On May 12, the same day the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the two cases over U.S. House redistricting, the Court issued opinions. The Court ruled in favor of the new districts in both cases.

Here is the Opinion in the case over compactness.

Here is the opinion that says filing a referendum petition does not freeze the new law. Instead only after the signatures have been checked does the petition stop the new law. So the voters will decide whether to repeal the new district boundaries, but not until November 2026. The new districts will be used for November 2026.

Two new federal cases are challenging Tennessee’s new U.S. House district boundaries. Sherman v Hargett, m.d., 3:26cv-616 is an ACLU case assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw. The plaintiffs seek a three-judge panel. The plaintiffs include the Tennessee Democratic Party. This case was filed May 11.

Hale v Lee, m.d., 3:26cv-603, challenges the timing of the new maps, and the plaintiffs do not ask for a 3-judge court. The state argues that this case also needs a 3-judge court. Currently it is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge William Campbell, a Trump appointee. One of the plaintiffs is Congressman Steven Cohen, the member who represents Memphis. The new map splits Memphis into three different districts. This case was filed May 7.

There is also a state court case pending, in Davidson County Chancery Court.

Also there is the case already mentioned in B.A.N. filed by an independent U.S. House candidate, who argues that her rights are being violated by the state having changed the district boundaries after she had been campaigning in the old district lines for the last two years. Moses v Lee, w.d., 2:26cv-2533.

On May 11, U.S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb, a Bush Sr. appointee, refused to put Butch Ware on the California primary ballot as a Green Party candidate for Governor. Ware v Weber, e.d., 2:26cv-1643. Here is the ruling, which says nothing about the constitutional issue of requiring gubernatorial candidates to submit copies of income tax returns. The constitutional issue will be decided later. The basis for the ruling is that the primary election is already underway. Already several hundred thousand Californians have voted.