DEMOCRACY WATCH: Can the Courts Hold the Line on Election Rules?

Two fast-moving election cases are raising a consequential question ahead of the November midterms: Will the courts serve as a guardrail when government officials attempt to change voting rules or congressional boundaries for partisan advantage?

On The Corner | September 6, 2026

Two fast-moving election cases are raising a consequential question ahead of the November midterms: Will the courts serve as a guardrail when government officials attempt to change voting rules or congressional boundaries for partisan advantage?

In his September 4 American Prospect newsletter, “Trump, Election Theft, and the Courts,” Robert Kuttner argues that recent rulings suggest judges may be unwilling to permit the Trump administration and its allies to reshape the election without meaningful legal scrutiny.

His argument centers on separate disputes involving Missouri’s congressional map and a new Postal Service rule governing mail ballots.

Missouri Voters Challenge a New Congressional Map

The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a citizen referendum challenging the state’s newly drawn congressional districts was valid and must be placed before voters.

The Republican-controlled legislature approved the new map after pressure from President Trump. It reconfigured the Kansas City district represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver and could have helped Republicans gain another seat in the narrowly divided U.S. House.

More than 300,000 petition signatures were submitted to force a statewide referendum. Missouri’s highest court held that the referendum suspended the new map unless voters approve it. The court therefore directed the state to use its previous congressional districts in the November election—even though the disputed map had already been used during the August primaries.

Missouri officials have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the new districts, arguing that changing maps between the primary and general election would create confusion and interfere with the rights of voters who participated in the primary.

A Court Halts New Mail-Ballot Requirements

A separate federal case involves a Postal Service rule that would impose new requirements on election officials using the mail to distribute ballots.

Among other provisions, the rule would require state and local officials to provide the Postal Service with lists of eligible mail voters and unique identifying barcodes. States and voting-rights organizations argued that implementing those requirements shortly before the election could disrupt ballot distribution and disenfranchise eligible voters.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking the mandatory portions of the rule. The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to allow the requirements to take effect while the litigation continues.

The Supreme Court has requested responses from the parties but has not issued a final ruling.

The Consistency Test

Kuttner connects the two disputes through the Purcell principle—a legal doctrine courts often cite when declining to change election procedures too close to an election.

Missouri argues that returning to its previous congressional map would create unacceptable last-minute disruption. Opponents of the Postal Service rule argue that imposing an entirely new mail-ballot system would produce precisely the kind of disruption the Purcell principle is intended to prevent.

Kuttner’s larger point is that the courts will have to apply their reasoning consistently. If proximity to an election weighs against changing Missouri’s map, the same concern should matter when evaluating new nationwide requirements for processing mail ballots.

Why Democracy Watch Is Watching

These initial decisions do not guarantee that the challenged measures have been permanently stopped. Both disputes remain active, and the Supreme Court could still alter the outcome.

What the rulings demonstrate—for now—is that executive orders, administrative regulations and legislatively approved maps remain subject to constitutional limits, state law and judicial review.

The courts are acting as a temporary guardrail. The next test is whether that guardrail holds when the disputes reach the nation’s highest court.

Sources: Robert Kuttner, “Trump, Election Theft, and the Courts,” The American Prospect, September 4, 2026; Reuters reporting on Missouri’s Supreme Court appeal; and the federal government’s Supreme Court application concerning the USPS ballot-mail rule.

---

Democracy Watch follows consequential developments in voting access, election administration and the institutions responsible for protecting the democratic process.