Missouri Supreme Court presses state over effort to block redistricting vote

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Supreme Court judges sharply questioned state attorneys Wednesday over efforts to keep a referendum challenging Missouri’s new congressional map off the November ballot, raising the possibility voters could still get the final say on the controversial redistricting plan.

The arguments were part of three closely watched election cases before the court involving Missouri’s referendum process, congressional redistricting and a proposed constitutional amendment designed to protect voter-approved laws.

The biggest fight centered on House Bill 1, the congressional map approved by lawmakers in 2025.

People Not Politicians collected enough valid signatures to force a public vote on the map, but Secretary of State Denny Hoskins ruled the referendum legally invalid. The state argues Missouri’s Constitution prohibits referendums on redistricting plans.

Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing referendum supporters, told the court the Constitution gives Missourians the right to challenge “any act of the General Assembly” through referendum and does not specifically exclude congressional maps.

State Solicitor General Lou Capozzi argued another section of the Constitution says “no redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum.”

Much of Wednesday’s questioning focused on whether that prohibition applies only to state legislative redistricting or also includes congressional districts drawn through legislation.

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell repeatedly pushed back on arguments that the new map should remain in place because Missouri already used it during the August primary.

The Supreme Court previously ruled that if the referendum petition is ultimately found sufficient, the new congressional map was suspended when enough signatures were submitted last year.

Powell questioned whether allowing election timing to override that ruling could effectively undermine Missourians’ constitutional referendum rights.

Judge Zel Fischer also questioned the process Hoskins used when declaring the referendum insufficient. Hoskins relied in part on a legal opinion from Attorney General Catherine Hanaway concluding the referendum was unconstitutional.

The court’s ruling could have immediate consequences.

If the referendum is allowed onto the Nov. 3 ballot, voters could decide whether to keep or reject the Republican-backed congressional map. The ruling could also determine which congressional districts are used in the general election.

The court also heard arguments Wednesday over proposed Amendment 6, which would make it substantially harder for lawmakers to change laws approved through the initiative petition process.

Hoskins rejected that measure after concluding it violated constitutional requirements, including Missouri’s single-subject rule.

Supporters argued the entire amendment deals with one subject — initiatives and referendums — and said Hoskins exceeded his authority by deciding broader constitutional questions before voters had even considered the proposal.

Powell questioned whether some of those constitutional issues should be decided only if voters first approve the amendment.

A third case involved roughly 100,000 signatures gathered during earlier stages of the congressional referendum effort.

People Not Politicians argues supporters should have been allowed to collect signatures once lawmakers passed the redistricting bill and after petitions were submitted to the secretary of state, rather than waiting for the governor’s signature or formal approval from Hoskins.

The state argues that case is now moot because the referendum campaign ultimately collected enough signatures without them.

The Supreme Court is working under a tight deadline. Court-ordered measures must be placed on Missouri’s November ballot by Sept. 8.

That means decisions in the two ballot-access cases could come within days.