Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By stan_sipple

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District shoots down Secretary State Carnahan's blatant attempt to torpedo initiative petition to add banning embryonic cloning to the 2006 Missouri Anti-Cloning Constitutional Amendment. Cures Without Cloning, Lori Buffa, M.D. and Chelsea Zimmerman, Appellant-Respondents, v. Robert E. Pund and Susan Baier, Respondent-Appellants; Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State, Respondent-Appellant; and Susan Montee, State Auditor, Defendant; Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute Association and Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, Amicus Curiae; Robert P. George, D. Phil, J.D. and Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D, Amicus Curiae.: WD69376 Consolidated with WD69390 and WD69391Advocates seeking to ban embryonic cloning in addition to human cloning sought to add language to the Stem Cell Research and Cures Act., Mo. Const. Art. III, Section 38(d). Pro-choice Secretary of State Carnahan had other ideas, so she called the initiative an effort to "repeal" the ban on human cloning. Missouri Court of Appeals Western District reverses the Secretary of State, finding her initiative summary misleading and unfair. "Upon review of the Plaintiffs' initiative proposal, we find no language to suggest that it would repeal the ban on human cloning. The introductory language of the initiative states that it will amend the current Act by "adding" one new section "to be known as Section 38(e)." Next, subsection 1 of the amendment states that the prohibitions in 38(e) are "in addition to" those of 38(d). Finally, the definition language in subsection 2 ("which shall include the one-cell stage onward") indicates an intention to broaden the definition of cloning to an earlier stage of cell formation than currently prohibited. The collective language leaves little doubt that one of the purposes of the amendment is to expand the definition of cloning in order to increase the number of cases to which the ban on human cloning would apply.

In light of this purpose, Missouri voters are likely to be confused by a ballot title stating that the amendment would "repeal the ban on human cloning." It is incumbent upon the Secretary in the initiative process to promote an informed understanding of the probable effect of the proposed amendment. Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick, 615 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Mo.banc 1981). The Secretary's introductory language does not fairly summarize any goal or effect of the initiative proposal and is inadequate to give clear notice of its purpose. Because this language is insufficient and unfair, a corrected summary statement is warranted. Section 116.190.3. The matter can be easily clarified by substituting the word "change" for "repeal" so the summary would read, "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the current ban on human cloning?"

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on May 03, 2008 (boomark / email).