Thanks for the articles on this and others. It really helps put things into perspective. Keep up the good work on all the articles you write including all the wins the administration has had in courts. Jeff Childers compiled a list of all the accomplishments Trump 2.0 has achieved. Could you create a list of all the suits brought against the administration by the Dems and others and the wins/losses? I do not believe that these cases are getting enough attention and how Trump 2.0 is accomplishing things despite all the lawfare being waged against it. I also saw President Trump truth social post regarding Missouri's Supreme Court ruling and confused about that. However, I think one positive thing coming out is that people are starting to pay attention of all the shenanigans going on.
The MO redistricting case is very different than others. I expect the State of MO to lose that request for a stay in SCOTUS.
MO has a law allowing public referendums to challenge legislative enactments. Activists obtained the required signatures to get a referendum on the ballot to undo the legislature’s redistricting. Under MO law the referendum suspends the legislative enactment so the new districts are not in place. That is what the MO Supreme Court ruled. I don’t expect SCOTUS to change that Questions of MO law are for the MO Supreme Court after all, so the review in SCOTUS will be limited.
Thanks for your reply. Why would the MO Supreme court rule on it a month after the primaries had been held using the new map? Wouldn’t that disenfranchise candidates and voters? Additionally, what about the Purcell rule regarding not causing chaos close to an election or the latches doctrine?
The MO Supreme Court already ruled the new districts were constitutional, but the referendum issue was not before the Court then. The referendum petition had to be approved or disapproved by the MO Sec. of State. The referendum petition and signatures were submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2025, but the MO Sec of State did not rule on the validity of the referendum petition until August 4, 2026 (which was the deadline). That is why the question of the validity of the referendum did not reach the MO Supreme Court until September 2026.
Purcell actually stands for the proposition that federal court orders should not alter the rules of elections on the eve of elections due to confusion/chaos. This case presented the opposite issue, namely, a federal court order restoring the rule of an election on the eve of it to prevent confusion. Here I refer to the federal district court order restoring the use of the 2025 redistricting map - I did not write about that - which SCOTUS set aside a day or two later. Laches (a doctrine which essentially means a party waited too long to pursue a claim) does not apply here. The referendum supporters could not do anything until the MO Sec of State ruled on the validity of the referendum petition. They immediately sued when the Sec of State issued his decision finding the petition did not meet the criteria for being certified.
Thanks for the articles on this and others. It really helps put things into perspective. Keep up the good work on all the articles you write including all the wins the administration has had in courts. Jeff Childers compiled a list of all the accomplishments Trump 2.0 has achieved. Could you create a list of all the suits brought against the administration by the Dems and others and the wins/losses? I do not believe that these cases are getting enough attention and how Trump 2.0 is accomplishing things despite all the lawfare being waged against it. I also saw President Trump truth social post regarding Missouri's Supreme Court ruling and confused about that. However, I think one positive thing coming out is that people are starting to pay attention of all the shenanigans going on.
Thank you for the kind words.
A couple of outfits maintain lists of the litigation against the Trump Admin. Here is a link to the best one I know of:
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
The MO redistricting case is very different than others. I expect the State of MO to lose that request for a stay in SCOTUS.
MO has a law allowing public referendums to challenge legislative enactments. Activists obtained the required signatures to get a referendum on the ballot to undo the legislature’s redistricting. Under MO law the referendum suspends the legislative enactment so the new districts are not in place. That is what the MO Supreme Court ruled. I don’t expect SCOTUS to change that Questions of MO law are for the MO Supreme Court after all, so the review in SCOTUS will be limited.
Thanks for your reply. Why would the MO Supreme court rule on it a month after the primaries had been held using the new map? Wouldn’t that disenfranchise candidates and voters? Additionally, what about the Purcell rule regarding not causing chaos close to an election or the latches doctrine?
The MO Supreme Court already ruled the new districts were constitutional, but the referendum issue was not before the Court then. The referendum petition had to be approved or disapproved by the MO Sec. of State. The referendum petition and signatures were submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2025, but the MO Sec of State did not rule on the validity of the referendum petition until August 4, 2026 (which was the deadline). That is why the question of the validity of the referendum did not reach the MO Supreme Court until September 2026.
Purcell actually stands for the proposition that federal court orders should not alter the rules of elections on the eve of elections due to confusion/chaos. This case presented the opposite issue, namely, a federal court order restoring the rule of an election on the eve of it to prevent confusion. Here I refer to the federal district court order restoring the use of the 2025 redistricting map - I did not write about that - which SCOTUS set aside a day or two later. Laches (a doctrine which essentially means a party waited too long to pursue a claim) does not apply here. The referendum supporters could not do anything until the MO Sec of State ruled on the validity of the referendum petition. They immediately sued when the Sec of State issued his decision finding the petition did not meet the criteria for being certified.