David Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri on the Sunshine Law, individual liberty, and reimagining representation

The ruling that the Missouri Supreme Court handed down on December 24 looked, at first blush, fairly narrow. It had to do with our state’s Sunshine Law, the pro-transparency statute mandating that the government release certain records to the public. In the Christmas Eve decision, all seven high court judges agreed: Some materials related to absentee ballots are open records. That may sound obscure, but the logic and language the high court used to reach that conclusion could have far-reaching consequences in Missouri, according to the lawyer who won the case: David Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri, a legal nonprofit with a libertarian bent. 

How did you react to the ruling? For a decision to come out that quickly, it was a pretty safe bet it would be unanimous one way or the other, but it wasn’t clear which way. Then I started reading and realized, ‘Oh, wait a minute—this is definitely in my favor.’ I immediately hollered for my wife [and law partner], Jenifer [Zeigler Roland]. It was very exciting. Just a fantastic Christmas gift. 

Were you surprised? At oral argument [in October], two of the judges in particular were asking questions that made them seem very skeptical of my position. Sometimes when you’re in an oral argument, one judge will be skeptical; then another judge will kind of come to the rescue and throw in a question that lets you get your stronger argument out there.  But I didn’t see any help coming from any of the other judges. I was very concerned that we were going to lose. 

How will your victory affect Missouri? The reasoning they used is pretty widely applicable. One of the things I was really focusing on was this idea that the legislators who drafted the Sunshine Law wanted the government to construe it liberally and to construe any exceptions to it strictly. The Supreme Court has now weighed in and emphasized the importance of strictly construing the exceptions, so I think that’s going to really narrow the wiggle room for public governmental bodies when they try to justify withholding records. The court has also thoroughly removed the concern that if you file a lawsuit against the government trying to vindicate your rights, you might end up having to pay the government’s costs.

You’re a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal network, yet in this situation, you represented Bruce Franks Jr., a progressive Democrat. How would you describe your political beliefs? I’m a classical liberal. I prioritize individual liberty, and that will usually also mean limiting the scope of government. But I think that there are absolutely legitimate roles for government to play, including preventing the powerful from preying on those with less power. Our Bill of Rights is intended to strike a balance: to make sure that the government can protect people from other people while at the same time not allowing the government to become so powerful that it becomes the oppressor itself.  

Over at the Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise of Lindenwood University, you’ve been trying to identify ways to reform the Missouri Constitution. Any ideas so far?  The two-party system, with things being as polarized as they are right now, really does cut out a huge percentage of the population from having any meaningful influence over the candidates that are put in front of them. So I’ve been thinking: How can we do representation better? Legislative districts are defined by geography. But what if we removed geography from the equation and divided up the population by income quintiles? You would guarantee that not only very wealthy people but also very poor people have representatives who are elected specifically for the purpose of representing their interests. I think what is likely to happen is, you would have coalition-building—and a much more representative approach to governing.