Redistricting in Missouri after the 2020 census
Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Missouri.
Missouri's eight United States representatives and 197 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Congressional districts
Mid-decade redistricting in Missouri ahead of the 2026 elections is ongoing.
Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed new congressional district boundaries into law on September 28, 2025. The districts take effect for the 2026 elections.[1] The Missouri Senate approved new congressional district boundaries by a 21-11 vote on September 12, 2025.[2] The Missouri House approved the map by a 90-65 vote on September 9, 2025.[3] The map aimed to net one additional Republican U.S. House district by drawing parts of Kansas City into surrounding rural districts.[4][5] Heading into the redistricting effort, Republicans represented six of Missouri's congressional districts, and Democrats represented two. Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) called the special legislative session for congressional redistricting on August 29, 2025.[4] The special session began on September 3, 2025.[6]
Click here for more information about the congressional maps enacted in Missouri after the 2020 census.
Legislative districts
State legislative redistricting in Missouri after the 2020 census has concluded.
Missouri completed its legislative redistricting on March 15, 2022, when the state’s Judicial Redistricting Commission filed new state Senate district boundaries with the secretary of state.[7] Missouri was the 43rd state to complete legislative redistricting. The House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission unanimously approved the state House’s district boundaries on Jan. 21.[8] These maps took effect for Missouri’s 2022 legislative elections.
Click here for more information about the state legislative maps enacted in Missouri after the 2020 census.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
- Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
- Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Missouri is also provided.
Summary
This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.
- September 28, 2025: Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed new congressional district boundaries into law.
- September 12, 2025: The Missouri Senate approved new congressional district boundaries by a 21-11 vote.
- September 9, 2025: The Missouri House approved new congressional district boundaries by a 90-65 vote.
- September 3, 2025: A special legislative session began to consider new congressional district boundaries ahead of the 2026 elections.
- August 29, 2025: Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) called a special legislative session for mid-decade congressional redistricting.
Enactment
Enacted congressional district maps
On August 29, 2025, Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) called a special legislative session for mid-decade congressional redistricting and proposed a map that would draw parts of Kansas City into surrounding rural districts.[4] The special session began on September 3, 2025.[6] The Missouri House approved the maps on September 9, 2025, by a 90-65 vote.[3] The Missouri Senate approved the map by a 21-11 vote on September 12, 2025.[2] Kehoe signed the map into law on September 28, 2025. The map takes effect for the 2026 elections.[1]
Missouri had previously enacted new congressional district boundaries on May 18, 2022, when Gov. Mike Parson (R) signed them into law. According to Rudi Keller of the Missouri Independent, "No change in the partisan makeup of the Missouri delegation, currently six Republicans and two Democrats, is expected as a result of the map." Keller also wrote, "nine counties that have shifted almost wholly or entirely into new districts. Boundaries shifted in the five large-population counties that were previously split and a new split was introduced in Boone County in central Missouri."[9] This map took effect for Missouri’s 2022 congressional elections.
The Missouri House of Representatives approved the final version of the new congressional districts on May 9, 2022, by a vote of 101-47. Eighty-six Republicans and 15 Democrats approved the new map and 28 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.[10] The state Senate approved the legislation (known as HB 2909) on May 11, 2022, by a vote of 22-11. Sixteen Republicans and six Democrats voted to approve the new map and seven Republicans and four Democrats voted against.[11]
After the Senate passed the maps, Keller wrote, "The first plan, released in December with backing from the Republican leaders of both chambers, essentially kept the partisan breakdown of the state’s delegation unchanged, with six safe Republican districts and two Democratic districts in Kansas City and St. Louis. The House passed that bill in January and, after weeks of on-and-off debate, the Senate passed a significantly altered version in late March. The seven members of the Senate’s conservative caucus demanded a map that cracked the Kansas City district and combined it with a huge swath of rural counties to make it possible for the GOP to capture the seat. The “6-2” vs. “7-1” debate came to a head in February when the conservative caucus began a filibuster that blocked progress not only on the redistricting plan but also on basically every other bill. At one point, two Republican Senators got into a shouting match and had to be physically separated."[12]
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right shows the district boundaries used through the 2024 elections. Voters will elect representatives under a new map beginning in 2026.
Missouri Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Missouri Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
In a press release issued after he signed the maps, Parson said, "Today, we signed into law a congressional map that meets our constitutional requirements. This past session, we saw a few individuals' political posturing obstruct key pieces of priority legislation and promote inefficient and ineffective government. It's unfortunate so much time and productivity were lost just to receive a map with the same partisan split that was proposed six months ago. These past months could have been better used by county clerks implementing a new map and preparing for upcoming elections."[13]
After Senate passage, State Sen. Mike Bernskoetter (R) said, “I believe the new map does a good job of balancing Missouri’s regions and their different views. It meets all the requirements we are constitutionally obligated to meet.” Before the Senate's vote, Sen. Bob Onder (R) said, “The process stinks to high heaven. For what reason did leadership use a discharge petition to get this to the floor? Was that some kind of sick power play?”[12]
2020 presidential results
The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[14] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[15]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Missouri | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| Missouri's 1st | 78.4% | 20.0% | 80.3% | 18.1% |
| Missouri's 2nd | 45.3% | 53.0% | 49.2% | 49.2% |
| Missouri's 3rd | 35.9% | 62.2% | 31.3% | 66.8% |
| Missouri's 4th | 29.3% | 68.7% | 31.9% | 66.0% |
| Missouri's 5th | 62.2% | 35.9% | 58.4% | 39.6% |
| Missouri's 6th | 30.6% | 67.7% | 35.0% | 63.3% |
| Missouri's 7th | 28.4% | 69.8% | 28.1% | 70.0% |
| Missouri's 8th | 23.6% | 75.0% | 21.3% | 77.3% |
Enacted state legislative district maps
Missouri completed its legislative redistricting on March 15, 2022, when the state’s Judicial Redistricting Commission filed new state Senate district boundaries with the secretary of state.[16] Missouri was the 43rd state to complete legislative redistricting. The House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission unanimously approved the state House’s district boundaries on Jan. 21.[17] These maps took effect for Missouri’s 2022 legislative elections.
The Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission failed to submit proposed maps to the secretary of state's office by the December 23, 2021, deadline. Therefore, responsibility for developing Senate district boundaries was assumed by the Missouri Judicial Commission for Redistricting.[18] The judicial commission released their final plan and sent it to the secretary of state's office on March 15, 2022. The commission’s chair, Missouri Appeals Court Justice Cynthia Lynette Martin, said in a press release, "The Judicial Redistricting Commission’s work has been thorough and labor intensive, and was purposefully undertaken with the goal to file a constitutionally compliant plan and map well in advance of the commission’s constitutional deadline to avoid disenfranchising voters given the candidate filing deadline and the deadline for preparing ballots."[19] Scott Faughn of The Missouri Times wrote that "The biggest difference in this map and that previous map is that it shifts the weight of some of the districts from rural weighted districts to evenly split districts and even enhances the suburban influence inside several republican seats." He added, "the new map produces 7 solid democratic districts, and 3 likely democratic districts. On the republican side the new map produces 18 solid republican districts, and 3 more likely republican districts," with two competitive districts when the current incumbents no longer seek office.[20]
The House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission unanimously approved new state House district boundaries on January 19, 2022. Fourteen of the commission's 20 members were required to approve the plan. If the commission was unable to agree on a redistricting plan by January 23, 2022, authority over the process would have transferred to the Missouri Judicial Commission for Redistricting.[21] In a press release issued after the map was finalized, commission chair Jerry Hunter said, "I want to personally thank all of the commissioners for the hard work that was put in by the commissioners and, obviously, as all of you know, the supporting individuals that have been instrumental to helping get this map done on both sides – on both the Democratic and Republican sides."[22] Rudi Keller of the Missouri Independent wrote, "Of the 163 districts..., there are 38 where Democrats should have the advantage, 97 where Republicans are dominant and 28 districts with past election results showing less than a 10% advantage for either party."[21]
State Senate map
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Missouri State Senate Districts
until January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Missouri State Senate Districts
starting January 4, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Missouri State House Districts
until January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Missouri State House Districts
starting January 4, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
Western District Appeals Court Judge Cynthia L. Martin, who chaired the Judicial Redistricting Commission responsible for drawing the state Senate boundaries was quoted in a statement after the commission released the maps on March 14, 2022: "The Judicial Redistricting Commission deeply appreciates the input provided by citizens during our public hearing and through the website. That input was thoughtfully considered, subject to the requirements of the Missouri Constitution that Senate districts be established using methods and criteria in an order of priority...The Judicial Redistricting Commission’s work has been thorough and labor intensive, and was purposefully undertaken with the goal to file a constitutionally compliant plan and map well in advance of the commission’s constitutional deadline to avoid disenfranchising voters given the candidate filing deadline and the deadline for preparing ballots."[23]
Regarding the state House boundaries, Rick Shang, a Democratic member of the House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission that approved the maps, said, "It’s been a long time, you know, a few decades since we actually agreed on and especially unanimously agreed on a map. This is a fairer and more impartial map than the previous one. We’re able to make sure our population has better representation."[24] State Rep. Dean VanSchoiack (R) said, "I’ll be running to represent Andrew, DeKalb and Clinton counties, which is a little bit more rural. I will have the city of Cameron, which is a great town...I feel the committee did their best to bring forth a constitutional map that keeps communities together, keeps contiguous districts that are compact."[24]
Drafting process
In Missouri, congressional district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.[25]
In 2018, the voters passed a citizens’ initiative called Amendment 1 that reshaped the redistricting process; in 2020, the voters narrowly passed a legislatively referred initiative called Amendment 3 that reshaped the process again.
