Missouri's redistricting mess created an election problem Supreme Court has days to untangle

Missouri's congressional map fight is hurtling toward another potential Supreme Court showdown, with courts at odds over which districts should govern the November election after more than 1.2 million Missourians voted in the August primary under a different map.

Abhishek Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and former deputy associate attorney general at the Justice Department, told Fox News Digital the Supreme Court's previous intervention does not necessarily signal how the justices will handle the latest ruling.

"It's unpredictable how they'll rule, mostly because we didn't get their reasoning in the last order," Kambli said. "So, we don't know the precise reason why they decided to stay at that time."

"So unless the Supreme Court steps in again, the state will be required to use the seven-one map for this election," Kambli said.

Kambli said switching congressional maps between the primary and general election raises serious constitutional concerns.

"You would have had a large number of Missourians who would have been disenfranchised because they voted for one set of candidates in the primary and will be voting for another set in the general," Kambli said.

"And what's even more concerning is sometimes those candidates are unopposed so that they miss their only chance to vote as a result of what the Missouri Supreme Court did here," Kambli continued. "So that's what's really at issue - is whether everyone gets an equal voice in a situation where the primary election is integral to the electoral system of the state."

"HB1's district lines lack the force of law, full stop," Vikram wrote. "These lines cannot be used wrongly in November just because they were previously used wrongly in the primary. Two wrongs do not make (or vindicate) a right (to vote)."

Meanwhile, Kambli placed much of the blame for the eleventh-hour legal scramble over which map to use on the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing the turmoil was "entirely preventable."

Kambli argued that the Missouri Supreme Court could have resolved the map dispute earlier, noting that the issue remained unsettled even after the candidate filing deadline passed.

Opponents of the 2025 map submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025, but Hoskins did not formally reject the referendum petition until Aug. 4, the day of the primary.

Bannon wrote that the Missouri Supreme Court's criticism of Hoskins' delays stood out, particularly the court's rejection of his argument that it had waited too long to intervene.

The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the referendum could proceed and faulted Hoskins for the delay, saying he had "created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains."

Kambli argued the Purcell principle, under which federal courts generally avoid changing election rules close to Election Day because of the potential for disruption, weighs in favor of keeping the 2025 map because Missouri already used it for the primary.

"The Eighth Circuit said that the Purcell principles support the injunction, not go against it," Kambli said.

Bannon also warned that courts being too cautious can create its own problems.

"It's an approach that's understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters' rights," Bannon wrote.

Bannon suggested earlier court action in Missouri could have helped avoid the last-minute dispute, including by moving the primary or setting a firm deadline for the referendum petition.

But regardless of whether the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, the referendum will still be on the ballot.

"If the Supreme Court does not stay the Eighth Circuit injunction, there's no doubt that the 7-1 map is what will be in effect for this election. There's still going to be a referendum on the ballot deciding that issue for future elections, but for this one, that's how it'll be decided," Kambli said.