Kavanaugh Blocks Missouri Congressional Map, Elections Dispute Continues

Why it matters locally: This Supreme Court decision directly impacts Missouri's upcoming elections by determining which congressional map will be used, affecting the representation of voters across the state. The ongoing legal disputes highlight challenges in election administration for Missouri's Secretary of State and local election officials.

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Tuesday blocked Missouri from using a new congressional map for the upcoming November elections. The map, known as HB 1, was designed to create an additional Republican-leaning congressional district. Kavanaugh, who handles emergency appeals from the 8th Circuit, issued a brief order turning down a request from Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins. Hoskins had sought to pause a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that prevented the state from implementing HB 1. Kavanaugh's decision means the map adopted in 2022, following the 2020 census, will likely remain in effect for the 2026 election cycle. Missouri was among several states that redrew congressional maps ahead of the 2026 elections. HB 1 aimed to secure seven of the state's eight U.S. House seats for Republicans. In December 2025, opponents of HB 1, including Richard von Glahn, submitted over 300,000 signatures to place a statewide referendum on the new maps on the November 2026 ballot. On August 4, 2026, the final day for such a determination, Hoskins rejected the petition. Hoskins stated that Missouri's constitution "does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly." Hours later, von Glahn filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Hoskins' decision and prevent the new map's use. On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously granted von Glahn's request. The state supreme court stated that the Missouri Constitution's "plain language" authorizes referendums on "any act of the general assembly" without exception. The court concluded that the petition was "legal, sufficient, and timely," meaning HB 1 was never in effect and would not be used "unless and until approved by the voters at the November 2026 general election." The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed Hoskins' argument that preventing the new map would cause "confusion, expense, and practical difficulties." The court noted that the secretary's "delay created" the problems he cited. Hoskins then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night. He argued that a "federal-election-administration disaster is unfolding in Missouri" and that the state was "genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election." Hoskins contended the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling violated the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, which he believes grants state legislatures, not voters through petitions, the power to define the "Times, Places, and Manner" of federal elections. He also asserted the ruling unconstitutionally disenfranchised voters by placing them in new districts. Von Glahn countered that the U.S. Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, as the Missouri Supreme Court's decision relied solely on state law. He also argued that a stay would not help Hoskins, as HB 1 never became law. Von Glahn further stated that Hoskins' arguments lacked merit, noting that precedents support state constitutional referendum procedures in congressional redistricting. Kavanaugh denied Hoskins' request without referring it to the full court. Following Kavanaugh's order, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark in Missouri issued a temporary restraining order on Tuesday, instructing the state to use the 2025 map. The order stemmed from a case filed by Representative Robert Onder, a Republican, and others. Clark acknowledged the state's interest in conducting elections but stated that the challengers faced "irreparable harm" because voters would cast ballots for candidates they did not nominate. Von Glahn, who joined the federal case, appealed Clark's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. In a Wednesday morning filing, he described the situation as an "extraordinary procedural posture," with Missouri officials unable to use either HB 1 or any other map due to conflicting injunctions. Von Glahn also alleged the district court case was "collusive" because the plaintiffs, Republican congressional candidates and party officials, aligned with defendant Hoskins, who "consented to the district court's TRO without opposition." The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered Hoskins to explain why he should not be held in contempt for an email instructing election officials to use the 2025 map. Oral arguments on this matter are scheduled for Thursday.