Two distinct politician commissions are ultimately responsible for state legislative redistricting, one for the Missouri State Senate and another for the Missouri House of Representatives. Membership on these commissions is determined as follows:[25]
| “ |
Missouri’s congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature, as a regular statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The state legislative lines are drawn by two separate politician commissions — one for state Senate districts, one for state House districts. For each commission, each major party’s congressional district committee nominates 2 members per congressional district, and the state committee nominates 5 members; the Governor chooses 1 per district per party and two per party from the statewide lists, for a total commission of 20.[26] |
” |
Timeline
- Governor Mike Parsons (R) announced the names of the House and Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commissions on July 9, 2021.
- Once the appointments were official, the commissions had five months—or until December 23, 2021—to submit proposals to the secretary of state's office.
- Both commissions had six months—or until January 23, 2022—to approve final plans, which must be approved by seven-tenths of the commissioners.
- If either panel fails to approve a final plan, a Judicial Commission for Redistricting assumes authority for redistricting, with a deadline to complete the process by April 23, 2022.[27]
Committees and/or commissions involved in the process
The Missouri Supreme Court established a special redistricting panel of state appeals court justices on January 11, 2022, to assume responsibility for redistricting in the event either the House or Senate independent bipartisan citizens commissions were unable to agree on legislative district boundaries. The members of the panel are listed below:[28]
| Missouri Judicial Commission for Redistricting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Position | Appointing governor |
| Justice Cynthia Lynette Martin | Missouri Court of Appeals - Western district | Gov. Jay Nixon
|
| Justice Thomas N. Chapman | Missouri Court of Appeals - Western district | Gov. Mike Parson
|
| Justice Michael Gardner | Missouri Court of Appeals - Eastern district | Gov. Mike Parson
|
| Justice Gary Lynch | Missouri Court of Appeals - Southern district | Gov. Matt Blunt
|
| Justice Angela T. Quigless | Missouri Court of Appeals - Eastern district | Gov. Jay Nixon
|
| Justice Mary Sheffield | Missouri Court of Appeals - Southern district | Gov. Jay Nixon
|
Governor Mike Parsons (R) announced his appointments to the House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission on July 9, 2021. The members of the commission are listed below:[29]
Pre-drafting developments
Missouri's House and Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commissions held their first meeting on August 10, 2021, electing Marc Ellinger to chair the Senate Commission and former state auditor Susan Montee (D) to serve as vice-chair. Jerry Hunter was elected as chair of the House Commission and Keena Smith was elected as vice-chair.
The commission also scheduled public hearings to solicit input on the redistricting process. See below for the hearing schedule, or click here for more news about the commission.
- Oct. 18: Springfield
- Oct. 19: Kansas City
- Oct. 21: St. Louis
- Nov. 4: Jefferson City
- Nov. 9: Cape Girardeau
- Nov. 10: Kirksville[30]
Apportionment and release of census data
Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.[31]
Apportionment following the 2020 census
The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Missouri was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[32]
See the table below for additional details.
| 2020 and 2010 census information for Missouri | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | 2010 census | 2020 census | 2010-2020 | ||||
| Population | U.S. House seats | Population | U.S. House seats | Raw change in population | Percentage change in population | Change in U.S. House seats | |
| Missouri | 6,011,478 | 8 | 6,160,281 | 8 | 148,803 | 2.48% | 0 |
Redistricting data from the Census Bureau
On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.[33][34][35][36] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.[37][38]
Court challenges
- If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Background
This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.
Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[39][40]
| “ | 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.[26] | ” |
| —United States Constitution | ||
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[41][42][43]
The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[43]
Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[43]
State-based requirements
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[43][44]
- Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[43][44]
- A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[43][44]
- A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[43][44]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[45]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- See also: Gerrymandering
The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[46][47]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[48]
The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[49][50]Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[51] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[52] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[53]
Moore v. Harper (2023)
- See also: Moore v. Harper
At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[54] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[55]
Merrill v. Milligan (2023)
- See also: Merrill v. Milligan
At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[56]
Gill v. Whitford (2018)
- See also: Gill v. Whitford
In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[57]
Cooper v. Harris (2017)
- See also: Cooper v. Harris
In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[58][59][60]
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)
- See also: Evenwel v. Abbott
Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[61][62][63][64]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[65][66][67]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[68][69][70][71]Trifectas and redistricting
In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.
| State | Primary redistricting authority | Pre-2010 trifecta status | Post-2010 trifecta status | Post-2018 trifecta status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Colorado | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Indiana | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Iowa | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Republican |
| Maine | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Democratic |
| Michigan | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Divided |
| New Hampshire | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| North Carolina | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| Ohio | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Oregon | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Pennsylvania | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Divided |
| Wisconsin | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Divided |
2010 redistricting cycle
Congressional redistricting, 2010
Following the 2010 United States Census, Missouri lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly. Democratic Governor Jay Nixon vetoed the legislature's congressional redistricting plan, but on May 4, 2011, the legislature overrode the veto and the new map became law.[25][72]
Pearson v. Koster
On September 23, 2011, opponents of the newly approved congressional district map filed suit in the Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court, alleging "partisan gerrymandering and deviations from state constitutional compactness requirements." On December 12, 2011, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ordered the trial court to reconsider the case. The Missouri Supreme Court "agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional law." On February 3, 2012, the trial court again rejected the plaintiff's compactness claims, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed that decision on May 25, 2012.[73]
State legislative redistricting, 2010
The two politician commissions charged with state legislative redistricting failed to approve plans of their own. The Missouri Supreme Court appointed a six-member panel to draw the boundaries instead. This panel issued state Senate and House district maps on November 30, 2011.[25]
The panel's original state Senate district map was ultimately struck down in court. It was also determined that the panel lacked the authority to draw a second map. A new politician commission was convened to make a second attempt. The new commission issued a final state Senate district map on March 12, 2012.[25]
See also
- Redistricting in Missouri after the 2010 census
- Redistricting in Missouri
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Associated Press, "Missouri governor signs Trump-backed plan aimed at helping Republicans win another US House seat," September 28, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 CNN, "Missouri lawmakers give final approval to map targeting a Democratic House seat," September 12, 2025
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Fox2Now, "Missouri House passes redistricting, ballot question reforms," September 9, 2025
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 KCUR, "Missouri governor begins redistricting process after Trump pressure. Kansas City is the target," August 29, 2025
- ↑ Governor of Missouri, "Missouri First Map," accessed September 4, 2025
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 STLPR, "Missouri legislators kick off special session on redistricting and limiting ballot amendments," September 3, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final Senate Statewide Judicial Redistricting Commission Letter; March 15, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final House Apportionment; January 20, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signs new congressional redistricting plan," May 18, 2022
- ↑ Missouri House of Representatives, "101st General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session (HB2909)," accessed May 24, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Senate, "Journal of the Senate, May 11, 2022," accessed May 24, 2022
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Missouri Independent, "Missouri Senate adjourns early after passing congressional redistricting map," May 12, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Governor, "Governor Parson Approves Missouri's Congressional District Boundaries," accessed May 24, 2022
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final Senate Statewide Judicial Redistricting Commission Letter; March 15, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final House Apportionment; January 20, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
- ↑ 'Missouri Secretary of State, "Supreme Court Appointment for Judicial Commission for Redistricting," January 11, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Office of Administration, "Judicial Redistricting Commission Releases Tentative State Senate Redistricting Plan, Map," March 14, 2022
- ↑ The Missouri Times, "TWMP Column: New Senate map district by district," March 16, 2020
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Missouri Independent, "Bipartisan commission approves new Missouri House districts," January 20, 2022
- ↑ Missouri Office of Administration, "House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission Files Final Redistricting Plan with Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
- ↑ Governor of Missouri, Office of Administration, "Judicial Redistricting Commission Releases Tentative State Senate Redistricting Plan, Map," March 14, 2022
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 News-Press NOW, "New Missouri state House map finalized," January 22, 2022
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 All About Redistricting, "Missouri," accessed April 16, 2024
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 'Missouri Governor Michael L. Parson, "Governor Parson Makes Appointments To House And Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commissions," July 9, 2021
- ↑ 'Missouri Secretary of State, "Supreme Court Appointment for Judicial Commission for Redistricting," January 11, 2022
- ↑ 'Missouri Governor Michael L. Parson, "Governor Parson Makes Appointments To House And Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commissions," July 9, 2021
- ↑ ABC 17, "Missouri redistricting commissions schedule public hearings as 2020 Census data is to be released Thursday," August 12, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Missouri," accessed May 7, 2015
 |
State of Missouri Jefferson City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
