Supreme Court Declines Intervention in Missouri Redistricting, Postal Service Vote-by-Mail Case

The Supreme Court recently addressed two cases related to the midterm elections: a dispute over Missouri's congressional map and a challenge to a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) rule regarding vote-by-mail ballots. In both instances, the Court's actions upheld outcomes that differed from positions advocated by litigants.

In the Missouri case, the state legislature drew a new congressional map. This new map eliminated a previously existing majority-Democrat district in Kansas City, leaving one such district in St. Louis. Opponents of this new map, a group called People Not Politicians (PNP), gathered signatures to place the map's implementation before voters in a referendum.

Under Missouri law, if sufficient signatures are gathered, the map's use is blocked pending voter approval. PNP submitted signatures on December 9. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the submission on August 4, citing an interpretation of the state's constitution that redistricting maps could not be subject to a referendum. This delay resulted in the new map's use for primary elections.

PNP sued Hoskins in state court. On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of PNP, determining that the state constitution did not preclude referendums on redistricting maps. The court ordered the referendum to be placed on the November general election ballot, effectively nullifying the new map for the general election. The state Supreme Court stated the old map, which included the Kansas City majority-Democrat district, should be used for the general election.

Hoskins, joined by the Republican Party, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued the Missouri Supreme Court's decision violated Article I, Section 4 of the federal Constitution by removing the legislature's power to draw congressional districts. They also argued that using different maps for primary and general elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the circuit justice for Missouri, rejected their initial request in a one-line order. Hoskins and his allies then pursued the case in federal district court, which issued a temporary restraining order requiring the use of the new map. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit declined to stay this order, but the Supreme Court subsequently did so. This time, Justice Kavanaugh referred the matter to the full Court, which again provided no explanation for its ruling, effectively preventing the new map's use for the general election.

The second case involved a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) rule mandated by an executive order. The order directed the USPS to create a rule to block delivery of vote-by-mail ballots unless the recipients appeared on a list provided by their state's election officials. The USPS subsequently issued a rule requiring states to provide lists of eligible absentee ballot recipients.

Opponents challenged this rule, arguing it exceeded the USPS's statutory authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit refused to block a preliminary injunction against the rule's implementation, stating that Congress historically has been explicit when granting authority regarding election regulation, and such specific action was absent here. The court referenced the "major questions doctrine," which suggests significant policy changes by agencies require clear congressional authorization.

The Supreme Court also declined to allow the USPS rule to take effect for the current election. The Court's order stated, "The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction." It also found that "the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay." Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the Court's decision regarding the rule's implementation for the current election, but indicated he believed there was "at least a fair prospect" the rule "falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority."

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, stating they would have allowed the rule to take effect. They attributed delays to the states' litigation timing, despite the absence of a functional system for states to submit voter lists to the USPS.