United Labor Committee of Mo. v. Kirkpatrick
Supreme Court of Missouri
1DissentMorgan, Chief Justice
Misconduct described in the present case should not be tolerated. I cannot agree with the majority that the evidence in the record did not demonstrate fraud in the present case; nor can I agree that § 126.-061, RSMo 1975, is mandatory solely in form or that the genuineness of the petition signers’ signatures is the only important element required by Chapter 126. Procedures set forth in Chapter 126 are not unduly burdensome on the initiative process, but are instead designed to safeguard it.
The statutory language of § 126.061 is mandatory and cannot be ignored. It provides that:
“[E]aeh sheet…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Williams v. ButlerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976
- State v. PaulMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
- State Ex Rel. Dreer v. Public School Retirement SystemSupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
- Elliott v. HoganMissouri Court of Appeals · 1958
- Howard v. BanksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.