In March, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down part of a 2022 state law that would have made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters and the NAACP to conduct voter registration efforts.
court of Missouri v. League of Women Voters of the States The court held that the provisions at issue restricted core political speech and triggered the standard rigorous tests courts use to analyze laws that threaten the most fundamental rights. In doing so, it became the latest state high court to refuse to apply a “relatively weak” federal test for evaluating laws that burden voting rights. anderson burdick. Other state courts have also held that voting restrictions must undergo strict scrutiny, but have done so by holding that the right to vote is fundamental. Taken together, these decisions provide an illustrative path to vindicating the right to vote in state court.
In the final week of the 2022 legislative session, the Missouri General Assembly passed HB 1878, which includes major changes to state election law. The bill prohibited compensation from being paid to individuals who “solicise” to apply to register to vote. Requires individuals who “solicit” more than 10 people to register to vote to register with the state. Required such individuals to register as Missouri voters over the age of 18. It prohibited anyone from “soliciting anyone to obtain an absentee ballot application,” without defining the word “soliciting.” These prohibitions were backed by severe criminal penalties. (Another lawsuit challenged the law’s strict voter ID provisions, and the state Supreme Court ruled that groups challenging that part of the law had no standing to sue.)
The Missouri League of Women Voters and the Missouri NAACP filed suit over registration rules and a prohibition on “soliciting” voters to fill out voting applications. A state court found the provision violated state constitutional speech protections, saying it “contradicts the core tenets of free speech.” The state appealed to the Supreme Court. (In Missouri, appeals in cases regarding whether a state law is valid go directly to the state high court.)
The state argued on appeal that the provision at issue applied to conduct, not speech, “the solicitation of voter registration or absentee ballot requests,” and there were no restrictions on “the ability to induce voters to register or vote absentee.” Laws restricting speech must withstand intense scrutiny. Under this test, a state would need to show by the least restrictive means possible that the provision furthers a compelling interest. Instead, the state argued that the court should apply the law. anderson burdick Standards developed in two 1983 U.S. Supreme Court cases Anderson vs. Celebrese and in 1992 Burdick v. Takushi — regularly used by federal courts to evaluate voting restrictions. The federal test balances the burden on voters and the regulatory interests of states. Because voters often face significant empirical hurdles to demonstrate a law’s negative impact, regulations are analyzed from the following perspectives: anderson burdick Stand frequently.
Even though the law regulated speech, the state argued that it nonetheless targeted aspects of the state’s election process, warranting a review under the law. anderson burdick test. The states argued that the provisions at issue meet that test because they advance the compelling interests of combating fraud and maintaining election integrity and impose a “minimal burden” on the right to vote. The state’s brief makes no argument as to whether the provision would withstand scrutiny.
The court rejected the state’s argument, adopting a broad definition of “solicitation” that includes encouraging potential voters to register. Accordingly, the court held that the provision in question was not intended to regulate the electoral process, but rather to regulate political expression, which is subject to free speech protections. Writing for the majority, Justice Mary R. Russell explained that the speech in question urging people to register to vote “is not given on the ballot, at the polling place, or even within the voting process, because the purpose of the speech is to get people to register to vote, and that must occur long before the election.”
Opinions cited Meyer vs. Granta U.S. Supreme Court case striking down a Colorado law banning payments to people distributing ballot initiative petitions. There, the court applied strict scrutiny and held that the circulation of initiative petitions amounted to core political speech. “Encouraging others to vote is pure speech and, as a core First Amendment activity, is entitled to the same protections as circulating an initiative petition,” Russell wrote. “The debate about whether to register to vote and participate in the democratic process is a matter of public concern.”
Regarding the regulation of speech, the court stated as follows: anderson burdick It did not apply to the impugned provisions. In return, they must endure intense scrutiny. Although the court did not go so far as to raise the issue, anderson burdick In the analysis itself, it reflexively refused to align itself with the federal court, choosing instead to critically examine the terms of the case.
Under rigorous scrutiny, the court held that even if the state’s compelling interest in “protecting election integrity and preventing voter fraud” was legitimate, the state had not been able to show that the challenged provisions strictly conformed to the supposed legitimate reasons for preventing voter fraud. For example, the law required anyone soliciting voter registration to be a registered Missouri voter and to be at least 18 years old. But the state was unable to show why it required the person to: voters — more than just resident — referred to the alleged goal of “credibility” for lawyers.
A dissenting opinion written by Judge Ginger K. Gooch agreed with the state that the law’s use of the word “solicitation” applied only to the act of collecting voter registration applications and that the affected activity was conduct, not speech.
Missouri Supreme Court is not the first state high court to deny application Anderson Burdick. For example, the Washington Supreme Court last year explicitly refused to uphold a signature verification process for mail-in ballots. anderson burdick It means “ambiguous and unclear.” Instead, in court, Vet Voice Foundation vs. Hobbslaws that “impose heavy burdens” on the right to vote “are subject to appropriately intense scrutiny.” (The Brennan Center has filed an amicus brief asking the court to apply strict scrutiny to address the burden on fundamental voting rights.)
At a time when multiple federal courts have backed away from protecting voting rights, the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision suggests a different approach. Whether it’s because of the burden these laws place on speech or because voting itself is a fundamental right, applying strict oversight to voting laws allows state courts to advance people’s right to vote even when federal courts won’t.
Justin Lamb is a consultant in the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program.
Recommended quote: Justin Lam Missouri High Court decision offers lessons for advancing voting rightsSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 5, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/missouri-high-court-decision-offers-lessons-about-advancing-voting-rights
