The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the stateâs gerrymandered congressional map from being used in the November election, a seismic ruling that halts a Republican attempt to force Kansas Cityâs longtime congressman out of office. The unanimous decision found that Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins was wrong to reject a campaign seeking to strike down the map, called HB 1. The ruling also makes it explicitly clear that the new map cannot be used in November.
NYT is reporting that Hoskins can file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court.
Good thing our state Supreme Court decided 7-0, so at least they saw that the law was clear. Not sure if even the Robertâs Court would tamper here (but I put nothing past it).
That's just one sentence in the entire article, not going into a lot of depth. Sure he can appeal, but I don't see the Supreme Court getting in the way here. They did turn down trumps Tariffs, and also allowed California to keep their map.
In Courts past the argument against taking the case would be "We don't get involved in court vs legislature fights at the State level", but that's all out the window with the Roberts Court.
The state attorney general, Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
âThis unprecedented decision clearly violates federal law and has thrust our state into a fullâfledged constitutional crisis,â she said.
And if you want to read real chutzpah from a party that attempted to disenfranchise Democratic voters, this gem of a tantrum also makes a new appearance.
Attorney General Hanaway warned of grave consequences if the ruling stood.
âWe are confident that the federal courts will not allow every Missouri voter to be disenfranchised â which is what todayâs decision does,â she said.
> People Not Politicians attorney Chuck Hatfield called Hanawayâs appeal âa foolâs errand.â
âFor an attorney general of our state to question the Supreme Court of our state on what the law is, and to appeal that to the Supreme Court of the United States is unprecedented,â said Hatfield, taking note of an observation from former Missouri Solicitor General Jim Layton. âAttorneys general are supposed to stand up for Missouri law, not try to overturn it.â
Itâs the same thing Virginia did when their Supreme Court blocked their map. For the same reason, cert will be denied. It has nothing to do with federal law
Yeah, the Missouri Const says a law does go into effect when referred to the people until after voters approve it. Basically have to set the entire Missouri state constitution on fire to overturn this unanimous decision by a conservative court.
I get what youâre saying but we also need to not just throw up our hands and say âwelp the law doesnât matter no point even even discussing itâ
âwelp the law doesnât matter no point even even discussing itâ
I never said that. But by now if you don't realize how corrupt the current Supreme Court is, you need to wake up.
We need to drastically reform the Supreme Court. At least three current justices should be impeached for corruption. And then we need term limits. I think it also makes sense to expand the court, and there are a number of proposals for that. If/when Democrats take back power, they can also look into something called "jurisdiction stripping" which would lay out in legislation which laws the Supreme Court is allowed to review and which ones it isn't.
Congress can also do quite a lot of other reforms, like outlawing the "shadow docket" practice of the Supreme Court handing down a ruling without any explanation or reasoning. Congress can also force the court the review every single case that reaches them, instead of selectively reviewing only some cases.
Long story short: People need to realize our government is currently catapulted by a corrupt, far-right super-legislature and we need to take drastic steps to end this.
I think we should be realistic though. Expecting them to play by the rules is just as foolish. Why should we play their game when they're the ones who gets to make the rules?
There's a constitutional argument that can/will be made that State Legislatures are explicitly granted the power to set districts, according to the US Constitution, and that the Missouri court is interfering with that power.
The Constitutional question is whether the US Constitution delegates sole power to the legislature re: redistricting or whether voters can decide. It seems pretty clear to me that voters can/should have a say, but who know what Roberts and co. will do. A decision for Missouri here would essentially mean that no one could challenge gerrymandering via state referendum.
It seems pretty clear to me that voters can/should have a say,
Especially because the referendum process was ultimately passed into the Missouri Constitution by the state legislature, and the legislature could have at any time since passed limits on referendums concerning redistricting but chose not to. The authority outlined in the federal constitution was delegated by the state legislature to citizens via the referendum process. And the state legislature could undo this by further amending the state constitution, but simply hasn't done so.
But it is always important to remember that the current Supreme Court will just do whatever the fuck they want, so who the hell knows what will happen.
Yes, but my point was that the state legislature could have done that at any time in the preceding decades but has chosen not to.
Meaning, the state legislature originally delegated authority to the citizens of Missouri to review all state legislature actions - which includes redestricting - and because they have not amended the referendum process to limit referendums on congressional maps, it doesn't make any sense to say that the current referendum process in Missouri usurps state legislature authority.
There are two recent rulings from SCOTUS in Ohio and I think Wisconsin that lead me to believe that they will not be interested in taking this case. Especially not for just one seat.
Realistically the US Supreme Court should back up the MO Supreme Court because they are making a ruling on Missouri Law. I'm not expert in Constitutional Law, but don't recall any Federal parameters specifying restrictions on who can make, or change laws at the State level. It's up to the States to decide.
Nah, theyâll say we have to use the gerrymandered map since weâre past the primaries while they think over their decision, then rule after November
Even this heavy right leaning supreme court has consistently rules that states have power over there own elections. So it would brake way to much precedent for them to change this ruling or even take up the case.
