A St. Louis County attorney challenging Missouri House rules hiding the names of constituents who communicate with lawmakers lost an appeal Tuesday 鈥� but not for the same reason he lost the case at the trial level.
As a result, the House can continue to use its rules to limit disclosures despite a that made the Legislature subject to the Sunshine Law.
The Tuesday ruling by the Western District Court of Appeals upheld the result of a Cole County case but found it was decided improperly. Mark Pedroli, who filed the lawsuit said it will be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.
In its decision, the appeals court sent the case back to Cole County Circuit Judge John Beetem and . In his January 2023 decision, Beetem granted summary judgment to the House, ruling that it had to limit disclosures under the Sunshine Law.
On Tuesday, in a 2-1 decision, Judge Janet Sutton wrote that Beetem should have dismissed it because Pedroli did not have the right to bring the case in the first place.
鈥淲e conclude that Pedroli did not have standing to pursue his claims and therefore, the trial court did not have authority to determine the case鈥檚 merits and grant summary judgment to state defendants,鈥� Sutton wrote.
In a dissent, Judge Alok Ahuja criticized the majority for its legal reasoning and refusal to consider the case on its merits. And, Ahuja wrote, Pedroli should prevail.
鈥淏ecause it is inconsistent with (the constitution), House Rule 127 is unconstitutional, and cannot be invoked to justify the withholding of information which is otherwise responsive to a Sunshine Law request, and which is not exempted from disclosure by the Sunshine Law itself,鈥� Ahuja wrote.
The split decision provides an opening for another appeal, Pedroli said in a statement to The Independent.
鈥淲e look forward to applying for transfer to the Supreme Court so these issues of great public importance can be finally resolved to the benefit of all Missourians,鈥� he said.
The case began in 2019, when Pedroli tried to use Sunshine Law to obtain records from lawmakers as part of an investigation into whether people were impersonating constituents in communications with lawmakers.
As part of its first business of the year in 2019, the House added a rule that 鈥渃onstituent case files,鈥� defined to 鈥渋nclude any correspondence, written or electronic, between a member and a constituent鈥� could be kept from disclosure.
That rule was cited by the House as justification to redact email addresses, postal addresses and telephone numbers from records Pedroli requested. He sued in October 2019 under the name of the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project, an organization he founded.
He filed an amended complaint in February 2020, to substitute 鈥淢ark Pedroli as the plaintiff, Founder of the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project,鈥� Sutton noted in Tuesday鈥檚 majority opinion.
But the original record request was from his firm, Pedroli Law, on behalf of unnamed clients, Sutton wrote. Because his law firm, and not Pedroli himself, was the 鈥渁ggrieved person鈥� given authority to sue, and he did not establish he was a 鈥渢axpayer to, or citizen of, this state鈥� in his pleadings, Pedroli had no case to argue, Sutton wrote.
鈥淐ases from our court have concluded that citizen and resident are not necessarily the same, particularly when the statute at issue specifies which is to be pled and proved for purposes of standing to bring a claim,鈥� she wrote.
No one who lacks standing in a case can be a party, the ruling states.
鈥淏ecause of this, we in turn lack the authority to address the substantive issues presented, or to grant the appellate relief Pedroli requests,鈥� Sutton wrote.
That reasoning, Ahuja wrote, is absurd.
Pedroli is a resident, operates his law firm in Missouri and is licensed to practice in the state, which is enough to conclude he is a citizen, Ahuja wrote.
His standing as a taxpayer to the state is also not open to question, he wrote.
鈥淯nless he were a scofflaw, Pedroli would necessarily be paying taxes to the state as a Missouri resident, business owner, and worker,鈥� Ahuja wrote.
The Sunshine Law states its provisions 鈥渟hall be liberally construed鈥� to promote openness, Ahuja wrote as he criticized the majority for its narrow ruling.
The courts give great deference to the Legislature on its operations, in most instances deferring when the question is not defined in law elsewhere. For most of the more than 50 years since the Sunshine Law was enacted, the General Assembly has argued it did not apply to legislative records.
But once a directive to follow the law was added to the constitutional article governing the General Assembly, lawmakers cannot modify it through a rule, Ahuja wrote.
鈥淭he House鈥檚 argument 鈥� that it retains rulemaking authority to exempt its records from the Sunshine Law, despite the people鈥檚 adoption of (the constitutional directive) 鈥� would render those constitutional amendments meaningless,鈥� Ahuja wrote.
