Representative Peggy McGaugh’s HB 507, presented as a measure to bolster election security, has raised serious red flags among those who value transparency and accountability in the democratic process. While the bill’s supporters may claim it protects election officials and streamlines voting procedures, its provisions reveal a troubling reality: vague new offenses, unchecked power for election authorities, and a diminished role for the public in overseeing elections. This article outlines three major concerns with HCS HB 507—its ambiguous election offenses, its reliance on federal legislation that centralizes authority, and its erosion of public oversight—and argues that these flaws threaten the very foundation of fair elections in Missouri.
1. Vague Election Offenses: A Tool for Suppression?
One of the most concerning aspects of HCS HB 507 is its introduction of three new class three election offenses, targeting actions deemed “threatening or harassing” toward election officials, challengers, watchers, or even their families (Section 115.635, pages 17-18). On the surface, protecting those who run our elections seems reasonable—but the devil is in the details. The terms “threatening” and “harassing” are left undefined, creating a vague standard that could easily be misused by election officials to silence legitimate scrutiny.
Imagine a voter or poll watcher questioning irregularities in ballot counting. Under this bill, an official could label their persistence as “harassing,” potentially triggering legal consequences. Worse, the inclusion of officials’ families in these protections widens the net even further. A casual comment or social media post could be twisted into an offense, even without intent to harm. Laws already exist to protect individuals from genuine threats or violence—making these new provisions unnecessary and dangerously open to abuse. Instead of safeguarding the process, this vagueness risks chilling free speech and deterring citizens from ensuring elections are conducted fairly.
2. Mirroring Federal Legislation: Power Without Oversight
Another troubling feature of HCS HB 507 is Section 115.430 (pages 9-15), which mirrors the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Sponsored by Representative Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Representative Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), HAVA was a response to the 2000 election debacle. Yet its adoption in Missouri raises serious questions about centralized power. Specifically, Section 115.430.5 grants election authorities broad discretion to determine voter eligibility for provisional ballots—a critical safeguard for those facing registration issues.
This concentration of power is worrisome because it lacks uniform statewide standards beyond the Secretary of State’s rules (Section 115.430.11). Without clear, consistent guidelines, election officials in different counties could apply varying criteria, opening the door to bias or inconsistency. A voter deemed eligible in one jurisdiction might be rejected in another, undermining equal access to the ballot. It’s also puzzling that Missouri’s Republican-led legislature would lean on federal legislation championed by Democrats, especially when it hands such significant authority to unelected officials. This approach risks prioritizing bureaucratic control over local accountability, threatening the integrity of the voting process.
3. Eroding Public Oversight While Empowering Officials
Perhaps the most alarming trend in HCS HB 507 is its shift of power away from the public and toward election officials. By coupling expanded authority—such as determining provisional ballot eligibility and interpreting vague offenses—with restrictions on public questioning, the bill creates an imbalance that undermines democracy. For instance, the rules governing challengers and watchers (Sections 115.105 and 115.107, pages 1-3) limit how and when concerns can be raised, funneling them through official channels that may dismiss or delay responses. Meanwhile, the threat of being accused of “harassing” an official could deter citizens from speaking up altogether.
Elections thrive on transparency and public trust, both of which depend on the ability to hold officials accountable. Yet HCS HB 507 moves in the opposite direction, shielding election authorities from scrutiny while equipping them with tools to suppress dissent. This power grab could foster an environment where errors—or worse, misconduct—go unchecked, leaving voters disillusioned and disconnected from the process that shapes their government.
Conclusion: A Step Backward for Missouri Elections, Stop HB 507
HCS HB 507 may be cloaked as a step toward stronger elections, but its provisions tell a different story. The vague new election offenses invite misuse, the reliance on HAVA concentrates power without sufficient oversight, and the erosion of public questioning threatens transparency at a time when trust in elections is already fragile. Existing laws already protect individuals from harm, and any reforms should prioritize clarity and accountability—not ambiguity and unchecked authority.
The bill has already passed the Missouri House and is now under consideration in the Senate. Missourians must act now to stop HCS HB 507 from becoming law. Contact your State Senator today and urge them to oppose this legislation and kill the bill! If you’re unsure who your State Senator is, you can easily find them using the Senate’s Legislator Lookup tool at https://www.senate.mo.gov/LegisLookup/Default. This bill’s potential to suppress legitimate oversight, introduce bias into voter eligibility decisions, and alienate the public far outweighs any claimed benefits. Elections are the bedrock of democracy, and HCS HB 507, as it stands, risks cracking that foundation. The people of Missouri deserve a system that upholds their voice, not one that silences it.