, win or lose, after the vote."

Did the August 7 election date affect turnout in August or November?

Proposition A was slated to appear on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018—the default date for initiated measures. The legislature voted, along partisan lines, to move the election to August 7. Legislative Republicans supported the earlier election, and Democrats opposed the change. Rep. Holly Rehder (R-148), who sponsored the date change, said Proposition A needed to be decided sooner because "a great deal of business investment has been frozen during this fight." Rep. Doug Beck (D-92) criticized the change, arguing, "[Republicans] are terrified voter rejection of right-to-work will cause collateral damage to Republican legislative candidates" in the general election. Rep. Kevin Engler (R-116) responded, claiming that Democrats wanted the referendum on the general election ballot to help U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D) re-election bid. He said, “I know Claire McCaskill wants it in November. ... It’s not my job to care for Claire McCaskill." Luke Campbell, a political science professor at Northwest Missouri State University, said the move "likely deprives McCaskill of the opportunity to use an important down-ballot initiative to stimulate votes ..." Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, said he believed the election date change would have a minimal effect on Democrats in November. Squire said, “It could even rebound against the Republicans. Driving a lot of people who oppose right-to-work to the polls in August will have them primed to show up in November.”

Reactions

The following are comments from supporters of RTW, opponents of RTW, and other commentators that seek to explain the rejection of Proposition A.

• Stephen Webber (Chairman, Missouri Democratic Party): "Tonight, Missouri voters rejected a top Republican priority and sent a resounding message that we will not leave working people behind. Standing together, Democrats and working families successfully fought off this shameless attack on the middle class from corrupt Republican politicians in Jeff City."

• Chris Nuelle (Spokesman, Missouri Republican Party): "Time and again, Unions have funneled ridiculous amounts money and used intimidation tactics to stop measures that would ultimately benefit their workers and hold their officials more accountable, and Proposition A was no exception. The idea that one must be forced to pay union dues is ridiculous, especially since unions continually support left-wing groups and candidates. This trend needs to stop, and we hope that further measures are taken to continue the fight to hold union officials accountable, level the economic playing field, and afford workers more freedom."

• Richard Trumka (President, AFL-CIO): "It shows how out of touch those institutions are. How out of touch the Republican legislature in Missouri is, how out of touch the Supreme Court is. I think this will build momentum and send a message to all legislators."

• Dan Mehan (President, Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry): "As our state became a national battleground over worker freedom, millions of union dollars poured into Missouri to persuade voters. These out-of-state groups sent money to Missouri because they were fearful of losing out if Missourians had the power to stop their paychecks from being siphoned to pad union coffers and play politics."

• Jazz Shaw (Editor, Hot Air): "So how did this happen? Yes, turnout was light as you might expect for a primary election in a non-presidential year. But that was still a fairly lopsided result. The labor unions flushed millions of dollars into advertising and were saturating the state to promote their agenda. They also capitalized on a very public protest by public school teachers who were fighting for higher wages and folded that story into their argument. Clearly, it had an impact and they came away with the win."

• Philip Bump (Correspondent, The Washington Post): "When you win by 35 points, though, it’s generally not just a function of turnout. It’s a sign that your candidate or issue was simply at odds with the electorate. That’s the real concern for Republicans in Missouri — and the real bright spot for Democrats. Even if Democrats were more mobilized to vote against Prop A than Republicans were to support it, it still got walloped."

• Robert Kuttner (Editor, The American Prospect): "The Missouri outcome also bodes well for the re-election of Senator Claire McCaskill, one of the supposedly endangered Democrats up this fall. More importantly, it signals the resurgence of the labor movement—and reminds Democrats that progressive economics are the indispensable ingredient for success on the beaten-down American heartland."

• Brian Calfono (Analyst, KOLR10): "I think this was a bit of a wake-up for Republican operatives and Republican party in Missouri. There were a number of Republicans voted against the ban. You kind of scratch your head and say 'I thought right-to-work was a conservative issue. And it is and it was. But I think there is difference in what rank and file and republicans want and what their party leaders tell them what they should want."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Do the people of the state of Missouri want to adopt Senate Bill 19 ("Right-to-Work") as passed by the general assembly in 2017, which prohibits as a condition of employment the forced membership in a labor organization (union) or forced payments of dues in full or pro-rata (fair-share); make any activity which violates employees' rights illegal and ineffective; allow legal remedies for anyone injured as a result of another person violating or threatening to violate employees' rights; and which shall not apply to union agreements entered into before the effective date of Senate Bill 19? State and local government entities expect no costs or savings.

”

Ballot summary

The fair ballot language was as follows:

“

A “yes” vote will adopt Senate Bill 19 ("right-to-work"), passed by the general assembly in 2017. If adopted, Senate Bill 19 will amend Missouri law to prohibit, as a condition of employment, forced membership in a labor organization (union) or forced payments of dues or fees, in full or pro-rata ("fair-share"), to a union. Senate Bill 19 will also make any activity which violates employees' rights provided by the bill illegal and ineffective and allow legal remedies for anyone injured as a result of another person violating or threatening to violate those employees' rights. Senate Bill 19 will not apply to union agreements entered into before the effective date of Senate Bill 19, unless those agreements are amended or renewed after the effective date of Senate Bill 19. A “no” vote will reject Senate Bill 19 ("right-to-work"), and will result in Senate Bill 19 not becoming Missouri law. If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

”

Full text

The full text of Senate Bill 19 was as follows:

Senate Bill No. 19 290.590. 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Employer", any individual, organization, partnership, state agency, political subdivision, corporation, or other legal entity which employs or has employed one or more individuals performing services for the entity within this state; and (2) "Labor organization", any organization of any kind or agency, or employee representation committee or union which exists for the purpose in whole or in part of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation. 2. No person shall be required as a condition or continuation of employment to: (1) Become, remain, or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization; (2) Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges, however denominated, of any kind or amount to a labor organization; or (3) In lieu of the payments listed under subdivision (2) of this subsection, pay to any charity or other third party any amount equivalent to, or on a pro rata basis, any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization. 3. Any agreement, understanding, or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed under this section is unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect. 4. Any person who violates or directs another to violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor. 5. (1) Any person injured as a result of any violation or threatened violation of this section shall be entitled to injunctive relief against any and all violators or persons threatening violations. (2) Any person injured as a result of any violation or threatened violation of this section may recover any and all damages of any character resulting from such violation or threatened violation including costs and reasonable attorney fees. Such remedies shall be independent of and in addition to the other penalties and remedies prescribed under this section. 6. The prosecuting attorney or circuit attorney with jurisdiction over the location where a violation or threatened violation of this section occurs or the attorney general of this state shall investigate complaints of violation or threatened violation of this section, prosecute any person violating this section, and use all means at their command to ensure the effective enforcement of this section. 7. This section shall not apply: (1) To employers and employees covered by the federal Railway Labor Act; (2) To federal employers and employees; (3) To employers and employees on exclusive federal enclaves; (4) Where this section conflicts with or is preempted by federal law; or (5) To any agreement between an employer and a labor organization entered into before the effective date of this section but shall apply to any such agreement upon its renewal, extension, amendment, or modification in any respect after the effective date of this section.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Missouri secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 25, and the FRE is 8. The word count for the ballot title is 106, and the estimated reading time is 28 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 41. The word count for the ballot summary is 155, and the estimated reading time is 41 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. During the 10-year period from 1997 to 2007, political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey found that average Missouri ballot title score was equivalent to 19 years of U.S. formal education.

Support for "Yes" vote

The PACs Missourians for Worker Freedom, Missourians for Freedom to Work, Freedom to Work, and Liberty Alliance registered to support a "Yes" vote on Proposition A to uphold Senate Bill 19. Supporters of a "Yes" vote on Proposition A wanted to enact the right-to-work law.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Mike Parson (R)
• Sen. Bob Onder (R-2)
• Sen. Dave Schatz (R-26)
• Rep. Donna Lichtenegger (R-146)

Parties

• Missouri Republican Party

Organizations

• A New Missouri
• American Democracy Alliance
• Associated Builders and Contractors
• Construction Legal Rights Foundation
• Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Individuals

• Richard Uihlein, businessman

Arguments

Missourians for Worker Freedom, a committee campaigning for a "Yes" vote on Proposition A, made the following arguments:

“

Missouri's Right to Work law not only empowers the individual worker. It also creates jobs, grows wages, and attracts business to the state. Missourians elected Governor Eric Greitens and the Missouri State Legislature based on their promises to pass and sign Right to Work into law. In February 2017, the governor and state legislators delivered and Missouri became the 28th Right to Work state. Today, union bosses and their liberal allies are working to forge a smear campaign against Right to Work, hoping their dirty tricks can stop it. Missourians for Worker Freedom opposes these efforts and stands with Right to Work and the Missouri worker.

”

Sen. Bob Onder (R-2), a proponent of the right-to-work law, said:

“

If unions want more members, they should work to earn members and make workers want to belong by better representing their people and showing the value of union representation, not forcing union membership on workers. Instead of spending money on politics, unions might use these resources to make pension plans more solvent and provide services that benefit their members, not the politicians. If workers are given a choice to join a union, it will make union bosses more accountable to their members and give workers the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to join a union or not.

”

Dan Mehan, the president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, wrote an opinion article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that said:

“

Prop A prohibits workers from being forced to join a union and have fees automatically withdrawn from their paychecks. When workers have a choice to join, it makes union executives more accountable to workers who choose union membership. Passing Prop A would lead to higher wages for Missouri workers. According to data from the U.S. Commerce Department and Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, wages in states that have enacted "freedom to work" are $2,250 higher than the average for forced-unionism states. The Bureau of Economic Analysis has proved that "freedom to work" states have seen more job growth and more state GDP growth. Missouri is nearly surrounded by "freedom to work" states, and while those bordering states are benefiting, Missouri is missing out. I’ve talked to hundreds of Missouri business owners and workers who live and work near or along the border of "freedom to work" states. They tell me their communities are losing jobs as they watch factories and businesses move to states that actually protect worker freedom. Missouri deserves better.

”

Support for "No" vote

We Are Missouri, also known as Vote NO on Prop A, led the campaign in support of a "No" vote on Proposition A to overturn Senate Bill 19. Supporters of a "No" vote on Proposition A wanted to repeal the right-to-work law. We Are Missouri was the committee that collected signatures to get the right-to-work statute placed on the ballot as Proposition A. Opponents of right-to-work referred to the law as right-to-work for less.

