Via Religion Clause, the Missouri Appeals Court has approved the initiative summary set to appear on the ballot on August 7, describing a constitutional amendment that purports to expand religious liberty protections. Excerpts from the proposed amendment is below:

[T]hat the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly; that citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies; that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs; that the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances... but this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

The 50-word summary, as required by law and is all voters will see in the ballot box, was approved (pdf) by the appeals court last week, rejecting arguments made by plaintiffs that the measure fails to advise voters that the change creates a "negative right" for students to refuse school assignments, and that it limits the religious freedom rights of prisoners:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure:

That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;

That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and

That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

The court found that prisoner's rights are not being lessened by the amendment, merely made equal to that established by federal law, and found the description of student rights sufficient to advise voters of the content of the bill. Is 50 words enough to describe an amendment with so many elements?