Background
In August 2025, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe issued a proclamation convening the Second Extraordinary Session of the 103rd Missouri General Assembly. The proclamation identified two legislative matters requiring action: drawing new congressional districts and modifying the initiative petition process. The governor cited concerns that Missouri’s existing congressional map could be vulnerable to Voting Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment challenges, and that the regular legislative session had ended without enacting new boundaries — with congressional candidate filing set to begin in February 2026. He also cited concerns about foreign and out-of-state influence on the initiative petition process.
The general assembly met and passed House Bill 1, adopting a new congressional district map, and House Joint Resolution 3, proposing a constitutional amendment altering the initiative petition process. The Missouri NAACP State Conference, along with individual plaintiffs Patricia A. Jones and Traci Wilson-Kleekamp, filed suit on September 3, 2025 — the day the session was to convene — seeking a declaration that the proclamation failed to identify a legally sufficient “extraordinary occasion” under article IV, section 9 of the Missouri Constitution, and requesting an injunction against the session and, later, against implementation of the legislation passed during it.
After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the Circuit Court of Cole County entered judgment for the State, finding the governor had constitutional authority to call the session. The circuit court also held the issue presented a nonjusticiable political question. The NAACP appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court accepted discretionary transfer given the general importance of the constitutional question.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that article IV, section 9 of the Missouri Constitution grants the governor broad discretion to determine when an extraordinary occasion has arisen and to call an extraordinary session. The Court grounded its analysis in the provision’s plain language, which repeatedly uses the phrase “deem necessary” — language the Court read as consistently conferring discretion on the governor throughout the provision, including with respect to calling extraordinary sessions.
The Court rejected the NAACP’s argument that an “extraordinary occasion” requires the existence of an unusual or unprecedented set of circumstances not present during the preceding regular session. Tracing the word “extraordinary” to its 1828 Webster’s dictionary meaning — “beyond or out of the common order or method; not in the usual, customary or regular course” — the Court concluded the term simply means a session outside the general assembly’s ordinary legislative calendar. Nothing in article IV, section 9 limits the governor’s discretion to circumstances that are newly arisen or of exceptional urgency, and the Court declined to read such a limitation into the constitutional text.
Because the Court’s holding that the governor acted within his constitutional authority was dispositive, the Court did not reach the circuit court’s alternative finding that the political question doctrine barred judicial review.
Key Takeaways
- Article IV, section 9 of the Missouri Constitution vests the governor with unreviewable discretion to decide when an “extraordinary occasion” exists warranting a special legislative session; no threshold showing of novelty or urgency is required.
- The phrase “extraordinary occasion” means only a session outside the ordinary legislative calendar — not an unusual or emergency circumstance that did not exist before the regular session ended.
- Courts will not read additional limiting words into a constitutional provision that are absent from its plain text, even where the provision has significant political consequences.
- The decision leaves standing HB 1 (new congressional district map) and HJR 3 (initiative petition amendment) enacted during the extraordinary session, subject to a separate referendum petition proceeding noted in footnote 4.
Why It Matters
This decision broadly construes gubernatorial power to convene the Missouri legislature outside its regular session, foreclosing constitutional challenges grounded on the adequacy or novelty of the stated occasion. Advocacy groups and political opponents have limited ability to use the courts to block an extraordinary session once the governor has issued a proclamation, provided the proclamation specifies the matters to be addressed as required by article IV, section 9. The ruling aligns Missouri with a multi-state consensus — including South Carolina, Nebraska, Washington, Kansas, Colorado, and New York — holding that the governor’s judgment about the necessity of an extraordinary session is largely, if not entirely, unreviewable.
The practical stakes here are substantial: the legislation passed during the challenged session redraws Missouri’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 election cycle and proposes changes to the initiative petition process, a mechanism that Missouri voters have used in recent years to enact measures that the legislature declined to pass. Attorneys advising advocacy organizations, legislators, or ballot initiative campaigns should take note that judicial intervention at the threshold — challenging whether the governor had authority to call the session at all — will face a steep constitutional barrier in Missouri going forward.