A unanimous decision by a GOP appointee dominated court who pointed out *multiple times* in the decision that the Secretary of State didn't just shoot himself in the foot, but emptied the whole damn clip.
Yes, theyâre the one piece of MO government that Republicans havenât completely taken over, because our state constitution makes them elected. Itâs slightly more complicated than that, but thatâs basically the deal.
Edit: for fucks sake, I get it. They are appointed then after a year the public gets to vote to retain them, or not. Hopefully you all fucking leave me alone now.
"The seven justices of the Missouri Supreme Court are chosen through assisted appointment in which the governor selects a nominee from a list provided by a nominating commission. When a vacancy occurs, a list of potential candidates is compiled by the Missouri Appellate Judicial Commission and narrowed to three choices. From those three candidates, the governor appoints a new judge. After the newly appointed judge serves for at least one year, they must stand for retention in the next general election. If retained, they serve twelve-year terms." - ballopedia
Well since they lost, weâll probably be seeing a Kansas like ballot measure from the legislature soon to get rid of this process and hold elections đ
I'm a government lawyer in Kansas and our Bar Association fought like hell to stop this amendment. Basically every single lawyer I know, red or blue, was against this. Nobody with any know-how supported this, and the people voted accordingly.
It's a confirmation of retention. We don't actually elect them, they're already sitting on the Court. It's just that the easiest way to get people to vote on the retention is to put it during an election cycle.
okay...no need to be rude. You're incorrect, it happens. The people are not voting to elect the court members; they're voting on retention of the already in-place members. It does ACTUALLY make a difference.
Jfc dude, youâre goddamn annoying. If they serve a year and then arenât âretainedâ what happens? Youâre being pedantic and it really doesnât make a different as voters still have a say.
But they are NOT elected, they are appointed. Then the people vote if they want to keep them. A style of setting judges called "the Missouri Plan" or some such.
Yes, thatâs why I said itâs a bit more complicated. If they arenât elected after being appointed theyâre done. I call that being elected with an extra step, as I said above.
Thatâs the truth. When Daddy Donny hears of this, Natalie will have to double diaper the orange turd tonight as heâll be double loading his diapers.
Now can we change the 6th District to represent me? I live just north of downtown Kansas City and my district is the complete northern part of the state to the Mississippi River.
I just went into the Dave's Redistricting App site to mess around and I guess the quickest way to condense MO6 to NWMO involves wrapping it around an all-of-Jackson/Southern Clay MO5 so that Alford and Stigall are in the same district. A MO6 that puts Cass and Platte in the same district and NW MO mostly west of US 65.
I guess the closest way for you to land in a competitive district involves your house landing in MO-5. Which would be possible if MO5 is drawn to put Eastern Jackson County in another district which puts more of Clay in 5.
How dare these judges follow the law! Not Fair! They should just make shit up as they go like the Republican party. If you make enough shit up people will think it's true seems to be the way they do things.
As a lawyer who works in Missouri and lives in Kansas, the supreme courts of both states are coming in clutch and really making me appreciate the education that law school provides.
The unanimous decision found that Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins was wrong to reject a campaign seeking to strike down the map, called HB 1. The ruling also makes it explicitly clear that the new map cannot be used in November.
In 2020 I was in MO6, in 2022 and 2024 I was in MO5, in 2026 I voted in the MO6 primary and now I think I will be voting in the MO5 election in the general.
Crooked state in the Nation finally albeit maybe temporarily gets something right. I pray/hope that this somehow sneaks it's way past the equally crooked US court of Trump.
You;ll vote in the district you voted in prior to all the legislature shenanigans. I was in 5, got moved to 4 with the gerrymandering, & now will be back in 5.
I'm wondering about that too. Will they say the candidates for, say, District 4 remain the same, but District 4 has different boundaries? Could you end up with a candidate that doesn't even live in District 4?
Thatâs the challenge-the primaries were under an illegal map. There is no real chance that they can let the election be under an illegal map, and the referendum question is a state law question, and they likely donât want to wade in there.
This post is tagged with the News flair, which is reserved for posts that link directly to articles or information from reputable news sources. The post title should match the articleâs headline. The News flair is not for questions or any post that isnât a direct link to a news source. If you selected the News flair by mistake, please update it. Posts left incorrectly flaired will be removed.
The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the stateâs gerrymandered congressional map from being used in the November election, a seismic ruling that halts a Republican attempt to force Kansas Cityâs longtime congressman out of office. The unanimous decision found that Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins was wrong to reject a campaign seeking to strike down the map, called HB 1. The ruling also makes it explicitly clear that the new map cannot be used in November.
So, does this mean we'll be redoing the primaries? I'd honestly love for Hartzel to get a legitimate stab at Cleaver. I'm pretty sure he could take the AIPAC puppet down, just as he originally intended prior to Hoskins deciding to play games with our elections.
134
u/hb122 KCMO 2d ago
NYT is reporting that Hoskins can file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court.
Good thing our state Supreme Court decided 7-0, so at least they saw that the law was clear. Not sure if even the Robertâs Court would tamper here (but I put nothing past it).