The Missouri Supreme Court is weighing two election-related lawsuits.
First, the high court heard arguments Wednesday on the state’s photo identification requirement for voting. The law was passed in 2022 and replaces earlier versions of the state’s photo ID requirement that were struck down by the State Supreme Court.
Attorney Jason Orr, who is representing the State Conference of the NAACP, argued before the Court that Missouri’s “strict” voter ID requirement creates undue burdens on voters.
“These burdens can be financial. They can be bureaucratic in nature,” Orr said. “They can be simply practical hurdles, such as the difficulties for disabled Missourians to get to a license office, the cost and time, childcare, or even missed work to gather the documents needed.”
Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi defended a lower court ruling from Cole County that upheld the current photo ID regulations.
“Following a thorough trial, Judge (Jon) Beetem found that all appellants are either able to vote with existing IDs or that they could easily obtain free IDs,” Capozzi said.
Missouri’s current photo ID law was passed in 2022 and was in effect for the 2024 election cycle.
But Judge Beetem’s November 2024 ruling was a split decision. While he upheld the photo ID portion of the law, he struck down language that regulated voter registration.
Specifically, HB 1878 had imposed fines and jail time for people who solicit citizens to apply for absentee ballots, for paying any non-government employee to solicit people to register to vote, and required that any person soliciting voter registration and absentee ballot applications be a Missouri citizen. It also required that anyone who solicited ten or more voter registration applications had to register with the state of Missouri, whether they were being paid or not.
Deputy Solicitor General J. Michael Patton defended those restrictions before the high court on Wednesday and asked that they be restored to state law.
“Voter registration solicitors insert themselves into the mechanics of the electoral process when they solicit and collect completed voter registration applications,” Patton said “They therefore assume a role that is appropriately regulated by the state.”
His argument also implied that by soliciting potential voters to register, politically active groups were also persuading them — at least by action if not by words — to vote their way.
Attorney Kristin Mulvey, who is representing League of Women Voters, disagreed. She argued that those provisions originally within HB 1878 violate free speech rights and should not be revived.
“Therefore, the giving and receiving (of) a voter registration form or the distribution of an absentee ballot application cannot be separated from the speech explaining the importance of voting, how to register to vote, the issues on a particular ballot, and the various ways an individual can submit their form,” Mulvey said.
The Missouri Supreme Court will rule at a later date.
Copyright © 2025 · Missourinet
