Joplin High students earn top honors in Missouri Constitution contest
These students won first place in the Missouri Show Me the Constitution Contest.The competition is sponsored by the Missouri Bar Association and asks students to take on the role of testifying about constitutional questions in front of a panel of three judges.
Dental board seeks to revoke Joplin dentist's license
Allo Fiber sets up shop in downtown Joplin
Apple of Today's Eye: Ms. Secrist
Flooding debris cleared from Shoal Creek bridge crossing
Joplin man pleads guilty to child sex crime, requests lighter sentence
The three topics teams focused on centered around supreme court cases, founding principles of our government and ideas surrounding the judiciary. The goal is to inspire students to be better citizens no matter what career they pursue.
'I'm going into engineering, so at first, like, I didn't really think that law and judiciary really mattered to me, but he did, like, spark in us a desire to know more, and to be more active, like, voters and participants in the law, and this is an excellent way to be a more active participant in the law,' said Josiah Hazlewood, JHS senior.
'Not everybody is going to be an author, not everybody is going to design buildings, not everybody is going to be able to produce movies, but everyone has to be a citizen, and that's why this is really, really important,' said William G. Keczkemethy, JHS Constitution Team Coach.
'Every person should learn about the constitution, and unfortunately studies have shown that the public's knowledge about the constitution, and about the branches of the government has declined, so I'm excited to see that these kids are excelling,' said Shelly Dreyer, Mo. Bar President.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
10 hours ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court just revealed its plan to make gerrymandering even worse
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. One of the biggest mysteries that has emerged from the Trump-era Supreme Court is the 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan. In Milligan, two of the Republican justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — voted with the Court's Democratic minority to strike down Alabama's racially gerrymandered congressional maps, ordering the state to redraw those maps to include an additional district with a Black majority. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. As Roberts emphasized in his opinion for the Court in Milligan, a lower court that also struck down these maps 'faithfully applied our precedents.' But the Roberts Court frequently overrules or ignores precedents that interpret the Voting Rights Act — the federal law at issue in Milligan — to do more than block the most egregious forms of Jim Crow-like voter suppression. And the Court's Republican majority is normally hostile to lawsuits challenging gerrymanders of any kind. Most notably, in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Republican justices held that federal courts may not hear suits challenging partisan gerrymanders. Among other things, Rucho enables tactics like Texas Republicans' current plans to redraw that state's congressional maps to maximize GOP power in Congress. So why did two Republican justices break with their previous skepticism of gerrymandering suits in the Milligan case? A new order that the Supreme Court handed down Friday evening appears to answer that question. The new order, in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais, suggests that the Court's decision in Milligan was merely a minor detour, and that Roberts and Kavanaugh's votes in Milligan were largely driven by unwise legal decisions by Alabama's lawyers. The legal issues in the Callais case are virtually identical to the ones presented in Milligan, but the Court's new order indicates it is likely to use Callais to strike down the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against gerrymandering altogether. The Callais order, in other words, doesn't simply suggest that Milligan was a one-off decision that is unlikely to be repeated. It also suggests that the Court's Republican majority will resume its laissez-faire approach to gerrymandering, just as the redistricting wars appear to be heating up. A brief history of the Supreme Court's approach to gerrymandering Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of lawsuits alleging that a legislative map is illegally gerrymandered. Partisan gerrymandering suits claim that a map was drawn to maximize one major political party's power at the expense of the other. Racial gerrymandering suits, meanwhile, allege that a state's legislative maps improperly dilute the voting power of voters of a particular race. Prior to Rucho, the Court imposed minimal — but not entirely nonexistent — limits on partisan gerrymandering. It has historically been more aggressive in policing racial gerrymanders. The Supreme Court held in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that federal courts may hear claims alleging that a state's maps are so egregiously partisan that they amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The idea is that maps that intentionally