Home · Politics · Sep 8 archive
Dueling Court Rulings Leave Missouri’s Congressional Races in Chaos
Confirmed
In Short: In a series of conflicting rulings, Missouri’s congressional map for the November election remains in flux, with the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal judge issuing opposing orders.
In one ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court, through Justice Brett Kavanaugh, upheld a Missouri Supreme Court decision that the new map could not be used while a ballot initiative to reject the district lines is pending.
The Missouri Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that the referendum petition was legal and timely, and that any chaos was due to the delay in the state court’s decision.
Hoskins, the state’s chief election official, argued that the state court ruling violated the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause, which he said delegates significant powers to state legislatures.
The Supreme Court, in a similar case from North Carolina, rejected a similar argument in 2023, adding to the complexity of the legal landscape.
With time running out for the map to be finalized, the conflicting rulings have left Missouri’s congressional races in a state of uncertainty, with the potential for a map drawn in 2022 to be used for the general election.
What's still developing
- But soon after, a federal judge in Missouri ruled in favor of two GOP congressional candidates who argue that the new map, which was in place for the August primaries, must be used in November in order to avoid federal constitutional violations.
- The Missouri Supreme Court found that Hoskins should not have rejected the plan, unanimously concluding there is nothing in state law that says redistricting plans are exempt from the referendum process.
- The court also said any confusion caused by its ruling was a result of Hoskins’ delay in deciding whether the referendum could move forward.
- Kavanaugh handles emergency requests that arise from Missouri.
- The two cases raise different legal issues, with the Missouri Supreme Court focused only on state law while the federal case raises questions under the U.S.