492 S.W.3d 177
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners (Board) ran an April 5, 2016 municipal election using only paper ballots; a clerical error caused many precincts to receive insufficient ballots.
- At least 63 of 820 precincts had inadequate ballots; numerous voters were turned away during morning hours.
- The Board (relators) filed for emergency relief in circuit court seeking a two-hour extension of polling hours (until 9:00 p.m.) for affected precincts so disenfranchised voters could vote.
- The circuit court denied the request, concluding it lacked authority under Mo. Rev. Stat. §115.407 (polls close at 7:00 p.m.).
- The Board petitioned the Missouri Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus; the appellate court granted a permanent writ directing extension of voting two hours at affected precincts, treating ballots cast in that window as provisional and limited to voters who affirm they tried to vote earlier.
- The court emphasized the extraordinary circumstances: bipartisan election authority conceded disenfranchisement, the Attorney General did not oppose relief, and no other adequate remedy existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts can order extension of statutory polling hours when voters were denied ballots | Board: §115.407 is unconstitutional as applied where clerical error by election authority deprived voters; extension is necessary to remedy disenfranchisement | Circuit court: statute prescribes closing at 7:00 p.m.; court lacks authority to extend hours | Court of Appeals: where disenfranchisement is real and no adequate remedy exists, mandamus may compel narrowly tailored extension for affected precincts |
| Whether Bush‑Cheney precedent bars relief here | Plaintiff: Bush‑Cheney is distinguishable (speculative harm, not requested by election authority) | Defendant: Bush‑Cheney held trial courts cannot extend statutory hours | Held: Bush‑Cheney distinguished—here harm was actual, relief requested by bipartisan election authority, and relief was narrowly tailored |
| Whether relief would undermine election integrity or permit improper voters | Plaintiff: provisional votes limited to those who orally affirm they tried to vote; votes sequestered to protect integrity | Defendant: (implicit) extension risks allowing untimely or improper voters to vote | Held: Court required oral affirmation and provisional, sequestered ballots to protect integrity while remedying disenfranchisement |
| Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy | Plaintiff: mandamus is proper emergency remedy where no other adequate remedy exists and to prevent injustice | Defendant: mandamus should not substitute for statute or be used to adjudicate constitutionality | Held: Mandamus was proper as last-resort remedial writ because statute, as applied, would have denied fundamental right to vote; relief narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinschenk v. State, 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. banc 2006) (recognizing voting as a fundamental right)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (franchise as essence of democratic society)
- State ex rel. Bush‑Cheney 2000 Inc. v. Baker, 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend statutory polling hours in different factual context)
- State ex rel. City of Memphis v. Hackman, 202 S.W. 7 (Mo. 1918) (statutory times may be directory rather than mandatory where no injury results)
- State ex rel. Bloomquist v. Schneider, 244 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. banc 2008) (courts may issue remedial writs when statute is unconstitutional as applied)