In a contentious legal battle unfolding in Missouri, the state narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis related to its 2024 congressional redistricting maps, a dispute that could have had significant implications for the upcoming midterm elections.
Last year, the Missouri Legislature passed House Bill 1 (H.B. 1), a redistricting plan that aimed to reduce Democratic representation in a state where roughly 40 percent of voters identify as Democrats. The plan sought to eliminate one of Missouri’s two Democratic congressional seats, shifting the balance further in favor of Republicans. Missouri’s eight congressional districts currently include six Republicans and two Democrats.
A coalition of Missourians opposed to the redistricting gathered over 300,000 signatures to place a referendum on the November 2024 ballot, challenging the legality of H.B. 1 under the state constitution, which allows voters to approve or reject legislation through referendum. The petition was submitted on December 9, 2023.
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, had until August 4, 2024, to accept or reject the petition. Instead, Hoskins waited until about an hour before the deadline on August 4— the same day as the state’s primary elections— to deny the petition, asserting that the Missouri Constitution does not permit referendums on redistricting. This decision allowed the primaries to proceed under the new, contested maps.
The Missouri Supreme Court swiftly rejected Hoskins’ argument on September 3, ruling unanimously that voters do have the right to referendum on redistricting legislation. The court declared that H.B. 1 “is not the law and has never been the law,” effectively invalidating the new maps. However, the state appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court, through Justice Brett Kavanaugh, declined to stay the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision on September 8. Yet within minutes, Judge Stephen Clark, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Missouri, issued a temporary restraining order requiring the state to use the new maps for the November election. He cited concerns that reverting to the old maps would disenfranchise voters and disrupt candidate nominations.
Hoskins then directed local election authorities to proceed using the new maps despite the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling, prompting the court to schedule a contempt hearing for September 10. The following day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit refused to stay the federal district court’s order, leading to an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On the morning of September 10, the Supreme Court stayed the federal order, reinstating the Missouri Supreme Court’s directive to use the previous congressional maps. Hoskins subsequently complied, directing officials to use the 2022 maps and acknowledging that the Missouri Supreme Court held the controlling authority. He was later held in contempt by the Missouri Supreme Court for his earlier defiance but was found to have purged his contempt by complying with the court’s order.
The legal wrangling over Missouri’s redistricting highlights the complex and often contentious nature of state-level efforts to shape congressional districts ahead of federal elections. The case underscored tensions between state and federal courts and raised concerns about legal strategies employed to influence election outcomes. While the referendum challenging the new maps will appear on the November ballot, the dispute serves as a cautionary example of the potential for election laws and judicial rulings to become enmeshed in partisan conflicts during critical election cycles.