..2111!39* *6* CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MISSOURI POST OFFICE BOX 150 BILL L. THOMPSON JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI TELEPHONE CLERK 65102 (573)751-4144 October 14,2014 The Honorable Ms. Kay Brown Christian County Clerk 100 W. Church, Room 206 Ozark, MO. 65721 In Re: Wes Shoemyer, Darvin Bentlage, and Richard Oswald, Plaintiffs, vs. Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kinder, Defendent Missouri Supreme Court No. SC94516 Dear Sir/Madam: Pursuant to section 115.559, RSMo 2000, enclosed please find a certified copy of the petition for election contest filed in the above-entitled cause. Very truly yours, £=c C L. Rc._r.r,%% BILL L. THOMPSON 912'de:,4, AA@!#44 .. CLERK OF THE SUPREME-COURT STATE OF MISSOURI POST OFFICE BOX 150 BILL L. THOMPSON JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI TELEPHONE CLERK 65102 (573) 751-4144 October 14,2014 STATE OF MISSOURI -- SCT.: 1, BILL L. THOMPSON, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Missouri, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the Petition for Election Contest, consisting of 17 pages, as fully as the same appears on file in my office in the proceeding styled: Wes Shoemyer, Darvin Bentlage, and Richard Oswald, Plaintiffs, vs. Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, Defendant. Supreme Court No. SC94516. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have. hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Supreme Court. Done at my office in the City · of Jefferson, State aforesaid, this 14th day of October, 2014. Ail £ L. c.-r-r•,4 . Clerk 481 2 ,+MASJO , Deputy Clerk SC94516Electronically Filed · SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI - October 14: 2014 -01:51 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WES SHOEMYER, DARVIN BENTLAGE, and RICHARD OSWALD, Contestants V. ) CASE NO: MISSOURI SECRETARY OF STATE JASON KANDER, Serve at: Capitol Building, Room 208 Jefferson City, MO 65101, Contestee. ) PETITION FOR ELECTION CONTEST COME NOW Contestants Wes Shoemyer, Darvin Bentlage, and Richard Oswald, by and through counsel, pursuant to §155.553 R.S.Mo., and for their Petition for Election Contest state the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Constitutional Amendment No. 1 was submitted to Missouri voters for approval or rejection on the August 5, 2014, election ballot. The Constitutional Amendment No. 1 question appeared on ballots statewide. 2. Contestant Wes Shoemyer is a registered voter ofthe State ofMissouri in Monroe County and has standing to bring this suit pursuant to § 115.553 R.S.Mo. 3. Contestant Darvin Bentlage is a registered voter ofthe State ofMissouri in Barton County and has standing to bring this suit pursuant to § 115.553 R.S.Mo. 4. Contestant Richard Oswald is a registered voter of the State of Missouri in .. .. 1. I Atchison County and has standing to bring this suit pursuant to § 115.553 R.S.Mo. 5. Contestee Jason Kander is the duly elected and acting Secretary of State of Ele.aronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI- Octooe, 14, 2014 -01:51 PM the State of Missouri and is named as a Defendant in his official capacity pursuant to § 115.553 R.S.Mo. 6. Contestants bring this action pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.553.2 and 116.190. 7. Jurisdiction in this Court is appropriate pursuant to § 115.555 R.S.Mo. because Contestants are contesting the results of an election on a constitutional Amendment. 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 115.553 R.S.Mo. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Contestee Secretary of State initially certified the results of the August 5, 2014 election on August 25,2014. 10. Upon reasonable belief, on or about August 26,2014, Wes Shoemyer filed a Petition for Recount of the Results ofthe August 5,2014 election votes cast regarding the Constitutional Amendment No. 1 question. (See Petition for Recount attached hereto as Exhibit A.) 11. From approximately September 4, 2014, through September 11, 2014, Contestee Secretary of State conducted a statewide recount of the votes cast regarding the Constitutional Amendment No. 1 question. 12. Contestee Secretary of State certified the results of the August 5, 2014 election Constitutional Amendment No. 1 recount on September 15, 2014. 