Eighth Circuit: Revives Missouri Gerrymander, Citing State Court 'Confusion'

• The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a per curiam opinion that observers say mischaracterizes a Missouri redistricting dispute.
• This federal ruling, while initially reviving a Missouri gerrymander that the Missouri Supreme Court had previously blocked, has since been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, preventing its use in the upcoming November election.
• Missouri Republicans, including Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, publicly pursued a strategy of delaying judicial review of their midcycle gerrymander, which aimed to disenfranchise Black voters and gain a congressional seat.
• The state intentionally delayed certifying a citizen petition to keep the new, gerrymandered map in place, preventing court challenges until the "last second."
• This case highlights a significant conflict between federal and state judicial authority over election law and the impact of procedural delays on redistricting challenges.

This creates a significant Federal state court conflict redistricting, highlighting a critical tension between federal and state judicial authority over election law.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a per curiam opinion that has reignited a significant Missouri redistricting legal challenge. This federal appellate ruling, delivered on a Monday night, has been met with scrutiny, particularly for its characterization of the ongoing dispute. The court's opinion suggested that "Any confusion stems from the last-minute decision by a state court to switch the congressional map," a statement that observers argue misrepresents the sequence of events and the deliberate actions taken by state officials.

This development, while initially reviving a Missouri gerrymander that had previously been blocked by the state's highest court, has since been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, preventing its use in the upcoming November election. The federal court's intervention introduces a new layer of complexity to the Missouri congressional map dispute, which has been mired in controversy since its inception. The ruling comes amidst allegations that the "confusion" cited by the Eighth Circuit was, in fact, the intended outcome of a calculated strategy by Missouri Republicans to bypass judicial review until it was too late for courts to intervene effectively.

The origins of this contentious situation trace back to a midcycle gerrymander enacted by Republicans. This legislative action, reportedly undertaken at the behest of Donald Trump, was designed to achieve specific political outcomes, including the disenfranchisement of Black voters in Kansas City. The new electoral map was drawn to fragment Kansas City, thereby diluting its voting power and aiming to secure an an additional congressional seat for Republicans.

Under Missouri state law, citizens possess the right to challenge such legislative changes by gathering a sufficient number of signatures to place the question on the next ballot. Crucially, state law mandates that if such a petition is successfully initiated, the existing, older map must remain in effect until the ballot measure is decided by voters. Citizens successfully met this signature threshold, triggering the provision for the old map to stay in place. However, the state's Attorney General, Catherine Hanaway, publicly outlined a strategy in January that involved leveraging procedural delays. Hanaway stated, "As long as the status quo is the new maps, delay works in our favor," indicating an intent to prolong the use of the new, gerrymandered map.

This strategy involved the state deliberately refusing to either certify or deny the citizen petition for several months. This procedural inaction was critical because, according to the plan, the issue could not be brought before the courts until the state had officially denied the petition. Following this prolonged delay, Missouri ultimately denied the petition at what was described as the "last second," paving the way for petitioners to finally file a lawsuit.

Upon the state's denial, the petitioners promptly initiated legal action, leading to a pivotal ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court. The state's highest judicial body determined that the Missouri constitution required the use of the old congressional maps for the current election cycle, effectively implementing a Missouri Supreme Court gerrymander blocking. This decision aimed to uphold the constitutional rights of citizens and ensure the integrity of the electoral process, directly countering the state's delay tactics.

The recent Eighth Circuit ruling, by framing the situation as "confusion" stemming from a "last-minute decision by a state court," appears to disregard the deliberate strategy employed by state officials and the subsequent intervention by the Missouri Supreme Court. This creates a significant Federal state court conflict redistricting, highlighting a critical tension between federal and state judicial authority over election law. The case underscores how procedural delays, as openly discussed by Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, can be strategically deployed to influence election outcomes and challenge the efficacy of judicial review in gerrymandering disputes. This ongoing legal battle raises important questions about the interplay of state and federal court powers, particularly concerning the impact of such tactics on election integrity and the enforcement of state constitutional mandates.

This case highlights a critical conflict between federal and state judicial authority over election law and redistricting, particularly where state officials employ tactics to circumvent state supreme court rulings. Lawyers in election law, constitutional law, or civil rights should monitor this development for precedents on judicial review of gerrymandering and the interplay of state and federal court powers, especially regarding procedural delays and their impact on election integrity.

Source: Original reporting via goLateral