For third time, Supreme Court rejects Missouri’s bid for another GOP-leaning House district
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The Legislature’s goal was to flip one more seat in favor of Republicans.
- A court of appeals ruled in favor of the GOP-friendly map after the Supreme Court had already blocked it.
WASHINGTON — For the third time this month, the Supreme Court rejected Missouri’s bid for one more Republican-leaning congressional district.
With no dissents, the justices upheld a state court order requiring the use of a 2022 election map, which favors Republicans in six of the eight districts.
“At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos,” the justices wrote.
The GOP, with the backing of conservative federal judges, wanted to use a 2025 election map that redrew the district in Kansas City that had elected a Black Democrat.
That could have given Republicans a 7-1 advantage, but the Supreme Court stood in the way.
The fight over congressional maps put nearly 35 million people into new House districts, report says
A new report reveals that mid-decade redistricting for the U.S. House has changed congressional districts for one-tenth of Americans.
“As a matter of state law, the 2022 map — not the 2025 map — must be used in the 2026 congressional election,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion. “This Court has repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not alter the election rules of a state on the eve of an election.”
Each side in this messy dispute accused the other of seeking to change the voting districts on the eve of the election.
On Tuesday, the opponents of the newly drawn GOP-friendly map appealed to the Supreme Court for the third time. They said it is too late to switch the districts because ballots had gone out based on the existing map.
They said the Republicans “demand a new map after votes have already been cast. Ballots using the 2022 map have been printed and mailed, and absentee voting, both by mail and in-person, began today.”
But the state’s Republican attorneys said the primary elections took place under the 2025 map, and that argues for keeping those districts in place for the general election in November.
Last September, the Missouri General Assembly, following President Trump’s lead, voted to redraw its eight congressional districts. In recent years, the state had sent six Republicans and two Democrats to Congress.
The Legislature’s goal was to flip one more seat in favor of Republicans. The new map likely would do that by breaking up the Kansas City district that had elected Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Black Democrat, with a new district that favored a Republican.
But a group called People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, gathered more than 300,000 signatures for a referendum to challenge the new law before it took effect.
After waiting nine months to respond, Missouri Sec. of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, denied the referendum in early August on the same day the primary elections got underway.
Von Glahn and his group of voters sued and won a unanimous decision from the Missouri Supreme Court on Sept. 3. Its judges said the state Constitution authorizes such a referendum and a new election map cannot take effect until the voters have spoken.
Hoskins filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court and cited the “chaotic fallout” from the state court’s “irresponsible decision.”
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who oversees appeals from the 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis, denied the appeal without comment on Sept. 8.
The Supreme Court’s decision marked a defining moment in a pitched legal battle that has lasted nearly a year and caused confusion for voters.
But shortly after his decision was issued, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited the state from using the any voting map other than the new one.
People Not Politicians appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. On Sept. 10, Kavanaugh and the full court granted the appeal and blocked the judge’s order from taking effect.
The justices did not explain their reasoning, but the meaning of the order was clear. The state Supreme Court ruling meant the new map could not be used for this year’s election.
But that did not stop the 8th Circuit Court from ruling the state must use the new map.
Siding with several Republican candidates, a 2-1 majority said the use of 2022 map was unconstitutional because the primary elections were held under the new map. Its decision ordered the elections to be held using the new map.
This was a surprising ruling, since the Supreme Court’s order on Sept. 10 barred judges in Missouri from intervening further in the dispute over the voting maps.
But after a third trip to the court, the justices said the state must use the 2022 map.
Facts Only
* The Supreme Court rejected Missouri’s bid for another Republican-leaning congressional district for the third time this month.
* The justices upheld a state court order requiring the use of a 2022 election map, which favors Republicans in six of eight districts.
* The justices stated that ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would cause electoral chaos.
* The dispute involved using the 2022 map versus a potential 2025 map for congressional districts.
* Opponents appealed, arguing that ballots based on the existing map had already been cast.
* Missouri Republican attorneys argued the primary elections occurred under the 2025 map.
* A group filed a referendum challenge to the new law, which was ultimately denied by the state's Secretary of State in early August.
* A lower court ruled that the state must use the new map, based on the primary election date.
* The Supreme Court ultimately directed the state to use the 2022 map following the third appeal.
Executive Summary
Full Take
This dispute highlights a fundamental tension between state legislative authority in redistricting and federal constitutional guarantees regarding election stability, particularly concerning the timing of map changes relative to voting cycles. The conflict reveals how different factions—those seeking to redraw maps for political advantage and those prioritizing electoral process integrity—interpret existing legal frameworks. The repeated appeals suggest that judicial intervention at various levels struggles to establish a unified understanding of when an election map becomes legally binding, leading to significant voter confusion as the outcome of elections is directly tied to these contested boundaries. The eventual ruling centered on avoiding "electoral chaos" by anchoring the process to a pre-existing map, suggesting a preference for procedural certainty over maximizing immediate political realignment goals. The dynamic between the state's goal of altering representation and the federal court's focus on established election timelines reveals a pattern where achieving short-term political objectives conflicts with maintaining systemic institutional coherence.
What are the long-term effects when courts prioritize temporal stability in redistricting disputes, and how does this influence public trust in the legitimacy of electoral boundaries drawn in the mid-decade? What is the balance between state autonomy and federal procedural mandates in setting election parameters?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like a standard, fact-heavy news report detailing a complex legal and political dispute over redistricting maps, exhibiting the structure and density typical of human journalistic writing.