Raymond McCarty, et al v. Sec of State
Missouri Supreme Court Case No. SC100876
By: Shawna Austin and Heather Rooney McBride
Procedural Information
On December 6, 2024, Plaintiffs in Raymond McCarty et al Pla v. Sec of State timely filed a Petition for Election Contest with the Supreme Court. On December 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Expedite, requesting the Court set an expedited briefing and hearing schedule since the minimum wage increase goes into effect on January 1, 2025, and the remaining sections of Prop A go into effect on May 1, 2025. The Court ordered the Defendants to file suggestions in response to Plaintiffs’ motion on or before 5:00 p.m. December 12, 2024.
On December 12, 2024, Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick filed Objections to Contestants’ Motion to Expedite. The Auditor argued that, while contestants had “over 650 days to marinate on their lawsuit and prepare their briefing,” the Auditor had only 4 days. The proposed briefing schedule would not allow the Auditor to fully brief the Court and allow the Court to consider evidence and issue an opinion prior to January 1, 2025. The Auditor further argued that six of the Contestants were not lawfully permitted to bring an election contest since they are non-profit corporations, not registered voters. The Defendant Secretary of State filed a response indicating it takes no position on the Motion to Expedite. Further, Jobs with Justice Ballot Fund and Richard von Glahn filed a Motion to Intervene, agreed to file a proposed Answer before December 21, 2024, and opposed the Motion to Expedite.
On December 13, 2024, the Court overruled Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite as premature. The Court stated that an answer to the Petition is not due until December 24, 2024. Then, a Court-appointed Commissioner will provide the Court with a report, and the matter will be briefed and set for oral argument. The parties may move for an expedited briefing and argument schedule once the Commissioner files a report with the Court.
Basis of Lawsuit
Plaintiffs argue, the election irregularities and the constitutional violation of Prop A are so significant that the Court must overturn the November 5, 2024, election results and declare Prop A invalid because:
1.The Fiscal Note Summary is Insufficient and Unfair.
Under Chapter 115 RSMo., registered voters may contest election results on any question due to irregularities and may bring a post-election action to challenge the fiscal note summary of a proposed statute. The Auditor was required to prepare a fiscal note and summary, which are neither argumentative nor prejudiced, estimating the costs or savings and assessing the fiscal impact of Prop A on governmental entities.
The fiscal note summary for Prop A stated one-time costs ranging from $0 to $53,000, and ongoing cost from $0 to at least $256,000 per year, with potential changes in state and local government tax revenue.
Plaintiffs argue the Fiscal Note Summary is insufficient and unfair because it fails to address cost to local governments, excluded the local government cost submitted to the State Auditor, inaccurately represented Prop A’a actual fiscal impact, ignored significant estimated cost, and omitted potential increases in state and local tax revenues resulting from wage increases. Therefore, Plaintiffs argue, the summary failed to promote an informed understanding and prejudiced voters by not providing facts necessary to understand the impact of Prop A, and it constituted an election irregularity that could cast doubt on the true results of the vote.
2. The Summary Statement for Prop A is Insufficient and Unfair.
Plaintiffs next argue the summary statement for Prop A is misleading, insufficient, prejudicial, and unfair, affecting the election results. Prop A proposed an increase in the minimum wage, adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index, requiring paid sick leave, allowing oversight and enforcement by the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, and exempted governmental entities, political subdivisions, school districts and education institutions.
However, Plaintiffs argue, Prop A failed to inform voters of caps on sick leave based on employee numbers, employee exemptions, annual limits, and coverage for non-health-related reasons. Further, Prop A failed to explain that certain employees were exempt from the minimum wage increase, and that the exemption for educational institutions only applies to public higher education institutions. Additionally, Prop A mislead voters regarding local government oversight, implying the annual adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index is a new requirement. According to Plaintiffs, Prop A’s insufficient and unfair summary was designed to prevent voters from understanding the effects of Prop A and influenced the voting results.
3. Prop A Contains Multiple Subjects in Violation of the Single Subject Clause of the Missouri Constitution.
Article III, Section 50 of the Missouri Constitution states, “Petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject which shall be expressed clearly in the title.” The single subject matter rule is the constitutional assurance that a measure passes or fails on its own merits. However, Proposition A considers two subjects: minimum wage, governed by Chapter 290, RSM, and earned sick time, governed under Chapter 285 for private employers.
The minimum wage increase accounts for less than one of nine pages of Prop A, and the new requirements for sick leave and enforcement provisions account for the additional eight pages. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege Prop A does not comply with the Missouri Constitution or binding case law because there is no certainty whether either issue passed or failed on its own merits.
4. Prop A Violates the Missouri Constitution Clear Title Requirement.
Article III, Section 50 of the Missouri Constitution states, “Petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject which shall be expressed clearly in the title.” Plaintiffs argue Prop A’s title deals with more than one subject and is unclear.
5. Prop A Violates Equal Protection.
Plaintiffs argue Prop A treats similarly situated entities differently in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 2 of the Missouri Constitution. Plaintiffs claim Prop A’s exemption of government, businesses with existing collective bargaining, golf caddies and workers in private residences results in similarly- situated parties being treated differently, and there is no rational basis for this disparate treatment.
Plaintiffs argue the foregoing election irregularities and the constitutional violation of Prop A are so significant that the election results on November 5, 2024, must be overturned, and Prop A must be declared invalid because the Fiscal Note Summary is insufficient and unfair; the Summary Statement is misleading, insufficient, prejudicial, and unfair, affecting the election results; Prop A contains multiple subjects in violation of the Single Subject Clause of the Missouri Constitution; Prop A violates the Missouri Constitution Clear Title Requirement; and Prop A violates equal protection.
At present, employers who are not exempt from Proposition A need to be preparing for the increase in minimum wage effective January 1, 2024. It is likely some time thereafter when any substantive ruling on the application of the law will be effective.
The business attorneys at RMS will continue to keep our clients and prospective clients informed on developments in this case.