The Supreme Court of Missouri will decide the constitutionality of part of the state's voter ID law after arguments on the issue were heard before the court Thursday.
With an injunction on a third option in place, the state's voter ID law requires voters to use one of two options:
Present a current Missouri driver or non-driver license, current passport or a military or veterans identification card in order to vote;
If a voter does not have a form of identification, they can fill out a provisional ballot, but only have the ballot counted if they return with one of the previously listed photo IDs, or if the election authority determines the voter's signature to match the one on file.
The Supreme Court on Thursday morning heard the state and secretary of state's appeal of last year's judgment by Cole County Senior Circuit Judge Richard Callahan that issued the injunction against a third option involving an affidavit - as well as Priorities USA, Mildred Gutierrez and Ri Jayden Patrick's response to the state's appeal.
Priorities USA, Gutierrez and Patrick sued the state in 2018, alleging Missouri's voter ID law was unconstitutional.
Priorities USA is a Democratic candidate campaign supporter and a self-described progressive policy advocacy organization - particularly on voting rights.
Gutierrez, of Lee's Summit, is a native of Holts Summit. Patrick is of St. Louis.
Judge Callahan's October 2018 judgment in the lawsuit upheld most of Missouri's voter ID law, which was passed by the Legislature during its 2016 veto session and governs all elections after June 1, 2017.
Callahan did rule, however, the state and election authorities could not require voters otherwise qualified to cast a regular ballot to sign a sworn statement that asked them to verify their identity and acknowledge they need to present approved personal identification in order to vote.
The problem was not a requirement for an affidavit, Callahan ruled, but, "The affidavit is, on its face, contradictory and misleading," as it as "plainly requires the voter to swear that they do not possess a form of personal identification approved for voting while simultaneously presenting to the election authority a form of personal identification that is approved."
The state and secretary of state's attorney D. John Sauer disputed before the Supreme Court the affidavit Callahan struck down was misleading. Sauer argued voters who previously testified did not say they were deterred from voting because they felt they could not sign the affidavit - and even if they couldn't sign it, they could file a provisional ballot instead.
Sauer also argued even if the affidavit Callahan struck down is unconstitutional, the secretary of state has the ability to reword it, rather than let the Legislature do it.
The respondents' attorney, Marc Elias, argued - in addition to that deference should be given to the lower court's ruling - that "there's no authority for that," and only authority for the secretary of state to make minor changes to the law that reflect changes over time in voting technology, for example.
Supreme Court Judge Paul C. Wilson asked Sauer why the state would go with the option of letting the secretary of state rewrite the law regarding the affidavit - if it's expected that would prompt another lawsuit - as opposed to letting the Legislature do it.
Sauer defended the secretary of state's rule-making authority, and said "either way there will probably be another lawsuit."
It may be weeks or months before the Supreme Court may issue its opinion in the case. The court has at least one scheduled date this month and in November and December when it could hand down its opinion, though no dates were yet scheduled past December 2019, as of Thursday.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.