Missouri Supreme Court Weighs Election Integrity Law as Challenges Mount
The future of Missouri’s voter photo ID requirement — along with additional safeguards on voter registration and absentee ballot outreach — now rests in the hands of the Missouri Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the court heard arguments in two closely watched cases challenging key provisions of the state’s 2022 election integrity law. At stake is whether Missouri can continue enforcing measures designed to protect the ballot box from abuse while maintaining orderly elections.
Photo ID Requirement Under Scrutiny
The first case centers on Missouri’s photo ID mandate for voters. Plaintiffs are asking the court to overturn a lower court ruling that upheld the requirement, arguing that the law creates undue burdens for certain individuals.
A major point of contention during oral arguments was whether the plaintiffs even have legal standing to bring the challenge.
Judge Mary Russell pressed plaintiff attorney Jason Orr on whether those involved were ultimately able to obtain government-issued photo IDs and cast ballots. Orr, representing the ACLU of Missouri, acknowledged they did vote — but maintained that the law’s burden lies in the process itself.
“This court and other courts in fact have held that the ability to vote is not the burden that courts look at,” Orr said. “It’s the abridgement of the right to vote, which can be the obstacles in doing so.”
Representing the state, Solicitor General Lou Capozzi emphasized that Missouri voters themselves authorized lawmakers to enact the photo ID requirement when they approved a constitutional amendment granting that authority.
According to Capozzi, the amendment passed decisively with 63% support — despite opposition from activist groups, including the NAACP, which argued at the time that the requirement would be too restrictive.
“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,” Capozzi said. “But the people rejected those arguments.”
Capozzi further argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate real harm.
“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 how the court should proceed if standing is lacking.
“That’s an argument that the opposing counsel 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 asked.
Should the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s ruling, Missouri’s photo ID requirement will remain firmly in place — reinforcing a policy widely supported by voters and consistent with the principle that secure elections are foundational to constitutional governance.
Broader Restrictions on Voter Outreach Also Challenged
The justices also examined a second case involving additional provisions of the 2022 law aimed at regulating voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation.
The challenged measures prohibit paying workers to seek out voter registration applications, require registration workers to be Missouri voters over 18 years old, and restrict efforts to solicit absentee ballot applications.
In this instance, the state is seeking to reverse a lower court decision that struck down these provisions as unconstitutional.
Arguing on behalf of Missouri, attorney J. Michael Patton stressed that elections must be safeguarded through clear rules and oversight.
“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,” Patton said. “The challenged statutes are fundamental to guarding the democratic process.”
Opponents argue the measures infringe upon political speech and civic engagement. Kristin Mulvey, representing the ACLU of Missouri, contended that the restrictions reach too far into constitutionally protected activity.
Missouri’s high court now faces a decision that will shape how the state balances election access with election security. For many voters, the debate underscores a broader national conversation about whether integrity measures strengthen democracy — or whether activist litigation continues to challenge the will of the people.