Marie Moyer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ)
The Missouri Supreme Court convened Wednesday to hear arguments on two appeals related to voter laws.
Both suits were filed by the NAACP and League of Women Voters in 2022 following the passage of House Bill No. 1878, which changed state rules related to elections, including sections dealing with voter registration, absentee voting and voter identification.
The first suit has the NAACP and League of Women Voters appealing a previous ruling in favor of the state that deemed HB 1878 was constitutional. One of HB 1878’s rules requires voters to provide a current government-issued photo ID at the polls, making alternative IDs such as a Missouri student ID, voter registration cards, and utility or bank statements, which were previously accepted, invalid.
Voters who show up on Election Day without a valid photo ID can only cast a provisional ballot, which will count if they return later that day with proper ID or if their signature matches the one on file. But in-person absentee voters who lack a valid ID are not allowed to cast a provisional ballot at all.
The groups argued that the tighter restrictions on voter IDs violated the Missouri Constitution’s equal protection clause, which guarantees a right to vote, claiming several Missouri voters in 2022 sued the state after having issues getting a valid ID, either due to disabilities or other difficulties.
“These burdens can be financial, they can be bureaucratic in nature, they can be simply practical hurdles, such as the difficulties for disabled Missourians to get into a license office, the cost and time of child care, or even missed work to gather the documents,” Representative for the Missouri NAACP and League of Women Voters of Missouri Jason Orr said.
The state won the initial ruling, arguing that the voters who sued with the groups were ultimately able to vote, that provisional ballots are commonly counted and that potential voters can easily access state resources to get a valid ID.
“The law is now tremendously easy to comply with because voters can easily obtain free IDs, join the permanently disabled voters list, or cast provisional ballots — which are almost always counted,” according to the State’s brief.
During a press conference following the hearing, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway voiced support for the state’s voter ID laws.
“The goal here is to make sure that every Missourian who wants to vote gets to vote, but any Missouri and or anyone from outside Missouri who wants to cheat can’t cheat,” Hanaway said.
The second suit has the state appealing a court ruling in favor of the NAACP and League of Women Voters. House Bill No. 1878 tightened rules surrounding people who solicit voter registrations.
This included ending payment for solicitors and requiring solicitors to be at least 18 years old and registered Missouri voters. The rule also banned solicitors from encouraging voters to get an absentee ballot application by making the action a Class 1 election offense that could result in jail time.
The groups argued that the statute’s use of the term “solicitor” is overly broad, potentially applying to anyone who encourages or assists with voter registration. They argued that this vagueness exposes volunteers to criminal penalties and places unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.
“Solicitation is characteristically intertwined informative and persuasive speech in the reality that without solicitation, the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease,” Representative for the Missouri NAACP and League of Women Voters of Missouri Kristen Mulvey said.
The state argues that the definition of “solicitor” in the statute only applies to someone who provides voters with registration or absentee-ballot applications and then collects the completed documents for submission to a local election.
“The type of solicitation that it is talking about is activity that involves procuring applications,” Representative for the state Michael Patton said. “The court can remove nearly all of the harms that the plaintiffs allege simply by issuing an authoritative interpretation of solicit and challenge statutes and in reading the challenged statutes narrowly.”
Several judges pushed back against the state’s argument, saying the definition is too narrow.
“Don’t you think the trial court’s reading of the solicited sessions is fair? I mean, if someone comes knocking on my door and wants to put gutters up and I decide, ‘no, I don’t want gutters,’ would we consider that solicitation?” Chief Justice Brent Powell said.
‘I’m just saying the definition of solicit is a request which may result in the receipt of what’s being solicited, but it doesn’t have to,” Judge Paul Wilson said. “Should we apply that in soliciting sex cases? That if it doesn’t result in a completed transaction, then it isn’t a crime?”
The Missouri Supreme Court has not yet ruled on either appeal.
Click here to follow the original article.
