Sie sind auf Seite 1von 37

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY

STATE OF MISSOURI
PROGRESS MISSOURI, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISSOURI SENATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 15AC-CC00160
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS


Defendants, the Missouri Senate, Senator Mike Kehoe, Senator David
Sater, and Senator Mike Parson, along with the Missouri Senate Commerce,
Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment Committee, the Missouri
Senate Seniors, Families and Children Committee, and the Missouri Senate
Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee, by and through counsel,
the Missouri Attorney General, move to dismiss the above-captioned case,
and state in support as follows:
1.

On April 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed Case No. 15AC-CC00160,

regarding attempts to personally record hearings before select committees of


the Missouri Senate. In their Petition, Plaintiffs allege a violation of
Missouri Sunshine Law, 610.010, et seq., RSMo (2013 Cum. Supp.), and a
violation of the rights of freedom of speech and association.
2.

As set forth in the accompanying suggestions in support,

incorporated herein by reference, the Plaintiffs claims fail.


WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Court to issue an
Order and Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs Petition, and for such other and
further relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRIS KOSTER
Missouri Attorney General
By: /s/ Jeremiah J. Morgan
Jeremiah J. Morgan
Mo. Bar #50387
Deputy Solicitor General
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0899
Telephone: (573) 751-1800
Facsimile: (573) 751-0774
jeremiah.morgan@ago.mo.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
via Missouri CaseNet e-filing system, this 22nd day of May, 2015, to:
Christopher N. Grant
George O. Suggs
SCHUCHAT, COOK & WERNER
1221 Locust Street, Second Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
cng@schuchatcw.com
gos@schuchatcw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/ Jeremiah J. Morgan
Jeremiah J. Morgan
Deputy Solicitor General

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY


STATE OF MISSOURI
PROGRESS MISSOURI, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISSOURI SENATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 15AC-CC00160
)
)
)
)

SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants, the Missouri Senate, Senator Mike Kehoe, Senator David
Sater, and Senator Mike Parson, along with the Missouri Senate Commerce,
Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment Committee, the Missouri
Senate Seniors, Families and Children Committee, and the Missouri Senate
Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee, by and through counsel,
the Missouri Attorney General, submit the following Suggestions in Support
of Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
INTRODUCTION
The Missouri House and Senate passed, and the Governor signed, the
open records law to reflect the states commitment to openness in
government. See News-Press and Gazette Co. v. Cathcart, 974 S.W.2d 576,
578 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). And in 2004, that openness was expanded again
by the General Assembly to allow for the recording by audiotape,

videotape, or other electronic means of any open meeting. 610.020.3


(emphasis added). The Missouri Senate itself has done just that allowed for
the recording of its committee meetings.
Plaintiffs admit in their Petition that members of the Missouri Capitol
News Association and the Missouri Press Corps are allowed to record
Missouri Senate committee meetings. Petition, 23, 26, 27 & Exhibit 3. In
addition, Plaintiffs admit that committee meetings are recorded by Senate
Communications and made available to the public. Petition, 23, 27 &
Exhibit 3.
What is more, Missouris open records law provides that a public body
may establish guidelines regarding the manner in which such recording is
conducted so as to minimize disruption to the meeting. 610.020.3. Again,
the Missouri Senate has done just that, having passed Senate Rule 96 for the
recording of committee meetings. But the Missouri Senates authority to
establish guidelines is more than just statutory, it is constitutional. The
Missouri Constitution, starting in 1820 and continuing to today, authorizes
the Missouri Senate to determine the rules of its own proceedings. Mo.
Const., Art. III, 18.
The constitutional authority of the Missouri Senate to determine the
rules of its own proceedings is more than an interesting side-note to the
openness of committee meetings, it actually ends the inquiry. It makes the
2

matter, in the words of the Missouri Supreme Court, a political question,


State ex info. Danforth v. Banks, 454 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Mo. banc 1970),
entirely immune from judicial review. Bennett v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 698
S.W.2d 854, 864 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). Even the Lieutenant Governor, who is
the President of the Senate, Mo. Const., Art. IV, 10, must conform to
procedural rules of the senate authorized and adopted pursuant to Art. III,
18. State ex info. Danforth v. Cason, 507 S.W.2d 405, 413-14 (Mo. banc
1973).
The Missouri Senate has constitutionally adopted rules for the
recording of committee meetings and those rules are controlling in this case
so long as those rules do not violate some other provision of the
constitution. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law 338. Plaintiffs, of course, allege
that being denied the opportunity to personally record committee meetings is
a violation of their freedom of speech or association rights under the
constitution. Not so. As the Eighth Circuit has held, neither the public nor
the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make
audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the
public. Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2004). As such, Plaintiffs
claims should be dismissed as political questions or for failure to state a
claim.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On a motion to dismiss, the pleadings are liberally construed and all
well-pleaded facts are accepted as true and construed in a light most
favorable to the pleader. Koger v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 28 S.W.3d 405, 410
(Mo. App. W.D. 2000). Here, Plaintiffs assert that they have been denied the
right, under Missouris open records law, 610.010, et seq., RSMo (2013
Cum. Supp.), 1/ and the Missouri Constitution, Mo. Const., Art. I, 8, to
personally record Missouri Senate committee meetings. The alleged facts
(and associated law) in this case are dispositive of the claims.
A.

