A Cole County judge has ruled that Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins must rewrite the ballot summary for a proposed constitutional amendment on education after finding the original language “insufficient and unfair.” The judge agreed with a lawsuit alleging the summary included claims not grounded in the amendment text, calling key descriptions “deceptive and prejudicial.”
Missouri’s ballot measure would add 23 words to the state constitution to declare education a “fundamental right” and obligate the state to provide “adequate, thorough, and uniform high-quality free public schools.” Proponents argue this is a straightforward way to strengthen access to public education; opponents of Hoskins’ language say his summary overstates possible consequences that are speculative.
The dispute began when the Missouri Right to Education Initiative, the group backing the amendment, sued Hoskins in August, challenging the summary as misleading. They pointed to two bullet points in his ballot language that claimed the amendment could eliminate existing state scholarship programs that assist students with disabilities and low-income families and could prevent the state from supporting educational options beyond free public schools. The lawsuit argued these conclusions were not present in the amendment’s text.
Cole County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Limbaugh agreed the language went beyond describing the amendment’s “legal and probable effects.” He noted that the use of the word “potentially” in describing the elimination of scholarship programs indicates uncertainty and that whether those programs would actually end depends on future litigation, not the amendment itself. The judge also questioned the claim that the amendment would block support for alternatives to public schooling since that outcome is not directly dictated by the amendment’s language.
Critics of Hoskins’ original summary said his framing could prejudice voters by suggesting outcomes not clearly tied to the measure’s text, effectively shaping how citizens understand the amendment before a fair vote. Supporters of the initiative maintain the amendment’s intent is accountability and improved funding for public schools rather than interference in school choice programs.
Under the court’s order, Hoskins must submit revised ballot language by December 8, 2025, ensuring the summary accurately reflects the amendment’s direct provisions without speculative assertions. This decision underscores broader tensions over ballot language in Missouri, where several measures have faced legal scrutiny for how summaries are written and presented to voters.