Missouri AFL-CIO president Mike Louis and Missouri NAACP president Rod Chapel sponsored the referendum's filing at the secretary of state's office.

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
• Sen. Gina Walsh (D-13)
• Rep. Doug Beck (D-92)

Former officials

• Secretary of State Jason Kander (D)

Parties

• Missouri Democratic Party

Organizations

• Americans for Fairness
• Empower Missouri
• Kansas City Democratic Socialists of America
• Mid-Missouri Democratic Socialists of America
• Our Revolution

Unions

• AFL-CIO
• Communications Workers of America
• International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• International Union of Operating Engineers
• Missouri AFL-CIO
• Missouri National Education Association
• Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
• United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
• United Food and Commercial Workers
• United Steelworkers
• Western Missouri and Kansas Laborers' District Council

Individuals

• John Goodman, television and cinematic actor
• Martin Luther King III, civil rights activist and son of Martin Luther King Jr.

Arguments

We Are Missouri, the campaign that sponsored the referendum drive, made the following arguments:

“

Right to Work is WRONG for Missouri. It is an unnecessary, unfair government overreach into the workplace that distracts from the real issues like creating jobs and improving schools. Right to Work is being promoted by a well-coordinated network of out-of-state billionaires, super PACs, and corporate special interest groups that are down-sizing, shipping jobs overseas, and hiding profits offshore to avoid paying the same taxes families and small businesses must pay. Right to Work laws give even more power to big corporations at a time when CEO pay has grown 364 times higher than what the average worker makes. Real freedom in the workplace is about being able to balance life and work, attend a parent-teacher conference, take a loved one to the doctor, and have time for what matters in life without feeling like you’re falling behind at work. This is not what we need to work toward, not laws like these. That’s why Missourians in every part of our state are collecting signatures to put a repeal of this law on the ballot so Missouri voters—not politicians—can decide whether Right to Work should become law.

”

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a 501(c)(3) think tank that is opposed to right-to-work laws, released a report on right-to-work in response to Proposition A. The following is an excerpt from the report's introduction:

“

Despite the name, right-to-work laws do not confer any sort of right to a job. Rather, they dilute union bargaining strength by making it harder for unions to sustain themselves financially. Some supporters of RTW laws falsely claim that these laws ensure that no one is forced to be a member of a union or pay to advocate political causes they do not support. But those things are already illegal under federal law. What RTW laws do is make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefit of the contract to pay his or her share of the costs of negotiating and overseeing it. In other words, RTW laws prevent unions from requiring that workers who benefit from union representation pay their fair share of that representation. By making it harder for unions to collect these “fair share fees,” RTW laws aim to restrict union resources and to thereby impede unions’ ability to negotiate better wages, benefits, and working conditions for workers. ... RTW laws do not boost jobs—they restrict unions and hurt wages: Only 5.2 percent of private-sector workers in RTW states are union members or are covered by a union contract, compared with 10.2 percent in non-RTW states. Based on the impact of an RTW law in neighboring Oklahoma, we could expect that nearly 60,000 fewer Missourians working in the private sector would be covered by a union contract if RTW were implemented in Missouri. RTW laws have not succeeded in boosting employment in states that have adopted them. In fact, RTW laws have no causal impact on job growth or unemployment, contrary to the claims of its proponents. RTW laws are associated with lower wages and benefits for both union and nonunion workers. In RTW states, the average worker makes 3.1 percent less in hourly wages than the average worker with similar characteristics in non-RTW states. This pattern of lower wages in RTW states is also true for women workers and workers of color. Through weakening unions, RTW laws hurt the middle class. As union membership has declined in recent decades, the share of overall income received by the middle class is close to a post-WWII low. By restricting the capacity of unions to bargain for workers and thus lowering wages and benefits, RTW laws lower tax revenues and reduce aggregate demand.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Missouri ballot measures

There were four campaign committees—Missourians for Worker Freedom, Missourians for Freedom to Work, Freedom to Work, and Liberty Alliance—registered in support of a "yes" vote (uphold the law) on the veto referendum. The committees had raised a combined $5.17 million and spent $4.76 million.

The top contributor to the vote "yes" committees was A New Missouri, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with former Gov. Greitens' (R) political team, which donated $2.00 million. The second highest contributor to the vote "yes" committees was The National Right to Work Committee, which donated $765,000.

There was one campaign committee, We Are Missouri, registered in support of a "no" vote (overturn the law) on the veto referendum proposal. The committee had raised $18.89 million. The committee had spent $18.22 million.

