RNC and NRCC sue to defend Missouri congressional map
The Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee sued Thursday to defend Missouri’s new congressional map and to intervene in Democratic challenges, the RNC told Fox News Digital.
RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement that Democrats are using “frivolous lawsuits to cling to power after failing at the ballot box,” and that the RNC is “fighting for the values of Missourians against Democrats trying to use the courts to rig congressional districts in their favor and override the will of voters.”
The RNC said the map enacted by the Missouri General Assembly last year fully complies with the state constitution. Opponents dispute that claim and have argued in court that the plan violates provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The NRCC said the move is intended to protect Missourians’ representation. NRCC Chairman Richard Hudson said, “The NRCC and RNC are standing up for the integrity of the democratic process and defending Missourians’ right to have their voices heard under fair congressional districts.”
The lawsuit asks courts to allow the state’s signature-verification and review process to continue before any referendum certification moves forward, the RNC said. The party argued that certifying a referendum before the review is finished could temporarily block implementation of the new map and said Democrats and allied groups have already spent more than $6 million unsuccessfully challenging Missouri’s maps in court.
Gov. Mike Kehoe signed the new map into law last year. Supporters say it could help Republicans gain an additional U.S. House seat in the 2026 midterm elections. Critics contend the plan was drawn to increase Republican advantage and diminish the influence of some communities of interest, allegations supporters reject. The RNC also cited last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on Louisiana redistricting, saying it reaffirmed limits on using race in drawing districts, while voting-rights advocates and legal experts have offered differing interpretations of the ruling’s broader implications.
Source: Original Article





