An advocacy group has criticized the Missouri Supreme Court for unanimously striking down Senate Bill 22, a 2025 election-related law, calling the decision an example of extreme judicial activism and renewing its call to repeal the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.
Freedom Principle MO condemned the court’s ruling in Nicholson v. State, which invalidated SB 22 in its entirety.
The organization said the decision undermines the authority of the legislature and disregards the will of Missouri voters by overturning a law it described as essential to election integrity and ballot transparency.
Freedom Principle MO President Byron Keelin said the court should have severed a disputed provision of the bill rather than striking down the entire law.
According to the group, SB 22 included an amendment allowing the Missouri attorney general to appeal preliminary injunctions, as well as broader changes to ballot summary procedures and authority granted to the secretary of state.
The court ruled that the bill violated the “original purpose” clause of Article III, Section 21 of the Missouri Constitution, concluding that it could not determine whether the legislature would have passed the bill without the attorney general provision.
“The court had a clear path to sever the amendment empowering the Attorney General to appeal preliminary injunctions, while preserving the essential reforms to ballot summary processes in SB 22,” Keelin said in a statement. “Instead, they opted to dismantle the entire bill over a contrived procedural flaw.”
He added that the court’s reasoning for discarding the entire law was deeply flawed.
“If that isn’t the sloppiest ruling to throw out an entire bill, we don’t know what is,” Keelin said.
Freedom Principle MO argued that SB 22 was narrowly focused on ballot integrity and that all of its provisions were aligned with that purpose.
The organization said the court misapplied the state constitution by claiming the attorney general’s appellate authority was unrelated to the bill’s original intent.
According to the group, the expansion of that authority would have strengthened election-related reforms and protected them from legal challenges.
In its statement, the organization accused the court of prioritizing activist interests over the elected legislature and said the ruling would encourage lawsuits that interfere with Missouri’s election process.
Keelin characterized the decision as judicial overreach and said it protects outside special interests at the expense of state sovereignty.
The ruling also reignited Freedom Principle MO’s opposition to the Missouri Plan, which governs how judges are selected in the state.
Keelin said the decision illustrates why the system should be repealed, arguing that it allows judges to act without sufficient accountability.
“This flawed system appoints activist judges who legislate from the bench,” he said, adding that the court sided with a “professional ballot operative” rather than lawmakers elected by Missouri voters.
Keelin further called for a judicial appointment process modeled after the federal system, saying the current structure shields judges from public scrutiny.
“For too long, this system has shielded liberal judges from accountability, allowing them to erode our freedoms and the separation of powers,” he said. “We demand an appointment process just like the federal level.”
Freedom Principle MO said it will continue to push for legislative and judicial reforms following the court’s decision.
The organization announced it is mobilizing its members to support immediate legislative action to reintroduce what it described as SB 22’s core provisions, as well as broader efforts to change how judges are selected in Missouri.
“The Freedom Principle MO will not relent in our fight to hold these activists accountable and restore power to the people,” Keelin said.
The Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling means SB 22 will not take effect, leaving existing laws governing ballot summary language and related procedures in place unless lawmakers pursue new legislation.
