Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down Voter Registration Restrictions, Sets New Standard for Voting Rights Protection

In a critical victory for voting rights, the Missouri Supreme Court in March struck down key provisions of a 2022 state law that sought to cripple voter registration efforts by groups like the League of Women Voters and the NAACP. The court ruled these provisions infringe on core political speech, triggering strict scrutiny — the highest standard of judicial review — and rejecting the federal Anderson-Burdick test that typically favors state voting restrictions.

The contested law, passed in the final days of the 2022 legislative session, banned paying people who “solicit” voter registrations, required those soliciting more than 10 registrations to register with the state, mandated solicitors be registered Missouri voters over 18, and prohibited soliciting absentee ballot applications. These harsh restrictions came with criminal penalties and a deliberately vague definition of “solicit,” creating a chilling effect on voter outreach.

The League of Women Voters and Missouri NAACP challenged the law, arguing it violated free speech protections under the state constitution. A trial court agreed, calling the provisions “antithetical to the core tenets of freedom of speech.” The state appealed, insisting the law regulated conduct, not speech, and pushed for the Anderson-Burdick framework that weighs burdens on voting against state interests like fraud prevention.

The Supreme Court rejected the state’s framing, defining “solicit” broadly to include encouraging voters to register — a clear form of political expression protected by the First Amendment. Judge Mary R. Russell emphasized that urging voter registration occurs well before voting itself and is distinct from regulating the electoral process. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Meyer v. Grant decision, the court affirmed that encouraging voter registration is core political speech deserving strict scrutiny.

Under this rigorous standard, the court found the state failed to prove the law was narrowly tailored to prevent voter fraud or protect election integrity. For example, the requirement that solicitors be registered Missouri voters over 18 lacked justification. The ruling signals a growing trend among state courts to push back against voter suppression by applying stronger constitutional protections than the federal courts’ “relatively feeble” Anderson-Burdick test.

This decision offers a blueprint for advancing voting rights in state courts nationwide. By recognizing voter outreach as protected speech and demanding strict scrutiny of restrictions, courts can better safeguard democracy from the wave of laws designed to suppress turnout under the guise of election security. Missouri’s ruling is a sharp rebuke to authoritarian tactics that weaponize vague legal language and criminal penalties to intimidate grassroots organizers and civil rights groups.

As attacks on voting rights continue across the country, this ruling is a clarion call: defending democracy requires robust legal standards that prioritize free speech and political participation over state-imposed barriers. The Missouri Supreme Court has shown that courts can be a frontline defense against the erosion of voting rights — if they refuse to rubber-stamp suppression efforts disguised as election integrity.