U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ (R) request that he stop the Missouri Supreme Court from holding him in contempt.
“Numerous considerations counsel this Court against enjoining a state court of last resort, particularly before it even conducts a hearing,” wrote Clark, a Trump appointee, late Wednesday. “For starters, the Supreme Court of Missouri is a fellow court, and a court of a separate sovereign.”
As the battle over Missouri’s congressional map has become fiercer, the clash between state and federal courts has befuddled even the lawyers involved in the case. Who wins? Clark, and his finding that it violates the Equal Protection Clause for Missouri voters to vote under a different map in the general election than they did in the primary? Or the Missouri Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the 7 Republicans-1 Democrat gerrymander used in the primary should never have been implemented under the state constitution?
People Not Politicians, the group that has been fighting against the 7-1 gerrymander, asked the Missouri Supreme Court to hold Hoskins in contempt for announcing that he intends to ignore its injunction in favor of Clark’s ruling, which lets him use the maximal Republican map in the midterms. The state Supreme Court scheduled a contempt hearing, where Hoskins must appear in person, for Thursday.
“This Court recognizes the predicament in which Secretary Hoskins finds himself,” Clark wrote. “This Court is confident that the Supreme Court of Missouri does, as well. This Court is equally confident that both courts will accord each other comity, and that the Supreme Court will soon weigh in on Intervenor-Defendants’ application for a stay.”
The group had also asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to stay Clark’s order that Hoskins can’t use any map but the 7-1 gerrymander in the general election. This case has already reached the Supreme Court once, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — who handles cases from that region of the country — on Tuesday denied Hoskins’ request that he overturn the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling without even bothering to refer it to the whole Court. Clark’s ruling came down hours after, throwing the case into chaos.
In an ironic twist, the biggest problem for the People Not Politicians side — that the Missouri primary was already held using the new 7-1 gerrymander — was by Hoskins’ own design. The state allows voters to force a referendum vote on new legislation if they gather enough petition signatures. After People Not Politicians presented Hoskins with the signatures last winter, he dragged out the straightforward and administrative verification process until the last legal day: August 4, primary day. The Missouri Supreme Court later ruled that the 7-1 map shouldn’t have been used, since new legislation should be frozen as soon as the referendum process begins until it’s put to a statewide vote.
“No profit would be gained by upsetting the federalism and comity principles at hand…” Clark wrote. That choice will be made by the Supreme Court.
Read Clark’s ruling here:
You know, probably not a good idea to piss off Kavanaugh with such a slap in the face action. Hopefully Brettski comes down on this and shuts it down for good, but I have this little bit of doubt that he’ll do the right thing twice in a row and ends up saying I think this needs a broader ruling, and gets a few others to go along with “we’ll look at it in October, let’s see how things proceed” and then it wil be too close to switch back to the correct map. Oh, well.
Does Hoskins even have a law degree?? He flunked a class or two, obvs. What a clown.