America is currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of mid-decade redistricting. As of September of 2025, eleven states, including Missouri, have made some progress towards redrawing their electoral boundaries for the 2026 elections, and Missouri joins Texas in having officially signed a new district map into law. Barring the potential of a lawsuit overturning the map, many Missouri voters, particularly those around Kansas City, will find themselves in a new electoral district in 2026, and those changes are likely to force Democratic representative Emanuel Cleaver out of his seat. 

Missouri’s Redistricting Plan and House Bill 1

Missouri’s redistricting effort can be found in Missouri House Bill 1 of the 103^rd General Assembly’s second extraordinary session (HB1). HB1 is a lengthy bill, assigning every voting district and county in the state of Missouri to one of eight electoral districts, but the key changes proposed in the bill can be found by comparing the new district map to the prior map, approved for use in 2022. 

Both maps have eight electoral districts, but the shape of several districts, particularly District 5, have been changed. Where District 5 used to contain most of the Kansas City area and nothing else, it now extends several hundred miles into rural (and reliably Republican) central Missouri. The north and south ends of the city have been placed in districts 6 and 4 respectively, which each also cover an extensive region of rural Missouri. The result is that district 5, currently held by long-serving Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II, will now lean Republican, leaving only one Democrat-leaning district in the state.

Governor Mike Kehoe signed HB1 after it cleared the state legislature, officially enshrining the new electoral map into Missouri law. However, its path forward has become fraught. Four lawsuits (at time of writing) have challenged the bill’s legality, with most emphasis being placed on the compactness (or lack thereof) of the new fifth district and the fact that the state constitution does not permit mid-cycle redistricting. Emanuel Cleaver has also promised a lawsuit if HB1 passes, so it is likely that more lawsuits are still to come.

The fate of HB1’s new electoral map will therefore depend on the decisions of several courts, and it is likely that, whatever the outcome of the initial trials, every verdict will be appealed up through the courts. 

The National Rise of Redistricting

Missouri’s redistricting effort is part of a broader effort by both political parties to create new House seats for their respective party for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. President Trump has pushed Republican-led states to create more Republican-leaning districts, concerned that midterm election results will swing against Republicans. In the 23 midterm elections since 1934, the president’s party has lost House seats in all but three elections; Republicans currently hold a six-seat majority with three vacant seats, so any lost seats in the midterms may end the Republican Party’s control of the chamber. 

In response to Republican efforts to gain more seats in Texas, Missouri, and elsewhere, Democratic state governments have proposed their own retaliatory redistricting efforts. California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken the lead in this effort, proposing a new map that would likely swap six currently-red seats to Democrats in 2026. California’s proposition 50 is slated to arrive at the polls in November, with California citizens voting directly on whether to approve the map. Current polling indicates that the California public supports the measure, 51% to 34%, but there is still over a month before votes will be cast. Similar “reactive” redistricting has been planned in other Democratic-led states such as Maryland, but has seen somewhat limited success outside of California.

With both political parties pushing partisan redistricting, a grassroots campaign to limit redistricting has gained steam. Groups such as Common Cause have been fighting to prevent partisan redistricting and leading anti-gerrymandering protests, particularly in Republican-led states such as Indiana. Even in California, opinions are split on Proposition 50’s “reactive” redistricting, with 49% of survey respondents believing Prop 50 to be a bad thing, including 13% of those who are voting for it and 96% of those who oppose it.

Polling in Missouri shows that voters are against House Bill 1’s redistricting plan, though the margins in Missouri are significantly narrower. A Democratic Party poll finds that 48% of Missouri voters oppose the redistricting move, while 37% approve of it. Missouri voters have also attempted to force a statewide referendum on the vote (similar to California’s upcoming Prop 50 vote), which is in the early stages of collecting signatures. Even with Governor Kehoe signing HB1 on September 28th, the array of lawsuits and attempts to demand a popular referendum on redistricting leave the future of Missouri’s congressional district lines murky at best. 

