if the prerequisites of [the Missouri Constitution pertaining to the procedure and form of an initiative petition] are not met, the proposal is not to be on the ballot.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, “a judicial opinion as to whether the constitutional requirements [for placing an initiative petition on the ballot] have been met is no longer hypothetical or advisory.” Id. Some challenges to an initiative petition are routinely deemed eligible for pre-election judicial review because they easily meet both of the criteria reiterated in Brown. One' such example is where an initiative petition is claimed to violate article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution because it contains more than one subject or amends more than one constitutional provision. Id. at 828-29 (<HOLDING>); see also Moore, 165 S.W.2d at 659-60
holding that any controversy as to whether the prerequisites of article iii section 50 have been met is ripe for judicial determination when the secretary of state makes a decision to submit or refuse to submit an initiative to the voters holding that the authority of the official proponent to intervene in court proceedings pertaining to an initiative is insufficient without more to create article iii standing holding that article iii courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation