.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election. This was the message posted to X by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway – and it was true, up until it wasn’t. On Thursday, September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the GOP could not issue a new map to give the party another seat in the House until voters have a chance to weigh in via ballot initiative in November. This “unprecedented decision,” to once again quote Hanaway, “clearly violates federal law and has thrust our state into a full-fledged constitutional crisis.”
Whatever happens with this case, the US Supreme Court will likely still have its hands full leading up to the election thanks to the apparently never-ending back and forth between the Trump administration and US District Judge Indira Talwani over the new USPS rule regarding mail-in ballots.
Constitutional Crisis in the Show-Me State
The popular, if unofficial, nickname of Missouri may soon take on a new meaning if the US Supreme Court declines to intervene in the ongoing redistricting battle – or chooses to do so too late. The Show-Me State may soon be showing the nation what happens when congressional maps change after the primaries but before the general election.
Last year, the Republican-controlled House and Senate of the Missouri legislature met to draw up a new congressional district map. They quickly did so, and Republican Governor Mike Kehoe signed it into law. The map eliminated Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City seat and set the GOP up to pick up one more, taking the state’s 6-2 Republican majority to 7-1.
Free with the Daily Briefing
85EssaysUnravel the Constitution
Hamilton, Madison & Jay’s complete case for America, free and searchable in the Publius Reader.
Free with the Daily Briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shortly after, a group called People Not Politicians filed to have a statewide veto referendum on the November 2026 ballot. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled in favor of the map (and against the ballot initiative) on Wednesday, August 19, seemingly clearing the way for the Republican-friendly new majority.
The whole case brought up – as other similar cases have before – an interesting legal question: What happens if the primaries occur under one map and the general election under another? Until now, that question has never required an answer. Thursday’s state Supreme Court ruling, however, threatens that question’s hypothetical nature, if not electoral stability itself.
The Missouri AG said she would immediately petition the US Supreme Court to step in, and it does have a legal doctrine for this situation, whether the original map is deemed fair or not. Under the Purcell principle, the Court holds that election rules and maps should not be altered right before an election to avoid voter confusion. In Purcell v. Gonzalez, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order halting Arizona’s voter ID rules a month before the general election. In a unanimous unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court overruled the circuit decision, arguing that it caused a significant risk of voter confusion and placed a severe burden on local election officials at the last minute.
They’ve since expanded that principle to include federal courts altering state election laws or district maps close to an election. Of course, the state Supreme Court isn’t a federal court – but the Purcell reasoning regarding the practical effects of the action still applies.
It is worth noting, however, that the Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Democrats' argument – regardless of potential electoral chaos and despite having what one would assume is a 5-2 conservative majority based on which governor appointed each judge.
Supreme Court on Repeat
In other legal and electoral news, the Trump administration is still trying to get states to comply with a new postal service rule regarding mail-in ballots. And despite the Supreme Court ruling late last month, the same lower-court judge is trying once again to block it.
President Trump issued his executive order on March 31, ordering the USPS to withhold delivery of mail-in ballots from states that don’t provide voter verification lists. US District Judge Indira Talwani issued an injunction, blocking this plan on June 25 – then expanded by issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction. On August 24, however, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction, arguing that the legal challenges were premature since the postal service hadn’t actually put the rule into practice yet.
So, since the USPS did finalize the policy in August, another lawsuit was filed, and Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking the rule. On Thursday, the DOJ filed an emergency appeal, asking the Court to override Talwani’s latest order and let the USPS proceed according to the new policy. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is in charge of emergency appeals for the First Circuit, which includes Massachusetts and Talwani’s district. Justice Jackson does have the authority to grant or deny this appeal on her own, and it seems likely that wouldn’t go well for the Trump administration. However, for high-profile cases like this, justices usually refer the application to the full Supreme Court. If she takes this traditional route, at least five justices must agree to grant the emergency stay.
Either way, the clock is ticking. Early voting in some states starts as soon as mid-September. In Missouri, specifically, the ballots must be printed by September 8. Whatever the Supreme Court decides to do in each case, it will have to act fast.
