Priorities USA v. State

• Citation: 591 S.W.3d 448
• Decision Date: 14 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. SC 97470,SC 97470
• Parties: PRIORITIES USA, et al., Respondents, v. STATE of Missouri, et al., Appellants.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

591 S.W.3d 448

PRIORITIES USA, et al., Respondents,
v.
STATE of Missouri, et al., Appellants.

No. SC 97470

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued January 14, 2020
Rehearing Denied January 30, 2020

The state was represented by Solicitor D. John Sauer, Deputy Solicitors General Zachary M. Bluestone and Peter T. Reed, and Ryan L. Bangert of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

The secretary of state also was represented by Frank Jung and Khristine A. Heisinger of the secretary of state’s office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-4875.

The challengers were represented by Don M. Downing and Jack A. Downing of Gray Ritter & Graham PC in St. Louis, (314) 241-5620; Charles W. Hatfield and Jeremy A. Root of Stinson LLP in Jefferson City, (573) 636-6263; and Marc E. Elias and Uzoma N. Nkwonta of Perkins Coie LLP in Washington, D.C., (202) 654-6200.

Mary R. Russell, Judge

Priorities USA, Mildred Gutierrez, Ri Jayden Patrick, and West County Community Action Network ("Respondents")¹

591 S.W.3d 451

filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Missouri secretary of state, alleging section 115.427 unconstitutionally burdens individuals’ right to vote. Specifically, they contend that prospective voters, because of their personal circumstances, will have difficulty adhering to section 115.427’s photo identification requirements.² After a bench trial, the circuit court entered a judgment finding section 115.427 constitutional except for subsections 2(1) and 3, the affidavit requirement. Subsection 2(1) permits individuals to vote with listed forms of non-photo identification if they execute an affidavit that meets certain requirements. The related subsection 3 provides the affidavit language. The circuit court enjoined the State from requiring individuals who vote under this option to execute the affidavit required under subsections 2(1) and 3. The circuit court also enjoined the State from disseminating materials indicating photo identification is required to vote. The State appeals.

Because the affidavit requirement of sections 115.427.2(1) and 115.427.3 is misleading and contradictory, the circuit court’s judgment declaring the affidavit requirement unconstitutional is affirmed. Further, the circuit court did not err in enjoining the State from requiring individuals who vote under the non-photo identification option provided in section 115.427.2(1) to execute the affidavit or in enjoining the dissemination of materials indicating photo identification is required to vote. The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

Background

In 2016, the legislature truly agreed to and passed section 115.427, which became effective in 2017. Section 115.427 establishes three options under which individuals can identify themselves for purposes of voting.

Under the first option, in subsection 1 of section 115.427, an individual can present acceptable forms of personal identification, all of which contain the individual’s photograph. Under the second option, as found in subsection 2 of section 115.427, an individual who does not possess the types of photo identification provided under the first option can vote by executing a statutorily specified affidavit and presenting a form of non-photo identification expressly authorized by section 115.427.2(1). The affidavit individuals are required to execute under the second option must be "substantially" in the form provided in section 115.427.3. Individuals must aver they are listed in the precinct register, do not possess personal identification approved for voting, are eligible to receive a Missouri non-driver’s license free of charge, and are required to present a form of personal identification to vote. Section 115.427.3.

Finally, under the third option, individuals can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted if: (1) the voter returns to the polling place during the polling hours and provides an approved form of photo identification under option one, or (2) the election authority compares the individual’s signature with the signature reflected on the election authority’s file and confirms the individual is eligible to vote at that particular polling place. Section 115.427.4.

Respondents filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the secretary of state, alleging section 115.427 unconstitutionally restricts the right to vote in Missouri by imposing burdens on prospective voters who, because of their personal circumstances, will have difficulty adhering to section 115.427’s identification requirements.

591 S.W.3d 452

After a bench trial, the circuit court entered a judgment finding section 115.427 constitutional except for the affidavit requirement in subsections 2(1) and 3. The circuit court determined the affidavit was contradictory and misleading and, accordingly, impermissibly infringed on an individual’s right to vote. The circuit court enjoined the State from requiring individuals who vote under the second option to execute the affidavit required under subsections 2(1) and 3. The circuit court also enjoined the State from disseminating materials that indicated photo identification is required to vote. The State appeals.³

Standard of Review

This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute. Williams v. Mercy Clinic Springfield Cmtys. , 568 S.W.3d 396, 406 (Mo. banc 2019). A statute is presumed constitutional and will not be found unconstitutional unless it "clearly and undoubtedly violates the constitution." Id. (quotation omitted). "Nonetheless, if a statute conflicts with a constitutional provision or provisions, this Court must hold the statute invalid." Weinschenk v. State , 203 S.W.3d 201, 210 (Mo. banc 2006). The party challenging the statute’s constitutional validity bears the burden of proving a violation. Williams , 568 S.W.3d at 406.

"The issuance of injunctive relief, along with the terms and provisions thereof, rests largely with the sound discretion of the trial court." Edmunds v. Sigma Chapter of Alpha Kappa , 87 S.W.3d 21, 29 (Mo. App. 2002). The circuit court "is vested with a broad discretionary power to shape and fashion relief to fit the particular facts, circumstances and equities of the case before it." Burg v. Dampier , 346 S.W.3d 343, 357 (Mo. App. 2011).

Analysis

I. The Affidavit Requirement

The State argues the circuit court erred in enjoining the use of the affidavit when voting under option two because the affidavit requirement does not burden the right to vote and is constitutional. In response, Respondents assert the affidavit requirement is misleading and contradictory and, accordingly, impinges on voters’ right to equal protection and the fundamental right to vote as guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution.

A. The Constitutional Validity of the Affidavit Requirement

Two constitutional provisions establish "with unmistakable clarity" that Missouri citizens have a fundamental right to vote. Weinschenk , 203 S.W.3d at 211. Article I, section 25 provides that "all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Article VIII, section 2 establishes the qualifications necessary to vote in Missouri. Missouri courts have made clear that, pursuant to these provisions, the right to vote is fundamental. Weinschenk , 203 S.W.3d at 211 & n.15.

Further, the Missouri Constitution guarantees its citizens the equal protection of the laws. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 2 ("[A]ll persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law."). But, as this Court has

591 S.W.3d 453

previously indicated, "some regulation of the voting process is necessary to protect the right to vote itself." Weinschenk , 203 S.W.3d at 212. To determine the level of scrutiny that should be applied to evaluate a statute addressing the right to vote, Missouri courts first evaluate the extent of the burden imposed by the statute. Id. If a statute severely burdens the right to vote, strict scrutiny applies, which means the law "will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Peters v. Johns , 489 S.W.3d 262, 273 (Mo. banc 2016) (quotation omitted). Conversely, when the law does not impose a heavy burden on the right to vote, it is subject to the less stringent rational basis review. Weinschenk , 203 S.W.3d at 215-16.

This Court need not evaluate the extent of the burden imposed by the affidavit requirement because the requirement does not satisfy even rational basis review. The State asserts the affidavit requirement combats voter fraud through "verify[ing] a voter’s identity and eligibility to vote." Such an interest is legitimate – and even compelling. Weinschenk , 203 S.W.3d at 217. But to satisfy the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, the affidavit requirement must be rationally related to this interest. Id. at 215-16. In other words, the requirement must be "a reasonable way of accomplishing this goal." Peter...