my clients are here because Amendment Three does not meet the Constitutional and statutory requirements for an inititive an initiative petition to be on the ballot these requirements protect voters they do not undermine the initiative petition process they are set forth in the Constitution and the Implement statutes in order to protect all Missouri voters they do not burden the state of Missouri's voters they require them to be fully informed in order to properly exercise their rights within the initiative petition process so if you find that um that one of the repeals here was sufficiently direct that it should have been disclosed then all you need to find can follow up to find it that it's Square Loop in the statute is that that that leaving out the information that for instance Amendment Three would uh repeal our ban on abortion or repeal section 17 or 27 or 28 or 30 or 15 that leaving that out would have been misleading to the voters another way of saying that is would a voter's mind have been changed would their position on this have been different if they had known that that was the effect of the statute now if you want to look at the text with me we can see whether an ordinary voter might know other wise what was happening to abortion just by reading what's in the text as appellant have repeatedly stated all this text does is add it just adds to the Constitution it adds a new right a new right that we should be very excited about and then in down in section four down in section 4 it doesn't say we're going to limit abortion we're going to prohibit abortion in section for it allows the general assembly to regulate abortion the average voot of reading this would have no way of knowing that it has a limiting effect unless they were a lawyer and in section four they thought to themselves why do I need the general assembly to have the right to limit abortion after viability did something in sections two and three take that right away this is this is a provision that does not reveal on its face what it's doing therefore keeping from voters the fact that uh that it makes such substantial repeals absolutely uh misled voter but more fundamentally this court should simply dismiss this appeal because the appeal has now become moot the secretary yesterday desertified the ballot Amendment and I want to be clear that the secretary's decision yesterday is not before this courts because the interveners have not amended their pleadings or done anything like that to challenge the secretary's actions and so the secretary reassessed took a look at the Sweeney decision and determined that the Sweeney decision authorizes him to do this as long as he makes a certification or desertification decision any time before at least eight weeks before the election so that's what he did if they want to challenge that they're free to go ahead and do that they haven't challenged that um as of this morning so this is this is no different than if the secretary had issued a decertification to decision last Thursday for example having looked at the pre-trial briefs having having determined that in fact he was wrong when he initially certified it it's no different from that circumstance and that's uh there