Lawsuit seeks to protect civic engagement groups’ right to register and assist Missouri voters

Jefferson City, Mo. — Two nonpartisan civic engagement organizations sued the state of Missouri and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in Cole County Circuit Court to block provisions of one of the nation’s most extreme laws restricting voter registration activity and distribution of absentee ballot applications. The law violates the right to core political speech by severely curtailing the ability to engage with voters. 

The plaintiffs, League of Women Voters of Missouri (LWVMO) and Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (MO NAACP), are represented by Campaign Legal Center, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri and the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition in the lawsuit.   

In May, the Missouri legislature passed H.B. 1878 through a rushed and opaque process which concluded in the final 24 hours of the legislative session. The law, which is set to go into effect on August 28, imposes severe restrictions on basic voter outreach and assistance efforts, which are backed by serious criminal sanctions. 

Specifically, the challenged provisions prohibit compensating people for voter registration activities and mandate that anyone who assists with more than 10 voter registration applications – which happens regularly at community engagement events – must both register with the state and be a registered voter themself, subject to criminal penalties. 

The law is so vague that simply offering reimbursement for parking or pizza to volunteers could put organizations at risk of violating the law. The law also prohibits "soliciting” a voter into obtaining an absentee ballot application, which denies eligible Missourians the help they need  to vote in a secure and convenient way. 

The statute does not define what it means to “solicit” an application. Failing to comply with these strict and confusing prohibitions could put innocent volunteers on the wrong side of the law and, in Missouri, violating election laws could mean losing the freedom to vote for life.

“Missourians just voted in a secure primary without the restrictions and requirements imposed by H.B. 1878, underscoring how much of a sham the law is. Instead of celebrating civic engagement groups for their work to encourage participation in our democracy, Missouri legislators criminalized basic voter outreach efforts,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “Civic engagement organizations help make sure every voice is heard, including voters of color who have been historically marginalized. Our laws should protect and expand the freedom to vote, not punish democracy’s do-gooders and make it more challenging for Missourians to register to vote or vote absentee.” 

Absent court action, H.B. 1878’s changes to Missouri’s election laws will be in effect for the November 8 general election, creating deliberate barriers to voter registration and absentee voting which will be most acute in communities of color. The restrictions on civic engagement organizations threaten their ability to hold community-based voter engagement events, obtain and retain volunteers to assist voters and chill their constitutionally protected political speech. 

“Because of these provisions, the Missouri NAACP will have to stifle our voter registration and absentee voting activities — at the very time heading into the midterm elections when the NAACP would be otherwise engaging these communities in registration and absentee voting,” said Nimrod Chapel, Jr., President of the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP. “The NAACP has led the fight for African American voting rights for generations. The disparities that still exist place our very livelihoods at stake. Missouri lawmakers have stripped us of critical ways to engage our communities. The NAACP is committed to free and fair elections where people of color are not targeted for exclusion.”

"The NAACP is dedicated to protecting the rights of voters. Missouri's new law would make it more difficult for civil rights groups to register voters, criminalize some efforts to encourage lawfully registered voters to cast ballots, and needlessly prevent some registered voters from voting,” said Janette McCarthy Wallace, general counsel of the NAACP. “Put simply, the law would suppress votes and disenfranchise voters." 

LWVMO and MO NAACP, as well as their volunteers and staff, reasonably fear that H.B. 1878 will criminalize many of their current and most basic voter outreach efforts. In fact, the bill’s language is so vague that the ban on absentee ballot solicitation could be used to criminalize a volunteer who tells a voter that will be out of town on Election Day that they can vote absentee. 

“HB 1878 is breathtaking in the ways it undermines democratic participation in Missouri by criminalizing the activities of the very civic engagement organizations that help ensure underserved communities have access to the democratic process,” said Denise Lieberman, director and general counsel of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, which has lead statewide efforts to advocate against HB1878. “HB 1878 stands to halt voter registration drives and prevent organizations from getting absentee ballot applications to the communities who need it most.”

