578.110. Counties may be exempted from provisions of section 578.100, procedure. - Missouri Statutes

Counties may be exempted from provisions of section 578.100,procedure.

578.110. 1. As used in this section, the term "area" includes allcities not with in a county, all first class counties having a charter form ofgovernment and adjoining such cities not within a county and all first classcounties which adjoin such first class counties having a charter form ofgovernment and adjoining cities not within a county; and the term "county"means any county of this state not within an area.

2. In addition to the counties which may exempt themselves from theapplication of section 578.100, under the provisions of section 578.100 orsection 578.105, any other county or area may also exempt itself from theapplication of section 578.100 by a vote of the qualified voters of the countyor area; provided that, before any area may so exempt itself from theprovisions of section 578.100, the qualified voters of each city not within acounty and each county within such area shall vote on the proposal forexemption from the provisions of section 578.100 at the same election and amajority of the total votes cast in such area shall be in favor of theproposal before either such city or any of such counties may be exempted fromthe provisions of section 578.100.

3. In order to exempt itself from the provisions of section 578.100, thecounty or area shall submit the proposition to the voters of the county orarea at any election, and the proposition shall receive a majority of thevotes cast. The proposition to exempt the county from the provisions ofsection 578.100 shall be submitted to the voters of the county upon a majorityvote of the governing body of the county or when a petition requesting thesubmission of the proposition to the voters and signed by a number ofregistered voters residing in the county equal to eight percent of the votescast in the county in the next preceding gubernatorial election is filed withthe governing body of the county. When a petition signed by a number ofregistered voters residing in the area equal to eight percent of the votescast in the area in the next preceding gubernatorial election requesting thesubmission of a proposition to exempt the area from the provisions of section578.100 is filed with each of the governing bodies of the area, theproposition shall be submitted to the voters of the area. The ballot ofsubmission shall contain, but need not be limited to, the following language:

To exempt . . . . . . . . County (or the area

consisting of . . . . . . . . . . . . city and

. . . . . . . . . . . counties) from the Sunday

sales law.

â ã Yes â ã No If a majority of the votescast on the proposal by the registered voters voting thereon in the county orarea are in favor of the proposal, then the provisions of section 578.100shall no longer apply within that county or area. If a majority of the votescast on the proposal by the registered voters voting thereon in the county orarea are opposed to the proposal, then the provisions of section 578.100 shallcontinue to apply and be enforced within that county or area. The exemptionof the county or area from the provisions of section 578.100 shall not becomeeffective in that county or area until the results of the vote exempting thecounty or area have been filed with the secretary of state and with therevisor of statutes and have been certified as received by those officers.The revisor of statutes shall note which counties or areas are exempt from theprovisions of section 578.100 in the Missouri revised statutes.

(L. 1979 H.B. 56 § 1)

Revisor's note: Electors in the following counties have voted to exempt those counties from the provisions of section 578.100 (Sunday Sales Law) and have filed the results on the date indicated:

County Filing Date

Boone November 8, 1979 Ralls November 8, 1979 Lafayette November 9, 1979 Marion November 9, 1979 Saline November 13, 1979

Jasper April 4, 1980 Miller April 8, 1980 Newton April 14, 1980 Lawrence August 11, 1980

Ray August 6, 1981

Greene April 6, 1983 Knox August 9, 1983

St Charles August 9, 1984 Carroll August 14, 1984 Henry August 14, 1984 Adair November 8, 1984 Audrain November 8, 1984 Cape Girardeau November 8, 1984 Cole November 8, 1984 St. Louis November 9, 1984 Pettis November 13, 1984

City of St. Louis March 19, 1985 Jefferson April 4, 1985 Howell April 5, 1985 Pemiscot April 5, 1985 Randolph April 5, 1985 Scott April 5, 1985 Andrew April 9, 1985 New Madrid April 9, 1985 Nodaway April 9, 1985 Johnson April 10, 1985 Chariton April 11, 1985 McDonald June 10, 1985 Macon June 13, 1985

Callaway April 3, 1986 Monroe April 8, 1986 Cooper April 9, 1986 Bates November 10, 1986

Linn April 9, 1987 Dunklin April 13, 1987

Clinton April 7, 1988 DeKalb April 8, 1988 Franklin April 11, 1988 Ste. Genevieve April 14, 1988 Christian April 15, 1988 Butler August 4, 1988 Vernon August 9, 1988 Lincoln November 15, 1988 Madison November 15, 1988

Phelps April 7, 1989 Pike November 14, 1989

St. Francois August 8, 1990 Livingston November 9, 1990

Barton April 8, 1991 Grundy April 8, 1991 Laclede April 8, 1991 Pulaski April 8, 1991 Shelby May 6, 1991 Crawford August 6, 1991 Harrison November 13, 1991 Barry December 2, 1991 Montgomery December 2, 1991

Dent April 14, 1992 Moniteau August 11, 1992 Wright November 16, 1992

Perry April 14, 1993 Webster August 6, 1993 Warren August 9, 1993 Cedar September 13, 1993 Dallas September 22, 1993 Scotland November 10, 1993

Worth March 30, 1994 Gasconade April 11, 1994

Wayne April 12, 1995 Stoddard April 21, 1995

(1980) Portions of statute providing procedure for exemption from "Sunday Sales Law" which treated first class counties by "area" were unconstitutional in that they treated first class counties in an "area" differently from a first class county not in an "area" and not covered by special legislation applicable to other first class counties. Gramex Corp. v. Von Romer (Mo.), 603 S.W.2d 521.

(1980) After eliminating unconstitutional "area" method of exemption remainder of statute was severable and valid. Gramex Corp. v. Von Romer (Mo.), 603 S.W.2d 521.