Missouri's Redistricting Dispute Heads to Supreme Court Ahead of November Elections

<p>Missouri's congressional map dispute is approaching a potential Supreme Court decision, as courts disagree on which districts will be used for the November election after over 1.2 million Missourians voted in the August primary under a different map.</p><p>The <a href="https://foxnews.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-orders-missouri-use-congressional-map-rejected-twice-supreme-court" rel="noopener" target="_new">U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</a> ruled on September 24, 2026, that Missouri must utilize its 2025 congressional map in November, determining that switching to the 2022 districts after the primary would violate the U.S. Constitution. However, the appeals court has paused its order until September 28, 2026, allowing for the possibility of another review by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p><p>Abhishek Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and former deputy associate attorney general at the Justice Department, stated that the Supreme Court's previous involvement does not predict how the justices will respond to the latest ruling. "It’s unpredictable how they’ll rule, mostly because we didn’t get their reasoning in the last order," Kambli said.</p><p>The Supreme Court had previously stayed a <a href="https://foxnews.com/politics/missouri-judge-hands-trump-gop-major-redistricting-win-ahead-midterm-elections" rel="noopener" target="_new">federal district court's temporary restraining order</a> that required Missouri to use the 2025 map. The Eighth Circuit has now directed the lower court to issue a permanent injunction requiring the newer districts, altering the procedural context of the dispute.</p><p>Kambli noted, "So unless the Supreme Court steps in again, the state will be required to use the seven-one map for this election." Missouri conducted its <a href="https://foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rejects-missouri-gop-bid-use-revised-congressional-map-midterms" rel="noopener" target="_new">August 4, 2026, primary</a> under the 2025 map. Approximately one month later, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that voters could challenge the map through a referendum, resulting in the 2022 districts being used for the November election.</p><p>Kambli expressed concerns that changing congressional maps between the primary and general elections raises significant constitutional issues. "You would have had a large number of Missourians who would have been disenfranchised because they voted for one set of candidates in the primary and will be voting for another set in the general," he said.</p><p>Yale law professor Akhil Amar and University of California, Davis, law professor Vikram Amar have presented a differing viewpoint. Following the Supreme Court’s earlier stay, Vikram <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/a-quick-update-on-the-missouri-congressional-districting-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_new">wrote</a> on SCOTUSblog that using the 2025 map in November would not safeguard anyone’s right to vote if those lines were never legally in effect. Akhil concurred with his analysis, stating, "HB1’s district lines lack the force of law, full stop. These lines cannot be used wrongly in November just because they were previously used wrongly in the primary. Two wrongs do not make (or vindicate) a right (to vote)."</p><p>Kambli attributed much of the confusion regarding which map to use to the Missouri Supreme Court, claiming the situation was "entirely preventable." He noted that the Missouri Supreme Court could have resolved the map dispute sooner, as the issue remained unresolved even after the candidate filing deadline had passed.</p><p>Alicia Bannon, senior director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed to delays by <a href="https://foxnews.com/category/politics/foreign-policy/secretary-of-state" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins</a> as a significant factor contributing to the prolonged dispute. Opponents of the 2025 map submitted over 300,000 signatures in December 2025, but Hoskins did not formally reject the referendum petition until August 4, the day of the primary.</p><p>Bannon noted, "Time passed. And passed further," and highlighted that Hoskins had previously asserted in separate federal litigation that a referendum on redistricting was not authorized by the state constitution. However, he delayed issuing a certificate on that basis, which would have initiated judicial review, opting instead for a lengthy process of verifying petition signatures.</p><p>The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the referendum could proceed and criticized Hoskins for the delay, stating he had "created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains."</p><p>Kambli argued that the Purcell principle, which advises federal courts to avoid changing election rules close to Election Day due to potential disruption, supports maintaining the 2025 map since it was already used in the primary. "The Eighth Circuit said that the Purcell principles support the injunction, not go against it," Kambli said.</p><p>Bannon cautioned that excessive caution by courts can lead to its own set of problems, stating, "It’s an approach that’s understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters’ rights." She suggested that earlier court action in Missouri could have prevented the last-minute dispute, such as moving the primary or establishing a firm deadline for the referendum petition.</p><p>Regardless of whether the Supreme Court intervenes, the referendum will still appear on the ballot. Kambli concluded, "If the Supreme Court does not stay the Eighth Circuit injunction, there's no doubt that the 7-1 map is what will be in effect for this election. There's still going to be a referendum on the ballot deciding that issue for future elections, but for this one, that's how it'll be decided."</p>