The top contributor to the We Are Missouri committee was the labor organization Missouri AFL-CIO, which contributed $2.35 million. The second highest contributor to the committee was the Committee to Protect MO Families, a committee affiliated with the Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity, which contributed $1.47 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,127,994.79	$44,477.28	$5,172,472.07	$4,719,684.90	$4,764,162.18
Oppose	$17,102,276.25	$1,791,889.63	$18,894,165.88	$16,428,816.26	$18,220,705.89
Total	$22,230,271.04	$1,836,366.91	$24,066,637.95	$21,148,501.16	$22,984,868.07

Support for 'yes' vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition A
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Freedom to Work	$2,332,348.89	$18,379.08	$2,350,727.97	$2,258,046.44	$2,276,425.52
Missourians for Freedom to Work	$1,462,800.00	$26,098.20	$1,488,898.20	$1,288,988.53	$1,315,086.73
Liberty Alliance	$827,845.90	$0.00	$827,845.90	$668,395.83	$668,395.83
Missourians for Worker Freedom	$505,000.00	$0.00	$505,000.00	$504,254.10	$504,254.10
Total	$5,127,994.79	$44,477.28	$5,172,472.07	$4,719,684.90	$4,764,162.18

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
A New Missouri	$2,000,000.00	$0.00	$2,000,000.00
The National Right to Work Committee	$765,000.00	$0.00	$765,000.00
Richard Uihlein	$600,000.00	$0.00	$600,000.00
American Democracy Alliance	$500,100.00	$0.00	$500,100.00
Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry	$200,000.00	$23,578.20	$223,578.20

Support for 'no' vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Proposition A
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
We Are Missouri	$17,102,276.25	$1,791,889.63	$18,894,165.88	$16,428,816.26	$18,220,705.89
Total	$17,102,276.25	$1,791,889.63	$18,894,165.88	$16,428,816.26	$18,220,705.89

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Missouri AFL-CIO General Fund	$2,346,994.00	$224.52	$2,347,218.52
Committee to Protect MO Families	$734,660.00	$736,558.13	$1,471,218.13
International Brotherhood of Teamsters	$1,150,000.00	$0.00	$1,150,000.00
Preserve Middle Class America	$1,090,000.00	$188.20	$1,090,188.20
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

"Yes" vote

• Southeast Missourian: "Ultimately, the idea of being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment seems to violate basic principles of freedom. If someone is opposed to things being pushed by the union, they should not be forced to support those ideas with their pocketbooks in order to remain employed. ... there are more reasons to vote “yes” on Prop A than against it."

• The St. Joseph News-Press: "Union membership has declined markedly over the last 50 years and today stands at less than 11 percent of the workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unions may not like it, but it hardly makes sense they should be able to continue to dictate terms of employment — through mandatory payment of dues — to workers who choose not to belong. Defenders of workers’ freedom to choose will vote “yes” on Prop A and allow the legislature’s 2017 approval of right-to-work to take effect."

"No" vote

• Columbia Daily Tribune: "Everything about Proposition A, better known as “Right to Work,” is misleading, from it’s name to its objective and funding sources. Right to work, if passed, would prohibit mandatory union participation and payment of fees for union representation. A “yes” vote on Proposition A won’t mean more freedom or rights for employees, however. It will mean lower pay and less workplace safety. That’s not what Missouri workers need or want."

• St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Missouri voters should vote no and reject this blatant attempt to weaken labor bargaining rights. ... Prop A asks workers to give up too many collective bargaining rights in a Hail Mary attempt to improve Missouri’s business climate. Don’t buy proponents’ assertions. Vote no."

• The Kansas City Star: "Pro-labor organizations counter that right to work undermines collective bargaining and lowers wages while effectively hastening the decline of organized labor. We strongly agree. ... Making Missouri a right-to-work state isn’t the way to address what ails unions. Give workers in the state a fighting chance by voting no on Proposition A."

• The St. Louis American: "The passage of Prop A would make it more difficult for unions to bargain for better wages and benefits and to protect workers against workplace harassment and unfair termination. ... But passage of Prop A, over time, will weaken unions and diminish the wages for all workers, whether or not a union bargains for their wages and benefits. Only the wealthy will benefit from the passage of Prop A. Our advocacy, however, is for workers and the poor. We strongly and eagerly endorse a vote of NO on Proposition A."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

Missouri Proposition A (August 2018)
Poll	Support ("Yes" vote)	Oppose ("No" vote)	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Remington Research Group/The Missouri Times 7/7/2018 - 7/7/2018	38.0%	56.0%	6.0%	+/-3.2	1,034
Emerson College Poll 4/26/2018 - 4/29/2018	40.2%	40.2%	19.6%	+/-4.2	600
AVERAGES	39.1%	48.1%	12.8%	+/-3.7	817
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Right-to-work in other states

See also: Right-to-work state laws

As of August 2018, 27 states had right-to-work laws in place. The majority of right-to-work laws were passed by states between 1944 and 1958, although some were passed after 2010. Missouri would have been the 28th state if right-to-work was enacted.

History of right-to-work ballot measures

The following table features right-to-work ballot measures that appeared on statewide ballots between 1944 and 2018. Of the 28 measures, 12 were approved, and 16 were defeated.