inflate Democratic voters' power, while minimizing Republican voters' power (or vice-versa) violate the Constitution's guarantee that all voters should have an equal say in elections. Notably, however, no five justices agreed to a single legal standard that would allow courts to determine which maps are illegal partisan gerrymanders in Davis. Nor did a majority of the Court set such a standard in later lawsuits challenging partisan gerrymanders. In Rucho, the Republican justices essentially announced that the Court would give up its quest to find such a standard. A few years later, in Alexander v. NAACP (2024), those justices went even further, declaring that 'as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.' Though Davis's limits on partisan gerrymandering were always fuzzy, it is likely that this ambiguity deterred at least some states from enacting extreme gerrymanders that might have caused the courts to intervene. At the very least, Rucho changed how states litigate gerrymandering suits. Before Rucho, states accused of gerrymandering would often try to offer another explanation for why their maps benefited one party or the other. Now, they will openly state in their briefs that they drew maps for partisan reasons — confident that federal judges will do nothing, despite these confessions. Historically, however, the Court has imposed more concrete limits on racial gerrymanders. In Milligan, for example, the Court struck down Alabama congressional maps that would have given Black voters a majority in just one of the state's seven districts (or 14 percent of the districts), despite the fact that Black people make up about 27 percent of the state's population. The Court ordered the state to draw new maps with two Black-majority districts. The linchpin of Milligan and similar cases is the Court's decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which laid out the rules governing when an alleged racial gerrymander violates the Voting Rights Act (which broadly prohibits race discrimination in elections). The framework laid out in Gingles is notoriously complicated, but it turns on whether voters in a particular state vote in racially cohesive blocs. Thus, for example, in a state where the white majority supports Republicans nearly all of the time, while the Black minority supports Democrats nearly all of the time, Gingles sometimes requires courts to redraw the state's maps to ensure that the Black minority is adequately represented. This is because, in such a state, the white majority can wield its near-unanimous support for Republicans to cut Black voters (and Democrats) out of power altogether. In a different state, where both Black and white voters sometimes vote for either party, Gingles tells courts to stay out of redistricting. Black voters, after all, are United States citizens who have as much of a right to choose their leaders as anyone else. So, if they choose to be represented by a white Republican in a free and fair election, that's their choice and the courts should honor it. Because Gingles only kicks in when an electorate's racial demographics closely match its partisan voting patterns, it places some practical limits on both partisan and racial gerrymandering. In Milligan, for example, Alabama was not able to draw maps that maximized Republican voting power because doing so required the state to dilute Black voting power. So, even though Rucho prevents lawsuits that challenge partisan gerrymandering directly, Gingles sometimes allows suits which target it indirectly by alleging that a partisan gerrymander is also an impermissible racial gerrymander. But now the Court is signaling that it is likely to overrule Gingles and abolish suits alleging that racial gerrymanders violate the Voting Rights Act altogether. So what's the deal with the Court's new order in Callais? The Callais case is virtually identical to Milligan — indeed, the cases are so similar that Louisiana said in a brief to the justices that Callais 'presents the same question' as the Alabama redistricting case. Before the Callais case reached the justices, a lower court determined that Louisiana's congressional maps violate Gingles, and ordered the state to draw an additional Black-majority district. Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Callais last March, all six of the Republican justices appeared to disagree with this lower court's decision — although the lower court's decision merely applied the same legal rules that the Supreme Court applied two years earlier in Milligan. Then, at the end of June, the Court issued a brief order announcing that it would hold an unusual second oral argument in Callais, and that it would seek additional briefing from the parties in this case. On Friday, the Court issued a new order laying out what these parties should address in those briefs. Those briefs should examine whether the lower court order requiring Louisiana to draw an additional Black-majority district 'violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.' The justices, in other words, want briefing on whether Gingles — and the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering more broadly — are unconstitutional. This suggestion that the Voting Rights Act may be unconstitutional — or, at least, that it violates the Republican justices' vision of the Constitution — should not surprise anyone who has followed the Court's voting rights cases. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices neutralized a different provision of the Voting Rights Act, which required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' new election laws with federal officials before they take effect. The Court's Republican majority labeled this provision 'strong medicine' that could be justified to combat the kind of widespread racial voting discrimination that existed during Jim Crow. But they argued that the United States was not racist enough in 2013 to justify letting preclearance remain in place. 'There is no denying,' Roberts wrote for the Court in Shelby County, 'that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.' Although Kavanaugh joined nearly all of the majority opinion in Milligan, he also wrote a separate opinion indicating that he wanted to extend Shelby County to gerrymandering cases in a future ruling. 'Even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under [the Voting Rights Act] for some period of time,' Kavanaugh wrote, 'the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.' Gingles also suggests that Voting Rights Act suits challenging racial gerrymanders should eventually cease to exist. If the electorate ceases to be racially polarized — something that appears to be slowly happening — then Gingles plaintiffs will no longer be able to win cases, and the federal judiciary's role in redistricting will diminish. But Kavanaugh seems to be impatient to end these suits while many states remain racially polarized. Read in the context of Kavanaugh's Milligan opinion, in other words, the new Callais order suggests that a majority of the justices have decided the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering have reached their expiration date, and they are looking for arguments to justify striking them down. It now looks like Milligan was Gingles's last gasp. The Republican justices remain hostile both to the Voting Rights Act and toward gerrymandering suits more broadly. And they appear very likely to use Callais to remove one of the few remaining safeguards against gerrymanders.
11 hours ago
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder t old ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June."I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
Miami Herald
12 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Why the surprise over Scots' reaction to Trump? Respect must be earned
Re: Mary Anna Mancuso's Aug. 1 op-ed, 'Scotland's protests should concern every American.' Why is she surprised by the Scots' reaction to President Trump's visit? What does she expect? Respectfully disagreeing with Trump gets one libeled on his online platform. Continuing to disagree gets one taken to court (and paying for that may require filing for bankruptcy). If one continues to strongly disagree, then threats of bodily harm against one and one's family begin. And when one is physically assaulted, Trump and his people laugh! The Scots are only giving Trump what he gave them: insults. His Scottish neighbors protested how he ran roughshod over the environment surrounding his golf courses, his attempts to stop energy-producing windmills from spoiling his view and his superior attitude toward them. They actually have to live with the results of his schemes. To get respect, one has to earn it. Threatening everyone who refuses to bow down to you won't earn you any respect. Corey Mass, Miami Beach Senate's carelessness In early 1972, I accepted an appointment by then-U.S. Sen. Edward J. Gurney of Florida to serve as an attorney to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. I traveled to Washington with aspirations of improving the federal judicial system. Then Watergate broke out. During the next two years, while assisting Gurney, who served on the Judiciary and Watergate Committees, I had a worm's eye view of the tumult, including revelations great and terrible. I witnessed young men of great promise and ability go to jail, but I also watched the testimony of Elliott Richardson and Bill Ruckleshouse, who resigned office rather than carry out an order they deemed wrong (if not legally, then morally). It made me realize that principles matter and that our government requires constant loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. Today, I see many parallels to the Watergate years, particularly when young lawyers disregard ethical considerations to further political ends, as by counseling defiance of court orders. Yet one distinction glares: during Watergate, the Senate joined the courts in investigating wrongdoing. I have every confidence today's courts will suffice under the doctrine of separation of powers, as federal judges are demonstrating daily, regardless who appointed them. I also have confidence that our military will withstand attempts to politicize it. However, it surely would help if the Senate were as concerned with the Constitution and the usurpation of their powers as they are with just getting reelected. R. Thomas Farrar, Miami Multiple articles have been published about the horrific boating accident last week on Biscayne Bay. Many of them referred to which boat had the 'right of way.' This terminology is misleading. On water, no boat has the 'right of way.' There is the 'give-way vessel,' which must take action to avoid a collision, or yield the right of way. There also is the stand-on vessel, which is supposed to maintain course. However, if it appears that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate or adequate action to avoid a collision, the stand-on vessel then has the responsibility to maneuver to avoid a collision. While this might seem like semantics, it is important for all individuals operating a boat to know and understand. As has been mentioned in several articles, the determination of the give-way vessel and stand-on vessel varies based on many situations. Boating is a wonderful activity. Over the past few years, there have been many new recreational boat owners on our South Florida waters. Hopefully, they have been thoroughly educated in boating safety and operation and take care to avoid accidents. None of this will bring comfort to the victims and families of the recent tragedy, but education and knowledge will hopefully prevent future incidents. Seth Rosen, Pinecrest As a former high school social studies teacher, I would have to give Gov. Ron DeSantis a failing grade in American history and an A+ in making it up as he goes along. His 'civics excellence' program for Florida teachers is full of flat out lies, delusions, distortions and derangements, which fit very well within the core curriculum of his role model in the White House. Reconstructing the past to fit a delirious present is a slippery slope and depends on the assumption that Floridians are as ignorant as their chief executive. If that is the case, Florida has much larger problems than its residents can possibly comprehend. A search and destroy mission against the truth will have major unintended consequences. Undermining democracy requires the proper combination of fake news and fake history. Good luck with that recipe, Chef Ron. Craig Corsini, San Rafael, CA Last week's departure of ABC from WPLG Channel 10, after seven decades of affiliation, is quite alarming. I am old enough to remember when there was no ABC, but a Blue Network which was part of NBC, before breaking off into two networks. Apparently, Disney, which now owns ABC, offered less programming and higher fees, according to WPLG, hence their breakup. I also remember Disney when it was just happy producing films, then theme parks and now controlling Paramount and a broadcast network. Maybe Mickey is getting too big for his britches. Roger Shatanoff, Coral Gables In the Aug. 1 op-ed, 'Red states lead the charge to healthier living,' a Heritage Foundation analyst asserts that Florida's fluoride ban is an example of states' political and cultural realignments that will 'begin to change the health trajectory for their constituents.' True, but not in a good way. Why would anyone desire a political legacy that includes rotting kids' teeth? Bob Ross, Pinecrest As a high school senior who actively rides the Metrorail, I've been following the Miami Herald's recent stories on the impact of construction delays on local traffic. According to a July 7 report, the Future-Ready Modernization in Action plan to expand Miami International Airport will result in a 20 million passenger increase by 2040. Even though 2,240 additional parking spaces are planned to accommodate this growth, it's unclear that our roads can absorb the increase in rental cars, taxis and Ubers. Projects like the Signature Bridge will increase highway capacity; however, the completion date has been delayed by two years. Short-term solutions should be made available to daily commuters. We should use something like Miami-Dade's 'Better Bus Plan.' I took Metrorail to school using this six-week, fare-free promotion. It was clean, efficient and reduced my commute. Charles Holleman, Miami The detention center dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' hosted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, President Trump and their own military with cult followers, mirrors what Argentina experienced during its period of dictatorship. That regime's detention center/prison held in isolation those it snatched from daily life, then deported them. Without human rights, legal process or outside communication, detainees were drugged, abused and tortured. Pregnant women were allowed to live until after giving birth. In some cases, their babies were given to military officers' families wanting a child. View some of the documentaries about Argentina's 'Dirty War' to understand our own political unrest. Our political climate is repeating this history. Are U.S. citizens so blinded with loyalty to this type of leadership, or lack thereof, not to realize the destruction to our Constitution? It's time to take back control of public education, fact-based news and publications and the judicial system. Reel in religious institutions that spew hate and white supremacy in preaching while enjoying a tax-free platform. Jail the real criminals. Kimberly Cole, Kendall
