‘Air Bud’ legal Theory Could Halt Missouri‘s New Congressional Map
JEFFERSON CITY, MO – A little-known legal argument, inspired by a scene from the 1997 film Air bud, is threatening to unravel Missouri’s newly redrawn congressional map, possibly delaying its implementation until the 2028 election cycle. Opponents of the map are actively collecting signatures to force a statewide referendum, and a successful petition could effectively nullify the work of state lawmakers.
The redistricting plan, approved by the Missouri House in September despite potential for a voter challenge, aims to create a more favorable political landscape for Republicans. Though, a provision in Missouri law allows citizens to challenge laws passed by the legislature through a referendum petition. To trigger a vote, opponents must gather roughly 171,000 signatures by December 11.
The unusual legal basis for challenging the map stems from a 1990s Missouri Supreme Court case involving the film Air Bud. The case established that a law is not fully “operative” until it can no longer be challenged by referendum. Opponents argue this means the new congressional map isn’t valid for the 2026 election if a referendum petition succeeds.
“If signature gatherers just got enough names collected before Dec. 11, the map couldn’t go into effect for the 2026 election cycle, defeating the entire purpose of the redistricting special session,” reported Jason rosenbaum of St. Louis Public Radio.
Many Missouri lawmakers were reportedly unaware of this potential challenge. State Rep. Bryant Wolfin admitted, “I guarantee the majority of the caucus did not [know the map could go up for a statewide vote].” the Trump White House did not respond to requests for comment on whether they were aware of the referendum possibility.
The prospect of a referendum has energized Missouri Democrats following a tough 2024 election cycle. Frida Tucker, a Jefferson City resident, expressed a sentiment shared by many: “We need clarity. We need to stop the power grab. We don’t need to do it every three years, OK? Like, something’s not right here.”
Rosenbaum noted the importance of seemingly minor details, like the vote count on the bill, and the unexpected relevance of a decades-old legal precedent rooted in a family-friendly film.
