Jazsmin Halliburton
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ)
The redrawn “Missouri First” congressional maps were upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Legal battles have persisted over the mid-decade map since its inception, with critics claiming it gerrymanders the state in order to give Republicans an additional House seat.
The state’s high court heard three cases on Tuesday morning and declared that the petitioners failed to show the 2025 map “clearly and undoubtedly” violates Article 3 of the Missouri Constitution. It also claims that submitting a referendum petition did not automatically suspend the bill that created the new map, though additional legal battles could occur.
The first two cases, Elizabeth Healey v. The State of Missouri and Terrence Wise v. The State of Missouri, were argued at the same time as they similarly focused on whether the new district specifically violated the state constitution.
According to the state constitution, “districts shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be.”
Those opposed to the new map argued that districts 4,5 and 6 violated this rule, being the opposite of compact.
“Circuit court does not even attempt a visual inspection of the sprawling size and shape of District five, or acknowledge the drastic reconfiguration of the district that once covered 20 miles and two counties to one that now stretches across 200 miles and 15 counties,” Healey attorney Abha Khanna said.
A trait of “compactness” includes districts having “closely united territory.” This includes grouping populations based on established transportation lines, population needs and geography.
Those opposed argue that some of the new districts don’t have “closely united territory,” combining large metros with rural areas.
“Now for a district that stretches hundreds of miles, starting with the slice of Kansas City entering all the way to Randolph County and then all the way down to Osage and Maries County, consistent with how it looks, it’s significantly less compact in the 2022 version,” Wise attorney Aseem Mulji said.
The State pushed back on both points. They argued that, based on several formulas that calculate a district’s compactness based on the district’s perimeter and area, previous maps have scored lower than the 2025 map.
“There is no such thing as a perfect map or a perfect district, maps can be drawn in multiple ways, all of which meet the Constitution requirements,” State Attorney Kathleen Hunker said.
The state also argued that the new maps fit the “closely united territory” rule, uniting North Kansas City and most of Columbia.
The third lawsuit, Jake Maggard v. The State of Missouri, continued the months-long debate on which congressional map is currently active.
Those opposed to the map argued the 2025 map froze the moment Secretary of State Denny Hoskins received 305,000 signatures to put the new congressional map on the ballot on Dec. 9.
“The purpose of that right [referendum petitions] is to give the people the opportunity to approve legislation before it goes into effect,” Maggard attorney Jonathan Hawley said.
The state argues that the 2025 map is active and will not be suspended until the signatures are validated by Hoskins. Election offices have until July 27 to check the signatures.
“Appellants insist that an unverified box of papers, even a box of fraudulent signatures submitted by a foreign government, must freeze duly enacted state laws to preserve what they call ‘a meaningful right to referendum,'” State Attorney Lewis Capozzi said.
In March, a Cole County judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by People Not Politicians challenging whether the “Missouri First” congressional map approved by legislators last summer is already in effect. The judge stated that signing a petition did not give the group standing in the lawsuit.
The judge also added that the signatures had not been certified by the Secretary of State, so the issue raised in the lawsuit is still hypothetical. He wrote that the plaintiffs are asking the courts to relieve the Secretary of State of the role described by the Constitution.
During a hearing in February, the ACLU argued that previous Missouri secretaries of state and attorneys general followed the signature drop-off rule. The judge’s decision was appealed.
In April, a judge from the Missouri Court of Appeals approved new ballot language that asks voters to approve or reject a new Congressional map.
The ballot language now reads:
“Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled “House Bill No. 1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session),” which repeals Missouri’s existing congressional plan, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more counties intact?”
People Not Politicians, a political group, had filed an appeal in the lawsuit to challenge the previous ballot language.
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway supported the decision, saying in a statement, “Today’s rulings are a complete victory for Missouri and for the people’s elected representatives.”
The ACLU and National Redistricting Foundation opposed the decision.
“We are extremely disappointed in these rulings, and in their failure to protect Missourians’ right to fair maps. This state—and our democracy—are worse off for this outcome,” The ACLU said in a statement.
“With this decision, the Missouri Supreme Court has shown Missourians the lack of seriousness with which it takes cases that pertain to protecting their right to vote—a complete and dangerous abdication of the judiciary’s role,” NRD Executive Director Marina Jenkins said in a statement.
PNP called on Hoskins to validate the current petition signatures, arguing that the Secretary of State’s office already showed the required number of valid signatures had been reached.
“People Not Politicians Missouri said that delay only adds to the tactics of obstruction politicians have used all along to silence the voice of the people,” said PNP in a statement.
Click here to follow the original article.
