Judge Allows Trump-Backed Missouri Congressional Map Despite Referendum Challenge

A Missouri judge ruled Friday that new congressional districts supported by former President Trump can proceed for the midterm elections, even with a pending voter referendum challenge. The Republican-backed map aims to help the GOP gain an additional House seat by targeting a Democratic incumbent's district.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A Missouri judge has determined that congressional district boundaries endorsed by former President Donald Trump will remain in place for upcoming midterm elections, even as opponents pursue a voter referendum to overturn the redistricting plan.

Cole County Circuit Judge Brian Stumpe delivered the Friday ruling, handing Republicans a significant victory as they seek to capture an extra House seat in November’s elections.

Critics of the redistricting argued the new boundaries should have been immediately halted in December after petition organizers gathered over 300,000 signatures demanding a statewide vote on the congressional map.

However, Stumpe determined the challengers had no standing to bring their lawsuit, filed their case prematurely, and were requesting judicial intervention in a matter that belongs with executive and legislative officials. The judge stated the redistricting can only be paused if officials ultimately confirm the referendum petition contains sufficient valid signatures and meets legal standards.

“Without verification requirements, any group could suspend legislation merely by submitting boxes of invalid signatures, signatures of unregistered voters, forged names, or other fraudulent submissions,” Stumpe wrote. “Clearly, the framers of Missouri’s Constitution could not have intended such an easily exploited system that would allow bad-faith actors to paralyze the legislative process.”

Missouri law gives Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins until August 4 — when the state holds its primary election — to make a final ruling on whether the referendum petition is valid.

Missouri joins numerous other states in a nationwide redistricting conflict that started last summer when Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw House boundaries to benefit the GOP in this year’s midterms. Following Texas’s action, California Democrats responded with their own new districts, sparking a series of retaliatory redistricting battles across the country.

The redistricting warfare has so far produced only modest gains for Republicans as they attempt to maintain their slim House majority. Meanwhile, Virginia voters will decide in an April 21 election whether to approve mid-decade redistricting that could help Democrats secure several additional seats.

Whether all the district boundary changes will ultimately affect which party controls the House remains unclear. The governing party typically loses congressional seats during midterm elections, and Trump’s poll numbers show negative approval ratings.

Missouri’s current U.S. House delegation includes six Republicans and two Democrats under a map approved in 2022 following the latest census. Republican legislators at that time rejected efforts by some party members to create a map that could give Republicans a chance at seven seats, expressing worry it might spread the party too thin and lead to losses if Democrats had a strong election cycle.

Republicans abandoned those worries last year after White House pressure to modify districts for political benefit.

Lawmakers approved a new map during a September special session designed to help Republicans capture a Kansas City-area seat currently held by Democratic U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver. The plan moved parts of Kansas City into two adjacent Republican-held districts and extended the rest of his 5th Congressional District eastward into heavily Republican rural territory.

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a legal challenge claiming mid-decade redistricting violated the state constitution. A lower court also recently threw out a legal challenge arguing the new districts don’t meet constitutional compactness requirements. Those plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court.