Omar Bennett
The Missouri Court of Appeals is divided into the Eastern District, Western District, and Southern District. The Missouri Supreme Court has the authority to review appeals of cases that involve questions of general interest or importance. The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled that strict voter ID requirements violate Missourians' right to vote. In another instance, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's order that a provision of the Missouri Constitution prohibiting political action committees from receiving contributions from other political action committees violated the First Amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Case | Free and Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission |
| Court | Eighth Circuit |
| Issue | Missouri Constitution Article VIII, Section 23.3(12) |
| Issue Details | Prohibition of political action committees from receiving contributions from other political action committees |
| Ruling | The provision was held to violate the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association |
| Ruling Details | The amendment was deemed unconstitutional as applied to PACs that donate only to candidates and those that make independent expenditures |
| Missouri Court of Appeals | Divided into Eastern, Western, and Southern Districts |
| Missouri Supreme Court | Consists of seven members, including the Chief Justice |
| Judge Selection Process | Missouri Plan |
| Judge Retention | Requires a retention election in the first general election after at least one year of appointment, followed by a 12-year term |
| Voter ID Laws | Strict photo identification requirements have been challenged as discriminatory and violating the right to vote |
| Missouri Attorney General Powers | A lawsuit was filed challenging the constitutionality of expanded powers |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District retention election results
The Missouri Court of Appeals is divided into three districts: the Eastern District, the Western District, and the Southern District. The Court of Appeals handles all appeals except those in the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Missouri may hear cases from the Court of Appeals if they involve:
- Challenges to the validity of a United States statute or treaty
- The validity of a state constitutional provision or statute
- Cases requiring construction of revenue laws
- The title to state office
- Cases where the death penalty is imposed
The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District retention election results for 2024 are as follows:
- Michael S. Wright was retained with 62.1% of the vote
- Gary Gaertner Jr. was retained with 64.1% of the vote
- Robert M. Clayton III was retained with 64.0% of the vote
- Renee Hardin-Tammons was retained with 65.8% of the vote
- Cristian M. Stevens was retained with 61.8% of the vote
The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District retention election results for 2022 are as follows:
- Michael Gardner was retained with 65.4% of the vote
- Kelly C. Broniec was retained with 67.1% of the vote
- John Torbitzky was retained with 64.4% of the vote
The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District's Clerk's office conducted an election for the Eastern District attorney member on the Appellate Judicial Commission on November 4, 2017. The election was conducted electronically, with a limited exception for individuals receiving accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and newly admitted lawyers to The Missouri Bar.
US Navy's Iconic USS Constitution: How Many Ships Sunk?
You may want to see also
Missouri's sex offender registration laws
In the case of Doe v. Phillips, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that applying Missouri's sex offender registration laws to anyone convicted or pleading guilty to a registrable offense before the passing of the state's sex offender registration law in 1995 violates the Constitution of Missouri's unique bar on "laws retrospective in operation". This case was one of the few successful constitutional challenges to sex offender registration laws in the United States.
Missouri's Sex Offender Registry was created to publish sexual offender information. Under the state's sex offender laws, every person convicted of a specific sex crime is required to register as a sex offender. The law requires that all convicted sex offenders register with the local police department within three days of their release from custody. Offenders must meet face-to-face with the sheriff's department or chief law enforcement official of the county where the offender resides. The deputy sheriff will ask for basic information such as the offender's name, Social Security number, nature of the offenses, home address, and birth date. A physical description of each offender is also noted, along with a photograph, which will be added to the website of registered sex offenders managed by the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
The registration requirements are as follows:
- 15 years if the offender is a Tier I sex offender
- 25 years if the offender is a Tier II sex offender
Additionally, registrants must notify law enforcement agencies immediately upon any change in their residence address while on parole or probation. They must also report any email addresses, instant messaging addresses, and any other designations used in internet connections, postings, or telephone communications to their registration official.
Offenders may have some restrictions imposed by the court or by a probation or parole officer, such as restrictions on residing within a certain distance of a school, child care facility, or victim's residence, and on physically being present or loitering within a certain distance of a child care facility.
Missouri is a petition-based removal state, and certain sex offenders can now remove their names from the state's sex offender registry. To do so, one must work with an attorney to file a petition for removal in the division of the circuit court in the appropriate county or city.
FDR's Vision: A Living, Breathing Constitution
You may want to see also
Missouri's new voter ID restrictions
The strict photo identification requirement is particularly burdensome for marginalized communities, people of color, elderly voters, voters with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. For example, D. Rene Powell, a registered voter in mid-Missouri who is disabled due to epilepsy and mobility issues, does not have a driver's license and typically relies on public transportation or friends for transportation. Under the new restrictions, she will need to arrange transportation to the DMV to renew her non-driver's license specifically to vote.