History of right-to-work on the ballot
State	Year	Measure	Type	Result
Arkansas	1944	Amendment 35	Constitutional	a
California	1944	Proposition 12	Constitutional	d
Florida	1944	Amendment 5	Constitutional	d
Arizona	1946	Proposition 4	Constitutional	a
Nebraska	1946	Amendment 1	Constitutional	a
South Dakota	1946	Proposed Amendment	Constitutional	a
Arizona	1948	Proposition 4	Statute (Referendum)	a (Upheld)
Maine	1948	Barlow/Tabb Statutes	Statute	d
Massachusetts	1948	Question 5	Statute	d
New Mexico	1948	Amendment 3	Constitutional	d
North Dakota	1948	Referendum 2	Statute	a
Nevada	1952	Question 1	Statute	a
Washington	1956	Initiative 198	Statute	d
California	1958	Proposition 18	Constitutional	d
Colorado	1958	Measure 5	Constitutional	d
Idaho	1958	Initiative 1	Statute	d
Kansas	1958	Amendment 3	Constitutional	a
Ohio	1958	Amendment 2	Constitutional	d
Washington	1958	Initiative 202	Statute	d
Mississippi	1960	Proposed Amendment	Constitutional	a
Oklahoma	1964	State Question 409	Constitutional	d
Missouri	1978	Amendment 23	Constitutional	d
Idaho	1986	Referendum 1	Statute (Referendum)	a (Upheld)
Oklahoma	2001	State Question 695	Constitutional	a
Colorado	2008	Initiative 47	Constitutional	d
Alabama	2016	Amendment 8	Constitutional	a
Virginia	2016	Question 1	Constitutional	d
Missouri	2018	Proposition A	Statute (Referendum)	d (Repealed)

Arguments for and against right-to-work

Both supporters and opponents of right-to-work laws make philosophical, economic, and political arguments. The following table contains a selection of arguments from both sides:

Debate surrounding right-to-work (RTW) laws
Argument	Support	Opposition
Philosophical	•NRWF: RTW is about individual freedom. Workers should be allowed to decide whether to provide a labor union with financial support and represent themselves as individuals in relationships with their employers. •Seventh-Day Adventist Church: Workers should not be required to contribution to labor unions that utilize methods that compromise the individual’s conscience. Workers lose free will in the workplace due to forced payments to unions.	•John Stowe, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Lexington, KY: RTW violates the principle of the common good. Workers should be required to contribute dues to labor unions that negotiate for the common good of a workplace’s employees. •Utility Workers Union of America: RTW creates a free-rider problem. Some workers discontinue paying their fair share, while everyone, including non-paying workers, reaps the benefits, creating division among workers.
Economic	•The Heritage Foundation: RTW laws make labor unions less aggressive, encouraging domestic and foreign business investment. •U.S. Chamber of Commerce: RTW helps increase the production output of businesses, which translates to higher incomes for workers.	•Economic Policy Institute: RTW lowers wages and benefits for workers and reduces consumer demand, weaking the middle class. •SEIU Local 521: RTW tilts the balance of power toward bosses in the workplace, making workplaces less safe for workers.
Political	•National Right to Work Legal Defense: Unions are responsible for the tax-and-spend policies of the federal government. Unions collect billions each year from dues. Workers should get to decide whether to contribute to unions.	•CAP: RTW weakens workers' voices in the federal and state governments and decreases voter turnout. •AFL-CIO: RTW tilts the balance of power toward big corporations in politics. Unions provide a counterforce to corporations in politics.

Taft-Hartley Act

See also: Taft-Hartley Act

Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, which allowed individual states to enact right-to-work laws. Between 1935 and 1947, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, permitted collective bargaining agreements in all states between employers and unions that required all employees at a workplace to pay dues to the union. These agreements were known as union security agreements. As of 2018, the NLRA continues to permit union security agreements, although the Taft-Hartley Act allows states to forbid union security agreements via right-to-work laws. President Harry S. Truman (D) vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act, but the House of Representatives and Senate overrode his veto.

In NLRB v. General Motors Corporation of 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee cannot be required to join a labor union by a union security agreement, but can be required to pay dues to the union representing the employee's workplace for collective bargaining costs.

Amendment 23

Voting on Labor and Unions
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local labor and unions Local project labor agreements Local pensions

See also: Missouri Right to Work, Amendment 23 (1978)

Missouri Amendment 23, an initiated constitutional amendment, was on the ballot in 1978. The measure would have added language to the state constitution that said that an individual has a right to work regardless of membership or non-membership in a labor organization. Voters defeated the ballot initiative 60.02 to 39.98 percent.

2015 and 2016

In 2015, Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed a right-to-work bill that the state legislature passed. He explained his veto, saying, "For generations, the ability of workers to join together and bargain collectively for fair wages, and training has lifted the living standards of families everywhere both union and non-union."

Following the general election on November 8, 2016, Republicans remained in control of both chambers of the state legislature and Eric Greitens (R) defeated Chris Koster (D) to become governor. The change in partisan control of the governorship made Missouri a Republican trifecta. The term trifecta describes a government in which a single party controls both legislative chambers and the governorship.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, described the 2016 gubernatorial election in Missouri as the most important in the nation because of the right-to-work issue. Democrat Chris Koster opposed right-to-work on the campaign trail, stating, "I’m opposed to using government regulations to lower the wages of Missourians. Eric’s desire to roll back collective bargaining rights in Missouri is inconsistent with the goal of building a strong middle class." Gov. Greitens said he would sign a right-to-work law during his campaign. He responded to Koster's criticism of him on the issue, saying, "Eric absolutely believes right-to-work is a necessary step to create good-paying jobs, and he will sign it as governor."

Speaker of the House Todd Richardson (R-152) and Senate President Pro Tempore Ron Richard (R-32) said passing right-to-work legislation would be a priority in 2017. The following table show's partisan control of the state House, state Senate, and governor's office since 1992.

