WASHINGTON — A fast-moving fight over whether Missouri Republicans can use a redrawn congressional map for this fall’s midterm elections was cast into chaos on Tuesday with two different courts issuing conflicting rulings.
In one, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an order issued by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, left in place a Missouri Supreme Court ruling from last week that said the map could not be used while a ballot initiative that could lead to voters rejecting the newly drawn district lines moves forward. Kavanaugh handles emergency requests that arise from Missouri.
But soon after, a federal judge in Missouri ruled in favor of two GOP congressional candidates who argue that the new map, which was in place for the August primaries, must be used in November in order to avoid federal constitutional violations. That case could also quickly face U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny with time running out for the map to be finalized. The state’s deadline to finalize ballots was 5 p.m local time, and first ballots are set to go out Sept. 19.
Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, both Republicans, said on X Tuesday evening that the redrawn map would be used for the November election.
The two cases raise different legal issues, with the Missouri Supreme Court focused only on state law while the federal case raises questions under the U.S. Constitution.
The 2025 Republican redistricting plan, part of a wave prompted by President Donald Trump, was designed to eliminate one of the state’s two Democratic-held seats, currently held by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.
If the Missouri Supreme Court ruling remains in effect, a map drawn in 2022, with six Republican-held seats and two Democratic-held seats, would be in place for the general election.
The new lawsuit was filed by Rick Brattin, the Republican nominee in the district currently held by Cleaver, as well as Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo. and two voters.
The legal clash erupted after the 2025 redistricting plan was enacted.
A group called People Not Politicians Missouri, led by Richard von Glahn, gathered signatures in support of a state referendum that would veto the Legislature’s map and put it on hold for the 2026 election.
But Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, refused to put the measure on the ballot, arguing that redistricting plans are not subject to being overturned by voters.
The Missouri Supreme Court found that Hoskins should not have rejected the plan, unanimously concluding there is nothing in state law that says redistricting plans are exempt from the referendum process.
The referendum petition was “legal, sufficient and timely,” the court found.
Under state law, whenever a proposed ballot initiative that overrides the Legislature is deemed valid, the law is automatically put on hold until after the people vote on it.
The court also said any confusion caused by its ruling was a result of Hoskins’ delay in deciding whether the referendum could move forward. Hoskins waited until the last minute to reject the proposal ahead of an Aug. 4 deadline and broke with the state’s typical process of putting a law facing a veto referendum on hold when enough signatures are submitted.
In the separate federal case, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark, ruled that the state must use the map that people voted in during the primary. Using the old map would violate the rights of candidates under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the provision of the Constitution that outlines how members of the House are elected, he found.
Hoskins argued at the Supreme Court that the state court ruling violated the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause, which he said delegates significant powers to state legislatures in overseeing elections. The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in a redistricting case from North Carolina in 2023.
Hoskins’ lawyers told the justices that the state court ruling had created chaos because the new map was used in this year’s primary election. If the state has to revert to the old map, “hundreds of thousands of Missourians will see their votes in the primary election rendered pointless,” they wrote.
Lawyers for the referendum supporters said in court filings that Hoskins was seeking at the Supreme Court a “political victory to which he was never entitled under the Missouri Constitution.”
In May, the Supreme Court rejected a similar attempt by Democrats in Virginia who sought to revive their own congressional map that had been approved by voters. The Virginia Supreme Court had found legal flaws in the process that led to the referendum.
