The Missouri Supreme Court on March 24 upheld a lower court ruling authorizing the state to move forward with redrawn congressional maps that would favor Republicans in the state.
The court ruled that the new maps were lawful because the state’s constitution sets no limits on when the legislature may redistrict.
That aligns with the previous ruling by a judge in Jackson County, Missouri, who likewise sided with the state legislature.
“The circuit court correctly concluded … the Missouri Constitution does not limit the General Assembly’s plenary legislative power to enact [new congressional maps],” the court wrote.
The Kansas City-area seat—Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District—is currently held by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, one of only two Democrats in the red state’s U.S. House delegation.
The redrawn map is expected to bring the margins in the state to seven GOP seats and one Democratic seat.
Because the case centers on issues of state constitutional law, it is unlikely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, making it a major win for Missouri Republicans that is unlikely to change before the 2026 midterm elections.
The ruling is the latest development in a national mid-decade redistricting battle that has raged since 2025, when Texas first redrew its congressional maps after the Department of Justice suggested that several districts in the state were likely unconstitutionally drawn by grouping minorities to form a majority. The Texas redistricting plan was backed by President Donald Trump.
California followed suit, authorizing a map more favorable to Democrats in a referendum.
Since last year, changes to maps have also been finalized in Utah and North Carolina, and efforts to redraw Florida’s congressional maps are ongoing.
In the Missouri case, the seven-member judicial panel voted 4–3 to side with the state legislature against a challenge to the map brought by Merrie Suzanne Luther, a Missouri House Democratic candidate.
According to Luther, the redrawn maps—which had been authorized by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Mike Kehoe in September 2025—violated Section 45 of Article III of the Missouri State Constitution.
That provision requires the state legislature to redraw maps after the most recent U.S. census results are reported.
It states that following every decennial U.S. census, “the general assembly shall by law divide the state into districts corresponding with the number of representatives to which it is entitled, which districts shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be.”
Luther and those in support of her position argued that this made the legislature’s bid to redraw the districts in 2025 unconstitutional.
In the majority opinion, Missouri Supreme Court Judge Zel M. Fischer wrote that while the state constitution “obligates the General Assembly to redistrict when the United States census is certified to the governor,” the provision at issue “does not otherwise expressly limit the General Assembly’s plenary power to legislate congressional districts.”
The ruling upheld the decision handed down by Judge Christopher K. Limbaugh of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, in December 2025.
Speaking about the core legal question in his Dec. 10 decision, Limbaugh wrote: “On its face, this provision does not specifically allow the Missouri legislature to create a second congressional map using the same census.
“On the other hand, this provision does not specifically prohibit the Missouri legislature from creating a second congressional map using the same census.”
He concluded that Missouri judicial precedent gives deference to the legislature in such matters.
A dissenting opinion in the case was authored by Missouri Supreme Court Judge Paul C. Wilson, who wrote that the provision at issue was intended to be a limitation on the state legislature’s authority to carry out mid-decade redistricting.
“The plain language of article III, section 45 unmistakably states ‘when’ and ‘how’ the general assembly may—indeed, must—draw new congressional districts,” Wilson wrote.
He cited American jurisprudence that holds that when a specific “when” and “how” is listed in law, there is a “strong presumption that it was designed to be exercised in that time and mode only.”
Wilson said that the records from the 1943–1944 Constitutional Convention, during which the document was drafted, also point to an intentional prohibition on the legislature.
Given that the matter focuses on an issue of state constitutional law, it is unlikely in its present form to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court, which would require a federal constitutional or legal claim.
Friends Read Free
Copy
Facebook
Tweet