The Missouri Senates Constitutional Authority.

Like most state constitutions, the Missouri Constitution establishes


separation of powers as a fundamental principle of government:
The powers of government shall be divided into three
distinct departmentsthe legislative, executive and
judicialeach of which shall be confided to a separate
magistracy, and no person, or collection of persons,
charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging
to one of those departments, shall exercise any power
properly belonging to either of the others, except in

All references to the Revised Statutes of Missouri will be to the 2013


Cumulative Supplement unless otherwise noted.
1/

the instances in this constitution expressly directed


or permitted.
Mo. Const., Art. II, 1 (emphasis added).
Along with this declaration concerning separation of powers, the
Missouri Constitution describes the various powers of government, including
the legislature. Article III relates specifically to the legislative department
and provides the following powers of the General Assembly of the State of
Missouri, including the Missouri Senate:
Each house shall appoint its own officers; shall be
sole judge of the qualifications, election and returns
of its own members; may determine the rules of its
own proceedings, except as herein provided; may
arrest and punish . . . any person not a member, who
shall be guilty of disrespect to the house by any
disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence
during its sessions; may punish its members for
disorderly conduct; and, with the concurrence of twothirds of all members elect, may expel a member . . . .
Mo. Const., Art. III, 18 (emphasis added).
The provision authorizing the Missouri Senate to determine the rules
of its own proceedings was adopted with the 1945 Constitution. But it was
5

not new to the 1945 Constitution. Its origins are in the very first Constitution
of the State of Missouri. The original 1820 Constitution provided, as the
Missouri Constitution does today, that [e]ach house may determine the rules
of its proceedings. 1820 Mo. Const., Art. III, 18.
B.

Rules Governing the Missouri Senates Proceedings.

Pursuant to its constitutional authority, the Missouri Senate has, for


many years, adopted a number of rules, including rules relating to the
proceedings of its various committees. There are currently more than 100
rules governing the Missouri Senates proceedings. See Exhibit A.
In 1983, the Senate adopted Senate Rule 96, which provided as follows:
[p]ersons with cameras, flash cameras, lights, or other paraphernalia may be
allowed to use such devices at committee meetings with the permission of
the Chairman as long as they dont prove disruptive to the decorum of
the committee. Exhibit B. On January 12, 2015, Senate Rule 96 was
readopted and is essentially identical today: [p]ersons with cameras, flash
cameras, lights, or other paraphernalia may be allowed to use such devices
at the committee meetings with the permission of the Chairman as long
as they do not prove disruptive to the decorum of the committee.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/15info/Journals/RDay03011275-91.pdf#toolbar=1.
According to the Plaintiffs, members of the Missouri Capitol News
Association and the Missouri Press Corps are authorized by the Missouri
6

Senate, under Rule 96, to record committee meetings. Petition, 2, 23, 26,
27 & Exhibit 3. The Senate Communications office has also been instructed
to record committee meetings and make those recordings available to the
public. Petition, 23, 26, 27, & Exhibit 3.
C.

Missouris Open Records Law.

In 1973, the Missouri legislature passed the open records law. See
610.010, et seq. Since then, the open records law has been amended several
times. One such amendment occurred in 2004 when the legislature added the
following relevant provision:
A public body shall allow for the recording by
audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of
any open meeting. A public body may establish
guidelines regarding the manner in which such
recording is conducted so as to minimize disruption to
the meeting.
610.020.3.
Pursuant to this provision, Plaintiffs have sought to personally record
certain Missouri Senate committee meetings. Plaintiffs allege that although
all Missouri Senate committee meetings are open to the public, including
those at issue in this case, Plaintiffs have been denied the opportunity to
personally record the meetings. Petition, 32, 33, & 39. As a result,
7

Plaintiffs allege in Count I a violation of Missouris open records law. In


Count II, Plaintiffs allege a violation of the rights of freedom of speech and
association under the Missouri Constitution.

ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is solely a test of the
adequacy of the plaintiffs petition. City of Lake St. Louis v. City of OFallon,
324 S.W.3d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting Reynolds v. Diamond Foods &
Poultry, Inc., 79 S.W.3d 907, 909 (Mo. banc 2002)). As such, a court reviews
the petition in an almost academic manner, to determine if the facts alleged
meet the elements of a recognized cause of action, or of a cause that might be
adopted in that case. Id. (quoting Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d
303, 306 (Mo. banc 1993)).
A primary consideration in any case is justiciability. Foster v. State, 352
S.W.3d 357, 359 (Mo. banc 2011). Indeed, an actual, justiciable controversy is
a fundamental, underlying requisite. Glick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 435 S.W.2d
17, 20 (Mo. App. W.D. 1968). And cases involving political questions are
non-justiciable so long as there is a textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department. State ex info.
Danforth v. Banks, 454 S.W.2d 498, 500 (Mo. banc 1970) (quoting Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)).
Here, the Missouri Constitution provides that the Missouri Senate
may determine the rules of its own proceedings. Mo. Const. Art. III, 18.
They have done so in this case, adopting rules that allow for the recording of
9

committee meetings and thereby making the Plaintiffs open records law
claim not only subject to dismissal as non-justiciable but also for failure to
state a claim. Similarly, Plaintiffs claim of free speech and association under
the Missouri Constitution fails and should be dismissed.
I.

Missouri Senate Rules Comply With the Open Records


Law, Allowing for the Recording of Senate Committee
Meetings.
The open records law requires that [a] public body shall allow for the

recording by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of any public


meeting. 610.020.3 (emphasis added). Even before considering the
application of this provision to the Missouri Senate, it should be clear that by
rule and practice, and by admission of the Plaintiffs, the Missouri Senate has
done just that allowed for the recording of its committee meetings.
Plaintiffs, after all, admit in their Petition that the Missouri Senate allows
members of the Missouri Capitol News Association and the Missouri Press
Corps to record committee meetings. See Petition, 23, 26, 27, & Exhibit 3.
Furthermore, anyone can obtain a copy of recordings made of committee
meetings from Senate Communications. See, e.g., Petition, 23, 27 &
Exhibit 3.
What is more, the open records law itself provides that [a] public body
may establish guidelines regarding the manner in which such recording is
conducted so as to minimize disruption to the meeting. 610.020.3 (emphasis
10

added). Again, there is no dispute that the Missouri Senate has done just
that. The Missouri Senate has established guidelines in Senate Rule 96
regarding the manner in which recording is conducted and has done so in an
effort to minimize disruption.
Instead of permitting any and all persons with a camera or a phone to
record whenever and in whatever manner they desire, the Missouri Senate
has established reasonable guidelines to control the potential chaos and
disruption of committee meetings. Allowing members of the Missouri Capitol
News Association and the Missouri Press Corps to record as well as making
recordings available through Senate Communications are not only reasonable
guidelines to minimize disruption, they are consistent with the open records
law.
The Missouri Constitution commits to the Senate the authority to
determine the rules of its own proceedings for the purposes of minimizing
disruption, Mo. Const. Art. III, 18, and the open records law does the same.
Thus, the open records law claim in this case should be dismissed because it
fails to state a claim.
II.

The Plaintiffs Open Records Law Claim is Also a NonJusticiable Political Question Because the Missouri
Senate is Constitutionally Authorized to Determine the
Rules of Its Own Proceedings, Which it has Done.
In Count I of the Petition, Plaintiffs purport to pit Missouris open

records law, 610.010, et seq., against Missouri Senate rules, which are
11

expressly authorized by the Missouri Constitution. 2/ Mo. Const. Art. III, 18.
It is no real contest, however, as the Missouri Constitution, and the rules
authorized thereby, unquestionably prevail over statutes, even important
statutes like the open records law.
It is worth noting at the outset the obvious point that the open records
law is a set of statutory provisions. Passed in 1973 for the first time, the
provisions carry no constitutional imprimatur. While they reflect the states
commitment to openness in government, they must yield to other provisions
of law, and in particular to constitutional interests and limitations. See NewsPress and Gazette Co. v. Cathcart, 974 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)
(citing MacLachlan v. McNary, 684 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) and
610.011).
In this case, the Plaintiffs claim under the open records law is a nonjusticiable political question. The Missouri Constitution commits to the
Missouri Senate the authority to determine the rules of its own proceedings.
Mo. Const. Art. III, 18. When a constitution authorizes a coordinate branch
of government to control its own proceedings, the exercise of that authority is
not subject to judicial inquiry. See 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law 338 ([I]t is
entirely the prerogative of a legislature to make, interpret, and enforce its
Like the Missouri Supreme Court in Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d
11, 22 (Mo. banc 2012), we assume without conceding that the open records
laws apply to the General Assembly.
2/

12

own procedural rules . . . .). Even the legislatures disregard of a rule of


procedure is not a subject for judicial inquiry. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law
338.
A.

