Source: http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-MO.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:49:42+00:00

Document:
Pearson v. Koster, No. 11AC-CC00624 (Mo. Circuit Ct., Cole County), No. SC92200 and No. SC92317 (Mo. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the congressional districts drawn in 2011, based on alleged partisan gerrymandering and deviations from state constitutional compactness requirements.
- Petition for relief (Sept. 23, 2011) and amended petition (Nov. 29).
- Motion to dismiss (Oct. 6) and supplement (Dec. 1).
- Motion to dismiss of intervenors Diehl et al. (Oct. 26).
- Opposition to motion to dismiss (Dec. 2).
- Reply of state Attorney General and Diehl et al. (Dec. 6).
- Opinion granting motion to dismiss (Dec. 12).
- Jurisdictional statement (Dec. 19).
- Briefs by appellants (Dec. 23), State (Jan. 3), intervenors (Jan. 3).
- Opinion reversing and remanding (Jan. 17).
- Trial brief by plaintiffs, defendants (Jan. 30).
- Proposed findings of fact by plaintiffs, defendants (Jan. 30).
- Opinion rejecting challenge (Feb. 3).
- Jurisdictional statement (Feb. 7).
- Briefs by appellants (Feb. 9), State (Feb. 14), intervenors (Feb. 13).
- Amicus Clay (Feb. 15).
- Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Feb. 21).
- Opinion affirming trial court, rejecting challenge (May 25).
The latest: On December 12, the trial court dismissed the case; on January 17, the state Supreme Court reversed and remanded; it agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional law. On Feb. 3, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs' compactness challenges; that decision was affirmed on May 25.
McClatchey v. Carnahan, No. 11AC-CC00752 (Mo. Circuit Ct., Cole County), No. SC92203 and No. SC92326 (Mo. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the congressional districts drawn in 2011, based on alleged violations of the federal equal protection clause and various provisions of state law, including deviations from state constitutional compactness requirements.
- Original (Nov. 22, 2011), 1st (Dec. 6), and 2nd amended petition (Dec. 23).
- Motion to dismiss of intervenors Diehl et al. (Dec. 5).
- Jurisdictional statement (Dec. 20).
- Proposed findings of fact by plaintiffs (Jan. 31), defendants (Jan. 30).
- Jurisdictional statement (Feb. 8).
The latest: On December 12, the trial court dismissed the case; on January 17, the state Supreme Court reversed and remanded; it agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) are sufficiently compact under state constitutional law. On Feb. 3, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs' challenges on compactness grounds; that decision was affirmed on May 25.
Missouri ex rel. Teichman v. Carnahan, No. SC92237 (Mo. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate plan, based on alleged violations of the state constitution, and based on an allegedly illegal revision of the districts that were initially put forward.
- Petition in mandamus and prohibition (Jan. 3, 2012) and amended petition (Jan. 9).
- Motion to dismiss (Jan. 6), opposition (Jan. 9).
- Briefs by petitioners, State (Jan. 10).
- Opinion striking down Senate plan (Jan. 17).
The latest: On January 17, the state Supreme Court issued an opinion striking down the state Senate plan. It found the original plan promulgated by the backup commission of appellate judges to be invalid under the state constitution, based on excessive division of county lines, It also found the backup commission without authority to issue a revised plan; once it delivered its initial plan, valid or not, the backup commission's authority ended. The governor must restart the process, appointing a new politician commission to draw new Senate lines.
Missouri ex rel. Johnson v. Carnahan, No. SC92282 (Mo. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House districts on state constitutional grounds, including alleged equal population, contiguity, and compactness violations.
- Petition for writ of prohibition and support (Jan. 23, 2012).
- Opposition (Jan. 25), reply (Jan. 25).
- Order denying petition (Jan. 26).
The latest: On January 26, the state Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' direct petition to the high court, finding that the case should first have been brought in trial court instead.
Johnson v. Missouri, No. 12AC-CC00056 (Mo. Circuit Ct., Cole County) & No. SC92351 (Mo. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House districts on state constitutional grounds, including alleged equal population, contiguity, and compactness violations.
- Petition (Jan. 27, 2012) and amended petition (Jan. 31).
- Intervenors' motion to dismiss (Feb. 3).
- Brief by intervenors (Feb. 10).
- Opinion rejecting challenge (Feb. 14).
- Briefs by plaintiffs (Feb. 21), State, SoS, intervenor Barnes et al. (Feb. 24).
- Judgment affirming order (Mar. 27), explanatory opinion (May 25).
The latest: After a state Supreme Court decision requiring filing in trial court (see Missouri ex rel. Johnson v. Carnahan, above), a petition was filed on January 27. On Feb. 14, the court rejected the challenges on all grounds, finding the districts contiguous, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently equally populated. The court also determined that the backup commission, composed of judges, is a judicial entity (and therefore not subject to open meetings laws), even if not performing a judicial task. On March 27, the decision was affirmed on appeal, with an explanatory opinion issued on May 25.
Ehlen v. Carnahan, No. 6:12-cv-03122 (W.D. Mo.): a challenge in federal court to the new (Feb. 22) draft state Senate plan, on equal population grounds, and on the basis of allegedly improper numbering of districts so as to postpone some electors' ability to vote for a state Senator.
- Complaint (Mar. 2, 2012).
- Intervenor Teichman's motion to dismiss (Mar. 5).
- Notice of voluntary dismissal (Mar. 13).
The latest: The case was dismissed on March 13, 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.