“The three provisions regulating adult entertainment that were added to the fourth version of the bill during the next-to-last day of the session were not remotely within the original purpose of the bill, but rather constitute a textbook example of the legislative logrolling that [the constitutional provision] is intended to prevent,” Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White in the court’s unanimous opinion.
The law sought to impose a ban on full nudity, and would have barred dancers and patrons from touching, required customers to be 21 years old, and would have required dancers to perform behind a rail at least 10 feet away from customers.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled against the proposed law days before it was set to go on the books on Aug. 28, 2005.
Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Mo., proposed the law, which he argued would have reduced the supposed negative effects of adult businesses. Because of the bill’s unconstitutional changes, the court did not rule on the larger question of 1st Amendment rights, but the Associated Press reported that Bartle was likely to introduce a similar bill.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that Sen. Bartle will try to introduce new legislation that will push forward his personal thoughts on what morality ought to be,” Missouri Association of Club Executives attorney Richard Bryant said.
Bartle has not had much success trying to regulate adult expression this year. A federal appeals court recently struck down his proposed bill banning sexually suggestive billboards along Missouri highways. The court ruled that Bartle’s effort was an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech. Bartle already has proposed new legislation on that front for next year’s legislative session.
