The Supreme Court of Missouri has affirmed a circuit court judgment declaring multiple provisions of state law regulating voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation unconstitutional, concluding the statutes impermissibly restrict core political speech in violation of the Missouri Constitution.
The court held that two sections of law unlawfully burden speech by limiting how individuals and organizations may encourage voter participation, according to the Supreme Court decision.
The case arose after the League of Women Voters of Missouri and the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP challenged the provisions, arguing they infringed on rights to free speech, association, and due process.
The challenged statutes, enacted in 2022, imposed several restrictions on voter registration efforts, including a ban on paying individuals to solicit voter registrations, a requirement that those engaging in such solicitation register with the state after assisting more than 10 applicants and a mandate that solicitors be at least 18 years old and registered Missouri voters.
A separate provision completely prohibited soliciting voters to obtain absentee ballot applications.
The Supreme Court found the plain language of the statutes broadly defined “solicitation” to include speech such as urging or encouraging individuals to register to vote or apply for absentee ballots.
Rejecting the state’s argument that the term should be narrowly interpreted to apply only to conduct like distributing or collecting forms, the court relied on dictionary definitions and statutory context to conclude the provisions directly regulate expressive activity.
Because the statutes regulate what the court described as “core political speech,” they were subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard of constitutional review.
The court found that encouraging voter participation and discussing the merits of voting are central to democratic discourse and are entitled to the highest level of protection.
Applying strict scrutiny, the court held the state failed to demonstrate the provisions were narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interests such as preventing voter fraud, protecting voter privacy or maintaining election integrity.
While acknowledging those interests may be legitimate, the court determined the statutes swept too broadly by restricting substantial amounts of protected speech unrelated to those concerns.
For example, the court noted the compensation ban limited the number of individuals available to conduct voter outreach and reduced the ability of organizations to communicate their message.
It also found that the registration requirement and eligibility restrictions significantly narrowed the pool of potential speakers, including excluding minors and individuals not registered in Missouri.
The court further held that the complete prohibition on soliciting absentee ballot applications was especially restrictive, effectively silencing speech about absentee voting altogether.
It concluded that this blanket ban extended far beyond any demonstrated risk of fraud or misuse of personal information.
In addition to the breadth of the restrictions, the court highlighted the severity of the penalties attached to violations, including potential criminal charges, fines, imprisonment and even permanent loss of voting rights in certain circumstances.
These penalties, the court found, would further deter individuals from engaging in protected political speech.
The state argued the laws should be evaluated under a more flexible standard used for election regulations, known as the Anderson-Burdick test, rather than strict scrutiny.
The court rejected that argument, concluding the provisions do not merely regulate the mechanics of elections but instead directly target political expression occurring outside the voting process.
Ultimately, the court determined there was no set of circumstances under which the challenged provisions could be constitutionally applied.
It affirmed the circuit court’s judgment permanently enjoining enforcement of the statutes and declaring them facially invalid under the Missouri Constitution.
The ruling leaves in place the lower court’s determination that the provisions violate free speech protections, without requiring the court to reach additional constitutional claims related to association and due process.
Missouri Supreme Court case number: SC100997
