Missouri voting advocates win before high court; state rules declared unconstitutional

Summary:

• Missouri Supreme Court invalidates voter registration restrictions
• Court finds law violates constitutional free speech protections
• Decision affirms lower court ruling blocking enforcement
• Case involved NAACP, League of Women Voters, and individual voters

Voting rights advocates notched a significant win before the Missouri Supreme Court when the court declared a state statute restricting voter registration efforts unconstitutional.

The decision, handed down on March 24, punctuated a slate of opinions in favor of the state and against these same organizations. Among those involved in the cases were the Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the League of Women Voters of Missouri.

RELATED: State supreme court deals blow to voting rights advocates in voter ID case

In an appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, the state asked the Supreme Court to overturn Judge Jon E. Beetem’s decision declaring sections 115.205.1 and 115.279.2 unconstitutional.

The two sections were altered by the state legislature in 2022 and impacted provisions relating to the solicitation of voter registration applications and absentee ballot applications. The Missouri branches of the NAACP and League of Women Voters sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They argued the changes to the sections “are facially unconstitutional restrictions on speech, association and due process.”

Specifically, the organizations challenged four provisions of the sections — three provisions from 115.205.1 and one from 115.279.2.

Section 115.205.1 reads: “No person shall be paid or otherwise compensated for soliciting voter registration applications, other than a governmental entity or a person who is paid or compensated by a governmental entity for such solicitation. A voter registration solicitor who solicits more than ten voter registration applications shall register for every election cycle that begins on the day after the general election and ends on the day of the general election two years later. A voter registration solicitor shall be at least eighteen years of age and shall be a registered voter in the state of Missouri.”

“Consisting of three restrictions, this provision (1) prohibits payment or compensation for the ‘solicitation’ of voter registration applications, (2) requires any ‘voter registration solicitor’ who ‘solicits’ more than 10 voter registration applications to register with the state and (3) requires any ‘voter registration solicitor’ be at least 18 years of age and a registered Missouri voter,” according to the court.

Section 115.279.2 establishes a complete ban on “soliciting” one into obtaining an absentee ballot application, the court wrote of the other problematic provision.

In arguments during the underlying case, the plaintiffs claimed their rights to free speech pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution were violated by these restrictions. They said the provisions at issue “unconstitutionally restrict core political speech, are content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and are unconstitutionally overbroad.”

“They also contended these provisions violate their rights to free association pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution and violate their rights to due process pursuant to Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution in that the provisions are unconstitutionally vague,” the court wrote.

The Cole County court sided with the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the enforcement of the two sections. The state appealed, bringing the case before this court.

Although divided on the issue, the court sided with the respondents and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The constitution’s protection for core political speech is subject to strict scrutiny, meaning the state bears the responsibility to prove the law “furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,” Judge Mary R. Russell wrote in the majority opinion, citing Geier v. Mo. Ethics Comm’n.

“The state contends the challenged provisions serve the compelling interests of guarding election integrity and preventing voter fraud, preventing disenfranchisement of voters, protecting voting rights and promoting voter privacy,” Russell wrote. “While these may be legitimate interests the state can serve through the passage and implementation of legislation, the state has failed to demonstrate in the record that these provisions are narrowly tailored toward those interests.”

Meanwhile, the respondents “made a sufficient showing there is no set of circumstances under which the challenged provisions are valid,” Russell said.

“These provisions impermissibly restrict speech soliciting voter registration applications and completely silence speech soliciting absentee ballot applications,” Russell wrote. “The state fails to show the four provisions satisfy strict scrutiny because they are not narrowly tailored toward any of the state’s asserted interests. The provisions are facially unconstitutional restrictions of core political speech in violation Article I, Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution.”

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell and Judges Paul C. Wilson and Robin Ransom concurred with Russell. Judge Ginger K. Gooch dissented in a separate opinion with Judges Zel M. Fischer and Kelly C. Broniec concurring.

“The principal opinion concludes each challenged provision implicates core political speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and is facially unconstitutional,” Gooch wrote. “I disagree with all three conclusions as to three of the four challenged provisions and would reverse the circuit court’s judgment holding the three challenged provisions in Section 115.205.1 unconstitutional.”

Gooch added that respondents successfully established that the provision in 115.279.2 is facially invalid and would affirm the lower court’s decision for this section.

The case is State of Missouri et al., v. League of Women Voters of Missouri et al., Case No. SC100997.