Missouri Party Control: 1992-2025
Eight years of Democratic trifectas  •  Thirteen years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
Governor	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
Senate	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
House	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R

Senate Bill 19

On December 1, 2016, Senate Bill 19 was filed by Sen. Dan Brown (R-16). The Missouri Senate approved the legislation on January 26, 2017. The chamber’s nine Democrats, along with three Republicans, voted against the bill. On February 2, 2017, the Missouri House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 19, with 100 representatives approving and 59 disapproving the bill. Rep. Courtney Curtis (D-73) was the only Democrat in either chamber to support the bill. Rep. Doug Beck (D-92) attempted to change the bill into a legislative referral, which voters would have addressed on November 6, 2018. His amendment failed 91 to 64. Rep. Rory Rowland (D-29) sought to insert a sunset clause of five years into the bill, which would have required Senate Bill 19 be re-approved and signed every five years. The amendment failed 100 to 59. On February 2, 2017, the bill was delivered to the governor.

Gov. Eric Greitens (R) signed Senate Bill 19 on February 6, 2017. He said, "This is about more jobs - Missourians are ready to work, and now our state is open for business!"

Vote in the Missouri State Senate January 26, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 17  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	21	12	0
Total percent	63.64%	36.36%	0.00%
Democrat	0	9	0
Republican	21	3	0

Vote in the Missouri House of Representatives February 2, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 82  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	100	59	3
Total percent	61.73%	36.42%	1.85%
Democrat	1	44	1
Republican	99	15	2

Union membership in Missouri

Economists B.T. Hirsch and David Macpherson, along with Urban Institute senior researcher Wayne Vroman, maintain a database on estimated union membership of nonagricultural wage workers. Hirsch, Macpherson, and Vroman use the same method to calculate state union membership estimates as the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to calculate national estimates, except that agricultural workers are excluded.

Hirsch, Macpherson, and Vroman's data shows that union membership of nonagricultural wage workers had decreased between 1976 and 2017 in Missouri and the United States as a whole. In 1976, union membership was estimated at 23.4 percent in Missouri. In 2017, union membership was estimated at 8.7 percent in Missouri, a decrease of 62.8 percent from 41 years earlier.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri

In Missouri, a veto referendum is a citizen-initiated measure addressing a law that the legislature and governor approved. Certifying a veto referendum for the ballot requires a number of signatures equivalent to 5 percent of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election in six of the eight state congressional districts. This means that the minimum possible number of valid signatures required was 100,126. Signatures for a veto referendum petition must be turned in within 90 days following the adjournment of the legislative session in which the law was passed. Veto referendums appeared on the ballot six times between 1924 and 2016, with the previous one on the ballot in 1982.

Mike Louis of the Missouri AFL-CIO and Rod Chapelfiled of the Missouri NAACP filed a request to circulate the petition on February 6, 2017. A second request was made on February 21, 2017. The petition was approved for circulation on March 28, 2017. Mike Louis said referendum proponents started collecting signatures on April 4, 2017.

As the legislative session length limit in Missouri was May 30, 2017, supporters of the initiative had until August 28, 2017, to collect the required 100,126 to 108,467 signatures, depending on how signatures were collected across the state's congressional districts, for the referendum. Since enough valid signatures were collected, the law was suspended until voters decide the issue at the election.

On August 18, 2017, supporters reported submitting 321,467 signatures to the secretary of state. On November 22, 2017, Secretary of State John Ashcroft certified that 250,327 signatures were valid—110,060 more than were required.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired FieldWorks, LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $776,494.17 was spent to collect the 100,126 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.76.

The following number of signatures were reported and verified from each congressional district:

Number of signatures submitted and verified for referendum
District	Required	Submitted	Valid	Percent valid
1st	15,983	45,570	32,098	70.44%
2nd	21,144	43,847	37,218	84.88%
3rd	18,997	50,017	46,219	92.41%
4th	16,940	34,296	26,781	78.09%
5th	16,348	50,173	26,628	53.07%
6th	17,879	33,359	29,148	87.38%
7th	17,159	33,141	25,008	75.46%
8th	15,817	31,064	27,227	87.65%

At least double the number of required unverified signatures were collected in each of the state's eight congressional districts. The largest number of signatures were collected in the 5th Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Missouri. Signatures from the 5th Congressional District also had the lowest rate of validation at 53.07 percent. The second largest number of signatures were collected in the 3rd Congressional District, which includes some suburbs of St. Louis and Jefferson City. The 3rd Congressional District had the highest rate of signature validation at 92.41 percent. The following map illustrates the number of unverified signatures collected in each congressional district:

Election date

The default election date for the referendum was set to be November 6, 2018. According to Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft, however, the Missouri State Legislature had the power to change the election date to the primary election on August 7, 2018.

Lauren Hieger, a spokeswoman for the Senate Majority Caucus, said that legislative staff had started researching whether or not the election date could be changed. Hieger said, "Filing starts December 1st, and we are still looking at all possibilities."

