Supreme Court Stays Decision Allowing Missouri to Use New Congressional Map
“On the merits, the Court’s precedents have not previously stated that Article I, Section 2 requires a state to use the primary election map in a general election, and given that the equities heavily favor staying this late-breaking intervention, it suffices that the merits are not entirely clearcut.”
*bangs head on desk*
Missouri held its primaries in August using the 2025 Congressional map. The elections are in November.
Absentee voting started two days ago using the 2022 map after the Supreme Court rejected a bid to block the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision to throw it out in another lawsuit.
The Supreme Court granted a stay on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision allowing Missouri to use the 2025 Congressional map in November.
“The District Court and Court of Appeals should not enjoin or otherwise prohibit the use of the 2022 map in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri,” wrote SCOTUS. “And the District Court and Court of Appeals should not order or otherwise require Missouri to use the 2025 map in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri.
Guess you don’t have to use the same map in primaries and general elections (omitted citations):
On the merits, the Court’s precedents have not previously stated that Article I, Section 2 requires a state to use the primary election map in a general election, and given that the equities heavily favor staying this late-breaking intervention, it suffices that the merits are not entirely clearcut. The equities dictate that we stay the District Court’s September 21 and September 22 injunctions, as well as the Court of Appeals’ September 21 and September 22 orders. This Court has repeatedly cautioned that “lower federal courts should not ‘alter the election rules’” of a state “on the eve of an election.”
SCOTUS did not hold back at all. The justices reminded Missouri that in May 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court told the government “that the 2025 map would not take effect until approved by the voters in an intervening referendum, at least if the referendum petition was legally sufficient.”
Therefore, no court has caused this fiasco:
“So in the several-month period before the August primary election, the Missouri Secretary of State was well aware that conducting the August primary election with the 2025 map carried significant risks,” SCOTUS concluded. “The Secretary nonetheless chose to proceed with the 2025 map for the primary.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I can only read this as SCOTUS being desirous of a certain outcome and not on the basis of law. I write that because they have quashed certain Trump initiatives claiming it would impinge too closely on elections. THIS CERTAINLY IMPINGES ON THE ELECTION.
How do you even do this? Primary with one map, general with the other?!?!
You don’t. Now there are going to be minimum 8 different lawsuits by the losers claiming it wasn’t a fair election, and my understanding is that there are now multiple candidates that won the primaries that are not ELIGIBLE to run in the same district on the other map.
There have been no reports of MO Congressional candidates being ineligible based on the changing district lines. The US Constitution only requires a legislator be a resident of the state they represent, and states can’t add additional residency requirements.
Correct. Although states frequently do add additional requirements which folks tend not to challenge.
Then you are just dishonest.
The principle is that courts ought to be reluctant to change the rules close to an election. The district court here is the one that is attempting the change the rules; SCOTUS properly said to cut it out.
Especially since the district court is trying to force the state to use a map that has no legal status whatsoever. It never came into effect. The Secretary of State had no business using it for the primaries, and knew very well the risk he was taking by doing that.
Why not? Where in all the precedents of the federal courts does it say that you can’t?
> Then you are just dishonest.
No you are
> The principle is that courts ought to be reluctant to change the rules close to an election.
Agreed, and the State Supreme Court is doing that. The right thing to do is let the 2025 maps run as they were in the primary.
> Where in all the precedents of the federal courts does it say that you can’t?
Irrelevant, its unconstitutional and not a Republican form of government to use different maps for the primary and general
What now?
Then make DAMN sure the new maps apply to the 2028 election and beyond….
That is entirely up to the voters and nobody else. If they approve it then it will come into effect. If they don’t then it won’t. It’s as simple as that.
I think this may be the time that a state tells the court that they will not comply with their order.
As for the state court? Every single one of those judges needs to be impeached and removed from the bench. I won’t be surprised if that isn’t already in the works.
The state supreme court is the highest authority on what state law is. And it says the 2025 map never came into effect; no federal court, including SCOTUS, has any authority to review that decision. If the secretary of state does not comply with its order it ABSOLUTELY WILL hold him in contempt. It already did so once, until he decided to obey its order, so we know it’s serious and will do so again.
