The future of congressional redistricting in Missouri was argued Tuesday before the state Supreme Court.
Judges heard arguments over whether mid-decade redistricting is allowed by the state's constitution. Depending on how they rule, the redistricting process could be explicitly limited to right after a census, or whenever lawmakers want to do it.
Missouri Republican lawmakers in September, at the urge of President Donald Trump, passed a new congressional redistricting map.
The map seeks to draw U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Kansas City, out of the 5th Congressional District. The new map breaks the Kansas City area into several districts to try and give Republicans an advantage.
The plaintiffs who sued against the new map are appealing a circuit court ruling in December that upheld the map. The ruling stated that though there is no direct authorization in the constitution over mid-decade, there isn't a specific prohibition either.
Arguing for the plaintiffs, attorney Chuck Hatfield said he was asking the court to uphold the plain language of the Missouri Constitution when it comes to redistricting.
"It's important to read the whole of section 45. It starts with the census of 1950, when the census of 1950 is certified to the governor, but then it says, 'And at each census thereafter, the General Assembly shall conduct its redistricting.' It is undisputed," Hatfield said.
Hatfield argued that means allowing redistricting only once every decade.
"The whole idea is tethered to the census data. You must do it at the census, and you only do it at the census," Hatfield said.
Representing the state, Solicitor General Lou Capozzi said the Missouri Constitution is silent on the topic of mid-decade redistricting.
"This Court has long held that the General Assembly has the power to act unless the Missouri Constitution expressly takes a particular power away," Capozzi said.
Capozzi agreed with Hatfield that the legislature does have a duty to redistrict after a census.
"But that's all the language does. That's all it says. It simply says nothing about whether mid-decade redistricting is possible," Capozzi said.
Attorney John Gore also spoke on behalf of the state. He echoed Capozzi's arguments.
"The General Assembly has the power to do whatever is necessary, to perform its functions, except as expressly restrained by the Constitution," Gore said.
Chief Justice W. Brent Powell, asked for clarity from Gore on the state's argument.
"Based on your arguments, and as opposing counsel points out that if you're correct about the reading of this provision in our Constitution, the General Assembly could redistrict whenever they wanted to," Powell said.
Gore said that was correct.
Hatfield pushed back against the state's argument of legislative plenary power, which gives the legislature powers not stated within the constitution. He said that doesn't mean lawmakers suddenly have powers they didn't have before.
"The legislature has the authority to legislate. You can weave in your own lane, and that's fine, but you're not allowed to cross the lines into other lanes," Hatfield said.
Speaking after arguments, Marc Ellinger, who represents the Missouri Republican state committee, an intervener in this case, said he believes the arguments went well.
"I think the court's appreciative of the fact that the Constitution is clear that the legislature can redistrict when it chooses," Ellinger said.
Hatfield said he thought the arguments mirrored what everyone had already said in their briefs.
The court will rule at a later date.
The case is a linchpin that could render many other lawsuits over the map moot.
That includes several lawsuits over the referendum seeking to overturn the new map by a vote of the people.
"I think that generally, people are going to keep fighting over this, whether or not we win this case. If we win, we sort of win the fight on the first battle," Hatfield said after the hearing.
Once it was finished, over 100 people against the redistricting effort gathered for a rally.
Those who spoke against the rally included Hatfield as well as Suzanne Luther, a plaintiff in the case.
"I am on this lawsuit, but I know any of you could have been on it too, because the majority of us here in Missouri support a fair government," Luther said.
People Not Politicians' Richard von Glahn, who heads the group behind the effort to repeal the map through a referendum, said he is hopeful the court rules their way.
"We feel that our democracy is being taken from us through this redistricting, and so whether it's the court or whether it's the people stepping up to defend that, we're going to defend that one way or the other," von Glahn said.
Von Glahn also said that if the court ruled in their favor, then the referendum becomes moot.
Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio
