The ballot language written by lawmakers for a proposed constitutional amendment stating “only citizens of the United States” can vote and banning ranked-choice voting is fair and should be on the Nov. 5 ballot without changes, a Cole County judge ruled Monday.
The “fair ballot language” summary written by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft also correctly conveys the central features of the measure, which will be Amendment 7 on the ballot, Circuit Judge Cotton Walker wrote in an 11-page decision.
The summary statement for the proposal, Walker wrote, “is not untrue or partial, and it does not use language that is intentionally argumentative or likely to create prejudice for the measure nor does it incorrectly describe SJR78.”
Two voters, one from St. Louis and one from Webster Groves, sued over the language, arguing that it is imprecise in its references to the current legal status of non-citizen voting and omits the fact that it is currently illegal in Missouri for non-citizens to vote. The lawsuit named legislative leaders and Ashcroft as defendants in their official capacity for the 50-word summary written by lawmakers and the language intended to give a full description written by Ashcroft.
While the attorneys defending the language wouldn’t give a definitive answer on whether non-citizens can currently vote during the July 29 trial, Walker noted, “the court doubts whether the defendants or their counsel actually believe that non-citizens are currently allowed to vote.”
Lawmakers voted to put the measure on the ballot when they were unable to pass a more controversial proposal to change how a majority is calculated on constitutional amendments proposed by initiative petition.
That measure also included the provisions barring non-citizens from voting.
The ban on ranked-choice voting is a reaction to a failed 2022 initiative to institute the process where voters are allowed to designate candidates as their second and third choices for an office, with votes for candidates who have the fewest votes distributed to their other choices in races where no candidate receives a majority.
The language written by lawmakers asks whether the constitution should be amended to:
- Make the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote;
- Prohibit the ranking of candidates by limiting voters to a single vote per candidate or issue; and
- Require the plurality winner of a political party primary to be the single candidate at a general election?
The first bullet point “conveys the feature without bias, prejudice, deception or favoritism,” Walker wrote in his ruling.
The challengers wanted “state statute” substituted for “state law” in the first point because a statute currently requires anyone registering to vote to state whether they are a citizen.
“The court does not believe a reasonable voter will be misled or deceived into what the measure will do or that the word ‘law’ is unfair and insufficient as it is used as synonym for ‘state statute’,” Walker wrote.
Missouri allowed non-citizens to vote from 1865 to 1924, when an amendment proposed by a state Constitutional Convention passed with 53.5% of the vote.
The language describing provisions on how elections should be run is also fair, Walker said. He rejected arguments that it should include a reference to a carve-out allowing St. Louis to continue using “approval voting” in local elections or that voters might think it allows only one candidate per office in the general election.
“The court does not believe,” Walker wrote, “that any voter will be misled into thinking that when casting future ballots if (the proposal) is adopted, that they can only vote for one specific person on the ballot and no others.”
The decision came a day before Ashcroft is required to certify whether four measures proposed by initiative had enough signatures to make the ballot. Three measures, to secure abortion rights, legalize sports wagering and allow a new casino near the Lake of the Ozarks, would amend the constitution. The fourth, to increase the minimum wage and require employers to provide paid personal leave, would amend state statute.
This story was originally published by the Missouri Independent.
