Missouri high court blocks GOP-backed congressional maps ahead of midterms; Trump blasts ‘ridiculous’ ruling
Developing story first seen 4 hours ago
Missouri's Supreme Court has unanimously blocked the state's newly enacted Republican-drawn congressional map from being used in November's midterms, ruling that voters must first approve it in a statewide referendum. Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has said she will immediately appeal to the US Supreme Court, calling the ruling unprecedented and unconstitutional, while President Trump condemned the decision as "ridiculous" and warned there may not be enough time to redraw the map before the election. Governor Mike Kehoe also criticised the ruling, accusing "unelected judges" of disregarding the legislative process, though he said the state would continue to defend the map through the legal process.
The court found that a referendum petition, filed in December after more than 300,000 signatures were gathered, meant the new map could not take effect without voter approval, and that Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins had wrongly rejected the petition on primary election day last month. As a result, the map used in last month's primaries is suspended, and district boundaries dating from the 2020 census will apply for the November 2026 general election unless voters approve the new map. The GOP-drawn map, signed by Kehoe last September, had aimed to help Republicans gain a House seat by making Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's Kansas City-area district more Republican-friendly; five of the seven current state Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors.
- Missouri's top court blocks GOP congressional map for November's midterms
- Voters must approve new map via referendum before it can be used
- Attorney General to appeal to US Supreme Court; Trump calls ruling "ridiculous"
New here? Start with this
Missouri's congressional map determines the boundaries of the districts that elect the state's members of the US House of Representatives. Like most states, Missouri redraws these boundaries periodically, and the party in control of the state legislature can shape them to favour its own candidates, a practice often called gerrymandering. Republicans control Missouri's state government and had pushed through a new map last year intended to make it harder for Democrats to win one of the state's seats.
Under Missouri law, citizens can force a proposed law or map to a public vote if enough signatures are collected on a petition, rather than letting it take effect immediately. Opponents of the new map gathered signatures for such a petition, setting up a dispute over whether the map could still be used before voters had their say. That dispute ended up before the Missouri Supreme Court, the state's highest court, which has now ruled on the matter.
This case matters beyond Missouri because control of the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections could hinge on a small number of seats nationally, making individual states' district maps politically significant. It also touches on a broader argument, playing out in several states, about how far legislatures can go in redrawing maps for partisan advantage, and what role courts and voters should have in checking that power.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the ruling argue that Missouri law is clear: once a valid referendum petition qualifies, the challenged law cannot take effect until voters have their say, and this principle of direct democracy should not be overridden simply because the map's supporters are in a hurry ahead of an election. They contend that the Secretary of State's rejection of a petition backed by over 300,000 signatures looked like an attempt to sidestep this safeguard, and that the court, acting unanimously, was simply enforcing a constitutional check on legislative power rather than making a partisan judgement about the map's fairness. On this view, upholding the referendum process protects voters' rights regardless of which party benefits from the outcome.
The case against
Opponents of the ruling argue that the Missouri legislature followed established procedure to redraw districts, as it is constitutionally empowered to do, and that a court blocking a duly enacted map so close to an election undermines the legitimacy of that process and creates damaging uncertainty for candidates and voters alike. They contend it is troubling for unelected judges to override elected lawmakers on a matter of districting, particularly when time constraints may make it impossible to hold a referendum and still finalise maps before November. They further argue that even though most justices were Republican-appointed, the practical effect of the ruling is to hand Democrats a more favourable map, fuelling suspicion that procedural technicalities are being used to reach a politically consequential result.
More coverage