The Missouri Supreme Court will decide the fate of voter photo ID and limitations on registering voters and absentee ballot applications.
The judges heard two election cases Wednesday. One centered on the voter photo ID portion of a law passed in 2022, while another hearing was on other election provisions.
Attorneys on behalf of the plaintiffs in the photo ID case are seeking a reversal of a lower court ruling that upheld the law.
One of the arguments is whether the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the photo ID measure have standing to sue.
Judge Mary Russell asked plaintiff's attorney Jason Orr to clarify if the plaintiffs in this case were able to get a photo ID and successfully vote.
Orr, with the ACLU of Missouri, said that while the plaintiffs were able to get photo IDs and vote, the issue is the hurdles they had to overcome to get them.
"This court and other courts in fact have held that the ability to vote is not the burden that courts look at. It's the abridgement of the right to vote, which can be the obstacles in doing so," Orr said.
Solicitor General Lou Capozzi, who represented the state, said Missourians paved the way for an eventual photo ID law when they passed a constitutional amendment.
That amendment, which passed with 63% of the vote, gave the General Assembly the ability to pass a photo ID law.
Capozzi said that amendment passed over the objections of some groups, including the NAACP, which is one of the plaintiffs in this case.
"Those groups made all the same policy and legal arguments that this court has heard today, including that it is too burdensome to obtain a government-issued photo ID. But the people rejected those arguments," Capozzi said.
Capozzi also argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing for this case.
"Although appellants claim that large numbers of people will be unable to vote under HB1878, they could not present the trial court with a single person actually unable to vote due to the law," Capozzi said.
Chief Justice W. Brent Powell questioned Capozzi's argument on standing.
"That's an argument that the opposing council raises, that if there is no standing, how is it that we can affirm the lower court's ruling that … the bill is constitutional?" Powell said.
Speaking after the hearing, Missouri NAACP President Nimrod Chapel Jr. said this is another legal battle against legislation aimed at disenfranchising voters.
"The idea that you would stifle and criminalize the ability of people to request or suggest that other citizens participate in the voting process, it astounds me. It's befuddling. It's surprising and shocking," Chapel said.
If the Supreme Court upholds the prior ruling, the photo ID portion of the law stays intact.
Voter registration restrictions
Missouri Supreme Court judges also heard arguments in a different case over separate portions of that same elections bill.
In this case, the arguments are over the constitutionality of several measures that restrict the ability to register new voters or to reach out about voting absentee.
Some of those provisions include prohibiting the payment or compensation for seeking out voter registration applications, requiring those registering voters to be Missouri voters themselves and over 18, as well as prohibiting soliciting voters to obtain absentee ballot applications.
Unlike in the prior case, the state is seeking a reversal of a court ruling that found those provisions unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing them.
Arguing for the state, J. Michael Patton said the circuit court was wrong to strike those sections down.
"There must be substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest, and if some sort of order is to accompany the democratic process. The challenged statutes are fundamental to guarding the democratic process," Patton said.
Kristin Mulvey, with the ACLU of Missouri, said this case is about the infringement of core political speech.
"It is about severe criminal restrictions that are viewpoint and content based, overbroad and impermissibly vague, which carry penalties of imprisonment, fines and the permanent loss of voting rights," Mulvey said.
If the Supreme Court upholds the circuit court's decision, those provisions of the law will continue to be struck down.
Copyright 2025 St. Louis Public Radio