For those interested in redistricting, particularly in Missouri, Jewell and Pi Sigma Alpha will be hosting a panel discussion on gerrymandering on October 15^th at 6:30 pm.

It has been an interesting week for U.S. democracy. In the last fourteen days, U.S. lawmakers have averted a government shutdown. Currently, the Biden administration is discussing how it wants to address a surprise attack in Israel from the terrorist organization Hamas.  

All of this, and the U.S. House of Representatives does not have a Speaker to assist. A Speaker of the House has not been ousted in America’s history. So, what happened? 

Budgeting 101

In order to answer this, we must examine the U.S. budget, which is passed by the Congress every year. Congress must pass all federal funding budgets, which are typically valid for a certain length of time. This process is often done yearly. Congress can also pass short-term funding bills, typically called continuing resolutions or CR, which will fund the government for anywhere between a week and a couple months. If a funding bill expires and a new one is not put in place, the government is not being funded. This means the government cannot pay its employees or maintain any federally-controlled lands, although essential employees can continue to work; such a time is often referred to as a government shutdown. 

On Sept. 29, the House of Representatives passed a CR with broad bipartisan support. However, some Republicans, among them Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), had promised to introduce a motion to vacate the office of now-former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if a CR passed.  

Removal of the Speaker 

On Oct. 2, Gaetz filed his promised motion to vacate. When the motion came to a vote, all Democrats joined eight Republicans in voting to remove McCarthy. Those eight Republicans were Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Elijah Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), Nancy Mace (S.C.) and Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.). 

After the motion to vacate succeeded, Gaetz claimed, “Kevin McCarthy is a creature of the swamp. He has risen to power by collecting special interest money and redistributing that money in exchange for favors. We are breaking the fever now.” 

The successful vote means that the House is currently lacking an elected speaker. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has been named interim speaker while the search takes place. 

Implications 

This leaves the Republican party with a leadership crisis. The Republican margin in the House is currently five votes, which means that five Republicans can defeat any measure if all Democrats oppose it. As such, this leaves radical Republicans with an outsized influence.  

Many Republicans are furious with Gaetz, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Gaetz’s removal from the Republican conference. Joseph Postell, professor of political science at Hillsdale College, said that these legislators sought to gain outside media influence. Postell told the Washington Post that “[House Republicans] are no longer incentivized to bargain with one another. They are incentivized to remain in conflict.” 

What will become of the Republican Party in 2024 and beyond is yet to be seen. But this episode will give us a picture of how Republicans choose to address a leadership crisis, and may show us how they will choose to handle Donald Trump. House Republicans are trying to show America that they can effectively govern in the leadup to the 2024 election; in the days to come, we will see Republicans try to govern their own.

Among the decisions on the ballot this election cycle is the selection of a governor for Missouri. Four candidates are running for the position, Republican Mike Parson, Democrat Nicole Galloway, Libertarian Rik Combs and Jerome Bauer for the Green Party. 

As election day approaches polls show a tightening race for governor in Missouri between incumbent Governor Mike Parson and State Auditor Nicole Galloway. 

Both Galloway and Parson have received support from their respective national party leaders. President Trump endorsed and tweeted about his support for Gov. Parson Sept. 10 while former Vice President and Democratic nominee Joe Biden endorsed Galloway Sept. 14. 

While President Trump is still expected to win Missouri, polls have shown a closer race than his 18.5 point victory in 2016, casting doubt about the length of his coattails potentially impacting the governor’s race. 

While the Real Clear Politics average of polls shows a comfortable nearly twelve point lead for Parson, this lead has been steadily declining in recent polls. This decline has been reflected in the nonpartisan Cook Political Report’s decision to move the race from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican.” 

Galloway, the lone state-wide elected Democrat, touts her experience as State Auditor to focus on the nonpartisan issue of eliminating government waste. Eliminating government waste as well as improving Missouri’s medical care are central planks to the Galloway campaign. Beyond this focus, she has also been vocal in castigating Parson for his handling of the state’s coronavirus response. 

