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

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less
The Great American Grumpfest

Children watch a July Fourth Parade along the Walkway of Heroes and Independence Avenue on July 04, 2026 in Tappan, New York.

(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

The Great American Grumpfest

Our nation’s 250th birthday party didn’t feel especially patriotic and wasn’t as much fun as the 200th anniversary was.

President Trump, who did his best to co-opt our holiday for his personal aggrandizement, was a major reason. The party he threw in Washington, D.C., was crankier than uplifting, and less about celebrating our shared past and a promising future than about reminding us how far we have strayed from our founders’ plan to create a republic that future Americans would keep in good working order.

Keep ReadingShow less