Opinion handed down January
17, 2017
In an
effort to raise Kansas City’s minimum wage from $7.70 an hour to $13 an hour by
2023, a committee in support of such attempted to bring the issue up for a vote
on the November 3, 2015, ballot. On
appeal from a trial court’s decision denying the measure to be brought on the
ballot, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that any challenge to the ordinance
was premature and reversed.
I. Facts and Holding
Prior to
the November 3, 2015, election ballot, Reverend Samuel Mann and other
individuals (collectively, the “Committee”) had proposed an ordinance
establishing a new minimum wage for Kansas City, Missouri.[1] To do so, the Committee used the initiative
petition process set forth in the city charter and gathered signatures for the
proposed ordinance.[2] This proposal was submitted to the Kansas
City Council, which chose not to adopt the measure.[3]
The Committee then exercised its right
under the charter to insist that the proposal be submitted to city voters.[4]
On August 20, 2015, the city council
directed the city clerk to give notice to the local election authorities that
the proposed ordinance should be submitted to city voters on the November 3,
2015, election.[5]
Subsequently, on September 22, 2015, the
City of Kansas City (the “City”) filed an action seeking to have the local
election authorities remove the proposed ordinance from the ballot.[6] The City argued that, if adopted, “the
proposed ordinance would be invalid because it would conflict with section
285.055,” a Missouri statute.[7] The validity of the proposed ordinance under
this statute was the sole basis asserted for removing the proposal from the
ballot.[8] In response, the Committee argued that
section 285.055 is unconstitutional, as it violates the single subject and
clear title requirements of the Missouri Constitution.[9]
Further, the Committee argued that the
trial court should reject the City’s challenge, as the claim is “not ripe
unless and until the City voters approve that ordinance.”[10]
On
September 22, the trial court entered judgment for the City, stating that the
proposed minimum wage ordinance “is inconsistent with [section 285.055] and is
therefore unconstitutional, on its face.”[11] Therefore, the trial court ordered that the
proposed minimum wage ordinance be struck from the November 3, 2015, ballot.[12]
II. Legal Background
In pursuing its argument in this dispute,
the City relied on section 285.055, a Missouri statute, and article VI, section
19(a) of the Missouri Constitution.
Section 285.055 prevents local
governments from enacting local minimum wage requirements greater than those
imposed by state and federal law.[13]
It states,
No
political subdivision shall establish, mandate, or otherwise require an
employer to provide to an employee:
(1) A minimum or living wage rate; or
(2) Employment benefits;
that
exceed the requirements of federal or state laws, rules, or regulations. The provisions of this subsection shall not
preempt any state law or local minimum wage ordinance requirements in effect on
August 28, 2015.[14]
As for
article VI, section 19(a) of the Missouri Constitution, titled “Power of
charter cities, how limited,” it reads:
Any
city which adopts or has adopted a charter for its own government, shall have
all powers which the general assembly of the state of Missouri has authority to
confer upon any city, provided such powers are consistent with the constitution
of this state and are not limited or denied either by the charter so adopted or
by statute. Such a city shall, in
addition to its home rule powers, have all powers conferred by law.[15]
In response
to the City’s argument, the Committee relied on article III, sections 21 and 23
of the Missouri Constitution, arguing that section 285.055 is invalid, as it
violates the single subject and clear title requirements of the constitution.[16]
Article III, section 21 states:
The
style of the laws of this state shall be: “Be it enacted by the General
Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows.” No law shall be passed except by bill, and no
bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its
original purpose. Bills may originate in
either house and may be amended or rejected by the other. Every bill shall be read by title on three
different days in each house.[17]
Article III,
section 23 states:
No
bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in
its title, except bills enacted under the third exception in section 37 of this
article and general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects
and accounts for which moneys are appropriated.[18]
III. Instant Decision
In the present
case, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the decision of the trial court
and ordered that the City take all necessary steps to have the Committee’s
proposed ordinance placed before City voters in accordance with the city charter.[19]
In coming
to this decision, the court found the substantive challenges to the validity of
the proposed ordinance were premature.[20] Therefore, “it was premature for the trial
court to address either: (a) the City’s argument that the proposed minimum wage
ordinance would – if approved by the voters – be invalid because it would
conflict with section 285.055; or (b) the Committee’s argument that section
285.055 is invalid.”[21]
Instead,
both arguments must remain hypothetical until the voters approve the proposal,
at which point “a party with proper standing can then sue to enjoin its
operation,” under the arguments previously outlined.[22] Citing Boeving
v. Kander, the court explained,
“[P]reelection challenges are limited to claims that the procedures for
submitting a proposal to the voters were not followed.”[23] Here, as the City made no contention that
there was a procedural flaw in the Committee’s proposed minimum wage ordinance,
it must wait to bring a claim until after the citizens have approved the
ordinance.[24]
IV. Comment
While it
appears clear the Supreme Court of Missouri came to the right decision here, in
determining the City’s substantive claim opposing the minimum wage ordinance
was not ripe for litigation, the larger battle over a city’s right to create
local minimum wage law in Missouri is now in full debate.
Following
this case, on March 4, 2017, the Kansas City Council voted 8-4 in favor of
increasing the local minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2023.[25] While the court in City of Kansas City v. Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners
determined this measure must be brought before Kansas City citizens via vote,
the Kansas City Council has taken unilateral action to approve the measure. As such, the City’s original claim that such a
measure would violate section 285.055 is certainly now ripe, and we can now
look to the substantive arguments originally brought by the parties.
In doing so,
it is difficult to see how such an ordinance could be upheld. Language from section 285.055 prohibiting
local governments from enacting local minimum wage requirements greater than
those imposed by state and federal laws appears to be clear. Further, Missouri House Bills 1193 and 1194, which
would replace some current language in section 285.055, have recently been
confirmed by the Missouri House of Representatives.[26]
As such, any further arguments from the
Committee in support of its minimum wage ordinance may become futile. In the future, it appears the only legitimate
way Missouri can increase its minimum wage, aside from law created by the state
legislature, will be through a state-wide vote on the matter.
-
EC
Duckworth
[1] City of Kan. City v.
Kan. City Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 505 S.W.3d 795, 796 (Mo. 2017) (en banc).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 796–97.
[8] Id. at 797.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. (alteration in original) (quoting the trial court).
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 796.
[14] Mo. Ann. Stat. § 285.055.2(2) (West 2017).
[15] Mo. Const. art. VI, § 19(a).
[17] Mo. Const. art. III, § 21.
[18] Id. § 23.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id. at 799.
[25] Lynn Horsley, KC Council Defies State Legislature, Narrowly
Approves Increased Minimum Wage, Kan.
City Star (Mar. 9, 2017), http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article137570808.html.
[26] Id.
