Backers of a ballot measure on redistricting have decided not to ask the Missouri Supreme Court to review a decision to change the wording voters will read before deciding in November.
The Missouri Court of Appeals ordered substantial changes to the wording of Amendment 3, crafted by lawmakers determined to overturn an overwhelming vote in support of remaking the redistricting process.
Changes to the wording must be made before Sept. 8. While the appeals panel heavily criticized the wording and ordered the changes, it did not go as far as a Cole County Circuit Court judge who ruled all the wording be thrown out.
"We did not appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. I believe the only thing pending is the plaintiff’s motion for rehearing," Chris Neulle, spokesperson for Attorney General Eric Schmitt, told the St. Louis Record.
The plaintiffs, linked to the Clean Missouri group, are backers of Amendment 1, passed by 62-38 percent in 2018, which, among its key provisions, included the insertion of a non-partisan demographer into the redisctricting process.
Amendment 3 will remove the demographer from the process, largely returning it to what was in place previously, with a commission and the governor playing central roles.
Lawmakers, mostly Republicans, wrote that Amendment 3 will “create citizen-led independent bipartisan commissions” to draw districts that will be based on “minority voter protection, compactness, competitiveness, fairness."
In a written decision, the three judge appeals panel ruled that the summary “fails to acknowledge” that the amendment would “substantially modify, and reorder, the redistricting criteria approved by voters” in 2018. The summary does not even mention the demographer, the court noted.
"The politicians pushing Amendment 3 decided that two courts ruling that they broke the law with their lies was enough, and they did not appeal to the Supreme Court," Sean Soendker Nicholson, one of the leaders of the 2018 Amendment 1 campaign and linked to Clean Missouri, told the St. Louis Record.
"Beyond the misleading ballot language, they’re also trying to trick voters into passing a gerrymandering scheme with a $5 change to lobbyist gift limits and a $100 change to contribution limits for state senate candidates.
"Those aren’t reform — they’re a smokescreen to hide the fact that they want lobbyists and political operatives drawing incumbent-protection maps.
"They know voters will reject their radical gerrymandering plan if they find out what’s in the fine print."