Dear Taylor,
Please consider this correspondence formal pre-suit notice that I intend to challenge Missouri’s disclaimer statute on both facial and as-applied grounds. Unless Taylor County confirms it will not enforce the statute, I am prepared to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
I. Factual Background and Standing
I am Robbin Stewart, the same plaintiff who challenged a materially similar Indiana disclaimer statute in . I am a political speaker, designer, and candidate.
As two examples of my political speech:
I designed a sign stating “Laura for Sheriff”, which was used by Laura Coker‑Garcia (see ). That sign was not at issue in her lawsuit, but that case established that Missouri election laws are subject to strict scrutiny.
I ran for the Columbia school board and could have made a sign reading “Robbin Stewart for Board – Vote Tuesday.” I did use a sign in that format during my prior campaign and litigation in Stewart v. Taylor (Indiana), demonstrating that this style of political yard sign is my own protected political speech.
I intend to continue designing and producing similar political yard signs for Missouri candidates in future elections. Missouri’s disclaimer statute places speakers in an unconstitutional position: either append government-mandated attribution language to political speech or refrain from engaging in that speech. This chilling effect is concrete, ongoing, and sufficient to establish both facial and as-applied standing.
II. Federal Constitutional Violations
A. Anonymous Political Speech
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that anonymous political advocacy is protected speech.
In , the Court invalidated an ordinance requiring identification on handbills, recognizing anonymity as a core First Amendment protection.
In , the Court struck down an election disclaimer requirement, holding that compelled identification in political advocacy triggers exacting scrutiny and is rarely constitutional. Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion cataloged approximately 40 state statutes imposing similar compelled-disclosure requirements, highlighting the systemic threat such laws pose to political expression.
A yard sign stating simply “Laura for Sheriff” or “Robbin Stewart for Board – Vote Tuesday” constitutes core political speech. Compelling additional state-mandated attribution directly infringes the right to anonymous advocacy recognized in Talley and McIntyre.
B. Compelled Speech
Missouri’s statute also violates the First Amendment prohibition against compelled speech.
In , the Court reaffirmed that compelled speech is presumptively unconstitutional.
In , the Court invalidated state-mandated disclosures imposed on private speakers.
In , the Court confirmed that the government may not compel private individuals to create or disseminate speech conveying a state-prescribed message.
Missouri’s disclaimer statute forces speakers to append government-scripted language to political yard signs, constituting classic compelled speech subject to strict scrutiny.
C. Persuasive Authority: Stewart v. Taylor
In , I previously challenged a materially similar Indiana statute and succeeded in demonstrating that compelled attribution and burdens on anonymous advocacy violate the First Amendment. Missouri’s statute imposes the same constitutional defects.
III. Missouri Constitutional Violations (with Text)
Enforcement also violates multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution:
Art. I, § 8 (Freedom of Speech) – “That the liberty of speech and of the press shall forever remain inviolate; and that all citizens may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
Art. I, § 2 (Equality and Equal Protection) – “All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. All persons are created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the law.”
Art. I, § 25 (Free and Open Elections) – “That the right of the people to free and open elections, and a free and equal representation of all the people, shall be preserved.”
Art. I, § 9 (Right to Petition) – “That the people have the right to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to apply for redress of grievances.”
Art. I, § 10 (Liberty) – “That all persons shall be free to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; and that no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
These provisions provide independent protection of political expression in Missouri.
IV. Request for Assurance
Because I intend to continue producing political yard signs for Missouri candidates, the threat of enforcement is immediate and ongoing.
I request written confirmation within fourteen (14) days that Taylor County will not enforce the challenged disclaimer provisions. Absent such confirmation, I will file suit seeking:
Declaratory judgment (facial and as-applied)
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Any other appropriate relief
Nothing herein waives any claim or remedy, all of which are expressly reserved.
V. Public Records Request
Alternatively, if Taylor County declines to provide written assurance that it will not enforce the statute, this letter shall serve as a formal public records request under the Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo § 610.010 et seq.) for the following:
Names, titles, and positions of any individuals who have enforced or are responsible for enforcing the challenged disclaimer statute.
All case records or correspondence relating to enforcement of the statute, including letters, emails, or other communications threatening enforcement.
Names of any attorneys who participated in or advised on enforcement actions concerning the statute, because it would be unethical for an attorney to participate in violating speech rights under the statute, and we may be obligated to report such conduct to the Missouri disciplinary system.
If you are represented by counsel, or if any attorney involved in enforcement wishes to contact me directly, I would welcome that communication.
This request seeks records for all time periods relevant to the statute’s enforceme
No comments:
Post a Comment