JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (CN) — Two residents tried to revive their claim that the state’s new voting map is unconstitutional in a hearing before the Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday.
At issue is the state's new legislative district map, which the two voters say improperly splits districts.
“For years, this court has talked about the fact that redistricting is a historically political process or an inherently political process,” Charles Hatfield, of Stinson LLP in Jefferson City, argued on behalf of the residents. “That's still true. It is still an inherently political process, but it is shaped now by very clear boundaries, and by very clear objective standards.
Otherwise, we have gerrymandering of the system," he continued. "And of course, gerrymandering not only disenfranchises people by not allowing them a voice, but it destroys faith in the process.”
Every 10 years, Missouri redraws its state legislative districts to ensure fair representation. In 2022, Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, appointed an independent bipartisan citizens commission to draw a map of the state senate districts based on 2020 federal census data. But that committee could not come to an agreement for a new map, forcing the state court to appoint a judicial redistricting commission composed of six appellate judges.
In March 2022, that commission submitted its map dividing the state into 34 senate districts. Buchanan County, north of Kansas City, was divided into two districts — District 12 and District 34 — and the city of Hazelwood, in suburban St. Louis, was also split across districts — District 13 and District 14.
Clara Faatz and William Caldwell filed a lawsuit in Cole County in July 2022, claiming the map was unconstitutional and seeking an injunction prohibiting its use. Part of their argument was that the committee, in the cases of Buchanan County and Hazelwood, violated a constitutional standard by deviating by more than 1% from the ideal population, while not following political subdivisions like cities or counties.
After a trial, Circuit Judge Jon Beetem found in favor of the state, prompting the appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Hatfield argued that the commission erred in favoring compactness of districts over political subdivision lines.
“It is clear that map drawers have always considered political subdivisions to be extremely important,” Hatfield said. “And, in fact, more important than compactness. ... You can also see it here in this case and how the judicial redistricting commission drew the rest of these maps.”
Maria Ann Lanahan, of the Missouri attorney general’s office, claimed the plaintiffs were picking and choosing which standards they want to apply. She used Jackson County, where Kansas City is located, as an example where a portion of the county does not follow political subdivision lines.
“Under their argument, District 7 exceeds the 1%, so under their argument, District 7 is unconstitutional,” Lanahan told the court during the 30-minute hearing.
She made a similar point about the city of Springfield: “Under their argument, District 30 is also unconstitutional because Springfield doesn't actually follow the Springfield municipality by that line," Lanahan said. "If you look at the map, it actually goes a little outside and incorporates parts of county inside of it. That's a problem for them.”
Hatfield began his rebuttal by asking the court about being careful while applying priority language, pointing out that some of the standards conflict with others in terms of priority.
He said that fixing the Hazelwood situation was a “no-brainer” because it simply involved moving 400 people, and the state’s expert did that. Hatfield said Buchanan County had more of an issue.
“Mr. Caldwell said, ‘Hey, I live in a district that divides my county. I don't like that,’” Hatfield said. “Why does it divide his county? I mean, you got to look at why. It divides his county in part because there was a 3% deviation, and that's what caused the split of Buchanan County.”
Lanahan concluded her argument saying that the state court was correct in finding the map constitutional.
“The circuit court found that the population quality and compactness, for instance, were better in the final map than in the proposed map,” Lanahan said. “And, so, I think we're looking more broadly at those things.”
The court took the matter under advisement. There is no timetable for a decision.
Follow @@joeharris_stl
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
GOP sues Nevada over late mail-in ballots May 3, 2024 -