“For over a century, the League of Women Voters of Missouri has worked to educate and empower voters, and we are proud of our members’ essential voter registration and education work,” said Marilyn McLeod, president of the League of Women Voters of Missouri. “This law criminalizes work we do regularly and, ultimately, harms Missouri voters who rely on the League’s work to ensure their voices are heard at the ballot box.” 

Many Missouri voters have been able to participate in our democracy thanks to the work of nonpartisan civic engagement groups who help people register to vote or apply for an absentee ballot. Instead of encouraging and supporting the work of these groups to drive voter turnout, Missouri legislators choose to criminalize basic voter engagement activities and restrict access to absentee voting.

“These new restrictions limiting voter registration and absentee ballot assistance will add further detriment to Missouri’s election process which is already ripe with deeply rooted systemic barriers that impede access to the ballot of marginalized communities,” said Luz María Henríquez, Executive Director of the ACLU of Missouri. “Registering voters, at its core, is political speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Rather than enacting legislation to encourage and increase participation in the democratic process, the politicians in Jefferson City pass laws that criminalize voter engagement and mobilization efforts.”

CLC, ACLU of Missouri and MOVPC, filed suit on behalf of LWVMO and MO NAACP challenging certain provisions of H.B. 1878 for violating those organizations’ rights to free speech, free association and due process enshrined in the Missouri Constitution.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Washington, D.C. – Blair Bowie, senior legal counsel and Restore Your Vote manager at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced the state is charging 20 people with illegal voting due to past felony convictions.

“Florida’s strategy to criminalize people with felony convictions for voting is a transparent voter intimidation tactic designed to keep Floridians from even trying to vote. Advocates asked for a process for people with convictions to easily determine their eligibility. The state refused. Since Florida’s felony disenfranchisement law is so complex, Florida election officials swore under oath that they would check voter registrations, every day, and remove voters with convictions who are ineligible. They failed to keep that promise, and now 20 Floridians are facing charges and possible prison time because the elected officials want to score a political point at their expense.

Floridians voted for an inclusive democracy where every voice is heard. Instead of criminalizing people for trying to vote, Florida must create a process to determine registrants’ eligibility. In fact, the state is required to do so under federal law. The right to vote is a basic democratic freedom and Floridians with felony convictions are citizens who should have a say on the issues that directly impact their lives.”

In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly passed Amendment 4 to lift Florida’s lifetime ban on voting for people with felony convictions. In response, Florida politicians passed a law – SB 7066 – which erected new barriers that prevent people with felony convictions from voting.

Among other things, the law makes it extremely difficult for someone with a past felony conviction to determine whether they can vote.  For a person to be guilty of illegal registration and voting, they must have known they were ineligible. However, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has not released any evidence showing that these individuals knew they could not vote.

Many Floridians reasonably believed they could vote because their registrations were approved and they were not taken off the rolls before the election. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion stating that all 85,000 people with felony convictions who registered to vote before the trial were “entitled to vote” unless the state removed them  from the rolls. Since they were never removed, those individuals had every reason to believe they could vote.  

This is not the first time Florida has criminalized people with felony convictions just for trying to vote. In April, the state charged 10 Floridians for illegally voting – even though many had no knowledge they could not vote and were actually in custody when they registered and cast ballots. There too, the county presented little evidence, if any, that these individuals were aware they could not vote when they registered and cast a ballot. That evidence is required to prove illegal voting and illegal registration charges.

These charges are part of a larger anti-democratic strategy in Florida to criminalize and intimidate voters with felony convictions, so even those who can vote are too afraid to.

People with felony convictions can find out if they can vote at RestoreYourVote.org. Restore Your Vote is a free, anonymous tool to help people with felony convictions find out if they can register to vote or have their rights restored.

