Missouri Supreme Court rules governor had authority to call redistricting session

Summary

• Missouri Supreme Court upheld governor’s authority to call special session.
• NAACP challenge to congressional redistricting effort was rejected.
• Court ruled Article IV gives governor broad constitutional discretion.
• New congressional map will be used in the 2026 primary election.

A challenge by the Missouri NAACP to Gov. Mike Kehoe‘s Republican-favoring congressional redistricting effort fell short May 27, as the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled the governor had the authority to call the special session that produced the new map.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Mary R. Russell, the court held that the governor had the authority to determine when and for what reason to call the state legislature into an “extraordinary” session. The high court affirmed the judgment originally handed down out of Cole County Circuit Court.

The ruling comes after Kehoe called the legislature for an extraordinary session in August 2025 to establish new congressional districts and alter the initiative petition process. The legislature met and passed a bill adopting a new congressional district map and joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment modifying the initiative petition process.

That new congressional district map favors Republicans and is set to be used for the 2026  primary election.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri and two individuals, Patricia A. Jones and Traci Wilson-Kleekamp ­­ — collectively the challengers — sued the state and the governor, attorney general, senate president pro tempore and the speaker of the house on Sept. 3, seeking judgment that the governor’s proclamation to call an extraordinary session failed to state and extraordinary occasion existent, pursuant to the Missouri Constitution.

The challengers also requested a temporary restraining order prohibiting the implementation of any legislation passed during the extraordinary session.

The circuit court, during a bench trial, found that the governor had the constitutional authority to call an extraordinary session pursuant to Article IV, Section 9. The lower court also said the issue was of a political nature and should be determined by the governor rather than the courts. The challengers appealed.

Oral arguments were heard in the case the same morning the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in it. The challengers were represented during arguments by Sharon Geuea Jones of Jones Advocacy Group in Jefferson City; C. Austin Reams of Reams Law in Oklahoma City; and Nimrod T. Chapel Jr. of The Chapel Law Group in Jefferson City. The state was represented by Solicitor General Louis J. Capozzi III and Joseph Kiernan of the attorney general’s office in St. Louis.

The NAACP argued that the governor’s reasons did not meet the dictionary definition of extraordinary when calling the session, as outlined in his proclamation calling for the session.

Article IV, Section 9 states “The governor shall, at the commencement of each session of the general assembly, at the close of his term of office, and at such other times as he may deem necessary, give to the general assembly information as to the state of the government, and shall recommend to its consideration such measures as he shall deem necessary and expedient. On extraordinary occasions he may convene the general assembly by proclamation, wherein he shall state specifically each matter on which action is deemed necessary.”

“By its plain language, this constitutional provision instills the governor with a great deal of discretion,” Russell wrote.

The high court focused on the words “deem necessary” in the article, finding that the provision “makes it clear it is the governor who ‘deems’ or determines whether and when something is necessary.” The words also appear later in the article with respect to when the governor can convene the legislature by proclamation.

The NAACP argued that an “extraordinary occasion” means an unusual situation, and since the issues mentioned by the governor as reasons to call the extraordinary session already existed during the last legislative session. Therefore, there was no extraordinary occasion.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding that it “lacked merit” and that in any case, the article gave the governor broad authority to convene the general assembly. The NAACP cited a modern dictionary definition of “extraordinary” in its arguments, but the court said that the definition in the constitutional provision was the same as the dictionary definition from that time of its adoption in the 1820s, in that extraordinary meant not in the “usual or regular course.” Therefore, in the context of that definition, “extraordinary” simply means outside the normal legislative session.

“This provision does not require the extraordinary occasion be an unusual occasion in the way NAACP suggests, nor specify a method for determining whether an occasion is sufficiently unusual to justify such a session. This Court will not read words into a constitutional provision that do not exist,” wrote Russell. “Additionally, this entire constitutional provision — as understood from its plain language — grants the governor discretion at additional times: (1) to inform the general assembly about ‘the state of the government’ and suggest legislation; and (2) to call extraordinary sessions.”

The Supreme Court said the governor acted pursuant to his constitutional authority, affirming the circuit court’s judgment. It is also because the governor was acting according to his constitutional authority that the high court did not reach the lower court’s finding that the issue was barred by the political question doctrine.

The swift ruling follows a recent pattern of redistricting cases before the Supreme Court. Just hours after hearing oral arguments on May 12, the court determined that a referendum petition challenging the new map was insufficient to suspend it, and that the map itself did not violate constitutional guidelines.

The case is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri Conference, et al. v. Governor Mike Kehoe, et al., Case No. SC101541.