Elections-Voter Registration-Conduct vs. Speech

The state appealed the trial court’s judgment striking down two voter registration laws as unconstitutional. The provisions prohibited compensation for soliciting voter registration applications, required registration of solicitors of application, required solicitors to be registered Missouri voters and prohibited soliciting voters to obtain absentee ballot applications. The state did not contest the challengers’ assertion that no other state’s voter registration laws had the same breadth of restrictions. The trial court accordingly declared the provisions unconstitutional.  

Where the provisions improperly restricted core political speech related to soliciting voter registration and absentee ballot applications, they violated the protections of the Missouri Constitution because they were not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s compelling interests.   

Gooch, J., dissenting: “The principal opinion concludes each challenged provision implicates core political speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and is facially unconstitutional. 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. As to the fourth challenged provision in section 115.279.2, I would affirm the circuit court’s judgment finding that provision unconstitutional.”    

Judgment is affirmed.  

State v. League of Women Voters of Missouri (MLW No. 84544/Case No. SC100997 – 59 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Russell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Beetem, J. (Louis J. Capozzi III, J. Michael Patton and Peter F. Donohue Sr., Jefferson City for appellant) (Gillian R. Wilcox and Jason Orr, Kansas City; Kristin M. Mulvey, Jonathan D. Schmid and Jamie Sgarro, St. Louis; Denise D. Lieberman, St. Louis; Anna Baldwin, Kate Hamilton and Marisa Wright, Washington, D.C. for respondents)