Case Summary for May 19, 2016

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for May 19, 2016

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9 a.m. Thursday, May 19, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC95678
Joshua Peters v. The Missouri Attorney General, Rachel M. Johns
St. Louis city
Challenge to qualifications of candidate for legislative office
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95678.mp3
Johns was represented during arguments byDavid E. Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri in Mexico, Missouri; Peters was represented by Matthew B. Vianello of Jacobson Press & Fields PC in Clayton; and the attorney general was represented by Solicitor General James R. Layton of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Article III, section 4 of the state constitution and section 21.080, RSMo, require that, to serve in the state’s house of representatives, a citizen must be at least 24 years old, must have resided in the district the citizen intends to represent for at least one year immediately preceding election and must have been a qualified voter for at least two years immediately preceding election. This last requirement can be referred to as the durational voter registration requirement. Rachel Johns in February 2016 declared her candidacy for election to represent the 76th district of the state’s house of representatives at the November 8, 2016, general election. She meets two of the three requirements but did not register to vote until February 2015. Although she contends she was qualified to register to vote well before November 8, 2014, she did not register earlier because she believed that, especially in the wake of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, to do so would mean endorsing a system she believed had continued to fail her community. Incumbent Joshua Peters, who is seeking reelection to represent the 76th house district, filed a lawsuit challenging Johns’ qualifications for election. There are no other candidates to represent the district. Johns and Peters filed cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. Following argument, the circuit court in April 2016 determined Johns does not satisfy the two-year durational voter registration requirement and, therefore, is not qualified to serve in the house but declined to issue an order prohibiting Johns from proceeding with her candidacy. Johns appeals.

This case presents one primary issue – whether the durational registration requirement precludes Johns from being elected to the state house of representatives. Related to this issue are questions of whether Johns’ refusal to register to vote constitutes constitutionally protected expression and whether the durational voter registration requirement penalizes Johns’ freedom of speech, denies her equal protection of law or denies voters’ rights to cast their votes in violation of the First Amendment or 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. Related to the rights of others to cast their votes is whether Johns has standing (legal ability) to assert the rights of other voters who are not parties in this case. If this Court determines that the durational voter registration requirement imposes on constitutional rights, then another question involves what level of scrutiny the Court should apply in analyzing the requirement – strict scrutiny, under which the requirement must be narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest, or rational basis scrutiny, under which the requirement must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest – and whether the registration requirement can survive the scrutiny to be applied. A further related question involves the effect of the 1976 appeals court decision in State ex rel. Burke v. Campbell, regarding a similar question under the durational voter registration requirement, on Johns’ case.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation filed a brief as a friend of the Court. Its argument focuses on whether the phrase “qualified voter” in article III, section 4 should be construed to mean any individual who possesses the constitutional qualifications to vote or whether it should be construed to mean only an individual who is a “registered voter.”

SC95678_Johns_brief.pdf

SC95678_Peters_brief.pdf

SC95678_Attorney_General_brief.pdf

SC95678_Johns_reply_brief.pdf

SC95678_ACLU_amicus_brief.pdf