Missouri constitutional provision pertaining to the required procedure or form of an initiative petition, the first prong of the two-criterion standard reiterated in Brown. In other words, the Petition does not allege “threshold issues that affect the integrity of the election itself.” Brown, 370 S.W.3d at 645 (quoting United Gamefowl Breeders, 19 S.W.3d at 139). Instead, the Petition asserts First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Privileges and Immunities Clause challenges to the Proposed Measure. Constitutional challenges of this nature are routinely denied pre-election judicial review, as they do not involve Missouri constitutional or statuto ry provisions pertaining to the required procedure or form of an initiative petition. See, e.g., Union Elec. Co., 678 S.W.2d at 406-06 (<HOLDING>); Kuehner, 442 S.W.3d at 230 (holding that
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous holding that preelection claims that an initiative is unconstitutional on its face because it draws an unreasonable distinction between electrical corporations and other utilities constitutes a taking without due process of law is retrospective in effect impairs existing contract rights and is preempted by federal legislation are not ripe for decision holding that it is not holding the state law claims were not preempted