Rep. Holly Rehder (R-148) introduced legislation in the state House to move the election date for Proposition A from the default November 6, 2018, to August 7, 2018. August 7 is the primary election date in Missouri. Sen. Dave Schatz (R-26) introduced similar legislation in the state Senate. Rep. Rehder said, “I find it disheartening that the unions would spend their time gathering signatures against the (majority of) voters' wishes, but so be it, they did. And so now, I think the sooner we get it over with, the better.” Sen. Jake Hummel (D-4), who is also treasurer of the Missouri AFL-CIO, responded to the legislation, stating, “When the voters signed that petition, they signed it with the understanding that the election was going to be in November. If they are moving it to August, it is strictly for political reasons, which I don’t think is right.”

On May 11, 2018, the state Senate passed a bill to move the election date to August. Senate Democrats attempted to filibuster a vote on the bill, which came to an end when Sen. Bob Dixon (R-30), who was presiding over the chamber, ordered that Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-14) had to sit down. Sen. Dixon said bad decorum was his reason for ordering Sen. Chappelle-Nadal to end her speech. The state Senate voted 23 to seven, which was along partisan lines, to approve the bill.

On May 17, 2018, the state House passed the bill to move the election date in a vote of 96 to 47. Rep. Holly Rehder (R-148) said the referendum needed to be decided sooner, saying, "I’m convinced a great deal of business investment has been frozen during this fight."

Rep. Doug Beck (D-92) had criticized the proposal to move the election date, saying, "[Republicans] are terrified voter rejection of right-to-work will cause collateral damage to Republican legislative candidates. Instead of being moved to the lower-turnout August primary, Democrats believe this measure should stay on the November ballot as the more than 300,000 Missourians who signed the referendum petition are expecting." Rep. Kevin Engler (R-116) commented on the election date change, saying, “I know [U.S. Sen.] Claire McCaskill wants it in November.” He added, "It’s not my job to care for Claire McCaskill." Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, said he believed the impact on Democrats in November would be minimal. Squire said, “It could even rebound against the Republicans. Driving a lot of people who oppose right-to-work to the polls in August will have them primed to show up in November.”

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; whether grammatical errors make the measure insufficient and unfair
Court: Cole County Circuit Court; Missouri Court of Appeals; Appealed to Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Court of Appeals ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the original ballot title, after the lower court ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Roger Stickler, Michael Briggs, Mary Hill, and John Paul Evans, Jr.	Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft and Mike Louis
Plaintiff argument: The language has grammatical errors and is therefore unfair; the summary should be replaced to reflect the ballot language.	Defendant argument: The language is clear and concise.

  Source: Missouri Cole County Circuit Court

Stickler et al. v. Ashcroft

On April 7, 2017, police officers Roger Stickler and Michael Briggs and nurse Mary Hill filed litigation against Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft (R) over the veto referendum's ballot title in the Cole County Circuit Court. John Paul Evans, Jr. also filed as a plaintiff against the secretary of state. Mike Louis, president of the Missouri AFL-CIO, intervened in the case on behalf of the defendant. Attorneys for Stickler, Briggs, and Hill were from the National Right to Work Foundation. Judge Daniel Green (R) was assigned to the case. On June 12, 2017, the hearing in the case was held.

Plaintiffs argued that grammatical errors in the ballot title made the referendum petition insufficient and unfair. Plaintiffs stated that the ballot summary approved by the secretary of state needed to be replaced. The lawsuit said, "The summary statement should accurately reflect both the legal and probable effects of the proposed initiative and be fair and impartial so that the voters are not deceived or mislead."

Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft (R) responded to the lawsuit, saying, "I am saddened that some are playing politics with the right of the people to exercise their constitutional right, and I am confident the court will quickly and correctly let the will of the people decide this issue." Missouri AFL-CIO President Mike Louis said the case was being brought forward on a weak technicality.

Circuit Court judgment

On June 22, 2017, Judge Green ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and rewrote the ballot title. Judge Green provided eight reasons he considered the petition insufficient and unfair:

1. The title contained subject-verb disagreements. He said, "The People are entitled to consider a question which is phrased in a grammatically-competent manner."
2. The title required an affirmative (yes) vote to uphold the law. He stated that language requiring an affirmative vote to repeal the law would reflect that the ballot measure is a veto referendum.
3. The phrasing of the petition had potential to create voter confusion if the Right to Collective Bargaining Initiative was also on the ballot.
4. The petition question asked, "Do the people of the state of Missouri want ..." rather than the formal and more succinct "Shall the people of the state of Missouri ..."
5. The petition question said, "[SB 19 was] passed by the general assembly in 2017" rather than the more accurate "[SB 19 was] enacted into law in 2017."
6. The title referred to the forced payment of union dues in full or pro-rata as fair-share in parentheses. Also, the use of the word forced was redundant.
7. The reference to employees' rights was improper, unfair, and insufficient. The measure should instead focus on the limited rights provided under SB 19.
8. The title had an improper reference to union agreements, which SB 19 was not designed to apply to.

Secretary of State Ashcroft was ordered to immediately certify the judge's ballot title. The rewritten ballot title and original ballot title are compared below:

Judge Green's Revised Ballot Title

Original (Secretary of State Ashcroft) Ballot Title

Shall the people of the state of Missouri reject Senate Bill 19 (“Right to Work”), enacted in 2017, which: (1) prohibits as a condition of employment membership in, or payments of dues or fees in full or in part to, a labor organization (union); (2) makes any agreement or activity violating its provisions illegal and ineffective; and (3) allows legal remedies for anyone injured as a result of violations or threats of violations of its provisions?