Parson, despite personally testing positive for the virus, has maintained support for his position that issues such as mask mandates should be a matter of local control and personal responsibility rather than being imposed by the state. 

Looming over this debate is the spread of the pandemic in the state. Covid-19 cases continue to rise in Missouri. The state reported over 5,066 new cases Oct. 9, more than doubling its previous single day total. 

Analysts have differed in their assessments of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gubernatorial race. The Cook Political Report cited Parson’s handling of the pandemic as one of the reasons for tightening in the race. Other political observers have argued that the governor’s decision is reflective of voter sentiments in the Republican-leaning state. 

The debate over COVID-19 responses has also sparked a broader healthcare fight between the two candidates. Since Missouri voted to expand Medicaid in August, Galloway has asked for voters to trust her with implementation and contrasted her support for expansion with Parson.  Long a vocal opponent of Medicaid expansion, Parson has publicly wondered about where the state would find the money for such an initiative. 

Leaning into his background as a former sheriff – with rising homicide rates in both Kansas City and St. Louis – and mirroring President Trump, Parson has emphasized law and order in his campaign. The governor convened a special session of the state legislature over the summer focused on anti-crime legislation. The Parson campaign and allies have accused Galloway of supporting the Defund the Police movement and being soft on crime, assertions that Galloway denies. 
All four candidates met for a contentious forum in Columbia Oct. 9. With the backdrop of the pandemic and the budgetary challenges that will confront the next governor, the forum saw clashes on a wide range of economic, social and public health issues.

On Saturday, Sept. 26, President Donald Trump announced that he would be nominating Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Barrett would be the third justice appointed to the Supreme Court by President Trump during his term. 

This nomination has sparked a partisan battle due to the nomination coming just 38 days before the election. This is similar to the controversy that surrounded President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland eight months before the 2016 election. In the days following the nomination, Democrats have been very critical of President Trump’s decision. 

“Which precedent do you really believe in?” Democratic New Jersey senator Cory Booker asked of Republicans. “Because you can’t say one thing and then do another. Barack Obama was putting up a nominee 269 days before an election and now we see Donald Trump doing it while people are voting in the midst of an election.”

While Garland was blocked by the Republican-led Senate then, it appears that this will not be the case for Barrett.

“We can slow it down, perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most. But we can’t stop the outcome,” Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin said of the nomination. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing is set for Oct. 12 although the spread of positive COVID-19 cases among the Senate Judiciary Committee may delay the hearing.

This is not the first time that Barrett was considered for a seat in the Supreme Court. She was near the top of President Trump’s list of candidates to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2019, but Trump stated that he was “saving her” for Ginsburg’s seat.

Barrett went to law school at Notre Dame where she graduated summa cum laude in 1997 and received the Hoynes Prize, the school’s highest honor, as the top student in her class.

Not long after graduating, Barrett worked as a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was quick to align herself with Scalia’s conservative approach to the law saying, “his judicial philosophy is mine too.”

In regards to that philosophy, Barrett would consider herself an originalist. More specifically, she is an original public meaning originalist. “Courts ought to interpret with an eye towards current norms, push the country forward with an evolving idea of norms,” Barrett said when discussing the different types of originalism.

It is also well documented that Barrett is strongly against abortion. She signed a joint letter in 2015 that said: “the value of human life from conception to natural death… and marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman – provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.” 

Barrett also criticized Roe v. Wade as “creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand.” If appointed, many people worry about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Barrett was a popular pick among conservatives for a seat on the Supreme Court partially because of her close affiliation with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his views. 

“She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution,” Trump said of Barrett during the announcement ceremony at the White House. 

Assuming that Barrett is appointed to the Supreme Court, the landscape of the court would shift even further to the right. Republican judges would outnumber Democratic judges six to three which could also influence the decisions of the Chief Justice.

As of the time of publishing, the Senate hearings are set for Oct. 12.