Missouri Redistricting Dispute Heads to Supreme Court Ahead of November Election

<p>Missouri's congressional map dispute is approaching a potential Supreme Court decision, with conflicting court rulings regarding which districts will be used in the November election. Over 1.2 million Missourians voted in the August primary under a different map.</p><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on September 24, 2026, that Missouri must use its 2025 congressional map for the upcoming election, stating that reverting 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 further 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, noted that the Supreme Court's previous involvement does not indicate how they 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 federal district court's temporary restraining order that mandated the use of the 2025 map. The Eighth Circuit has now instructed the lower court to issue a permanent injunction requiring the newer districts, altering the procedural context of the dispute.</p><p>Kambli stated, "Unless the Supreme Court steps in again, the state will be required to use the seven-one map for this election." Missouri conducted its primary on August 4, 2026, under the 2025 map. A month later, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that voters could challenge the map through a referendum, maintaining the 2022 districts for the November election.</p><p>Kambli expressed concerns about the implications of switching congressional maps between the primary and general elections. "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 argued against the necessity of using the 2025 map in November. Vikram Amar stated on SCOTUSblog that using the 2025 map would not safeguard anyone's voting rights if those lines were never legally in effect. He emphasized, "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 that the turmoil was "entirely preventable." He pointed out that the Missouri Supreme Court could have resolved the map dispute sooner, especially since the issue remained unresolved after the candidate filing deadline.</p><p>Alicia Bannon, senior director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, highlighted delays by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins as a significant factor in 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 that the Missouri Supreme Court criticized Hoskins for his delays, particularly rejecting his argument that it had waited too long to intervene.</p><p>The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the referendum could proceed and criticized Hoskins for creating confusion and complications.</p><p>Kambli referenced the Purcell principle, which suggests that federal courts generally avoid changing election rules close to Election Day to prevent disruption, arguing that this principle supports maintaining the 2025 map since it was already used in the primary.</p><p>Bannon cautioned that excessive caution by courts could lead to its own issues, stating, "It’s an approach that’s understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters’ rights."</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>