## Facts

- Missouri enacted SB 1014 amending Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.427 to require in-person voters to present specified state- or federally issued photo identification to cast a regular ballot.
- Before SB 1014, voters could use a wider range of documents, including non-photo items such as utility bills, bank statements, and some expired identification.
- Although SB 1014 stated that a non-driver photo ID would be available at no cost, evidence showed many voters would need to obtain and pay for underlying documents (e.g., certified birth certificates, marriage records, naturalization papers) to qualify for the “free” ID.
- Evidence indicated roughly 3% to 4% of Missouri citizens lacked the required photo ID, with burdens falling disproportionately on elderly, disabled, and low-income voters.
- The record contained no identified instances of in-person voter impersonation that the photo-ID requirement would have prevented during the relevant period.
- Voters challenged the law, claiming it imposed financial and logistical obstacles that effectively conditioned voting on paying money for documentation.

## Issues

1. Whether SB 1014’s in-person photo-ID requirement violates Missouri’s constitutional guarantees protecting the right of qualified, registered citizens to vote (Mo. Const. art. I, § 25; art. VIII, § 2).
2. Whether the requirement violates Missouri’s equal-protection clause (Mo. Const. art. I, § 2) by imposing disproportionate burdens on certain classes of voters.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court’s judgment declaring SB 1014’s photo-ID requirement unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.
- The court held the requirement violated Missouri’s equal-protection clause and Missouri’s constitutional protections for the right to vote.
- Applying strict scrutiny, the court accepted preventing voter fraud as a compelling interest but concluded the photo-ID requirement was not narrowly tailored.
- The court found the law substantially burdened qualified, registered voters lacking compliant photo ID by imposing real-world costs and administrative hurdles, despite the statute’s “no cost” language.
- The absence of evidence of in-person voter impersonation weighed against the necessity of imposing those burdens.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Missouri Constitution, the right of qualified, registered citizens to vote is a fundamental right; laws that significantly burden that right are subject to strict scrutiny.
- Strict scrutiny requires the state to show the challenged restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
- Preventing voter fraud may be a compelling interest, but the state must justify why the particular restriction is necessary given its burdens.
- A voting restriction that effectively requires some eligible voters to incur costs to obtain documentation to vote can violate state equal protection and state voting-rights guarantees when it disproportionately burdens poorer, elderly, or disabled voters.
- Missouri courts may resolve voting-rights disputes on independent state constitutional grounds that provide more protection than federal law.

## Conclusion

Missouri’s photo-ID voting requirement was invalidated because it imposed substantial, unequal burdens on qualified voters—often requiring payment for underlying documents—and the state did not show the scheme was narrowly tailored to the asserted anti-fraud interest under Missouri’s constitutional protections for voting and equal protection.


Weinschenk v. State, 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. 2006) (en banc)