Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr, No. 15-2172 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter MFA formed a campaign committee less than 30 days before the November 4, 2014, election and violated Missouri law section 130.011(8), MFA filed suit against the executive director of the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC), in his official capacity, seeking to declare unconstitutional the 30-day formation deadline. The district court granted a temporary restraining order, but after the election, dismissed MFA’s suit as not ripe. The court concluded that MFA has Article III standing to challenge section 130.011(8) on First Amendment grounds where MFA’s self-censorship is objectively reasonable; although the 2014 election has passed, this case is not moot where MEC can at any time implement its policy and assess the fee for violation of the formation deadline in section 130.011(8) and, in the alternative, this action is not moot under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness; and MFA’s case is ripe for review where MFA asserts the harm of self-censorship, based on its compliance with section 130.011(8). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Loken and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Election law.In action seeking to declare unconstitutional the provision of Missouri Revised Statute Section 130.011(8) which requires campaign committees to be formed at least 30 days before the date of an election, plaintiff had standing to challenge the provisions of the statute because plaintiff's complaint alleged that it engaged in self-censorship to comply with the provision and its decision to chill its speech in light of the statute was objectively reasonable, given the fees and penalties provided for in the statute; the case is not moot even though the 2014 election has passed, as the defendants can, at any time, assess fees for plaintiff's violation of the formation deadline established by the statute; further the action was not moot under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness; the district court erred, however, in dismissing the complaint on the ground the claims were not ripe as plaintiff's allegations that it had suffered actual harm due to self-censorship dispenses with any ripeness concerns. Judge Arnold, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.