Legislative Rules of Procedure are Non-Justiciable


Political Questions.

A state legislature is authorized to establish rules governing its own


proceedings, and so long as those rules do not violate some other provision of
the constitution, it ordinarily is not within a courts prerogative to approve,
disapprove, or enforce them. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law 338; see 9 ALR
6th 177 (There are certain areas reserved for the legislature and executive.).
For example, it is well settled that [i]nternal procedural aspects of the
legislative process . . . and rules of procedure are not subject to judicial
control or revision. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law 338. This is what courts
uniformly call the political question doctrine.
The political question doctrine establishes a limitation on the
authority of the judiciary to resolve issues, decidedly political in nature, that
are properly left to the legislature. Bennett v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 698 S.W.2d
854, 863-64 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). In fact, the political question doctrine
requires more than just the recognition of legislative authority over the
matter. If a case involves the resolution of a political question, the matter is
immune from judicial review. Id. at 864 (emphasis added). As a consequence,
the appropriate remedy is dismissal for nonjusticiability on the basis of a
13

political questions presence. Id.


The Missouri Supreme Court has recognized and follows the political
question doctrine, where there is found a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.
Banks, 454 S.W.2d at 500 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)). The
doctrine is understandably rooted in separation of powers principles. Id. at
502 (quoting 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law 106, p. 491) ( The legislative
function, except as limited by state or national constitutions, is equal and not
subordinate to the judicial function, and the legislature is the ultimate
guardian of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great degree as
the courts. ).
But

what

constitutes

textually

demonstrable

constitutional

commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department? We need not


go far to answer this question. In Banks, 454 S.W.2d at 500, the Missouri
Supreme Court considered the very same article and section of the Missouri
Constitution that is at issue in this case Art. III, 18. Id. As is obvious by
Art. III, Sec. 18, of the Constitution of Missouri, the people of this state have
specifically made a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to its
house of representatives power to be the sole judge of the qualifications of its
own members. That fact is not debatable. Banks, 454 S.W.2d at 500.
Of course, one might argue that the Missouri Supreme Court in Banks
14

merely considered the sole judge provision of Art. III, 18 a political


question, and not the provision relating to the Missouri Senates authority to
determine the rules of its own proceedings. The same analysis, however, is
equally applicable. The people of this state have specifically made a
textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to its [senate] to
determine the rules of its own proceedings. Banks, 454 S.W.2d at 500. It is
a commitment that goes back to the very first Constitution of the State of
Missouri, wherein the people provided that [e]ach house may determine the
rules of its proceedings. 1820 Mo. Const., Art. III, 18. The same
commitment is fully in force today.
Moreover, courts and authorities from around the country recognize
that a state legislatures authority to establish rules governing its own
proceedings is a political question not subject to judicial review. See, e.g., Des
Moines Register and Tribune Co. v. Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1996) (It is
a firmly-established principle that when a challenge to a legislative action
involves a political question, the judiciary may not intervene or attempt to
adjudicate the matter.) (citing Abood v. League of Women Voters of Alaska,
743 P.2d 333, 336 (Alaska 1987), Moffitt v. Willis, 459 So.2d 1018, 1022 (Fla.
1984), State ex rel. LaFollette v. Stitt, 338 N.W.2d 684, 687 (Wis. 1983),
Opinion of the Justices, 381 So.2d 183 (Ala. 1980), State ex rel. Lynch v.
Conta, 239 N.W.2d 313, 335 (Wis. 1976), Coggin v. Davey, 211 S.E.2d 708,
15

710 (Ga. 1975), State ex rel. Todd v. Essling, 128 N.W.2d 307, 318 (Minn.
1964), Opinion of the Justices, 170 A.2d 657, 659 (Me. 1961), State ex rel.
Johnson v. Hagemeister, 73 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Neb. 1955), and Witherspoon v.
State ex rel. West, 103 So. 134, 138 (Miss. 1925)). 3/ And so it is in this case.
B.

The
Missouri
Senate
Has
Constitutionally
Established Rules of Procedure Applicable in This
Case.