Austin, TX – A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Texas Secretary of State to release records about a state program that claims to identify non-U.S. citizens on the voter rolls, according to court documents. 

In February, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas (ACLU Texas), DĒMOS and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit arguing that Texas Secretary of State John B. Scott’s refusal to turn over the records related to his program to remove voters from the rolls based on alleged citizenship status violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). According to the complaint, the records could shed light on whether Scott is using outdated citizenship data in driver’s license records to purge registered voters and targeting naturalized U.S. citizens who are legitimately registered to vote. In 2021, the groups sent two letters requesting the records under the NVRA but did not receive them. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. 

Following a bench trial in May, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that Scott had violated the NVRA and gave him 14 days to turn over the records.

Danielle Lang, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center, made the following statement in response:

“Our democracy works best when every voter can participate. By refusing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, Texas stonewalled essential public monitoring that helps ensure elections are free and fair. Naturalized citizens in Texas, and every U.S. state, should not have to worry about being purged from the voting rolls and denied their freedom to vote. Thankfully, Texas will now have to produce records for their discriminatory voter purge program, so we can continue to protect Texans’ freedom to vote and guarantee safe and accessible elections for all.”

The U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration will hold a hearing this morning at 10:30 a.m. ET on the need to update the Electoral Count Act (ECA), an outdated law from 1887 that outlines procedures for casting and counting Electoral College votes in presidential elections. 

Adav Noti, vice president and legal director of CLC, will participate in a press briefing at 3:00 p.m. ET today to discuss the hearing and answer reporters’ question about the ECA. RSVP here to attend.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Trevor Potter, founder and president of Campaign Legal Center and Republican Former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, issued the following statement ahead of today’s hearing: 

“We thank Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar  and Ranking Member Roy Blunt for holding today’s hearing on the urgent need to update the ECA to protect the will of the people. Our democracy cannot afford another presidential election plagued by the types of challenges we saw following the 2020 election—challenges that stem from the confusing way Congress receives and counts Electoral College votes.
Fortunately, bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the Senate to address the ECA’s most serious vulnerabilities. The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 (ECRA) would significantly improve the ECA to reduce opportunities for election sabotage and ensure that elections are decided by voters. While we know that there is still more work to be done to protect our freedom to vote, this bill is nevertheless a step in the right direction and provides critical safeguards for the results of presidential elections. 

“Following this hearing, members of Congress must come together to adopt the strongest possible checks and balances to prevent future attempts by bad actors to manipulate and undermine our presidential elections. We call on Congress, especially Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, to act with the urgency that this moment demands.”  

Background on the ECA:

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 provides the primary legal framework for casting and counting electoral votes. The law is important because it sets a timeline for selecting electors and transmitting their votes to Congress. The ECA also establishes procedures for how Congress counts the electoral votes. However, it has not been updated since it was enacted more than 130 years ago. 

Following the 2020 presidential election, partisan actors attempted to exploit loopholes in the ECA as part of an organized attempt to overturn the results. While efforts to reject state-certified electoral votes and overrule the will of voters were unsuccessful, gaps and ambiguities remain in the ECA and are ripe for manipulation. 

In 2021, CLC convened constitutional experts from across the country and representing all political viewpoints to determine important updates to modernize the ECA. Some of the updates that these experts felt were necessary are included in the ECRA, a bill introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), along with 14 cosponsors, last month:  

• Prohibiting state legislatures from overruling their own voters. 
• Resolving disputes about electors and electoral votes before they reach Congress. 
• Strictly limiting opportunities for members of Congress to second guess electors and electoral votes. 
• Clarifying the vice president’s ministerial role in the counting of electoral votes. 

A poll commissioned by Campaign Legal Center last year showed strong, bipartisan support among voters for updating the ECA. It also highlighted the serious concern held by a majority of voters (58%) that one party in Congress could try to overturn the results of an upcoming presidential election to put their own candidate in power.