Attorneys made their case Wednesday about the constitutionality of the new congressional map passed by lawmakers in September.
The map is the result of Missouri Republicans’ efforts to gain an additional seat in Congress at the behest of President Donald Trump.
Representing the plaintiffs in Cole County Circuit Court, attorney Chuck Hatfield said the question of this case is when congressional redistricting can happen in Missouri. He argued the Missouri Constitution provides a clear answer.
“When do you do it? When you get the census of 1950 and then, at each census, if it's been certified to the governor, that's the clear plain language of the Constitution,” Hatfield said.
Hatfield said because the new map did not occur after a new census, the plaintiffs feel this case is straightforward. Hatfield also said this action from the Missouri legislature is unprecedented.
“It's never been done voluntarily without having a previous one void. Neither the state nor the intervenor will give you a single case that tells you that Missouri legislatures for the last 80 years have simply missed this power and ability, and it's always been there. They have not missed it. The power is not there,” Hatfield said.
Solicitor General Louis Capozzi agreed at the hearing that this case is straightforward, but not in the same ways the plaintiffs feel it is. Capozzi said the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled that the General Assembly can act, unless the constitution takes that action away.
“The Missouri Constitution says nothing about mid-decade redistricting,” Capozzi said.
Capozzi said it is true that the legislature must redistrict at the beginning of a decade and that typically, those bills last for a decade.
“That is typically how redistricting bills work. That is the default rule, but the Missouri Supreme Court [in a previous case] did not consider, let alone speak to the possibility of a new redistricting bill,” Capozzi said.
Hatfield compared the defense’s argument of the constitution not explicitly banning mid-decade redistricting to the movie "Air Bud."
“There's a famous scene where the referee says, ‘Ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball,’ and they allow the dog to play. It's farcical, and it's kind of ridiculous,” Hatfield said. “We don't do 'Air Bud' rules in Missouri for very good reason, but that's essentially what the argument is from the state.”
In the final part of his argument, Capozzi said this case is ultimately political.
“Plaintiffs obviously disagree with the general assembly's political and policy aims in adopting the new congressional map, but this court cannot wade into that political fight and deny the General Assembly's authority to act,” Capozzi said.
Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh did not issue a ruling after arguments. A decision isn’t likely for at least 10 days.
Whatever Limbaugh decides is unlikely to be the last word on the topic.
After court, Hatfield said this hearing was the first stop for a case that will eventually arrive at the Missouri Supreme Court.
“What we're doing today was creating a record for the Missouri Supreme Court to consider. I think Judge Limbaugh listened patiently, and I think he's a good judge. We'll see what his decision is, but this will ultimately be decided by the Missouri Supreme Court,” Hatfield said.
This lawsuit is not the only one over the redistricting effort. Another one centered around a referendum to undo Missouri’s newly passed congressional districts has a hearing Thursday.
People not Politicians, the group behind a referendum to overturn the new map, is suing Secretary of State Denny Hoskins over his handling of the referendum process.