Another voter, Kimberly Morgan, discovered that her name was spelled incorrectly on her replacement birth certificate, leading to the same spelling error on her state-issued ID. This could potentially cause issues with the strict photo ID requirement. The Missouri Voter Protection Coalition has been fighting strict voter ID requirements in the state since 2006, arguing that they are needless and discriminatory and violate Missourians' right to vote.
The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the bill's provisions, arguing that it was improperly changed to alter its original purpose and that the changes made violate the constitutional requirement that bills address a single subject. Additionally, the emergency clause, which allows for the immediate enactment of the law, is being contested as there is no apparent emergency requiring quick legislative action.
Compatibility of America's Founding Documents: Constitution and Independence
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![The American Constitutions and Religion [1938]: Religious References in the Charters of the Thirteen Colonies and the Constitutions of the Forty-Eight ... on Church and State in the United States.](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71hXfpvtAlL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Missouri attorney general's new powers
In April 2025, a lawsuit was filed in Cole County Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the Missouri attorney general's new powers. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Chuck Hatfield on behalf of longtime progressive activist Sean Nicholson, argues that the bill violates the constitution in six ways. Firstly, it claims that the emergency clause and the reason given for invoking the Constitution's provision for immediate lawmaking do not constitute a genuine emergency. Secondly, the bill was improperly changed to alter its original purpose, and the changes made violate the constitutional requirement that bills address a single subject. Thirdly, one provision allowing ballot titles to have 100 words instead of 50 is unrelated to judicial proceedings. Fourthly, the bill creates unconstitutional powers for the attorney general and grants them in an unconstitutional manner. Fifthly, the power to appeal past preliminary injunctions is "unconstitutionally retroactive" as it applies to injunctions in place before the bill's passage. Finally, Hatfield argues that the bill is "one-sided," favouring only the attorney general and violating the state Constitution's guarantee of equal rights and opportunity.
Understanding the House: Letter Accuracy
You may want to see also
Missouri Supreme Court
The Missouri Supreme Court was founded in 1820 and is composed of seven members, with one Chief Justice and six judges. The Chief Justice is elected by the other six members and serves a two-year term. The current Chief Justice is Mary Rhodes Russell, whose term ends on June 30, 2025. The Missouri Supreme Court has discretionary powers to review appeals in cases that involve questions of general interest or importance. It may also review an appeal if a lower court's decision conflicts with a pre-existing appellate decision or if the Supreme Court deems that the law should be re-examined.
The Missouri Supreme Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in certain types of cases, such as those involving the death penalty, challenges to the outcome of an election, and challenges to the validity of state or federal laws or provisions of the state constitution. For example, in the case of Free and Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order permanently enjoining the enforcement of a provision of the Missouri Constitution that prohibited political action committees from receiving contributions from other political action committees. The court held that this prohibition infringed on the First Amendment rights of political action committees to freedom of speech and association.
The Missouri Supreme Court also has the authority to transfer cases to the Supreme Court of the United States if certain criteria are met, such as if a question of general interest or importance is involved. Additionally, the court is responsible for issuing legal decisions, supervising the lower state courts, licensing attorneys, and disciplining lawyers and judges who violate ethical rules. The Missouri Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and upholding the law in the state of Missouri.
The US Constitution's Preamble: Setting the Tone for Governance
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Missouri Court of Appeals handles almost 40% of the state's appellate caseload. It is divided into the Eastern District, Western District, and Southern District. The Southern District has offices in Springfield, Missouri, and maintains a courthouse and chambers in Poplar Bluff. The Western District has locations in Kansas City, Jefferson City, Colombia, St. Joseph, Kirksville, and other places.
The Missouri Court of Appeals handles all appeals except those in the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction. This includes challenges to the validity of a United States statute or treaty, the validity of a state constitutional provision or statute, cases requiring construction of revenue laws, the title to state office, and cases where the death penalty is imposed.
The Missouri Supreme Court has the discretion to review appeals that involve questions of general interest or importance. It may also review an appeal if a lower court's decision conflicts with a previous appellate decision or if the Supreme Court finds that the law should be re-examined. The Supreme Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including those involving the death penalty, challenges to election outcomes, and challenges to the validity of state or federal laws or provisions of the state constitution.
Here are some examples of lawsuits that have been filed in Missouri alleging violations of the state constitution:
- Free and Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission (2018): The Eighth Circuit affirmed that a provision of the Missouri Constitution prohibiting political action committees from receiving contributions from other political action committees violated the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.
- Missouri NAACP and League of Women Voters v. State of Missouri (2022): The ACLU of Missouri and the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the state's voter identification requirements under House Bill 1878 as violations of the right to vote and equal protection under the Missouri Constitution.
- Hatfield v. Missouri (2025): Attorney Chuck Hatfield filed a lawsuit on behalf of longtime progressive activist Sean Nicholson, arguing that a bill granting new powers to the state attorney general violated the constitution in several ways, including by improperly changing the bill's original purpose and including provisions that did not relate to its original subject.