In accordance with the constitutional authority provided to the


legislature, the Missouri Senate has routinely adopted rules for its own
proceedings. See Mo. Const. Art. III, 18. As of 2015, there are more than
100 Senate Rules governing Senate proceedings, including rules that apply in
this case. See http://www.senate.mo.gov/15info/rules/RuleBook.pdf. These
rules are not unlike the rules of civil procedure governing the proceedings of
the judiciary. See Banks, 454 S.W.2d at 502.
Beginning as early as 1983, and continuing to the present, Senate Rule
See also 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law 338 ([I]t is entirely the
prerogative of a legislature to make, interpret, and enforce its own procedural
rules . . . [which are] not a subject for judicial inquiry.) (citing Bd. of Trustees
of Judicial Form Retirment Sys. v. Attorney General of Com., 132 S.W.3d 770
(Ky. 2003), LeRoux v. Secretary of State, 640 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2002), State
ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 716 N.E.2d 704 (Ohio 1999), State ex rel.
Masariu v. Marion Superior Court No. 1, 621 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind. 1993),
Application of Forsythe, 450 A.2d 594 (N.J. App. Div. 1982), judgment affd,
450 A.2d 499 (N.J. 1982), Lewis v. Klein, 383 N.E.2d 872 (N.Y. 1978), and
Schwab v. Ariyoshi, 564 P.2d 135 (Haw. 1977)); 9 ALR 6th 177, 26 ([T]he
judiciary should not intrude into areas reserved for the legislature and
executive.) (citing Hughes v. Speaker of the N.H. House of Representatives,
876 A.2d 736 (N.H. 2005), Dintzis v. Hayden, 606 A.2d 660 (Pa. 1992), and
Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. App. 2001)).
3/

16

96 has provided that [p]ersons with cameras, flash cameras, lights, or other
paraphernalia may be allowed to use such devices at the committee meetings
with the permission of the Chairman as long as they do not prove disruptive
to the decorum of the committee.
The current Senate Rule 96 is essentially identical to the 1983 version
and commits to the discretion of the Chair of any Senate committee the
decision concerning whether to permit persons with cameras, etc. to use such
devices during the committee meetings. The Senate Committee Chairs in this
case have allowed members of the Missouri Capitol News Association, the
Missouri Press Corps, and Senate Communications to record committee
meetings, but have not allowed Plaintiffs to personally record the committee
meetings at issue (although recordings are available to them). Des Moines
Register and Tribune Co., 542 N.W.2d at 496 (It is entirely the prerogative of
the legislature, however, to make, interpret, and enforce its own procedural
rules, and the judiciary cannot compel the legislature to act . . . .).
These Senate Rules are no small matter either for the Missouri Senate
or for courts applying the rules. The decision in State ex info. Danforth v.
Cason, 507 S.W.2d 405, 413-14 (Mo. banc 1973), aptly demonstrates the
importance of Senate Rules. In Cason, the Missouri Supreme Court
considered a significant conflict between the Missouri Lieutenant Governor
and the Missouri Senate. Apparently, the Senate was attempting to remove,
17

by rule, the Lieutenant Governors authority to preside over the Senate. The
Court ultimately held in favor of the Lieutenant Governor, but only because
there was a specific constitutional provision that made the Lieutenant
Governor president of the senate, and therefore entitled to preside over the
body. Id at 416.
In the course of its decision, the Missouri Supreme Court in Cason
noted that Art. III, 18 does confer on the senate the right to establish its
own procedural rules and the only exceptions to those rules must be in the
Constitution itself. Id. at 413. The Missouri Supreme Court further
concluded that the Lieutenant Governor, despite being the constitutionally
authorized president and presiding officer of the Senate must conform to
procedural rules of the senate authorized and adopted pursuant to Art. III,
18. Id. at 413-14.
Courts have a duty and obligation to protect the right of the legislative
department . . . to exercise those powers specifically delegated to it and
[r]efusal to do as much would constitute an encroachment upon the
legislature . . . and do violence to that separation of powers so fundamentally
vital to our form of government. Banks, 454 S.W.2d at 500 (citing Art. II,
Sec. 1, Constitution of Missouri, 1945). Here, the Missouri Senate has
exercised the power delegated to it, and it is incumbent upon the judiciary to
protect the exercise of that power.
18

C.

Constitutionally Authorized Senate Rules Control


Over Open Records Laws.

Although no Missouri court has been called upon to consider whether


Missouri Senate Rules control over conflicting provisions of the open records
law, the result should easily follow from the controlling authority concerning
political questions and the Constitution. Yet, Plaintiffs argue that Senate
Rule 96 is not an exception to Missouris Sunshine Law and does not allow
Defendants to deny permission to Plaintiffs to videotape hearings in the
absence of evidence that such recordings will prove disruptive. Petition,
57. Senate Rule 96 is certainly not an exception to the open records law;
instead, it controls over the open records law. As the Missouri Supreme Court
said in Cason, the only exceptions to the Senate Rules must be in the
Constitution itself. Cason, 507 S.W.2d at 413. And the open records law is
not in the Constitution.
Courts outside of Missouri have also concluded that rules governing
legislative proceedings govern over the open records law. See, e.g., Des Moines
Register and Tribune Co., 542 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1996). In Des Moines
Register and Tribune Co., for example, the Iowa Supreme Court considered
this very conflict and held:
The Open Records Statute, does not, nay cannot
precede our authority and duty to first determine
what rights are exclusively given to the legislature by
19

our Constitution. Were it otherwise, we could always


preempt a consideration of a constitutional question
involving the legislatures exclusive domain where a
statute

could

be

interpreted

to

apply

to

the

legislature itself.
Des Moines Register and Tribune Co., 542 N.W.2d at 496.
The Missouri Senates constitutional authority to establish the rules of
its own proceedings is also both first in time and most recent. Article III, 18
was part of the Missouri Constitution passed in 1945, and predates that
constitution going back to statehood in 1820. In contrast, Missouris open
records law was originally passed in 1973. It has been amended several times
since then. In 2004 it was amended to include that [a] public body shall
allow for the recording by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of
any open meeting. A public body may establish guidelines regarding the
manner in which such recording is conducted so as to minimize disruption to
the meeting. 610.020.3.
Article III, 18 has remained in force during the entire span of time
that the open records law has been in force. As have the Senate Rules, and in
particular Senate Rule 96. Indeed, Senate Rule 96 was most recently
readopted in January 2015. As such, Senate Rule 96 controls over the open
records law and, therefore, Plaintiffs claim should be dismissed as a non20

justiciable political question.


III.

Missouri Senate Rule 96 Does Not Violate Free Speech or


Association Rights.
In Count II of the Petition, Plaintiffs allege a Missouri constitutional

violation of the rights of freedom of speech and association. Petition, 6078 (citing Mo. Const., Art. I, 8). There is, however, no constitutional right,
either under free speech or association, to record (whether video or audio)
open public meetings. And there is no dispute that all meetings were open to
the public. Petition, 39 (Hearings before Senate Committees are open to
the public, including the hearings noted above.).
Instead of asserting free speech and association rights under the
United States Constitution, Plaintiffs take a different tact and claim only free
speech and association rights under the Missouri Constitution. While
provisions of our state constitution may be construed to provide more
expansive protections than comparable federal constitutional provisions,
analysis of a section of the federal constitution is strongly persuasive in
construing the like section of our state constitution. Kansas City Premier
Apartments, Inc. v. Missouri Real Estate Commn, 344 S.W.3d 160, 170 (Mo.
banc 2011) (quoting Doe I v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833, 841 (Mo. banc 2006)).
Here, the federal authority is on point and dispositive.
In Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2004) the Eighth Circuit
made abundantly clear that we hold that neither the public nor the media
21

has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio


recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public. Id.
at 678-79 (citing Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Twp. of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d
177, 184 (3rd Cir. 1999) (holding that public has no right to videotape
Planning Commission meetings that were required to be public); United
States v. Kerley, 753 F.2d 617, 621 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding that the public has
no right to videotape trial even when the defendant wishes it to be
videotaped); Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23
(2nd Cir. 1984) (There is a long leap, however, between a public right under
the First Amendment to attend trials and a public right under the First
Amendment to see a given trial televised.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017, 105
S.Ct. 3478, 87 L.Ed.2d 614 (1985); United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278,
1284 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 931, 103 S.Ct. 2094, 77 L.Ed.2d
303 (1983) (holding that the press had no right to videotape criminal trials);
cf. Nixon v. Warner Commcns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 609, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55
L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (holding that no First Amendment right existed to publish
or copy exhibits displayed in court); United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651,
659 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 809, 118 S.Ct. 49, 139 L.Ed.2d 15
(1997) (holding that First Amendment right of access does not extend to
videotaped deposition testimony of then-President Clinton)).
The foundation of Plaintiffs claim is the alleged prohibition on
22

videotaping open meetings or filming open meetings. Petition, 1 & 2.


Yet, without a First Amendment right to record open meetings, there can be
no infringement of either free speech rights or freedom of association rights.
Moreover, not only were the committee meetings open to the public in this
case, including Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs had reasonable access to recordings of
the meetings. It follows that if there is no free speech or association right to
record public proceedings, there is certainly no right to personally record
meetings already open to the public and recorded.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Petition should be dismissed and
Defendants granted such other relief as the Court deems proper.

23

Respectfully submitted,
CHRIS KOSTER
Missouri Attorney General
By: /s/ Jeremiah J. Morgan
Jeremiah J. Morgan
Mo. Bar #50387
Deputy Solicitor General
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0899
Telephone: (573) 751-1800
Facsimile: (573) 751-0774
jeremiah.morgan@ago.mo.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
via Missouri CaseNet e-filing system, this 22nd day of May, 2015, to:
Christopher N. Grant
George O. Suggs
SCHUCHAT, COOK & WERNER
1221 Locust Street, Second Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
cng@schuchatcw.com
gos@schuchatcw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/ Jeremiah J. Morgan
Jeremiah J. Morgan
Deputy Solicitor General

