The U.S. Supreme Court declined for a second time Thursday to intervene in Missouri’s congressional redistricting dispute, effectively leaving the state’s 2022 districts in place for the November midterm elections rather than a Republican-drawn map adopted in 2025.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday again declined to intervene in Missouri’s rapidly unfolding congressional redistricting dispute, a decision that appears to end efforts to use the state’s Republican-drawn 2025 map in the November midterm elections.
The latest action came after several days of conflicting state and federal court orders over which congressional boundaries Missouri must use, leaving election officials facing competing directives as ballot deadlines approached.
People Not Politicians, the group challenging the new districts, asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn a federal court order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map. The high court’s refusal Thursday leaves the state positioned to conduct the general election using its previous congressional districts, which were drawn following the 2020 census and used beginning in 2022.
The dispute intensified Tuesday when a federal judge temporarily blocked Missouri from using its 2022 congressional districts, directing the state toward the newer Republican-backed boundaries.
That order came only moments after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined an earlier emergency request seeking to undo the Missouri Supreme Court’s directive that Secretary of State Denny Hoskins use the older map for the general election. Kavanaugh issued the decision without an explanation.
The federal ruling created an extraordinary conflict between courts. The Missouri Supreme Court had determined that the 2025 districts could not be used in November after opponents gathered more than 300,000 signatures seeking a statewide referendum on the redistricting plan. It ordered the state to return to the previous congressional boundaries while putting the new map before voters.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark subsequently issued the conflicting federal order directing Hoskins to use the newer districts, prompting People Not Politicians to return the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thursday’s decision marked the second time in a matter of days that the nation’s highest court declined to clear the way for the 2025 boundaries.
The newer map had been approved by Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature and was designed to make the state’s Kansas City-based 5th Congressional District, represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, more favorable to Republicans. Under the newer configuration, Republicans potentially could have captured seven of Missouri’s eight congressional seats, compared with the 6-2 partisan division under the previous map.
The 2025 districts were already used for Missouri’s August primary elections, adding another complication to the legal fight. Unless the court dispute produces another change, candidates who ran in primaries conducted under the newer boundaries will now face the general election under the older districts.
The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum effort prevented the new congressional plan from taking effect for the November election. The state had sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that changing congressional boundaries between a primary and general election would cause disruption.
People Not Politicians then sought its own emergency intervention after Clark’s federal order revived the Republican-backed map Tuesday night.
The Supreme Court’s Thursday action again rejected a path toward using those districts, according to The Associated Press.
The decision brings Missouri closer to resolving a weeks-long battle over which boundaries voters will encounter in November. After a primary conducted under the 2025 map, multiple emergency appeals and contradictory orders from state and federal courts, the Supreme Court’s latest refusal to intervene leaves the 2022 congressional map positioned to govern the state’s general election.
Original article
Comments