Missouri congressional redistricting is back before the U.S. Supreme Court, as opponents of a new map asked the justices on Wednesday to block a federal court order requiring the state to use the plan for November’s elections.
In a 25-page emergency filing, Richard von Glahn and the group People Not Politicians urged the court to halt a temporary restraining order from Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark. Their attorney, Abha Khanna, told the justices the order had been in effect only for hours, yet it was already causing significant uncertainty.
Missouri congressional redistricting dispute accelerates
The clash stems from a map lawmakers adopted last year with encouragement from former President Donald Trump. Known as HB 1, it was drawn to give Republicans seven of Missouri’s eight U.S. House seats.
Late last year, opponents submitted more than 300,000 signatures to place the map on the November 2026 statewide ballot. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the referendum petition on Aug. 4, 2026, asserting the state constitution does not permit a referendum on congressional redistricting plans enacted by the legislature.
Von Glahn challenged that decision in state court. On Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the referendum may proceed, writing that the state constitution authorizes a referendum on any act of the General Assembly and that no exception applies.
Because the petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, the court concluded, the new map never took effect and will not take effect unless voters approve it in November 2026.
The court also rejected Hoskins’ warnings about confusion and cost, calling those arguments unpersuasive and noting that any timing problems were of his own making.
On Friday night, Hoskins asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, arguing the state was unsure it could switch maps in time for a federal election. He said the ruling violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause by allowing a voter referendum to constrain the legislature’s authority over the times, places, and manner of federal elections.
He also argued the decision would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters by placing them in districts where they had no role in nominating general-election candidates.
Von Glahn responded that the justices lack authority to review the case because the state high court relied on state law, an adequate and independent ground that bars Supreme Court review. He added that even if the justices took the case, more than a century of precedent allows state constitutional referendum procedures to limit congressional redistricting legislation.
On Tuesday afternoon, Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected Hoskins’ bid without referring it to the full court.
Federal order revives the 2025 map
Less than an hour later, Judge Clark issued a temporary restraining order directing the state to use the 2025 map. The federal case was filed on Sept. 4 by, among others, Rep. Robert Onder, a Republican representing Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District.
Clark acknowledged the importance of conducting elections under the Missouri Constitution, but found that challengers faced irreparable harm without his order because many voters would otherwise cast general-election ballots for candidates they had no role in nominating.
People Not Politicians and von Glahn asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit to pause Clark’s order, but the court declined.
They then appealed to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing Clark’s order compels Missouri to use a map that the state’s highest court has said is not and has never been law.
They said keeping the order in place would create the kind of confusion the Purcell principle warns against, by subjecting officials to conflicting commands on the eve of an election.
If the order is stayed, they added, the public and election officials can proceed under a map free of legal uncertainty, a step they said officials have confirmed is feasible.
They noted that after the state supreme court’s ruling, Hoskins instructed election administrators to implement the 2022 map in line with that decision.
Kavanaugh directed Onder and Hoskins to respond by 10 a.m. EDT on Thursday.
Contempt fight in state court
Separately, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered Hoskins to explain by noon Wednesday why he should not be held in contempt for a Sept. 8 email telling election officials to use the 2025 map. Von Glahn was told to respond by 4 p.m., and oral arguments were set for 10 a.m. on Thursday.
Hoskins has asked Judge Clark to block the state court’s contempt proceeding.
Hawaii readers should note the outcome could influence national control of the U.S. House, and similar timing and process disputes can affect ballot preparation and voter outreach across the islands.
The Supreme Court’s handling of election disputes has drawn scrutiny in other recent cases, including a mail-in ballots fight revived by Trump team, underscoring how court rulings can ripple through voting rules nationwide.
One Response