JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The fight over Missouri’s congressional map appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a third time in three weeks, as federal judges continue to assert that a new map, favored by President Donald Trump, should be used in the November elections.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark recently complied with a directive from a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals panel ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits congressional districts from being changed between the primary and general election. The judges cited a constitutional provision requiring U.S. House members to be elected every two years by voters in each state. They also referenced prior court cases that held primaries can be an integral part of a state's general election laws.
The appeals panel concluded that moving more than a million potential voters — about 1 in 4 statewide — between new and old districts would deny those voters a constitutional right to choose their representatives. They noted that these voters would have had no say in the primary about the congressional candidates appearing on their general election ballots if districts were switched.
This latest ruling from the appeals court contrasts with earlier actions by the nation's highest court. The U.S. Supreme Court, so far, has let stand a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court, which had ordered the state to use the same U.S. House districts as it did during the 2022 elections. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court put on hold a similar temporary order issued by U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark on September 8. Opponents of the new map now plan to ask the Supreme Court to block the latest order as well.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled on September 3 that new congressional districts, passed a year ago by the Republican-led state Legislature, cannot be used unless voters first approve them. These districts, backed by President Trump, were designed to help Republicans win an additional seat in the midterm elections. The court pointed to the Missouri Constitution, which allows citizens to submit petitions for a statewide referendum on acts passed by the Legislature. The constitution states that when measures are referred to the ballot, they take effect only when approved by voters.
In December, redistricting opponents submitted thousands of referendum petition signatures. Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins waited until the deadline on August 4 — the same day Missouri's primaries were held using the new districts — to reject the petition. Hoskins asserted that referendum petitions are not allowed on congressional redistricting. The state Supreme Court, however, found Hoskins to be incorrect.
According to the Missouri Supreme Court, the referendum petition prevented the new map from taking effect, retroactively to December. This meant that the August primary was held under districts that were not, in fact, in law. The court mandated that the November election must be held under the only districts still in state law: the map adopted in 2022 after the most recent census. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles cases from Missouri, let that decision stand on September 8.
Throughout Missouri's lengthy legal battle over redistricting, both supporters and opponents of the new congressional map have invoked the U.S. Supreme Court's “Purcell principle.” This principle, named for a 2006 case, holds that judges should not change voting or election rules too close to an election. As a result of the recent U.S. and Missouri Supreme Court decisions, absentee voting is already underway in Missouri using the 2022 congressional districts. Opponents of the new map argue it is now too late to switch back to it. Conversely, supporters of the new districts have also cited the Purcell principle, arguing it is too late to switch away from the districts used in the August primary. The appeals panel agreed with the latter point, saying that using the 2025 map would cause the least confusion for voters.
A third decision from the nation's top court could provide certainty for the more than a million potential voters who have been shuffled back and forth between districts, experiencing confusion about which candidates will be on their ballots.