25

List of
Members, Officers,
Committees and
RULES
OF THE

SENATE

98th General Assembly


First Regular Session
2015

Exhibit A

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COMMITTEES
Meeting Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Standing Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
INDEX TO RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
OFFICERS OF THE SENATE . . . . . . . . . . . 55
PARTY OFFICERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
RULES OF THE SENATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SENATORIAL DISTRICTS

SENATORIAL DISTRICTS
Twelfth
Andrew
Atchison
Clay (part)
Clinton
Daviess
DeKalb
Gentry
Grundy
Harrison
Holt
Mercer
Nodaway
Putnam
Sullivan
Worth
Thirteenth
St. Louis County (part)
Fourteenth
St. Louis County (part)
Fifteenth
St. Louis County (part)
Sixteenth
Camden
Crawford
Dent
Phelps
Pulaski
Seventeenth
Clay (part)
Eighteenth
Adair
Chariton
Clark
Knox
Lewis
Linn
Macon
Marion
Pike
Ralls
Randolph

First
St. Louis County (part)
Second
St. Charles (part)
Third
Iron
Jefferson (part)
Reynolds
St. Francois
Ste. Genevieve
Washington
Fourth
City of St. Louis (part)
St. Louis County (part)
Fifth
City of St. Louis (part)
Sixth
Cole
Gasconade
Maries
Miller
Moniteau
Morgan
Osage
Seventh
Jackson (part)
Eighth
Jackson (part)
Ninth
Jackson (part)
Tenth
Audrain
Callaway
Lincoln
Monroe
Montgomery
Warren
Eleventh
Jackson (part)

SENATORIAL DISTRICTS
Scott
Wayne
Twenty-Eighth
Benton
Cedar
Dallas
Hickory
Laclede
Pettis
Polk
St. Clair
Twenty-Ninth
Barry
Lawrence
McDonald
Stone
Taney

Schuyler
Scotland
Shelby
Nineteenth
Boone
Cooper
Twentieth
Christian
Greene (part)
Twenty-First
Caldwell
Carroll
Howard
Johnson
Lafayette
Livingston
Ray
Saline
Twenty-Second
Jefferson (part)
Twenty-Third
St. Charles (part)
Twenty-Fourth
St. Louis County (part)
Twenty-Fifth
Butler
Carter
Dunklin
Mississippi
New Madrid
Pemiscot
Shannon
Stoddard
Twenty-Sixth
Franklin
St. Louis County (part)
Twenty-Seventh
Bollinger
Cape Girardeau
Madison
Perry

Thirtieth
Greene (part)
Thirty-First
Barton
Bates
Cass
Henry
Vernon
Thirty-Second
Dade
Jasper
Newton
Thirty-Third
Douglas
Howell
Oregon
Ozark
Ripley
Texas
Webster
Wright
Thirty-Fourth
Buchanan
Platte

RULES OF THE SENATE

RULES OF THE SENATE


Synopsis
I. Time of meeting and procedure.
Rule 1.
Rule 2.

Time of meeting.
Opening of daily sitting of Senate.

II. Order of business and procedure thereunder.


Rule 3.
Rule 4.
Rule 5.
Rule 6.

Order of business.
The daily call upon order of business.
Secretary's record upon order of
business. Record yeas and nays.
Order of bills for consideration.

III. Call of the Senate.


Rule 7.
Rule 8.

Alphabetical order and voting procedure.


Quorum and requirements as to
attendance.

IV. Powers and duties of officers of the Senate.


Rule 9.
Rule 10.
Rule 11.
Rule 12.
Rule 13.
Rule 14.
Rule 15.
Rule 16.
Rule 17.
Rule 18.
Rule 19.
Rule 20.
Rule 21.
Rule 22.
Rule 23.

Of the President. (Constitutional)


Of the President Pro Tem.
Of the President.
Of the President Pro Tem.
Of the President Pro Tem.
Of the President Pro Tem.
Of the President.
Of the President Pro Tem.
Of the President Pro Tem.
Of the Secretary.
Of the Secretary.
Of the Secretary.
Of the Secretary.
Of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Of the President Pro Tem.
5

RULES OF THE SENATE


Rule 24.

Of the Doorkeeper.

V. Standing Committees of the Senate.


Rule 25.
Rule 26.
Rule 27.
Rule 28.
Rule 29.
Rule 30.
Rule 31.

Committees.
Membership.
Parliamentary Procedure.
Duties.
Offices and seating.
Resignation.
Interim meetings.

VI. Reports of Committees.


Rule 32.
Rule 33.
Rule 34.
Rule 35.

Reports.
Adoption of reports.
References.
Time of sitting.

VII. Committee of the Whole.


Rule 36.
Rule 37.
Rule 38.
Rule 39.
Rule 40.
Rule 41.
Rule 42.
Rule 43.

