September 10, 2026
"Supreme Court Again Blocks Republican-Backed Missouri Voting Map."
"The ruling deferred to Missouri’s state Supreme Court, which had invalidated G.O.P.-friendly district lines, saying voters must first have an opportunity to approve the map in a statewide referendum."
Posts
16 comments:
i just saw this, and hopped over here to hear what you lawyer people have to say about it.. Start Talking! i'm waiting!
Woohoo! States rights prevails
What a well-and-truly f*cked up situation. Primaries already settled using one map for candidates, now another map is shoved onto the table for the official election day vote. Don't see how this could be allowed to stand, it seems to me to be an egregious bait and switch. Surprised that the USSC had no comment to offer. What would the noise be like if the situation was reversed?
It is not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to tell states which have completely screwed up their electoral process how to straighten those processes out. While there could be a tenuous constitutional rights connection (14th Amendment "right to vote"), the Supreme Court stepping in here would seem to involve not only trampling on the states' primacy under the Elections Clause, but also on Congress' constitutional role as prescribed by the same clause.
And those who believe that the Supreme Court is "in the tank" for Trump and/or the Republicans by virtue of the conservative majority would seem to be proven wrong here.
And no, I don't have any idea what the Missouri AG should do about the conflict between the Missouri Supreme Court's directive and that of Federal District Judge Clark. My gut reaction is that the Missouri Supreme Court should prevail by virtue of the state's primacy in election matters under the Elections clause.
There is an unfounded assumption among the public, fostered and encouraged by the liberal press, that the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of just about everything, and that nothing is proper or permitted to go on until the Supreme Court says it is.
@boatbuilder, but midterms are a federal election too, it's not just state offices that are being contested. Doesn't federal law preside over federal elections? Not a lawyer, so maybe it's a stupid question. Still.... allowing primaries to run their course based on a district map, and then switching maps - it seems safe to assume there would be laws that prevent this, as bitterly contested as political races are, over history. But the State Supreme Court apparently thinks such consistency doesn't apply. They're appointed by the Governor for twelve years, and then have to run for re-election, with mandatory retirement at 70. Although officially nonpartisan, right now 5 were appointed by a (R) Governor, 2 by (D).
Seems like the "block the new map suit should have been adjudicated BEFORE the primary. I would applaud the that-ship-has-sailed ruling.
So what happens to the primary results?
Aggie: Here's what the Constitution says:
Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
That's it.
I agree that what is happening in MO is inconsistent, stupid and chaotic. But having the Supreme Court act as a sort of ultimate tribunal on the conduct of elections on the basis of the 14th Amendment is a lot like all of those federal district judges who took over local school systems using desegration law as the premise. Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) reined that in.
There is a doctrine (the Purcell doctrine, I believe), that says that the federal courts should act with restraint so as to prevent "chaos" in elections, but I'm not sure how that would work here. If anything, it seems like the Federal Court's countermanding the MO supreme court is causing chaos; although the MO supreme court may also be said to have created chaos with it's directive, the Purcell doctrine doesn't seem to apply to state courts.
AI tells me: "The Purcell principle dictates that federal courts should not change state election rules or voting maps close to an election to prevent voter and official confusion."
The State Supreme Court ruled that voters don't get to have a Primary, which is insane
As is this ruling
The Purcell Principle is that Courts can't screw around with elections late in the process
Which rule the MO SC violated like a Muslim immigrant at a girl's school, and SCOTUS just joined in like a Labour Party member voting for a cover up.
The Primary happened in August. Should it have happened with those Districts? no
but it did
And having a GE with different Districts than people voted in for the Primary is insane, and a repudiation of everything that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh have claimed to believe in.
Apparently what THIS SCOTUS believes in is that rules only apply to Republicans
The missouri constitution says any state law can be blocked by voters in a referendum. The D's got enough signatures to put the redistricting map on the ballot for a vote. The Missouri Supreme Court said the redistricing is a "law" and not exempt from the constitution.
The R's argued that this shouldn't apply. The SCOTUS disagreed. The D's work with the judiciary and by hook or by crook try to block every redistricting that helps the R's. Meanwhile the R's cant even be bothered to redistrict in many red states. And in others, always seem to be playing checkers while the D's play 3-D chess.
But what else is new?
One may hope that all current Mo Supreme Court justices do not get re confirmed upon election, just to encourage them to not create stupid preventable situations like this.
I dunno if anybody is covering themselves with glory in this fight. The MO Legislature drew the new lines which prompted the Democrats to launch the referendum initiative last year. The Republican SoS dithered on approving the referendum until after the primary, likely to make the new districts unchangeable for 2026 (as Judge Clark ruled in his TRO) though they could be voted out by the referendum for 2028. I've seen suggestions that the MOSC punted on making a ruling about on the referendum until after the primary as well. Why the USSC would now overturn Clark's TRO other than to just d!ck with the MO SoS I don't know, especially since as Aggie notes Federal elections are in play.
…in yet another pound the table ruling…
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.