489 S.W.3d 262
Mo.2016Background
- Rachel Johns sought the Democratic nomination for Missouri State Representative (Dist. 76) and had not been registered to vote for the two years prior to the 2016 election; she registered on February 4, 2015.
- Opposing candidate Joshua Peters filed to disqualify Johns under Article III, §4 of the Missouri Constitution, which requires a representative to have "been a qualified voter for two years" before election.
- Johns conceded she did not meet the two-year registration requirement but challenged the constitutionality of the requirement as applied to her under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- She argued (1) her intentional failure to register was protected "symbolic speech," (2) the requirement penalized her for protected speech and burdened voters in her district, and (3) on appeal she additionally raised an equal protection claim (which the court found not preserved).
- The circuit court upheld the requirement; the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed de novo and affirmed the judgment, holding the provision means "registered voter," rejecting the First Amendment claim, finding the burden de minimis, and applying rational-basis review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "qualified voter" in Art. III, §4 | "Qualified voter" need not mean registered voter; it can mean anyone meeting voting qualifications | Term historically and under current constitution equates to registered voter where registration is required | "Qualified voter" = registered voter when used as an office qualification; requirement satisfied by registration history |
| First Amendment — symbolic speech (failure to register) | Johns intentionally did not register as political protest; disqualification penalizes protected expressive conduct | Failure to register is not inherently expressive conduct and lacks communicative elements; Buckley is distinguishable | Failure to register is not "inherently expressive" symbolic speech here; no First Amendment protection for that conduct |
| Ballot access / voting rights burden | The two-year durational registration disqualifies candidate and burdens voters' right to vote for her; substantial burden requiring strict scrutiny | The rule only delays candidacy (temporary), is nondiscriminatory, and furthers legitimate state interests; burden is de minimis so rational-basis applies | Burden on candidate and voters is de minimis (temporary delay); rational-basis review applies and the requirement is constitutional |
| Equal protection claim (classification by registration duration) | (On appeal) Rule creates unjustified classification between long-term and recent registrants | Claim was not raised with specificity below and thus is waived | Equal protection challenge not preserved for appellate review; court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (struck down petition-circulator registration requirement; emphasized core political speech)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (framework weighing character/magnitude of burden against state interests in ballot-access challenges)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (level-of-scrutiny test for election regulations; burden severity controls scrutiny)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (upheld temporary waiting-period limitation on candidacy; characterized some temporal delays as de minimis)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (recognition that ballot-access rules implicate voters' ability to cast votes effectively)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (expression vs. conduct; "inherently expressive" requirement)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (limitations on treating conduct as speech; test for symbolic conduct)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (durational residency requirement for voters implicated right to vote and strict scrutiny)