Missouri Judge Strikes Down Four Provisions of Voter Suppression Law
A Missouri judge today permanently struck down four provisions of the state’s sweeping voter suppression law, House Bill 1878, that criminalized civic engagement activities like voter registration and the distribution of absentee ballot applications.
In a 75-page ruling issued Wednesday, Missouri Judge Jon E. Beetem determined that H.B. 1878’s restrictions on voter engagement are overly vague and violate the fundamental rights to free speech, expression, association and due process under the state constitution.
The decision came as part of a 2022 lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Missouri and Missouri State Conference of the NAACP, which went to trial this summer.
Among the now-invalidated provisions of H.B. 1878 were a prohibition on compensating individuals who solicit voter registration applications and a requirement that uncompensated individuals who solicit more than 10 voter registration applications must register with the secretary of state.
Additionally, the law mandated that all voter registration solicitors be registered to vote in Missouri — precluding high schoolers and out-of-state individuals from conducting voter registration — and banned individuals or groups from asking voters if they want to fill out an absentee ballot application.
Under the state’s omnibus election statute, organizations and individuals who violated the challenged provisions would be subject to harsh criminal misdemeanor and felony penalties — including fines, jail time and loss of one’s right to vote for life.
For the better part of the litigation, the provisions remained temporarily blocked due to a November 2022 injunction secured by the plaintiffs, which enabled voter engagement groups to carry out their work during the 2024 election cycle.
Beetem concluded in Wednesday’s decision that H.B. 1878’s “direct restraints on pure speech—and core political speech like encouraging political participation in particular—are antithetical to the core tenets of freedom of speech.” His ruling also focused on how the vague nature of the challenged provisions created confusion and forced the plaintiffs to curtail their voter engagement activities out of fear of criminal prosecution.
Although the state of Missouri has an interest in preventing voter fraud and promoting election integrity, the provisions at issue fail to address that concern, Beetem found. According to the ruling, state officials provided no evidence at trial demonstrating how the law promotes voter confidence or protects against purported fraud.
In a joint statement, attorneys from the ACLU of Missouri, Campaign Legal Center and Missouri Voter Protection Coalition who represented the plaintiffs said the decision is “reinforces that civic engagement is constitutionally protected speech.”
“We are gratified that the court saw these sham restrictions as an unconstitutional attempt to stop civic engagement organizations from encouraging participation in our democracy,” the attorneys added.