Secretary of State Denny Hoskins says the summary of a proposed initiative petition seeking to repeal stadium subsidies was a ‘first bite at the apple’ that can later be refined in the courts. Critics say that’s just a strategy to bog down and derail citizen-led campaigns
By: Jason Hancock
Missouri Independent
Secretary of State Denny Hoskins is warning voters that a repeal of Missouri’s $1.5 billion stadium subsidy could mean the Chiefs pack their bags and move to Kansas.
And what about the Royals, the other team state lawmakers were hoping to convince to stay in Missouri when they created the subsidy program? Crickets.
A ballot summary prepared by Hoskins’ office for a pair of proposed initiative petitions seeking to repeal the stadium funding law declares that voter approval could “likely cause the Kansas City Chiefs to move their stadium from Missouri to Kansas.”
There is no mention of the Royals, an omission that sparked a flurry of questions — and criticism.
Does Hoskins have some reason to believe the Royals have already decided to leave the state or have no intention of using the stadium tax incentives?
Or, as critics allege, is Hoskins hoping to sink the measure by making predictions about the future plans of the Chiefs, who — unlike the Royals — have a statewide fanbase, three recent championships, and a star player in Patrick Mahomes who is the face of the sport?
The Secretary of State’s Office insists it has neither inside knowledge of the Royals’ intentions nor a desire to bias voters against the proposed repeal. In a statement, the office said it “does not have access to or knowledge of the private business decisions of any professional sports franchise,” and that the ballot summary must reflect the “clearest, most immediate potential consequence” of the law.
Besides, Hoskins’ office said, the current version of the summary is just the “first bite at the apple.” A recently approved state law gives the secretary of state up to three times to get the ballot language right — if proponents are upset enough about the first version to take the issue to court.
Brad Ketcher, a lawyer working with the group behind the ballot measure to repeal the subsidy, believes that’s the point. Writing an unfair ballot summary forces backers of initiative petitions to invest the time and money into legal challenges that could otherwise be dedicated to gathering signatures or engaging with voters.
“Hoskins is all but admitting,” Ketcher said, “that he drafted flawed language with an eye toward slowing the measure.”
Over the last month, Hoskins has found himself at the center of the political storm, facing criticism — and lawsuits — over his office’s role in the initiative petition and referendum process.
Hoskins has used his authority to pre-emptively reject 100,000 signatures for a proposed referendum on Missouri’s new congressional map. He’s also come under fire for crafting what critics call “deceptive and prejudicial” summary statements for two public‐education related constitutional amendments.
He was tasked with rewriting the ballot language for a proposal to reinstate Missouri’s abortion ban after a Cole County judge determined the initial wording by lawmakers failed to alert voters that the amendment would ban most abortions.
But his initial draft was rejected when the judge determined it was “insufficient and unfair.” Hoskins got the judge’s sign off on the summary on his next attempt.
Sean Nicholson, a longtime progressive activist in Missouri, filed a lawsuit earlier this year asking a judge to strike down a new law that says any ballot language deemed insufficient or unfair by a court must be sent back to the secretary of state up to three times for revision. If, after three attempts, the courts still find the language unacceptable, a judge is then allowed to rewrite it themselves.
Nicholson said Hoskins’ behavior is exactly why the law is so dangerous and should be overturned.
“Denny Hoskins is required to write fair and impartial language,” Nicholson said. “But instead, he is reinforcing all the concerns people had when the legislature passed the law, that a bad-faith politician could use it to waste the people’s time and resources.”
As for the Chiefs and Royals, their future — in Missouri or Kansas — remains unresolved.
“We have heard nothing to indicate that the Royals have decided to leave the State of Missouri,” said Gabby Picard, a spokeswoman for Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, whose office plays no role in the intuitive petition process, when asked about the team’s omission from the ballot summary.
“In fact,” Picard said, “Gov. Kehoe and his team remain in frequent communication with the Royals and the Chiefs to ensure that both teams stay in Missouri — where they belong.”
The teams have expressed interest in leaving Missouri when the lease on their current stadiums in Jackson County expire in 2030. Kansas lawmakers put a deal on the table that would use state incentives to pay for up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums.
The Missouri plan would allocate state taxes collected from economic activity at Arrowhead and Kauffman stadiums to bond payments for renovations at Arrowhead and a new stadium for the Royals in Jackson or Clay counties. The cost is estimated at close to $1.5 billion over 30 years.
A pair of Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit hoping to get the entire package thrown out, arguing it violates the constitution by including multiple provisions and aid to private interests.
The initiative petitions aiming to repeal the stadium subsidy seek to direct any money saved toward preventing cuts to Medicaid that could result from legislation passed this summer by Congress.
Hoskins, Ketcher alleges, “has chosen to protect billions for billionaire sports team owners at the expense of everyday Missourians and their health care.”
For his part, Hoskins defended his work — and his team loyalties.
“Secretary Hoskins applauds the Royals on a hard-fought season and, like many Missourians, is cheering on the Chiefs this football season,” his office said in a statement. “Regardless of team colors, the goal remains the same: ensuring Missouri voters have the facts they need to make an informed decision at the ballot box.”