Groups Challenge Missouri Voter ID Law Over Lack of Funding
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project sued Missouri today over its new voter ID law, charging the state failed to provide mandated funding for voter education, free voter IDs and birth certificates, and training of poll workers.
The case was filed on behalf of the Missouri NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri. The groups are seeking a temporary restraining order to block the law from remaining in effect during a local special election on July 11. In-person absentee voting for this election begins Monday, June 12. An additional 52 Missouri counties go to the polls on August 8.
“Voters were promised that this law was not about disenfranchising the most vulnerable in our state,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The state’s lack of funding and implementation of this law tells another story.”
The measure, which took effect June 1, mandates that the state fully fund all costs associated with implementing the law, including costs for related public education, free voter IDs and birth certificates, and training of poll workers. To date, the state has appropriated just a fraction of the amount necessary to cover these costs, even as local and state elections loom.
“States are not allowed to make an end run around voting rights by forcing burdensome changes to election law and then failing to provide the required funding for proper implementation,” said Sophia Lakin, an attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.
Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are among the states that have been reprimanded by the courts for disastrous implementation of their voter ID laws and inadequate, confusing voter education.
“Missouri’s highly restrictive photo ID law was designed to make it harder for people to vote,” said Denise Lieberman, co-director of Power and Democracy at the Advancement Project’s national office, and coordinator of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition. “It is a gimmick that — as we’ve seen in other states — inevitably leads to blocking people from the ballot, especially people of color, young voters, seniors, and people with disabilities. This suppressive effect is magnified once the state does not even hold its end of the bargain. It is beyond unacceptable that the state of Missouri has launched a photo ID requirement while not even being prepared, trained, or properly funded for it.”
The case, Missouri NAACP v. Missouri, was filed in Cole County Circuit Court.
The complaint is at: /legal-document/missouri-naacp-v-missouri-complaint
More information is at: /cases/missouri-naacp-v-missouri
Voting Rights
Missouri NAACP v. Missouri
Voting Rights
Missouri NAACP v. Missouri
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”