ballot.” Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process, 799 S.W.2d at 828. D. Having addressed the two criterion framework our Supreme Court has long identified as essential to authorizing pre-election review of constitutional challenges to an initiative petition, we now explain why those criteria are not met by the constitutional challenges asserted in Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Petition does not allege that the Proposed Measure violates article III, section 50 or section 51 of the Missouri Constitution, or any oth ection challenge of initiative petition because it would retrospectively modify existing collective bargaining agreements “addresses a substantive, and not a procedural or facial, constitutional concern that is not ripe for our consideration”); Knight, 282 S.W.3d at 21-22 (<HOLDING>). As we have explained, a challenge involving a
holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws holding that preelection constitutional challenges that initiative petition violated various provisions addressing use of gambling revenues for education permitting the legislature to license riverboat gambling and prohibiting special laws granting exclusives rights and privileges and violated equal protection rights were not ripe for adjudication holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that wisconsin violated equal protection rights of handicapped children by denying them an education at public expense holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws