On
September 14, 2016, the Missouri General Assembly successfully overturned
Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of House Bill 1631 (“HB 1631”).[1] HB 1631 replaced the then-existing voter
identification requirements in Missouri with more stringent standards (“Voter
ID Law”).[2] The Missouri State Conference for the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of Women
Voters of Missouri, and Christine Dragonette (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), sued
the State of Missouri and the Missouri Secretary of State (collectively, “Defendants”),
alleging that the funding provisions of the Voter ID Law were not satisfied,
and therefore the voter identification requirements should not be enforced.[3] The Circuit Court of Cole County granted the Defendants’
motion for a judgment on the pleadings, effectuating a dismissal without
prejudice of the Plaintiffs’ complaint.[4] The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western
District reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.[5]
I. Facts and Holding
The
Voter ID Law requires Missouri voters to prove their identity at polling
locations by presenting picture identification approved in the law, including a
current Missouri driver’s license or other government-issued document that
includes the individual’s name and photograph.[6] The Voter ID Law also places obligations on
Missouri government entities, such as the Secretary of State (“Secretary”).[7] The Secretary must advertise the Voter ID Law
requirements in a variety of media outlets as well as provide a nondriver state
identification to any qualified voter enabling them to vote.[8] The State of Missouri is also required to
provide a free copy of a variety of documents necessary for acquiring Voter ID
Law-compliant identification, including birth certificates, marriage licenses,
or social security cards.[9] The Voter ID Law requires the Secretary to
reimburse any government agency for the fee normally associated with these
documents.[10] The funding of these obligations is addressed
in the law, which states “[a]ll costs associated with the implementation of
this section shall be reimbursed from the general revenue . . . .”[11] Critically, the Voter ID Law further states,
“If there is not a sufficient appropriation of state funds, then the personal
identification requirements of subsection 1 of this section shall not be
enforced.”[12]
In 2017, the Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief.[13] They alleged that because the Missouri General Assembly failed to appropriate enough state funding to pay the expected costs associated with the Voter ID Law, the identification requirement was unenforceable.[14] The Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the voter identification requirements could not be enforced and requested an injunction preventing State actors from enforcing the Voter ID Law.[15] Their petition stated that for Fiscal Year 2018 only $1.6 million had been appropriated to the Defendants in relation to the Voter ID Law when the implementation costs would be closer to $6 million.[16] The Defendants moved for dismissal.[17] The Secretary alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that the issue was not ripe for adjudication.[18] The State of Missouri made the same claims and also argued that “sovereign immunity precluded” the Plaintiffs’ suit.[19] The trial court found that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and held that the Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[20]
In 2017, the Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief.[13] They alleged that because the Missouri General Assembly failed to appropriate enough state funding to pay the expected costs associated with the Voter ID Law, the identification requirement was unenforceable.[14] The Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the voter identification requirements could not be enforced and requested an injunction preventing State actors from enforcing the Voter ID Law.[15] Their petition stated that for Fiscal Year 2018 only $1.6 million had been appropriated to the Defendants in relation to the Voter ID Law when the implementation costs would be closer to $6 million.[16] The Defendants moved for dismissal.[17] The Secretary alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that the issue was not ripe for adjudication.[18] The State of Missouri made the same claims and also argued that “sovereign immunity precluded” the Plaintiffs’ suit.[19] The trial court found that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and held that the Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[20]
II. Legal Background
One of the threshold issues that the Western
District had to decide before addressing the substantive question about the Plaintiffs’
petition dealt with ripeness. Ripeness,
a legal question about timing, asks if “the parties’ dispute is developed
sufficiently to allow the court to make an accurate determination of the facts,
to resolve a conflict that is presently existing, and to grant specific relief
of a conclusive character.”[21] In support of their position that the
Plaintiffs’ claims were ripe for review, the Defendants relied on a Supreme
Court of Missouri decision, Schweich v.