2 13. The results ofthe Constitutional Amendment No. 1 recount were certified Electronically File 3 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI - October 14, 2014 - 01 5! PM as the Amendment passing with 499,963 "Yes" votes and 497,588 "No" votes. (See August 5,2014 Special Election Constitutional Amendment 1 Recount Certification attached hereto as Exhibit B.) 14. Contestants timely filed this contest within 30 days of the final certification pursuant to § 115.557 R.S.Mo. ARGUMENT 15. The summary statement of the official ballot title of Constitutional Amendment No. 1 was insufficient, misleading, prejudicial, and unfair so as to constitute election irregularities of a sufficient magnitude to set aside the election results on Constitutional Amendment No. 1. 16. Missouri Revised Statute·Section 1 16.155.2 allows the General Assembly to write its own summary statement for a proposed constitutional Amendment, but , requires that it "be a true and impartial statement ofthe purposes of the proposed measure in language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure." 17. Under Missouri Revised Statute Section 116.155.2, the summary statement must include all information central to the purpose of the Amendment, including any limitations or contingencies contained therein. See Seqy v. Jones, --- S.W.3d ---, 2014 WL 4495194 (Mo. App. W.D. Sept. 15, 2014). 18. Constitutional Amendment No. 1 added a Section 35 to Article I of the .. Missouri Constitution which reads: 3 That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI - October 14, 2014 - 01:51 PM security is the foundation and stabilizing force ofMissouri's economy. To protect this vital sector ofMissouri's economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly i authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution ofMissouri. (See H.J.Res. 11 & 7, 97th Gen. Assem., 1st Reg. Sess. (2013), attached hereto as Exhibit C.) 19. The summary statement for Constitutional Amendment No. 1, which appeared on the August 5,2014, election ballots throughout the state read: Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? (See Official Ballot Title attached hereto as Exhibit D, available at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot (Iast visited Nov. 14, 2014).) 20. The summary statement was insufficient and unfair, deceived and misled voters, and failed to accurately reflect the legal and probable effects of the Amendment, in numerous ways, including, but not limited to, the following: a. The Amendment contained an explicit limitation on the right to farm, making it subject to the power of local governments under Article VI. The language of the summary statement, however, fails to state that such a limitation on this new right to farm would exist. 4 b. The Amendment language applies to "farmers and ranchers," regardless of Electronically FliedSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI - October 14, 2014 - 01·51 PM· citizenship. In contrast, the summary statement alIeges to secure rights of "Missouri citizens engaging in farming and ranching practices." (emphasis added). The disparate language between the Amendment and summary statement is misleading and inaccurate, because the plain language of the Amendment arguably protects the rights ofnon-Missouri citizen farmers and ranchers from being infringed, while the summary statement alleges that the Amendment only protects Missouri citizens. As such, the group identified in the summary statement as being allegedly protected by the Amendment is significantly different from the group actually protected by the Amendment itself. 21. The summary statement was only 24 words, excluding articles, out of an allowable 50 pursuant to §,116.155 R.S.Mo. The legislature could have included additional language remedying the prejudicial, insufficient and misleading aspects ofthe summary statement without exceeding the statutory limitation. WHEREFORE, Contestants respectfully request this Court: A. Declare that the summary statement for Constitutional Amendment No. 1 as adopted in TAFP HJR 11 & 7: i. is insufficient, unfair, and misleading; ii. includes language that was likely to create prejudice for or against the Amendment; 5 iii. constitutes an election irregularity of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt Electron,•,ally Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOL;RI - October 14, 2014 - 01:51 PM on the validity of the election on August 5,2014, regarding Constitutional Amendment No. 1; and B. Set aside the election results of August 5, 2014, or C. Order that Constitutional Amendment No. 1 be remanded to the legislature; D. any such other or additional relief as this Court deems necessary or proper. Respectfully submitted, SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A. By:Us/ Charles F..Speer Charles F. Speer (MO 40713) Peter Britton. Bieri (MO 58061) Charles D. Miller (MO 62352) · Andrew R. KIonowski (MO 66010) 104 West 0 Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Tel: (816) 472-3560 Fax: (816)421-2150 cspeer@speerlawfirm.com bbieri@speerlawfi rm.com emiller@speerlawfirm.com aklonowski@speerlawfirm.com Anthony L. DeWitt (MO 41612) BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GOZA, P.C. 715 Swifts Highway Jefferson City, MO 65109 Tel: (573) 659-4454 Fax: (573) 659-4460 aldewitt@bflawfi rm.com ATTORNEYS FOR CONTESTANT 6 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PETITION UPON THE ATTORNEY Electronically File SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI - October 14. 2014 - 01 91 PM GENERAL PURSUANT TO 6 527.110 R.S.Mo. I hereby certify that, on this 14th day of October 2014, a true and accurate copy of this Petition for Election Contest was served by US. Mail, first class postage prepaid, upon: Chris Koster Missouri Attorney General P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 and by e-mail to: jeremiah.morgan@ago.mo.gov /s/ Charles F. Speer Attorney for Contestant 7 SC94516 EXHIBIT A ti) PETmON FOR RECOUNT Electront, amy F.:ed· SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI -October 14. 2014 -01 51 PM COMES NOW Contestant Wes Shoemyer-president of Missouri's Food for America, and for his petition for a recount of votes, states and alleges as follows: 1. Contestant, Shoemyer, is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, was, a registered voter residing in the State ofMissouri. 2. Contestee, Jason Kander, Olereinafter the "Secretary'D, is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, the Missouri Secretaly of State. ne Missouri Secretaiy of State was the ON· *· ·*· ' ' election authority responsible for conducting the primary election for the State on August 5,2014. 3. '- OnMay 14,2013, Missouri's 97th General Assembly adopted a joint resolution to certify · · ..4·*bnhiit¢Wohal ballot question 40 appear in the State's next election that would establish I I .-. .1 1 46 conilifmdjihl righttotfkrm Olereinafter the "Right to Farm Amendment"). On May 21 20 It Missouri Governor Jay Nixon issued a proclamation that the Right to + Farm Amendment would appear on the ballot in the State's August 5, 2014 primary election. See Press Release, Office of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, Gov. Nixon Sets ..:.f Riaftdh ...Dat¢$ for 2014 'Ballot: Measures (May 23, 20141 available at : t. lit-*s:#govkrhonmo.gov/news/aBchive/gov-nixon-sets-election-dates-2014-ballot- measures. 5 On August 5,2014, Contestant cast a vote against the Right to Farm Amendment in the primary·election. Rug-:..:1.-f··... Tliejhddi:*son edntestant's Voter registration form as of August 5, 2014 was 16350 239.. p.. 27 - 3b; t. ft: :f: '27'3· MAWBelibkl'IB*Glarencei!6·63437. L :i. 1.· P:¥774-4 .. 7%*fff.*.f ··P ·F .'·4.•'·.. 1. 7, Although the Secretary has not yet officially announced election results, the unofficial. Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI - October 14, 2014 - 01:51 PM results oftheAugust 5,2014 primmy election yield 499,581 votes for and 497, 091 votes against the Right to Farm Amendment See Missouri Secretary of State, August 5, 2014 Primary Election Unofficial Results (last visited Aug. 21, 2014), http://enr.sos.mo.gov/EnrNet/. The unofficial margin of victory for the Right to Fann · Amendment is 0.25%. See icl 8. The Right to Farm Amendment was defeated by less than 1 percent of the votes cast on 2... the ballot question in the August 5, 2014 primmy election, and Contestant is therefore .. mitholized td a recount unddr Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.601(1) C*[A]ny pemon whose position ..... . on·a