Do the people of the state of Missouri want to adopt Senate Bill 19 ("Right-to-Work") as passed by the general assembly in 2017, which prohibits as a condition of employment the forced membership in a labor organization (union) or forced payments of dues in full or pro-rata (fair-share); make any activity which violates employees' rights illegal and ineffective; allow legal remedies for anyone injured as a result of another person violating or threatening to violate employees' rights; and which shall not apply to union agreements entered into before the effective date of Senate Bill 19?

Effect on signatures

Section 116 of Missouri Revised Statutes says that petitions for signature gathering must contain the official ballot title. Judge Green invalidated and rewrote the official ballot title on June 22, 2017. Mike Louis, president of the Missouri AFL-CIO, said his campaign's lawyers were confident that signatures collected on petitions with the former ballot title would still count. Lawyers cited Boeving v. Kander, which the Missouri Supreme Court decided in 2016, as precedent for certifying signatures collected on petitions with ballot titles that a judge later invalidated.

Click Show below to read more about Boeving v. Kander (2016).

Boeving v. Kander (2016)

Jim Boeving, owner of Discount Smokes & Beer, challenged the ballot title of Amendment 3 as unfair and insufficient in the Cole County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court ruled that part of the ballot title—the fiscal note—was unfair and insufficient. However, the other part of the ballot title—the ballot summary—was upheld in court. Boeving appealed the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which reversed both parts of the lower court's ruling. The Court of Appeals ruled that the ballot summary was unfair and insufficient, but that the fiscal note was fair and sufficient. The court rewrote the ballot summary and ordered Secretary of State Jason Kander (D) to certify the court's ballot title. On July 15, 2016, Kander certified the court's ballot title. Signatures had been submitted for Amendment 3 on May 7, 2016—two months before the Court of Appeals ordered a new ballot title. Petitions that voters signed for the initiative included the ballot title that the court found unfair and insufficient. Secretary Kander said his office would count signatures for possible certification, despite the invalidated ballot title being the one used on petitions. He said, "In the Secretary of State’s office’s view, the intent of the law was not to disenfranchise Missourians after they have legally signed a petition. If this petition has enough valid signatures and meets the requirements for certification, the Secretary of State’s office will certify it for the ballot, just like every other petition." Boeving's lawyer, Chuck Hatfield, responded, "Missouri law declares in plain language that ‘signatures shall not be counted if the official ballot title is not affixed to the page containing such signatures.’ The petitions no longer have an official ballot title and the law is crystal clear that they shall not be counted." On August 9, 2016, Secretary Kander certified Amendment 3 to appear on the ballot in 2016. Boeving, along with three additional plaintiffs, challenged Secretary Kander's certification of the measure in the Missouri Supreme Court. Plaintiffs claimed that signatures gathered for Amendment 3 could not be certified because the petitions used to collect signatures were invalidated in court. On September 20, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, allowing the measure to remain on the ballot. The court said that no clear and unequivocal requirement existed to prevent the secretary of state from certifying the signatures collected and submitted before the ballot title was rewritten.

Appeal to Missouri Court of Appeals’ Western District

On June 23, 2017, Mike Louis, president of the Missouri AFL-CIO, filed a notice to appeal the ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals’ Western District. Regarding the circuit court's ruling, Louis said, "We strongly disagree with today’s ruling and plan to appeal. This has done nothing to weaken our commitment to working to ensure voters--not politicians--decide whether or not so-called "Right to Work" should become law in Missouri." Secretary of State Ashcroft also filed a notice of appeal on June 27, 2017.

On July 5, 2017, the Court of Appeals agreed to take up the case and stayed the lower court's order. Judges Victor Howard, Thomas Newton, Alok Ahuja heard oral arguments on July 26, 2017. Democratic Governor Mel Carnahan appointed Judges Howard and Newton. Republican Governor Matt Blunt appointed Judge Ahuja.

Court of Appeals judgment

The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's order on July 28, 2017, rejecting Judge Green's ballot language and restoring Secretary of State Ashcroft's ballot language. The judges said the original ballot title could have been written better; however, the grammatical problems in the title did not make the language insufficient or unfair. The ruling stated:

“

The circuit court may be correct that the summary statement was not drafted `in a grammatically-competent manner,’ and these grammatical errors may indeed be 'embarrassing.’ But grammatical competence and the avoidance of embarrassment are not the tests for gauging the summary’s legal sufficiency.

”

Mike Louis responded to the ruling, stating, "We are happy the court has sided with Missouri voters to make the language not confusing and keep it the way it was written by the Secretary of State." Ed Greim, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was planning to appeal the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Appeal to Missouri Supreme Court

The Missouri Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs request to appeal the court's ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. On August 9, 2017, the plaintiffs submitted an application directly to the state Supreme Court to have the case transferred.

As of 2017, the state Supreme Court had four Democratic-appointed justices and three Republican-appointed justices. On October 5, 2017, the court declined to hear the case.

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Labor and unions on the ballot

Missouri

• Missouri ballot measures
• Missouri ballot measure laws
• Right-to-work laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Petition for Right to Work Referendum (2018-R002)