Nixon.[22]
In
that case, the Missouri State Auditor, Tom Schweich, sued to contest Governor
Nixon’s withholding of state funds appropriated by the legislature for the
State Auditor’s office.[23] The court found in favor of the Governor and
held that the controversy was not ripe for judicial review because the fiscal
year had not yet concluded.[24] Until such time, it would not be known if the
withholding was merely a delay in distribution, an exercise of the Governor’s
constitutional authority, or a total and deliberate denial of funds.[25] The court held that “the Governor’s
withholding decision was not ripe until the end of the fiscal year” because “it
was unknowable [until that time] . . . whether a permanent withhold of
appropriated funds had even occurred.”[26]
III. Instant Decision
The Western
District addressed the Defendants’ claim of sovereign immunity first.[27] The court stated that sovereign immunity
exists in Missouri through statutes that grant the state “immunity ‘from
liability and suit for compensatory damages for negligent acts or omissions,’
not immunity from claims for equitable relief.”[28] Because the Plaintiffs here were asking for
declaratory and injunctive relief, the immunity statute did not exempt the
State from the suit.[29]
Next
the court addressed the question of ripeness.[30] The Defendant’s argued that because fiscal
year for 2018 had not yet ended, the General Assembly could still “appropriate
funds and reimburse costs incurred in implementing the Voter ID Law.”[31] The court stated that ripeness depends on a
“presently existing” dispute being “sufficiently developed” as to “allow the
court to make an accurate determination of the facts . . . and to grant
specific relief . . . .”[32] The court noted that the Voter ID Law’s voter
identification provision was contingent on “sufficient appropriation.”[33] The court determined that the Plaintiffs need
not wait for an “actual incurrence of costs” to bring their suit, as
appropriations are “forward-looking.”[34]
The court found that the voter
identification requirement of the statute was contingent on adequate funding,
and the fact that the Defendants may acquire additional appropriations later did
not satisfy the statutory language.[35] The court also distinguished the instant
facts from those in Schweich.[36]
In Schweich,
the Auditor’s office was not actually denied funds until the fiscal year
closed, as they could be reinstated at any time.[37] However, in the present case, the General
Assembly was yet to appropriate a sufficient amount to cause the Voter ID Law
to be enforced.[38] The Secretary would be, in effect, enforcing
a statute whose preconditions had not been satisfied.[39]
Finally,
the court addressed the Defendants’ substantive contention that the Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim.[40] The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs
failed to plead the “actual cost” of implementing the Voter ID Law, thereby
failing to demonstrate that the funds appropriated were in fact insufficient.[41] The court turned to the Missouri Constitution
to determine the definition of “appropriation” as used in the Voter ID Law,
which characterized it as the “legal authorization to expend funds from the treasury.”[42] The term “sufficient” was defined by the
dictionary as the “quantity . . . to meet with the demands . . . .”[43] The Plaintiffs used cost estimates of
implementation to illustrate a disparity between what was appropriated and what
would be needed, which the court found sufficient.[44] The Western District reversed the trial
court’s dismissal and judgment on the pleadings, and the case was remanded for
further proceedings.[45]
IV. Comment
The
outcome of this appeal is not surprising and the statutory interpretation
utilized by the court is straightforward and non-technical. The imposition of the new voter
identification requirements is conditioned on an appropriation by the State’s
General Assembly. While there may be
subsequent appropriations throughout the fiscal year, as the Defendants argued,
the mere possibility of future funding is not enough to trigger the heart of
the Voter ID Law. In a state racked by budget
woes and a succession of governors withholding expenditures from the state budget,
the failure of the General Assembly to provide funding is not surprising.[46] However, given the outcome of these pretrial
motions, one would surely expect the General Assembly to fully fund the Voter
ID Law’s implementation in the next session or risk giving rise to new motions
for dismissal.
-Chris Mathews
[1] Joint Brief of
Respondents at 1, State Conference of NAACP v. State, WD 81484 (Mo. Ct.
App. Oct. 30, 2018), 2018 WL 2459967, at *1.
[2] State Conference of NAACP v. State, No. WD 81484, 2018 WL 5492832, at
*1 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2018).
[3] Id. at *1–4.
[4] Id. at *1.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at *2.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.427.6(3) (2016).
[12] Id.
[13] State Conference of NAACP, 2018 WL 5492832,
at *3.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. at *3–4.
[17] Id. at *3.
[18] Id. at *4.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at *7 (quoting Mo. Health Care Ass’n v. Atty Gen. of the State of Mo., 953 S.W.2d
617, 621 (Mo. 1997) (en banc)).
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at *5.
[28] Id. (citation omitted).
[29] Id. at *6.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Id. at *7 (citations omitted).
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at *9. The court also dismissed the Defendant’s
claim that the Plaintiffs failed to join necessary parties. Id.
at *8.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] Id. at *10.
[45] Id.
[46] Phill Brooks, Missouri Heading for a Looming Budget Cliff,
Columbia Daily Tribune (Jan. 28,
2018), http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20180128/missouri-heading-for-looming-budget-cliff;
Missourian Staff, Greitens Withholds $251
Million from Fiscal 2018 Budget, $11 Million from UM Budget, Columbia Missourian (June 30, 2017), https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/update-greitens-withholds-million-from-fiscal-budget-million-from-um/article_cd5a8020-5de1-11e7-8941-b7f1ea90341b.html.
