Missouri’s Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins, recently announced that approximately 100,000 signatures gathered for a redistricting referendum will not be counted. This declaration has sparked controversy, as the signature-gathering group, People Not Politicians, disputes Hoskins’ statement. Adding to the complexity, Missouri Attorney General, Catherine Hanaway, has filed a federal lawsuit asserting that the redistricting plan should not face a referendum.
Background on Redistricting in Missouri
The Missouri Legislature approved a new congressional map last month. The changes include shifting the Kansas City-based 5th District, previously represented by Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, to a GOP-leaning district. In response, opponents initiated a referendum campaign aimed at allowing voters to decide on the map in the November 2026 election.
To successfully place the measure on the ballot, People Not Politicians must collect around 106,000 signatures by mid-December. If successful, this could prevent the new map from being implemented in time for the midterm elections. Hoskins indicated that he had authorized the referendum but stated that any signatures collected prior to this approval would not be valid, labelling it a misdemeanor election offense.
Controversy Surrounding Signature Validity
In a statement, Hoskins emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of the voting process. “Every Missourian deserves confidence that ballot measures follow the law,” he remarked. However, Richard von Glahn from People Not Politicians argued that the Missouri constitution allows 90 days for gathering signatures. He questioned Hoskins’ authority to shorten this period through administrative means.
- Signed into law by Governor Mike Kehoe, the new map’s validity is under scrutiny.
- People Not Politicians previously filed a lawsuit against Hoskins for rejecting their initial petition.
- Legal counsel for the group claims that the right to petition is protected under the First Amendment.
Implications of the Lawsuit
Hanaway’s lawsuit positions the Missouri legislature as the sole authority on redistricting matters, arguing that voters do not have the power to override legislative decisions. “The people of Missouri have never made the conscious choice to undermine the Framers’ decision,” stated the lawsuit.
This legal battle is not limited to Missouri. It could set a precedent affecting similar cases in other states. For example, controversies in Utah regarding redistricting could see repercussions if courts align with the stance that redistricting cannot be subject to referendum. Additionally, developments in California regarding constitutional changes to electoral maps may also be influenced by this situation.
Historical Context
Von Glahn cited historical precedent for referendums on redistricting, recalling a successful vote against a congressional map in 1922. This underlines the ongoing debate about the democratic process in redistricting efforts.
The outcome of this legal and political struggle could have significant implications for Missouri’s electoral landscape and influence other states grappling with similar redistricting challenges.
