Missouri Redistricting Map Faces Supreme Court Review Amid Referendum Dispute

Richard von Glahn, a Missouri organizer, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to affirm a state court ruling. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision prevents the state from implementing a new congressional map, known as HB 1, before the upcoming November elections.

Von Glahn argued the case does not present an immediate crisis. The Missouri Legislature passed HB 1 last year, and Governor Mike Kehoe signed it into law. The map could potentially increase Republican representation in the U.S. House to seven out of eight seats. Former President Donald Trump had encouraged states with Republican-controlled legislatures to redraft congressional maps outside the standard decennial redistricting process.

In December, organizers submitted over 300,000 signatures to place a referendum on the new map on Missouri’s November 2026 ballot. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected this petition on August 4, 2026, the final day for his certification decision and the date of the state’s primary election. Hoskins stated the Missouri Constitution does not authorize referendums on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.

On the same day Hoskins rejected the petition, von Glahn filed suit in state court. He sought to overturn Hoskins’ decision and prevent the state from using the new map. The Missouri Supreme Court granted von Glahn's request on September 3. In a unanimous decision, the state's highest court concluded that the Missouri Constitution's plain language allows referendums on "any act of the general assembly," with no applicable exceptions. Therefore, the court ruled, the referendum petition was "legal, sufficient, and timely." The court stated that HB 1 "never took effect" and will remain inactive "unless and until approved by the voters at the November 2026 general election."

The Missouri Supreme Court also deemed Hoskins’ argument about potential "confusion, expense, and practical difficulties" as "wholly unpersuasive." The court noted these arguments were "particularly misplaced" given the Secretary’s own delay in making his decision.

Hoskins subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing an application for a stay on Friday night. He stated Missouri was "genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election." Hoskins argued the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants state legislatures the power to regulate the "Times, Places, and Manner" of federal elections. He contended the Supreme Court has never ruled that a small percentage of voters can suspend a congressional map through a referendum petition. Hoskins also asserted the state court's ruling would "unconstitutionally disenfranchise hundreds of thousands" of voters by placing them in new districts.

In his Monday response, von Glahn told the justices the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the Missouri Supreme Court's decision relied solely on state law. This is known as an "adequate and independent state-law" bar to Supreme Court review. The Missouri Supreme Court had indicated Hoskins could not introduce federal law arguments because he had not raised them when rejecting von Glahn’s petition.

Von Glahn further contended that a stay would not provide the relief Hoskins seeks because HB 1 never became law. He stated the 2022 plan remains the legal standard in Missouri, not HB 1. If Hoskins wishes to use HB 1 in the upcoming election, von Glahn said, he would require an injunction, which has a higher legal threshold. Von Glahn also argued that neither Hoskins nor the Republican groups supporting him have the legal standing to challenge the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Elections Clause. He concluded that Hoskins’ arguments lack merit, asserting that over a century of precedent recognizes state constitutional referendum procedures can limit congressional redistricting legislation. He also stated Hoskins asks the Court to recognize a right without precedent: a guarantee to preserve every consequence of a primary vote through November.