Missouri Election Map Dispute Heads Toward Supreme Court Again

Missouri's congressional map dispute is escalating toward another potential Supreme Court confrontation, with differing court rulings creating uncertainty for the November general election. More than 1.2 million voters cast primary ballots using one map, only for a federal appeals court to mandate the use of another.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Monday that Missouri must employ its 2025 congressional map for the upcoming general election. The court found that switching to the state’s 2022 districts after the primary would violate the U.S. Constitution. However, the order is paused until September 28, 2026, leaving a window for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Legal experts acknowledge the unpredictability of the Supreme Court's actions, especially since its previous intervention in the case lacked a detailed reasoning. "It’s unpredictable how they’ll rule, mostly because we didn’t get their reasoning in the last order," said Abhishek Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and former deputy associate attorney general. "So, we don’t know the precise reason why they decided to stay at that time."

Prior Rulings and Procedural Shifts

The Supreme Court had previously stayed a federal district court's temporary restraining order that would have compelled Missouri to use the 2025 map. The Eighth Circuit's latest directive orders the lower court to issue a permanent injunction requiring the use of the newer districts, altering the dispute's procedural standing.

"So unless the Supreme Court steps in again, the state will be required to use the seven-one map for this election," Kambli stated. Missouri conducted its Aug. 4 primary under the 2025 map. Subsequently, the Missouri Supreme Court permitted voters to challenge the map via referendum, keeping the 2022 districts in place for the November election.

Kambli raised concerns about the constitutional implications of switching congressional maps between the primary and general elections. "You would have had a large number of Missourians who would have been disenfranchised because they voted for one set of candidates in the primary and will be voting for another set in the general," he explained. He added that in cases where candidates are unopposed, voters might miss their only opportunity to participate.

Conversely, Yale law professor Akhil Amar and University of California, Davis, law professor Vikram Amar have argued that using the 2025 map in November would not uphold voting rights if those lines were not legally established. Vikram Amar wrote on SCOTUSblog that "HB1’s district lines lack the force of law, full stop." He contended that past errors do not validate future ones.

Blame and Delays

Kambli attributed the eleventh-hour legal conflict to the Missouri Supreme Court, suggesting the turmoil was "entirely preventable" and could have been resolved earlier, even after the candidate filing deadline had passed.

Alicia Bannon, senior director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed to delays by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins as a primary cause of the protracted dispute. Opponents submitted over 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to challenge the 2025 map, but Hoskins did not formally reject the referendum petition until August 4, the day of the primary.

Bannon noted that Hoskins had asserted in federal litigation as early as December 2025 that a redistricting referendum was not constitutionally authorized. "But he held off on issuing a certificate on that basis — which would have triggered judicial review — instead going through a lengthy process of verifying petition signatures," she wrote for State Court Report.

The Missouri Supreme Court criticized Hoskins for the delays, stating he had "created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains."

Kambli invoked the Purcell principle, which generally advises federal courts against altering election rules close to Election Day to prevent disruption. He argued this principle supports using the 2025 map, as it was already used for the primary. "The Eighth Circuit said that the Purcell principles support the injunction, not go against it," Kambli said.

Bannon cautioned that excessive caution by courts can also create problems. "It’s an approach that’s understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters’ rights," she wrote. She suggested earlier judicial intervention in Missouri could have prevented the last-minute dispute, possibly by rescheduling the primary or setting a firm deadline for referendum petitions.

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court intervenes, the referendum will appear on the ballot. "If the Supreme Court does not stay the Eighth Circuit injunction, there's no doubt that the 7-1 map is what will be in effect for this election," Kambli said. "There's still going to be a referendum on the ballot deciding that issue for future elections, but for this one, that's how it'll be decided."