The state is asking U.S. District Judge Zachary Bluestone to block People Not Politicians from turning in petitions by Dec. 11. People Not Politicians asked him to dismiss the case
BY: RUDI KELLER
Missouri Independent
ST. LOUIS — A federal judge promised Tuesday that he would decide whether or not to block a referendum on Missouri’s gerrymandered redistricting map before petitions to force a vote are submitted.
The state is asking U.S. District Judge Zachary Bluestone, a recent Trump appointee, to declare the U.S. Constitution precludes any popular effort to overturn the new map that was muscled through by Republicans in a September special session. People Not Politicians, a political action committee that has until Dec. 11 to submit enough signatures to force a vote on the map, wants Bluestone to dismiss the case and leave it to state courts to sort out.
Told in court that the signatures would be turned in Dec. 9, Bluestone said he would have a decision by that date.
Using the new map, Republicans hope to win seven of the state’s eight congressional seats by adding enough GOP votes to flip the 5th District, currently held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. It is part of a national battle over drawing new lines begun when President Donald Trump pushed Texas to redistrict to win five new GOP seats in the narrowly divided Congress.
The case is one of eight — two in federal court and six in state court — that wrap the redistricting plan in multiple layers of litigation. One, argued Nov. 12 in Cole County and challenging the constitutionality of redistricting when there is no new census data, is awaiting a decision from Circuit Judge Christopher LImbaugh.
The latest lawsuit was filed Nov. 11 by Advanced Micro Targeting, the company gathering signatures for People Not Politicians, accusing competitors of “poaching” employees and “gathering intelligence” on its operations.
In the case before Bluestone, the state argues the federal constitution directs state legislatures to determine the boundaries of congressional districts. And without a clear statement in the Missouri Constitution’s referendum clause allowing votes on redistricting plans, it is prohibited.
Lou Capozzi, state solicitor general, told Bluestone that he should intervene because the people are trying to infringe on the prerogatives of the General Assembly and it is costing the state money and employee time to process the referendum.
“From start to finish, the defendants’ actions impose significant burdens,” he said.
Jessica Amunson, representing People Not Politicians, said the costs are just employees in three state offices — secretary of state, attorney general and state auditor — doing their jobs. And future costs, for verifying signatures and an election, are speculative because the petitions have not been submitted yet.
The case, she said, is unprecedented. The plaintiffs — the General Assembly and Secretary of State Denny Hoskins — “are suing their own citizens to prevent them from petitioning their government.”
There are very few court precedents on the question of whether citizen referendum power extends to congressional district maps. Missouri voters rejected a redistricting plan in a 1922 referendum but that vote produced no guiding legal cases.
The attorneys did argue over the meaning of a 1916 U.S. Supreme Court decision in an Ohio case that found a referendum on a redistricting plan was a constitutional use of the power.
Capozzi said the courts found the Ohio Constitution had a “clear statement” granting the power.
Amunson disagreed. The Ohio referendum power is essentially the same as Missouri, allowing “any law” to be subject to a vote while Missouri says “any act” passed by lawmakers can be sent to a vote.
“In none of those cases was there a clear statement rule required,” she said.
Bluestone seemed more skeptical of Amunson’s arguments at times than Capozzi, but directed pointed questioning to both.
While he promised a decision by Dec. 9, at the beginning of the hearing he said the decision may be to hold the case without acting while other lawsuits play out in state court.
In state court, Missouri is defending the redistricting plan by arguing the inverse of the argument in federal court — the absence of words granting or barring lawmakers authority to revise district lines between census reports means it is allowed. Before Bluestone, the state is arguing that the absence of words granting or barring petitioners from seeking a referendum means it is not allowed.
Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, said after the hearing that he’s not surprised by the apparent contradiction.
“What I saw in the hearing was, frankly, clarity from the state about how afraid they are of voters getting the final say on this,” von Glahn said. “If you think what you did is a good thing, you have nothing to fear from a referendum.”