The Supreme Court is once again deciding whether Missouri must use a congressional map drawn at President Donald Trump's urging — a map designed to give Republicans an additional seat in the upcoming midterms by breaking up a Democratic-held district in Kansas City. The case made its third trip to the high court in recent weeks after opponents filed an emergency appeal late Sept. 22.
People Not Politicians, the group challenging the map, asked the court to block a lower court's ruling that would put the disputed map into effect. That ruling came from a federal appeals court in Missouri despite the fact that ballots are already being distributed under a different map — one the Supreme Court has twice said should be used in November. "A lower court cannot demand the same relief this Court has stayed by cloaking it in a new order," the group told the justices.
How the Map Shifts Power
The Trump-backed map would turn a Democratic seat into one Republicans are expected to win, helping the GOP hold onto their slim House majority. It's part of a broader legal battle stemming from Trump pushing red states to redraw maps midway through the normal redistricting cycle.
The map approved by the Missouri Legislature last year breaks up a Democratic-held district in Kansas City. It gives Republicans an advantage in seven of the state's eight House districts. People Not Politicians collected enough signatures to put the changes to a public vote through a ballot measure, seeking to let Missouri voters decide whether the redistricting should stand.
Republican Officials Block the Vote
Missouri's secretary of state, Republican Denny Hoskins, said the state's constitution doesn't allow ballot measures over congressional redistricting. He didn't issue that decision until Aug. 4 — the same day as the state's primary. The timing prevented any legal challenge to the map before the primary took place.
At the beginning of September, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that state law requires the map be approved by voters before it can be used. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency appeals from Missouri, rejected a request from state officials and the Republican Party for the high court to intervene.
Hours later, a federal judge ruled for Republicans in a separate lawsuit, ordering the disputed map be used. The Supreme Court paused that order. But the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 21 issued a new order putting the map back in place — 3 days ago.
The Appeals Court's Rationale
The appeals court said the disputed map must be used for the general election because it was used for the primary. Otherwise, the court wrote, "some Missouri voters will have more say than others on who represents them in Congress," which would violate the Constitution. One in four Missourians are in different districts than they were in the primary, so they didn't have a say on the party nominees in their current district, the court said. And in districts where one party dominates, the winner of the primary is the overwhelming favorite to win the general election.
The court also said the disputed map could be restored at this late date without significant cost, confusion, or hardship.
Opponents Warn of Chaos
The group opposing the map said the appeals court's order is, in fact, causing "chaos on both sides of Election Day: confusion over how to conduct the election now, and uncertainty over the rules governing its results." People Not Politicians also argue that there's no constitutional right to cast votes in the same district for both the primary and general election, "even when state law prohibits that result."
Why This Matters:
This case illustrates how partisan map-drawing can override both state law and voter input to determine election outcomes before a single ballot is cast. The disputed map would eliminate a Democratic seat in Kansas City, affecting representation for hundreds of thousands of voters who'd lose their current district. The timing of Secretary of State Hoskins's decision — issued on primary day itself — prevented voters from challenging the map through normal legal channels before it shaped the primary. Now, with ballots already being distributed under a different map, the legal whiplash threatens to confuse voters and election officials alike. The outcome will determine whether state courts and voter-approved processes can check partisan redistricting, or whether mid-cycle map changes pushed by national political figures can reshape representation regardless of state constitutional requirements.