Missouri Supreme Court blocks GOP gerrymander, voters will get the final say

The Missouri Supreme Court greenlit a citizen-led redistricting referendum for this year’s November ballot — marking the end of a grueling, nearly year-long battle by voters to have the final say over a gerrymandered congressional map drawn up at President Donald Trump’s request.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said the state will immediately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, calling the ruling “unprecedented” and arguing that it “violates federal law.”

GOP lawmakers answered Trump’s call to redraw congressional district lines ahead of the 2026 midterms, dismantling a Kansas City district currently represented by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D). 

Voters responded by submitting more than 300,000 signatures to put the GOP gerrymander to a statewide referendum vote. Under the Missouri Constitution, voters have the right to veto any state legislation. While the law includes some exceptions, it does not list congressional redistricting plans among them.

But that didn’t stop Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) from attempting to thwart referendum organizers at every turn.

Historically, Missouri secretaries of state have halted the disputed legislation once voters submitted the signatures, putting those measures on hold until voters have the opportunity to approve or reject them at the polls. But in this case, Hoskins broke with precedent and claimed the new gerrymander was already in effect, regardless of the referendum effort underway. 

For months, he then refused to acknowledge that referendum supporters had submitted enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. On the last possible day, he rejected the referendum, claiming that redistricting maps are not subject to referendum votes. 

People Not Politicians, the group leading the referendum effort, filed a lawsuit asking the courts to reverse Hoskins’ decision.

However, Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green agreed with Hoskins, ruling that, under state and federal law, voters do not have the authority to veto congressional redistricting maps, in part because the Missouri Constitution does not clearly state that congressional maps are subject to the referendum.

The state Supreme Court, which had warned lower courts to speed the process, bypassed the appellate court and directly took up the referendum case on its own order.

The Supreme Court rejected Hoskins’ reading of the state Constitution, pointing to the broad language of Article III, Section 49, which reserves to the people the power to approve or reject by referendum “any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided.”

The court noted that it has previously held that congressional redistricting by the General Assembly is a “legislative act,” undercutting the secretary’s contention that congressional maps fall outside the referendum power.

The justices also pointed to other provisions of the Missouri Constitution that expressly exempt certain redistricting plans drawn by independent bipartisan citizens commissions from referendum. Those specific exemptions, the court reasoned, further reinforce that legislation drawing congressional districts — for which the Constitution contains no comparable exemption — remains subject to the people’s referendum power.

More broadly, the court held that the referendum and initiative power in Article III, Section 49, “like the Governor’s veto power” elsewhere in the state Constitution, is an essential part of Missouri’s lawmaking process. The court reaffirmed its precedent in Maggard and concluded that because the referendum petition was lawful, sufficient and timely, HB 1 never took effect and was referred to voters as of Dec. 9, 2025.

That means the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remain in effect for the November 2026 general election, and HB 1 will not take effect unless and until voters approve it in November.

The court also brushed aside Hoskins’ warnings about the confusion, expense and practical difficulties that could result from not using the new map in the 2026 election. Those concerns were “particularly misplaced,” the court wrote, because the secretary’s own delay had created the very “confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains.”

This is a breaking news story.