Legislative Council legal staff updated Legislative Management on redistricting litigation that could alter legislative district boundaries and create uncertainty for members whose residences may no longer fall inside their districts if the appellate court’s decision becomes final.

Austin Gunderson, legislative council staff, summarized the May 14 Eighth Circuit panel decision in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, which concluded private plaintiffs may not bring a private cause of action to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The panel vacated the district court’s judgment imposing a plaintiff-drawn map and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of a private cause of action. If the ruling becomes final, Gunderson said, the district boundaries would revert to those adopted by the Legislature in the 2021 special session, including changes to Districts 9 and 15 that the district court had previously altered.

Gunderson outlined the procedural posture: appellees filed a timely petition for rehearing en banc in the Eighth Circuit on May 18 and the appellants filed a response on June 16. While those petitions are pending, the Eighth Circuit has not issued its mandate; Rule 41(b) requires the mandate seven days after denial of a rehearing petition. Gunderson explained that the mandate must issue before the appellate judgment takes effect, and he described the separate possibility of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and the typical motions to stay the mandate that accompany such petitions.

On substance and practical effect, staff noted uncertainty: if the Eighth Circuit mandate issues, the district court judgment would be vacated and the 2021 legislative maps would be in force, which could leave some members residing outside their district boundaries. Gunderson said historical practice has allowed members in prior redistricting cycles to serve out their elected term even if a new map places their residence outside the district, but that the constitution and precedent could leave room for legal challenge and that the Supreme Court or state courts could be asked to decide questions of member qualification and timing.

Committee members asked about timing relative to candidate filing deadlines and the upcoming election calendar. Gunderson said deadlines for potential Supreme Court filings and the possibility of stays could leave the litigation unresolved into the primary or general election and that contingency planning should recognize that uncertainty.

No formal action was taken; staff advised continued monitoring and explained options that would arise if the mandate issues or the Supreme Court is asked to review the case.