Missouri's highly contested, Trump-backed congressional redistricting map is back before the U.S. Supreme Court for a third time. Despite previous high court rejections, a federal appeals court recently mandated the use of the GOP-friendly 7-1 map for November's election, citing that primary ballots were already based on it. Opponents are making a final emergency appeal, arguing against the chaos of changing maps now, as the plan aims to flip a Democratic House seat.
The article details the extraordinary legal saga surrounding Missouri's congressional redistricting plan, which has returned to the U.S. Supreme Court for an unprecedented third review. This emergency appeal will once again determine the fate of a Republican-friendly map that aims to create seven conservative-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning district, a significant shift from the current 6-2 split. The proposed map specifically targets the 5th Congressional District, held by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, by breaking up its Kansas City base. The convoluted timeline began with the Missouri Supreme Court ruling against the 7-1 map due to a state constitutional challenge. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court, through Justice Brett Kavanaugh, declined a Republican request to intervene, seemingly settling the matter. However, a federal district court then ruled in favor of the GOP map, leading to a second appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously sided against reviving the map, albeit without explanation. The conservative 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then interpreted the Supreme Court's lack of reasoning as an invitation to rule, concluding that Missouri must use the new GOP map for the November election because voters had already selected nominees based on it in the primary, and ballots had been printed and mailed. This decision prompted the current, third emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by a group opposed to the map, arguing that it's impossible to reassign ballots to new districts now. Justice Kavanaugh has requested a response. Legal experts view the case as a "taste of what’s to come" in election litigation, though the likelihood of the Supreme Court reversing its previous stance against the GOP map is considered low.
