Missouri redistricting referendum blocked by secretary of state, drawing lawsuit

“Whether they had one signature or 500 million signatures doesn’t really matter because they are unconstitutional,” Hoskins said at a news conference.

The political action committee People Not Politicians turned in more than 300,000 signatures in December, and local election authorities spent hundreds of hours verifying whether the people who signed were registered voters.

Hoskins also rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to limit legislative power to change measures passed by initiative. That proposal, which would have been Amendment 6 on the Nov. 3 ballot, violates the requirements that ballot measures be limited to a single subject and amend only one article of the constitution, he said. The Respect MO Voters committee also submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and Hoskins declined to disclose that count as well.

Local election officials go with Missouri’s gerrymandered congressional map despite uncertainty

Hoskins’ decision brought an immediate court challenge from People Not Politicians. It will be the final case in the seemingly endless litigation over whether Missouri’s gerrymandered redistricting plan will be subject to a referendum.

The Missouri Constitution’s referendum power does not contemplate a vote on redistricting plans, Hoskins said. The U.S. Constitution, he said, gives state legislatures the power to set the rules for congressional elections, and a referendum would violate it.

Hoskins’ announcement came on the last day he had legally to rule on whether measures submitted by petition will be on the Nov. 3 ballot.

He said he waited because he wanted every possible bit of information before making a decision.

“According to Missouri state law, I had until today at 5 p.m. to certify those signatures,” Hoskins said. “As a certified public accountant, I want to make sure all my ‘i’s are dotted and T’s are crossed.”

After meeting with reporters, Hoskins released opinion letters from Attorney General Catherine Hanaway laying out the legal reasoning for rejecting the petitions. On the referendum, Hanaway wrote that the state constitution is silent on authority for a referendum.

“In order to authorize such referenda, the Missouri Constitution would need to speak through a clear statement divesting the legislature of its authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause,” Hanaway wrote. “But the Missouri Constitution includes no such clear statement.”

People Not Politicians executive director, Richard von Glahn filed the lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court late Tuesday.

“Secretary of State Hoskins is making a last desperate attempt to silence the people’s voice in Missouri,” von Glahn said in a news release. “We’ve fought back against politicians for the last year, and we won’t stop now.”

The petition has enough signatures to make the ballot and the courts will uphold the referendum power for redistricting, von Glahn said.

“People will have the final say in November and the chance to vote no to politicians desperate power grabs,” he said.

The Democratic leader in the Missouri House, state Rep. Ashley Aune of Kansas City, said Hoskins is showing he is a Republican partisan, not an impartial official.

“Every step of the way, Denny Hoskins has engaged in obstruction and dishonesty to stop Missourians from exercising their constitutional right to decide whether the mid-decade partisan gerrymander Republicans forced through last year should become law,” Aune said. “As a result, his latest act of contempt against Missouri voters should surprise no one and provides further proof that he is unfit to serve as the state’s top election official.”

The lawsuit filed Tuesday is simple — it argues that Hoskins is wrong and the Constitution does not prohibit a referendum. Only appropriation bills and laws enacted on an emergency basis are exempt, the petition states.

The redistricting plan “falls into neither of those categories,” it argues.

In previous litigation over the congressional map, the Missouri Supreme Court has upheld Gov. Mike Kehoe’s power to convene the legislature in a special session, the legislature’s authority to revise the map at any time and the constitutionality of the map as a basis for elections.

It has not ruled on the question of whether the Constitution allows a referendum. In a May ruling, the court hinted that if it finds the referendum power applies, the map would have never taken effect — meaning Tuesday’s primary was conducted in district boundaries that were never legal. 

“Because the secretary’s certification process…is ongoing and has not been finally determined, it is impossible to say as of this opinion whether the Dec. 9 referendum petition filing was ‘legal, sufficient, and timely’ and, therefore, whether (the 2025 map) went into effect on Dec. 11 or whether (the map) was referred to the people as of Dec. 9 and can only go into effect when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon,” Judge Ginger Gooch wrote.

In the case over the legislature’s authority to revise the map, opponents said that because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly allow it, lawmakers did not have that authority. The high court rejected that argument.

Hoskins said the same silence in the constitution cuts the other way on referendums — that the absence of explicit authority means one is not allowed. He said he did not see a parallel between the two provisions of the Constitution and its silence on a key point.

“Here we’re trying to compare apples and oranges,” Hoskins said. “Also the Constitution doesn’t say that Denny Hoskins should make a million dollars a year absent that. So I would disagree with that analysis, and I would say that the Constitution does not specifically say that a referendum or an initial petition can be done on congressional redistricting.”

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.