When declared.
Presiding officer.
Rules of debate.
Amendments.
Reports and amendments.
Rules of procedure.
Quorum.
Rising of committee.

VIII. Legislative Procedure for Enactment of Bills.


Rule 44.
Rule 45.
Rule 46.
Rule 47.
Rule 48.
Rule 49.
Rule 50.

Pre-filing of bills - seniority.


Senate consent calendar.
Bill setting forth new matter.
Explanation of cost.
Limitation on introduction of bills.
(Constitutional)
Printing of bills.
Referral to committee and report
thereon.

RULES OF THE SENATE


Rule 51.
Rule 52.
Rule 53.
Rule 54.
Rule 55.
Rule 56.
Rule 57.
Rule 58.
Rule 59.
Rule 60.
Rule 61.
Rule 62.
Rule 63.
Rule 64.
Rule 65.

Record vote of committee.


(Constitutional)
Time for perfection and third reading.
Procedure in case of adverse reports.
Laws passed by bill. (Constitutional)
Read three different days.
(Constitutional)
Amended or rejected. (Constitutional)
Title provision. (Constitutional)
Revived or re-enacted.
(Constitutional)
Emergency clause. (Constitutional)
Amendment of bills.
Amendments. (Constitutional)
Amendments. (Constitutional)
Amendments. (Constitutional)
Substitute bill.
Motions.

IX. Final Passage yeas and nays.


Rule 66.
Rule 67.
Rule 68.
Rule 69.
Rule 70.
Rule 71.

Voting procedure.
Motion to reconsider.
Signing bills. (Constitutional)
Approval of Governor.
Governor's veto. (Constitutional)
Procedure as to resolutions.

X. Privileged Motions.
Rule 72.
Rule 73.
Rule 74.
Rule 75.

Adjournment.
Motions that may be received during
debate.
Indefinite postponement.
Motions laid on the table.

XI. Of Decorum and Debate.


Rule 76.
Rule 77.

Addressing the Chair.


Right to the floor.
7

RULES OF THE SENATE


Rule 78.
Rule 79.
Rule 80.
Rule 81.
Rule 82.
Rule 83.

Transgression of rules.
Censure by the Senate.
Senator shall speak but once, unless.
Senators, how addressed.
Division of the question.
Secrecy required.

XII. Previous Question.


Rule 84.
Rule 85.

How the previous question shall be put.


Debate.

XIII. Motions How Put.


Rule 86.
Rule 87.
Rule 88.
Rule 89.
Rule 90.
Rule 91.
Rule 92.
Rule 93.

On demand, must be in writing.


How presented.
Withdrawal.
How voted on.
Yeas and nays.
Senators required to vote.
Reconsideration.
Right of protest.

XIV. Miscellaneous.
Rule 94.
Rule 95.
Rule 96.
Rule 97.
Rule 98.
Rule 99.
Rule 100.
Rule 101.
Rule 102.

Admission to Senate Chamber.


Absentees.
Laptop Computers and Smoking.
Authority beyond rules.
Amendment of rules.
Verification of voting.
Request voting.
Committee meetings time and place.
Introduction of guests.

RULES OF THE SENATE


committee meeting, or a conference committee meeting
shall be shown as absent with leave (committee). It shall
be the responsibility of the member to advise the
secretary of the senate of his or her attendance at such
committee meeting.
Rule 96. 1. Laptop computers may be used by the
press at the press table and by the research staff at the
research table in the Senate Chamber as long as their
use does not violate Rule 78 or is otherwise disruptive to
the business of the Senate. No person shall take any
photograph in the Senate Gallery. Persons with cameras,
flash cameras, lights, or other paraphernalia may be
allowed to use such devices at committee meetings with
the permission of the Chairman as long as they do not
prove disruptive to the decorum of the committee.
Smoking is not permissible in the Senate Chamber or
Gallery, the Kirchoff Gallery, the Pershing Gallery, the
Bingham Gallery, committee rooms, lounge, the hallways,
restrooms or elevators.
2. For the purpose of compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the President Pro Tem may
designate a portion of the Senate Chamber as handicap
accessible and such areas shall not be considered a part
of the floor of the Senate for the purposes of section
21.420, RSMo. Persons using such area shall not lobby
members of the Senate while going to and from or while
using the designated area.
Rule 97. In cases not provided for in these rules, the
senate shall be governed by the rules laid down in the
practice and procedures adopted by the Senate of the
United States and Jefferson's Manual, including the U.S.
Senate practice that a substitute amendment to a first
degree amendment is subject to a second degree
perfecting amendment.
Rule 98. No standing rule or order of the senate shall
be rescinded or changed without one day's notice being
given of the motion thereof, which notice shall be printed
in the journal of the senate, and then only by a vote of at
least a majority of the senators elected; except that any
41

Exhibit B

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen