Missouri Supreme Court upholds gerrymandered congressional map for August primary

Supporters of a referendum on Missouri’s gerrymandered redistricting map rally at the state Capitol Building Tuesday after the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases involving the redistricting map (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)

A congressional map drawn last year in a special session is constitutional and will be used in the August primary because it is uncertain whether a referendum petition seeking to repeal it will succeed, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court was unanimous in the two decisions delivered just a few hours after oral arguments. It was being asked in one case to toss the gerrymandered map entirely as a violation of the constitutional provision that districts be “compact and as nearly equal in population as may be.”

In the other, the court was asked to suspend the map because 300,000 signatures seeking to force a referendum were delivered to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins on Dec. 9, two days before the law was to take effect.

While the judges heard arguments, opponents of the gerrymandered map gathered outside to rally in support of a referendum. About 300 people showed up to chant, carry signs and maintain their enthusiasm for a summer and fall of campaigning.

As a result of the decisions, Missouri Republicans have won every argument over the legality of the map and the effect of the referendum petitions. The high court decided two threshold issues on redistricting in rulings issued March 24. The court said Gov. Mike Kehoe had the authority to call lawmakers into special session to write the bill and lawmakers were within their constitutional power to enact it.

The Missouri gerrymandering process is playing out against a national battle for control of Congress. On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandating that states draw districts where minority voters hold the majority of votes is unconstitutional.

Since then, Alabama, Tennessee and Louisiana have moved to eliminate districts that were drawn to align with the law. In Louisiana, the governor has suspended the state’s primary elections for the U.S. House, while in Alabama the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state could use a 2021 map that had been thrown out for violating the Voting Rights Act.

Writing for the unanimous court in the case over whether the map is constitutional, Chief Justice W. Brent Powell noted that drawing district maps is a political process and the courts should not second-guess those decisions.

“This court’s review of the Missouri residents’ appeals is limited to determining only the legality – not the prudence or popularity – of the map,” Powell wrote.

The fight over the map began last summer when President Donald Trump pressured Missouri Republicans for help to maintain the slim Republican majority in the U.S. House.

Republicans hold six of Missouri’s eight seats in Congress and the partisan goal of the new map is to oust 5th District U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat, by splitting Kansas City and adding voters in 14 counties along the Missouri River.

Cleaver’s current district includes most of Kansas City and a portion of Jackson and Clay counties outside the city. Cleaver filed for re-election in February and said he will stay in the race regardless of which district is used in this year’s elections.

Five Republicans have filed for the nomination to oppose Cleaver in hopes of exploiting the partisan advantage in the map passed last year.

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins speaks to reporters Tuesday after the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases involving the state’s gerrymandered redistricting map. (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)

After the court ruling, state Sen. Barbara Washington, a Kansas City Democrat, lashed out at Republicans for passing the new map and attacked Hoskins for delaying certification of the petitions.

“Appeasing a tyrant is not going to make Missouri better,” Washington said.

Washington used a bill sought by Hoskins with changes to the way he regulates and registers businesses to make her points. She was joined by Democratic state Sen. Stephen Webber of Columbia, who said Hoskins should not get what he wants until he explains why he hasn’t issued a certification of the signatures.

“If the answer is they’re just not going to certify them, then I think we should probably find out why that is before we agree to give him more money,” Webber said.

The primary election day is Aug. 4, the same day Hoskins is supposed to determine whether the referendum petitions filed by the political action committee People Not Politicians meet the threshold for placement on the Nov. 3 ballot.

During comments to reporters after Tuesday’s hearing, Hoskins said he intends to use the entire time available. The new map will be used for the primary, he said.

“If we went back to the old maps or to a different map other than the Missouri First map, we’d be in disarray,” Hoskins said. “It would be disarray for the people that would be going to town halls and listening to the candidates. It would be a disarray for the candidates that are running and going out meeting voters in the districts.”

In the opinion written by Judge Ginger Gooch, the court said it is impossible to know whether there are enough signatures to force the referendum vote. The plaintiffs in the case, two voters who were moved between districts as a result of the legislature’s revisions, prematurely brought the lawsuit arguing that the submission of signatures is enough to suspend the operation of new legislation.

State law describes the process for verifying signatures and the timeline for making a determination of whether a petition has sufficient signatures, Gooch wrote. The plaintiffs incorrectly interpreted a 1914 ruling on referendums that upheld suspension of a law upon the filing of a petition.

While plaintiffs argued that the filing was enough, Gooch noted that the 1914 decision required petitions that were “legal, sufficient and timely.”

So far, she wrote, it is unknown whether the petitions are sufficient. People Not Politicians has been tracking the signature verification process and believes it has succeeded but there is no way to get Hoskins to decide before Aug. 4.

“Because the secretary’s certification process…is ongoing and has not been finally determined, it is impossible to say as of this opinion whether the Dec. 9 referendum petition filing was ‘legal, sufficient, and timely’ and, therefore, whether (the 2025 map) went into effect on Dec. 11 or whether (the map) was referred to the people as of Dec. 9 and can only go into effect when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon,” Gooch wrote.

Allowing the signature verification process to proceed without suspending the effect of a new measure is a prudent protection against fraud, Gooch wrote in a footnote to the decision.

“Under appellants’ argument, the suspension is automatic, regardless of whether the boxes contained petitions consisting only of invalid signatures, signatures of unregistered voters, or even blank pieces of paper,” she wrote. “Appellants’ argument would permit legislation truly agreed to and finally passed by a majority of Missouri citizens’ elected representatives to be automatically suspended based on nothing more than the delivery of boxes purporting to contain signed referendum petitions…”

Put Missouri First, the political action committee created to campaign for the map, said the rulings were “a complete and decisive victory for the rule of law, the Missouri Constitution, and the legislature’s lawful authority to enact congressional maps on behalf of the people of this state.”

In a statement reacting to the decisions, People Not Politicians called on Hoskins to immediately declare that the petitions have sufficient signatures. Enough reports have come in from local election authorities to show that it has the required signatures in six of the state’s eight congressional districts, the PAC contends.

Holding the August election using the new map if the petition is sufficient would silence the voters who signed it and make the August election illegal, the statement read.

“A sufficient petition suspends the law the day it is turned in,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director. “Unnecessary delays by politicians do not change this fact. If he continues to delay then he is moving forward under a map that has been suspended by the people.”

The opinions issued Tuesday afternoon did not refer specifically to the oral arguments heard in the morning. For more than an hour, the judges sat in silence as they heard the two cases.

The day in court was structured so judges first heard arguments over whether the map meets the state Constitution’s requirements for districts to be compact and contiguous before considering the question of whether the map is in effect.

“Compactness isn’t optional,” said Asseem Mulji, attorney for the ACLU of Missouri as he opened the case challenging the constitutionality of the map.

In response, Kathleen Hunker of the attorney general’s office said the map passed last year meets every constitutional test. The 5th District isn’t the least compact district ever used in Missouri, she said.

“There is no such thing as a perfect map or a perfect district,” she said.

The case over the effect of the petitions drew the only questioning from the bench.

Judge Zel Fischer asked who would be harmed if the map from 2025 is used in the Aug. 4 primary.

Everyone would be injured, replied attorney Jonathan Hawley, representing the people suing to suspend the law.

“It would dilute the referendum process if not destroy it altogether,” Hawley said.

While he was speaking to reporters, Hoskins said he would be interested in another round of redistricting in 2027.

Missouri’s 1st District is the only one in the state that was drawn to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Hoskins said lawmakers should revise Missouri’s map to eliminate the Black-majority district.

“The definition of racism,” Hoskins said, “is drawing districts based on the color of one’s skin. We don’t want that in this state.”

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.