Missouri Congressional Redistricting Referendum Language Challenge

A pro-voting lawsuit challenging the wording of a referendum to block the state’s new gerrymandered congressional map.

Background

People Not Politicians, and its Executive Director Richard von Glahn, filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the secretary of state’s “inaccurate, insufficient, biased, and unfair” proposed summary of the referendum to block the state’s new congressional map. Plaintiffs assert state law requires the statements to be true and impartial, but the secretary of state intentionally seeks to “create prejudice” by falsely claiming the new congressional map “keeps more cities and counties intact, [is] more compact, and better reflects statewide voting patterns.” Plaintiffs, alternatively, argue referendum votes do not allow for any summary statement to be included, regardless of accuracy. The lawsuit seeks to create a fair statement or remove the statement from the referendum altogether.

Why It Matters

In September, Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed into law a new congressional map that dilutes the voting strength of Black voters in Kansas City. People Not Politicians has sought to obtain the 106,000 Missouri voter signatures required to put a “people’s veto” of the gerrymander on the statewide ballot, but have faced legal challenges from the state. Now, the secretary of state seeks to create additional hurdles for the pro-voter plaintiffs by proposing misrepresentative referendum language to confuse voters. 

Latest Updates:

• Apr. 29, 2026: The Court of Appeals will hear arguments.
• Apr. 6, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their brief with the Court of Appeals.
• Mar. 27, 2026: The court granted the motion to expedite.
• Mar. 26, 2026: Parties filed a joint motion to set an expedited briefing schedule.
• Mar. 25, 2026: The court issued the mandate to allow plaintiffs to appeal.
• Mar. 20, 2026: The court ruled that while part of the ballot language likely prejudiced voters, the majority of the language set by the Secretary of State is “fair and sufficient.”
• Mar. 17, 2026: Plaintiffs requested the court hold a status hearing at its earliest convenience.
• Feb. 9, 2026: A bench trial was held.
• Feb. 8, 2026: Defendants filed their amended answer.
• Feb. 4, 2026: The court granted defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer and motion to quash, but deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on count 1.
• Jan. 12, 2026: Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
• Jan. 2, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the Secretary of State to fully respond to plaintiffs’ interrogatories ahead of trial.
• Dec. 22, 2025: The court held a status conference hearing. Respondents filed their answer.
• Nov. 24, 2025: Plaintiffs seek an expedited trial for early 2026.
• Nov. 20, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit.