Should Justice Paul Wilson Be Retained?
Every Missouri voter will see this question on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Here is what we found in his opinions, what the court could have ruled instead, and where Act for Missouri comes down. We keep those three things separate so you can use the first two even if you disagree with the third.
- Court
- Supreme Court of Missouri
- Ballot question
- "Shall Judge Paul C. Wilson be retained?" A majority of yes votes keeps him.
- Appointed
- December 2012, by Gov. Jay Nixon (D). Retained in 2014 with 63.1%.
- Current term ends
- December 31, 2026. A new term is 12 years.
- Official committee recommendation
- The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee recommends retention. It made the same recommendation for all 50 judges it reviewed this year.
How this page works
The Record
Facts only. What the judge ruled, how colleagues voted, and links to the opinions. We say plainly when something is contested or when we have not reviewed it.
What the court could have ruled
The ruling as issued and a real alternative, each with its strongest support from the opinions. Every alternative points to a dissent, a statute's text, or a later court decision.
Act for Missouri's View
Our opinion. We say which result we think better follows the law, and where the judge's choice shows a view different from ours. It is the only part of this page that is editorial.
Jump to: The Record • What the court could have ruled • Act for Missouri's View • Sources
The Record
Facts only
Background
Justice Wilson was born in Jefferson City. He earned his bachelor's degree at Drury and his law degree, cum laude, at the University of Missouri. He clerked for Missouri Supreme Court Judge Edward "Chip" Robertson Jr. and for Judge Richard Suhrheinrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He practiced law in private firms, including Sullivan & Cromwell, worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, and served as a circuit judge in Cole County before Gov. Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court. He was Chief Justice from July 2021 to June 2023.
What we reviewed so far
We have reviewed four rulings: the 2024 Amendment 3 ballot case, the Blue Springs school case (decided in 2019 and again in 2025), the 2026 decision striking down SB 22, and the 2026 decision on the mid-decade congressional map. That is a small part of his record, and we say below which categories we have not covered.
In both cases the court split, and judges on each side argued from the statute's words. In the 2024 Amendment 3 case, the question was what "repealed" means. In Blue Springs it was how to apply the word "sex."
He reads the text closely and gives weight to the history behind it. In 2019 and in 2025 he took the same position in Blue Springs, and in the redistricting case he relied on the constitutional text and the 1943-44 convention record. This rests on four rulings and needs a wider sample.
His 2025 Blue Springs dissent applies a federal employment ruling to a state public-accommodations law. That ruling said it did not address bathrooms or locker rooms. His supporters say he was enforcing the statute's words and the jury's role.
In the 2024 Amendment 3 opinion he wrote that limits on the initiative power must come from the constitution and cannot be added by statute. Whether that was the right reading is the contested part, covered below.
He joined the unanimous 2026 ruling that struck down SB 22 for violating the original-purpose rule. In the redistricting case he dissented because he would have enforced what he read as a constitutional limit on when the legislature may redraw districts. The majority disagreed on that reading.
We have not independently reviewed these. The official committee evaluation is linked in the sources.
Ruling 1: The 2024 Amendment 3 ballot case (Coleman v. Ashcroft, September 20, 2024)
What the court was asked. This case concerned the 2024 abortion-rights amendment. A different Amendment 3 is on the November 2026 ballot, and this page is not about that measure. Opponents of the 2024 amendment argued the petition was defective because it did not list the existing laws the amendment would override. A Cole County judge agreed and ordered it off the ballot. The Supreme Court reversed, 4-3, and Justice Wilson wrote the opinion. The court issued its order on September 10 and released the opinions on September 20.
How the court voted. Chief Justice Russell and Judge Ransom joined Wilson's opinion. Judge Powell concurred in a separate opinion that read the statute even more narrowly. Judge Broniec dissented, joined by Judges Fischer and Gooch.
What Wilson held.
- The constitution's "full text" requirement means a petition must list existing constitutional provisions in direct conflict with the amendment. It does not require listing every statute a court might later strike down, and the court had never said it did.
- The petition statute, section 116.050.2(2), requires listing existing statutes for a statutory initiative and existing constitutional provisions for a constitutional one. He wrote that declaring a statute invalid is a court's job and is different from the legislature repealing it.
- If the statute did require more, he wrote, it would be unconstitutional because it would impede the people's power of initiative.
- The amendment covers a single subject, reproductive freedom.
- The Attorney General and Secretary of State had approved the petition's form 17 months earlier, and the challenge came after the signatures were counted.
What the ruling did not decide. Both the majority and the dissent said the case was not about abortion. The opinion did not decide whether abortion should be legal or which statutes the amendment would invalidate. Wilson wrote that the amendment would affect a statute only if a court later declared it invalid.
Ruling 2: The Blue Springs school case (R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District)
The case. A student who was born female and transitioned to living as male sued a school district under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The district had denied him access to the boys' restrooms and locker room.
2019: Wilson wrote the opinion. The trial court had dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court reversed, 5-2, in an opinion by Wilson. It held only that the student had alleged enough to proceed to trial. Wilson declined to define "sex" at that stage. Chief Justice Fischer dissented, joined by Judge Powell, and argued that "sex" in the Act means biological sex.
The trial. In December 2021 a jury found the district liable and awarded $175,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. The trial judge set the verdict aside. In June 2024 a Western District panel reinstated the verdict, and the Supreme Court took the case.
2025: Wilson dissented. On June 10, 2025 the Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge, 5-2, in an opinion by Judge Broniec joined by Russell, Fischer, Ransom, and Gooch. The majority held:
- "Sex" in the Act means biological sex, based on dictionary definitions and the legislature's repeated rejection of bills adding gender identity.
- The U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision on employment discrimination does not control, because it said it was not addressing bathrooms or locker rooms.
- The only trial evidence was that the district acted because of the student's female genitalia, so there was no evidence of discrimination because of male sex.
Wilson would have reinstated the verdict. He made three arguments:
- The jury's role. A verdict can be set aside only when there is a complete absence of supporting evidence. He pointed to the student's doctor, who testified he is male, and to his amended birth certificate.
- Pretext. The district first said it went by birth certificates, then refused to accept the student's amended one, then said it went by genitalia. He argued a jury could treat those shifting reasons as a cover.
- Bostock's logic. He wrote that even if the district acted purely on genitalia, discriminating against a transgender person is necessarily discrimination because of sex. He acknowledged Bostock's statement about bathrooms and locker rooms and applied its reasoning anyway.
Where he stood on the definition. Wilson did not argue that sex is something other than biological. He wrote that sex is necessarily biological, but that identifying someone's sex involves many factors and no single one, such as genitalia, controls. Judge Powell dissented separately. He agreed with the majority that "sex" means biological sex. He would have reversed the verdict's dismissal but let the trial court's order for a new trial stand. Wilson also argued the motion to overturn the verdict was deemed overruled when the trial court did not rule within 90 days. The majority rejected that point.
Ruling 3: SB 22 (Nicholson v. State, January 23, 2026)
What the court was asked. The legislature passed Senate Bill 22 in 2025. It began as a bill about how courts review ballot summaries. During the process it was amended to let the Attorney General appeal certain injunctions against the state, and its title was changed from "relating to ballot summaries" to "relating to judicial proceedings." A taxpayer sued, arguing the bill violated the constitution's original-purpose, single-subject, and clear-title rules. The Cole County judge found the bill valid on those grounds, though he struck the Attorney General provision on equal-protection grounds and let the rest stand.
The ruling and the vote. The Supreme Court reversed unanimously in an opinion by Chief Justice Powell that ends "All concur." Wilson joined it. The court held that the Attorney General provision was not germane to the bill's original purpose, so SB 22 violated the constitution's original-purpose requirement. It also held the provision could not be severed, because the record did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature would have passed the bill without it. The court therefore invalidated SB 22 in its entirety. Because that ruling decided the case, the court did not reach the single-subject, clear-title, or equal-protection claims.
Ruling 4: The mid-decade congressional map (Luther v. Hoskins, March 24, 2026)
What the court was asked. In 2025 the legislature passed House Bill 1, which redrew Missouri's congressional districts without a new census. Challengers argued that Article III, section 45 of the Missouri Constitution allows the legislature to draw congressional districts only after each census. The circuit court rejected the challenge.
The ruling and the vote. The Supreme Court affirmed, 4-3, in an opinion by Judge Fischer. The majority held that section 45 requires the legislature to redistrict after each census but does not expressly forbid redistricting more often, so the challengers had not shown HB 1 clearly violates the constitution. Wilson dissented, joined by Judges Ransom and Russell.
What Wilson argued. He wrote that section 45 states when and how the legislature must draw congressional districts, and that the constitution's specification of the time and manner is a limit on the power. He supported that reading with a long review of the 1943-44 Constitutional Convention debates. The majority disagreed with his reading of that history in a footnote. Wilson would have found that the challengers showed HB 1 clearly violates section 45.
What the court could have ruled
The ruling as issued and a real alternative. Not our conclusion.
For each ruling, the alternative below is one that other judges actually adopted or argued. Neither column is our conclusion. That comes in the next section.
2024 Amendment 3 ballot case
What the court ruled (4-3)
- The petition did not have to list every statute a court might later strike. The constitution requires listing conflicting constitutional provisions, and no Missouri court had required more.
- The petition statute applies to constitutional provisions for a constitutional amendment. Declaring a statute invalid is a court's job and is different from repeal.
- Even if the statute required more, it would unconstitutionally burden the people's initiative power.
- The state's two chief election officers approved the petition's form 17 months before the challenge was filed. Judge Powell concurred and read the statute even more narrowly.
Support for this ruling: four judges voted for it.
What it could have ruled (the dissent)
- The statute says a petition must include "all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed." The dissent read that to cover statutes an amendment overrides.
- The amendment conflicted directly with specific statutes, including the abortion ban, the definition of viability, parental consent, and the 72-hour wait.
- A 1938 Missouri decision treated a constitutional amendment as repealing conflicting statutes. The majority distinguished it. The dissent said it controls.
- The ballot summary told voters the amendment "removes Missouri's ban on abortion," while the petition text listed no change to existing law.
Support for the alternative: three judges adopted it, and it was the ruling of the Cole County trial judge, who ordered the petition off the ballot.
Blue Springs (2025)
What the court ruled (majority, 5-2)
- "Sex" in the Act means biological sex. The legislature considered and rejected bills adding gender identity to the Act in every session since 2019.
- Bostock was an employment case and said it did not address bathrooms or locker rooms. The majority said extending it is a job for the legislature.
- The only trial evidence was that the district acted because of the student's female genitalia, not because of male sex.
- The trial judge was right to set the verdict aside.
Support for this ruling: five judges voted for it.
What it could have ruled (Wilson's dissent)
- Juries decide what evidence to believe. A verdict can be set aside only when nothing supports it, and the jury heard a physician and saw an amended birth certificate.
- The district's explanations shifted, which a jury could treat as pretext.
- The statute says "sex" with no qualifier. Wilson wrote that broader policy questions about transgender people belong to the legislature.
- Judge Powell, who agrees that "sex" means biological sex, also dissented over how the majority handled the evidence.
Support for the alternative: two judges dissented. A Western District panel had reached the same result in 2024.
SB 22 (2026)
What the court ruled (unanimous)
- The Attorney General appeal provision was not germane to a bill that began as a change to ballot-summary review. The constitution bars amending a bill so as to change its original purpose.
- The offending provision could not be severed, because the record did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the bill would have passed without it.
- The court invalidated SB 22 in its entirety.
Support for this ruling: all seven judges.
What it could have ruled (the Cole County trial court)
- The trial judge held that SB 22 did not violate the original-purpose, single-subject, or clear-title rules. The State argued that the bill's overarching purpose was to change judicial review of state laws, which made the added provision germane.
- The trial judge struck the Attorney General provision on equal-protection grounds and severed it, leaving the ballot-summary provisions in force.
Support for the alternative: the trial court's judgment and the State's argument. The Supreme Court wrote that the State's argument stretches the boundaries of logic.
Mid-decade congressional map (2026)
What the court ruled (majority, 4-3)
- Section 45 requires the legislature to redistrict after each census. Nothing in its text forbids redistricting more often.
- Challengers had to show HB 1 clearly violates the constitution, and they did not.
- The obligation to redistrict once a decade does not limit the legislature's power to redistrict more often. The word "when" creates a duty, not a prohibition.
- The majority also read the 1943-44 convention history differently than Wilson did.
Support for this ruling: four judges.
What it could have ruled (Wilson's dissent)
- Section 45 states when and how the legislature may, and must, draw congressional districts, and that specification is a limit on the power.
- The 1943-44 convention record shows the delegates understood section 45 to require redistricting after each census and to limit it to that.
