The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state’s new Congressional map, 4-3, saying that the legislature can pass a new map between censuses.
“The obligation to legislate congressional districts once a decade does not limit the General Assembly’s power to redistrict more frequently than once a decade,” wrote Judge Zel Fischer.
Fischer pointed out that “when” does not mean “only when.”
The new map could give Republicans a new seat in Congress, which Gov. Mike Kehoe signed into law in September 2025.
Right now, Missouri has six Republicans in the House and two Democrats.
The Republicans could make it 7-1.
The map splits the seat based in Kansas City “by reassigning portions to two neighboring districts and stretching the remainder into Republican-heavy rural areas.”
“The Missouri Supreme Court has reinforced what we’ve known all along – the Missouri First Map and mid-decade redistricting are constitutional,” stated Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway.
Opponents still disagree with the decision and refuse to back down.
People Not Politicians, a force behind the opposition, claimed it has enough valid signatures to trigger a referendum.
“Missouri voters are going to be the final deciders on this issue,” insisted the group’s executive director, Richard von Glahn. “Our democracy belongs to us, not to politicians, and we’re going to have the final say.”
The group said they have “at least 129% of the required signatures in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th districts.”
“The move to redistrict was never about good governance, sound policy, or listening to diverse viewpoints in Kansas City,” said Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas. “Instead, special interest redistricting has always been an effort to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voices in the halls of Congress.”
They still need the 7th district, but already have 102% valid signatures. The group needs to check 6,000 signatures.
The majority also left the 2022 law requiring people voting in person to show a valid government-issued photo ID.
Those four judges explained how the plaintiffs did not prove the law prevented anyone from voting:
A four-judge majority said the individual voters and civic groups challenging the law had not shown that the requirement had actually kept them from voting, so the courts could not decide the broader constitutional question. Three other judges disagreed, saying the challengers had shown enough to sue but still would have lost on the merits.The case centered on stories that opponents said showed the burden of the law. One voter testified that a seizure disorder made travel difficult and left her worried a signature mismatch could sink a provisional ballot. Another said she feared trouble because her first name was spelled differently on her identification and voter registration.
[Featured image via YouTube]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY