Where plaintiffs challenged the summary statement for a ballot measure to adopt a proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution on freedom of religion, the trial court properly found that the statement was sufficient and fair because a reference to the presently existing right to freedom of religious expression was not misleading since the statement specifies that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure that right, so the plaintiffs did not show that the statement deceived voters by promising a change where none was made, and the language of the proposed amendment does not repeal prisoners’ state constitutional rights to religious freedom, so the plaintiffs did not show that revision was needed for that, and the statement’s language regarding students’ rights was also fair as written.
Judgment is affirmed.
Coburn v. Mayer (MLW No. 63775/Case No. WD75097 – 11 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Hardwick, C.J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Joyce, J. (Anthony Rothert and Grant Doty, St. Louis, and Stephen Bonney, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellants) (James Layton and Jeremiah Morgan, Jefferson City, for respondents).