Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Missouri Drew a Gerrymander. Now Its Secretary of State Says Voters Can’t Say No.

News

Missouri Drew a Gerrymander. Now Its Secretary of State Says Voters Can’t Say No.

Missouri State Capitol Building

Louis —Tuesday wasn’t just primary election day in Missouri. It also marked the deadline for Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to certify ballot measures for November.

Among them was a veto referendum to overturn a legislative gerrymander signed into law in September 2025. However, instead of revealing how many valid signatures the measure had—Hoskins declared it unconstitutional.


The referendum, sponsored by People Not Politicians (PNP), would repeal HB 1, which put in place a new congressional map designed to give Republicans 7 of the state’s 8 US House districts.

Missouri became the third state to move forward with a mid-cycle gerrymander in 2025 following Texas and California.

PNP’s campaign began immediately following the bill’s passage in the legislature.

Hoskins asserts that a legislative redistricting plan cannot be subject to a voter referendum. When asked how many valid signatures the measure had during a news conference Tuesday, he refused to answer.

“Whether they had one signature or 500 million signatures doesn’t really matter because they are unconstitutional,” he said.

In response, PNP accused Hoskins of “making a last desperate attempt to silence the people’s voice in Missouri,” and vowed to take the matter to court. In a statement, the group’s executive director, Richard von Glahn, said:

“Missourians will have the final say in November and a chance to vote no to politicians’ desperate power grabs.”

PNP submitted more than 300,000 signatures to put its veto referendum on the ballot. It needs about 110,000 of them to be verified in order to qualify for the ballot.

However, from the start of the campaign, it ran into problems with Hoskins and other Republican leaders.

First, Hoskins said he wouldn’t count approximately 100,000 signatures because PNP collected them before the referendum was approved for petition circulation. He cited a Missouri law that no longer exists because it was ruled unconstitutional.

Hoskins has also said he will do everything in his power to protect the new map.

Advanced Micro Targeting, Inc., the signature gathering group hired by PNP, alleged in a lawsuit that its contractors were bribed to switch sides. And if the contractors refused, they were threatened and harassed.

Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a lawsuit in federal court attempting to get the referendum ruled unconstitutional. It was dismissed. But Hanaway also reported PNP to ICE, alleging it was using undocumented migrants to collect signatures.

Then, on Black Friday, the Republican National Committee sponsored a mass statewide text to Missouri voters warning them not to trust “out of state” signature gatherers trying to trick them while shopping.

- YouTube youtu.be


After PNP submitted its petitions on December 9, Republican officials still implemented the new congressional map on Dec. 11. PNP argues that once the signatures were submitted, HB 1 should have been suspended until a public vote.

Multiple lawsuits were filed. Not all by PNP. Some wanted HB 1 ruled unconstitutional. This was rejected all the way up to the Missouri Supreme Court. PNP filed a complaint against Hoskins for refusing to count a third of its signatures, but a judge delayed ruling on the matter.

In March, PNP reported that data from the secretary of state’s office showed that its referendum had enough signatures to be certified. And yet, Hoskins still waited until the last possible minute to make his decision on it.

And now, he has determined that it is unconstitutional.

It was always a card Hoskins had to play. The federal judge that dismissed Hanaway’s lawsuit said that the secretary of state had the authority to reject the referendum, at which point it would be a matter for state courts to resolve.

And now, it will be.

It’s notable that on the same day Hoskins rejected the referendum, he also rejected another measure that would have restricted the legislature’s ability to amend citizen initiatives approved by voters.

He said it violated the state’s single subject rule.

Meanwhile, Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected an amendment proposed by the legislature that would make it harder for voters to amend the state constitution.

If approved, Amendment 4 would require an amendment measure to be approved by a majority in each congressional district rather than a statewide majority. Eight in ten voters rejected it.

Missouri Drew a Gerrymander. Now Its Secretary of State Says Voters Can’t Say No. is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.

Shawn Griffiths is an election reform expert and National Editor of IVN.us.


Read More

Tattered American flag

Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity" order targets how museums and parks present slavery and racism. Why one writer says Americans should push back.

Nisian Hughes/Getty Images

Trump's Mendacious, Deceitful Rewriting of American History

History is made of two parts. One is indisputable facts and the other is the interpretation of those facts. The history of history is filled with varying interpretations of the basic facts, usually tinted by the perspective of the historian or commentator. That perspective can be the writer's political leanings, his philosophy, or any number of personal biases.

All historians, however, whether conservative or liberal, regardless of philosophy generally agree on the basic facts. For example, while there are fringe groups and individuals who deny that the Holocaust happened—that 6 millions Jews were killed by the Nazis—no reputable historian disputes that fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
First Amendment being torn

First Amendment text of the US Constitution ripped in half -- Freedom of Speech , Religion or Press unconstitutional concept

Getty Images

Lawsuit Says Press Access Is Essential to Democratic Accountability

When POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW announced Monday that they were filing a federal lawsuit to restore their reporters’ access to the White House, they challenged more than the sudden and unexplained revocation of press credentials. They underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: a free press does not operate at the government's discretion.

According to their joint statement, the outlets are seeking urgent relief after the Secret Service denied their reporters entry to the White House complex on Saturday and confiscated their credentials. The action followed recent stories by these outlets examining the administration’s handling of classified documents and raising questions about transparency related to policy meetings. They wrote, “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather

The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather on Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

Finn Gomez / Getty Images

We Didn't Get This Angry Because Americans Changed: We Got This Angry Because Washington Did

Something unusual has happened on the opinion pages of The New York Times recently.

Three very different writers have described three seemingly different American problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gavel on top of binders

A full rundown of this week's congressional action: 7 bills headed to the President, a stalled data center bill, and the votes lawmakers wanted on record.

May Lim / 500px/Getty Images

House Crams in Votes Before Extended Break

The House wasn’t expected to stay in session past this week and, in fact, they left a day early after Rep. Massie (R-KY4) introduced an impeachment resolution against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Nonetheless, they powered through many more votes than usual. We’ll cover the seven soon-to-be new laws and the bills of interest we highlighted in this week’s preview. As is its usual function, the Senate mostly acted as a break on legislation that had passed the House.

New Laws

These bills have all passed both chambers in identical form, so they next go to the President for signing.

Keep ReadingShow less