JEFFERSON CITY — A Cole County judge Tuesday rejected an attempt by Missouri’s top lawyer to stop a constitutional amendment to restore abortion rights, and ordered him to approve the fiscal note summary within 24 hours of the ruling.
In a 28-page ruling, Circuit Judge Jon Beetem said Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who has refused to sign off on the amendment’s potential cost estimate, has only a ministerial duty to approve the cost figure of a proposed ballot measure.
“(T)he attorney general has no authority to substitute his own judgment for that of the auditor regarding the estimated cost of a proposed measure,†Beetem wrote.
Beetem said Bailey’s maneuvering put state Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick in an “absurd†and “preposterous†legal position.
The decision was part of a face-off between Bailey and Fitzpatrick, two Republicans who were elevated to statewide office by Gov. Mike Parson.
People are also reading…
A spokeswoman for Bailey said Tuesday that the decision will be appealed.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the Missouri ACLU, which is representing a client seeking to restore abortion rights in the state after the procedure was banned last June.
During arguments before Beetem on June 7, ACLU attorney Anthony Rothert said the stand-off has left his client unable to move forward with the collection of signatures needed to place the amendment on the November 2024 ballot.
Beetem acknowledged that Bailey’s delay tactics had impacted the group’s ability to collect signatures, saying his involvement deprived the process of 50 days.
Supporters need signatures from 8% of voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts in order to get the abortion-rights measure on the 2024 ballot.
But before they can begin, the ballot question needs to go through a process involving Fitzpatrick, Bailey and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.
In March, Fitzpatrick determined that passage of the amendment would have an estimated cost to state and local governments of at least $51,000 annually. In response, Bailey said the price tag could be $51 billion, including the possibility of losing all federal Medicaid health insurance funding, which is about $12 billion per year.
Fitzpatrick rejected the claim, arguing that submitting an inaccurate fiscal note would violate his duty as state auditor.
Beetem agreed.
“The Attorney General has no authority to return a fiscal note and fiscal note summary to the auditor if it complies with (state law,)†Beetem wrote.
Beetem said Bailey’s actions were unprecedented.
“The process for providing attorney general approval of the legal content and form of a fiscal note summary has worked consistently for over twenty-five years,†the judge said.
ACLU officials said Bailey’s actions were illegal.
“In recent months, the Attorney General has unveiled a reckless desire to impose his will on Missourians’ access to health care by violating the constitutional bounds the people of the state have granted the office to which he was appointed,†Rothert said in a statement released Tuesday.
Fitzpatrick said he appreciated Beetem’s decision to keep the current process intact.
“As someone who is steadfastly pro-life, I am personally opposed to these ballot initiatives and the taking of innocent lives,†Fitzpatrick said. “However, I firmly believe my personal stance cannot and should not impact the duty my office has to provide voters with an unbiased assessment of each measure’s fiscal impact.â€
“I appreciate the decision of the court to uphold the process that has been in place for decades so my office can continue to create fiscal notes that are as fair and accurate as possible,†Fitzpatrick added.