Brown v. Carnahan

In Missouri, the state auditor was directed by law to prepare a fiscal note and fiscal-note summary for each ballot initiative describing its fiscal impact. The auditor was allowed but not required to consult with various department heads and was required to indicate the measure’s ultimate cost or savings within 50 words, not including articles. A proposed tobacco-tax initiative would have taxed cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, and other tobacco products. Auditor Robin Carnahan (defendant) was sued by a Missouri resident, Ralph Brown (plaintiff), who contended that the note and summary for the initiative were unfair and insufficient. Particularly at issue for Brown were that the summary identified only two uses for funds—preventing tobacco use and funding education—rather than including an exhaustive list or limiting the language by calling these purposes illustrative (by using “such as,” for instance). Brown also complained that the summary’s statement that the law would increase the amount that tobacco manufacturers must hold in escrow was errant and that the summary further erred by not precisely defining which manufacturers were at issue. Brown further argued against the alleged cost indicated, which had been provided by the auditor after consulting the relevant state agencies and adopting a range of their views. The trial court found for the auditor, ruling that the note and summary were fair and sufficient. The court found that the note promoted an informed understanding of the law and that it was not self-serving or distortive. Brown appealed.