Mitchell Kaminski
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ)
The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down parts of a 2022 elections law that restricted how organizations and individuals conduct voter registration drives, ruling the provisions unconstitutional limits on political speech.
The decision affirms lower court rulings that permanently block enforcement of the restrictions, which were part of House Bill 1878, a sweeping elections measure passed by Missouri lawmakers in 2022.
The law prohibited paying people to help register voters, required those collecting more than 10 voter registration applications to register with the state, limited who could assist with registrations to people who were at least 18 years old and a registered Missouri voter, and prohibited encouraging voters to request absentee ballots.
A coalition that included the League of Women Voters of Missouri and the Missouri NAACP challenged the law, arguing it violated constitutional protections for free speech and political participation in a lawsuit.
A Cole County circuit court agreed in 2024, forcing the state to appeal the decision to the state’s supreme court.
In its ruling, the high court found the provisions were “facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech,” leaving in place the lower court’s permanent injunction.
In a statement, the ACLU of Missouri and its partners said:
“The court rightfully rejected the portion of House Bill 1878 that imposed criminal penalties for political speech, voter registration, and civic engagement efforts by organizations like the League of Women Voters and the NAACP. Third-party voter registration activities blocked by the challenged legislation are critical, constitute core political speech, and are necessary to ensure that voters can get on the rolls and participate in elections. Legislation like HB 1878 was designed to block access for Missouri voters and halt the ability of civic engagement organizations to engage their fellow citizens.”
Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon says the ruling will have little immediate impact on voters, saying that since the circuit court placed an injunction on HB 1878, it could not be enforced.
“Nobody has been signing up as a voter registration solicitor for the entire time that this lawsuit has existed,” Lennon told ABC 17 News. “People can be free to register voters. It really only had to do with people that were volunteering or working in the voter registration space. It never affected individual voters.”
Legal experts say the ruling highlights a broader disagreement over how election laws should be evaluated.
“What’s really interesting about this is there was a sharp disagreement about which side had to prove their case. Did the people challenging these restrictions have to prove their case or did the government have to prove its case? And that’s why the judges disagreed with each other,” Dave Roland, senior legal adviser with the Freedom Center of Missouri, said. “Now, all of the judges agreed that the part of this challenge that dealt with restrictions on soliciting absentee ballot applications those were unconstitutional because they were really, really broad.”
Roland noted that while the court was divided on some issues, there was agreement on others.
“Now, all of the judges agreed that the part of this challenge that dealt with restrictions on soliciting absentee ballot applications those were unconstitutional because they were really, really broad,” he said.
Supporters of the law had argued the restrictions were necessary to protect election integrity and ensure accountability among those handling voter registration materials. But Roland said the state faced an uphill battle justifying some of those requirements, particularly the age limit.
“For example, a couple of the restrictions that they were focused on was that you had to be 18 years old and you had to be a registered voter in order to take this one particular type of paper, piece of paper, and give it to somebody else. And so the government was saying, well, you’ve got to be 18 because you’ve got to demonstrate a certain level of responsibility. Also, you’ve got to be a registered voter because that somehow indicates some level of responsibility,” Roland said “ I don’t know exactly what one of those things has to do with the other. And if it was a different kind of information, it would be perfectly legal. And so in a circumstance like that, the government’s got to be able to show, there’s a reason to believe problems will result if we don’t have these restrictions.”
The ruling is final under state law, as it was decided on Missouri constitutional grounds, meaning it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The ACLU, which represented the challengers here, made the decision not to bring this as a First Amendment challenge. They brought it as a free speech challenge under the Missouri Constitution. Now, Missouri’s protections for free speech are similar to the First Amendment, but they are markedly different,” Roland explained. So the ACLU is arguing that under this Missouri-specific language, this is protected speech and therefore the restrictions can’t be enforced. So because the Missouri Supreme Court was deciding this as a matter of Missouri constitutional law instead of a matter of the First Amendment, there’s no way to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
In a separate decision issued the same day, the Missouri Supreme Court also ruled that challengers to the state’s photo voter ID law lacked standing to sue, leaving that law in place without addressing its constitutionality.
Click here to follow the original article.