- The challengers showed HB 1 clearly violates section 45, so the map should have been struck down.
Support for the alternative: three judges, in a detailed dissent built on the text and the convention record.
Act for Missouri's View
Everything in this box is our opinion.
Act for Missouri's position: do not retain Justice Wilson.
Retention is a vote on whether a judge has earned another 12-year term. We put the burden on the judge to show that he has. Below is how we read each ruling we reviewed.
How we label a ruling
Law required this result We may be disappointed in the outcome, but the judge was right to rule as he or she did.
Law allowed either result Both readings have real support. The judge's choice shows how he or she weighs competing principles. It is not an error.
Law did not support this result The judge went beyond what the law allowed.
Our reading. The petition statute can be read narrowly, as Wilson's majority did, or by its plain words to cover statutes an amendment overrides, as the dissent did. We were more persuaded by the dissent.
Where we differ. Wilson chose the narrow reading and added that a broader one would be unconstitutional. His choice shows he reads procedural requirements on petitions more favorably to proponents than we would.
Our reading. The law allowed the majority's reading or Wilson's. Wilson applied Bostock's reasoning to a state public-accommodations law even though Bostock set aside bathrooms and locker rooms, and he gave little weight to the legislature's repeated refusals to add gender identity to the Act.
Where we differ. We would have stayed closer to the statute's text and the legislature's evident intent. His choice shows a broader view than ours of how far courts may extend federal reasoning to state law.
Our reading. We liked what SB 22 set out to do. But once the bill was changed away from its original purpose, the constitution required that it be thrown out, and all seven judges agreed.
Where we differ. We do not differ with Justice Wilson here. He joined a unanimous ruling that we think was correct. The anger over SB 22 belongs with the legislators who changed the bill, not with the court.
Our reading. The majority read section 45 as requiring redistricting after each census without forbidding more. Wilson read the constitution's wording on when and how as a limit. We were not opposed to the new map, and we thought the court ruled correctly. Separately, we thought the Missouri GOP and the Secretary of State handled the process badly.
Where we differ. We think the majority's reading was the right one. Wilson's dissent was a serious one, built on the text and the convention history. It shows he is willing to infer a limit on legislative power from how the constitution specifies the time and manner, where the majority required an express prohibition.
What this adds up to. We reviewed four rulings. In one, SB 22, the law required the result and we agree with Justice Wilson. In the other three the law allowed more than one result, and each time he chose the reading we would not have: on the 2024 Amendment 3 petition statute, in the Blue Springs case, and, as a dissenter, on the mid-decade map. Those three do not share one theme. Two went toward a broader reading of rights or proponents' power and one toward a limit on the legislature. What they share is that his reading of unsettled law landed away from ours each time. We rest our position on these four rulings, not his whole record. Under our standard the judge carries the burden of showing he has earned another term, and on the rulings we reviewed we do not think he has.
What did not weigh against him. He joined the unanimous ruling striking down SB 22, which we agree with. In the redistricting case he dissented to hold the legislature to what he read as a constitutional limit, and he argued from the text and history. We found no opinion in which he created a new constitutional right. Every ruling we reviewed was close, with judges on each side, and we have set out both sides above.
A disclosure. Act for Missouri opposed the 2024 Amendment 3 and opposes the 2026 Amendment 3 on this year's ballot. Keep that in mind when you weigh our view of the 2024 ruling.
What to do with this. Read the record and the alternatives first. If you weigh the same facts differently, that is a reasonable position, and the vote is yours.
Sources
Every fact in The Record comes from the court opinions or official pages below. Read them yourself.
- Coleman v. Ashcroft (Mo. 2024), SC100742: principal opinion, concurrence, and dissent
- R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District (Mo. 2019), SC96683: Wilson's opinion and Fischer's dissent
- R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District (Mo. 2025), SC100694: principal opinion, Powell dissent, and Wilson dissent (official court copy)
- R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District (Mo. App. W.D. 2024), WD85778: the 2024 Western District decision
- Nicholson v. State (Mo. 2026), SC101308: the SB 22 opinion
- Luther v. Hoskins (Mo. 2026), SC101412: majority opinion and dissent
- Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee evaluation, 2026
- Supreme Court of Missouri: Judge Paul C. Wilson
Last updated October 7, 2026.