Remember that courts can enforce their contempt orders.
No they are not. They are wrong. SCOTUS and the feds absolutely have power to control state election law if it messes with votes.
Well, at least District 7 is good to go.
banana republic stuff–have not even come to the mid-terms and courts are invalidating elections on what appear to be arbitrary and capricious terms
and what of the will of the people…………
The “will of the people”….what’s that? Gone, like every other principle we expect to govern our lives in this nation.
Sir you must parse more finely -the will of the [important] people may no coincide with the will of us peons.
The will of the people will be expressed at the referendum.
Tex, we are LONG overdue for another civil war. This time it will have nothing to do with slavery – as if the first one really was.
Both Houses of Congress is rotten to the core. Courts no longer decide on cases based on law, but on the political beliefs of the judge.
With civil asset forfeiture and no-knock raids our police do as they darn well please and are corrupt through and through.
The budding rebellion against Flock and other spy cameras is – to me – a favorable sign that the sleeping giant Yamamoto spoke of is indeed waking up.
But, is it too late?
I agree about civil war being inevitable, although IMO we are also likely to get a period of mass incarceration and executions of “racists”. The difficulty is that civil wars rarely cure the ills that led to their inevitability. Often civil wars spawn a hundred new evils, and I doubt the Second American Civil War (which we are already in) will be any different.
With rare exception the police are pension-chasers. Police will do the bidding of whoever signs their paychecks, and it shows. I have been to a large number of gathers where several police are present (not in their official capacity), and the ugly cynicism and contempt they have for the public was impossible to miss.
I don’t hate the police, but I trust them about as far as I can throw a refrigerator. I had more than one of my friend’s parents tell me that it was the police that was rousing them into the trucks and taking them to the concentration camps. I went to school with several kids whose parents still had the tattoos on their forearms. As you say, their pension seekers.
I never understood why Abby Hoffman called them pigs. I would call them dogs. Dogs are loyal to those who feed and take care of them.
But, is it too late?
_________________
was raised by six southern men (between father / grandfathers / uncles)–all, save one, were self-made men–their advice, wisdom and teachings were echoed and expanded by eight southern women as well–they were the group that nurtured and guided my brother and myself
one of their axioms have lived by and is with me still:
” It’s never too late to do what’s right. ”
believe when that time comes, we will rise
This is exactly about the will of the people. The state constitution says if before a law comes into effect enough signatures are submitted to trigger a referendum then the law does not come into effect until the referendum is held. That is what happened.
The signatures were submitted on time, before the new map came into effect, and the secretary of state took his own sweet time validating them and only announced at the very last moment that they were valid, but came up with a new theory as to why the referendum shouldn’t be held anyway. As the state supreme court said, if that’s what he thought then he shouldn’t have validated the signatures. As it is the delay is entirely his fault, he created this mess, and one can only suspect that he did it on purpose.
*bangs head on desk*
Me too, sister. Me too.
What did the Roberts court expect? Leftwing judicial activism – where the courts replace the law and the Constitution with their own bigotry and hate – has turned the judiciary into a sewer of corruption and favoritism. Typically the Roberts court has turned a blind eye towards leftwing activism, so it’s no surprise that no one takes the law seriously anymore and instead seeks to do whatever they want.
The judicial activism here has been entirely on the right, in the person of the federal district court ordering the secretary of state to use a map that the state supreme court held has no legal status whatsoever.
Nope, its on the left sorry
What happens when voters endorse the new map?
If they endorse the new map then it will come into effect, and be used for the next election. It will come into effect on the date the referendum results are certified and not earlier, so it will not affect the validity of this year’s election, which will be held on the map that is still in effect.
And of course if they do not endorse the new map then it will never come into effect.
Why do Democrats think they need to pack the court? It’s already jam packed with liberals!
Great, so now even the Supreme court is telling the people of Missouri that our votes don’t count.
Bullshit. YOU are the one telling them that their votes don’t count, and the new map should be used even though it’s up for the voters to decide on it.
No YOU are by demanding using two different maps