It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!
Missouri Congressional Map Referendum (2026)
| Missouri Congressional Map Referendum | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Redistricting policy |
|
| Status Signatures submitted |
|
| Type Veto referendum |
Origin |
The Missouri Congressional Map Referendum could appear on the ballot in Missouri as a veto referendum on November 3, 2026, or at an earlier special election.
On December 9, 2025, the campaign behind the veto referendum, People Not Politicians, reported submitting more than 305,000 signatures.[1]
This referendum would uphold or repeal the new congressional district map under HB 1, which was passed by the Missouri State Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Mike Kehoe.[2]
Overview
What changes would HB 1 make to Missouri's congressional districts?
Currently, Missouri has eight congressional districts. There are six congressional districts—2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8—with a Republican U.S. Representative, and two districts—District 1 and District 5—with a Democratic U.S. Representative. The congressional map in effect during the 2022 and 2024 elections was drawn after the 2020 U.S. Census. The district plan was approved in 2022 by the Missouri General Assembly, as House Bill 2909, and was signed by Gov. Mike Parson on May 18, 2022. The map was first used in the 2022 midterm elections.[3]
The new congressional map passed the General Assembly as House Bill 1 (HB 1) in a 2025 special session, and was signed into law by Gov. Mike Kehoe on September 28, 2025. The new congressional map under HB 1 would make most changes to the Kansas City area. Under the current congressional map, Kansas City is mostly contained in the 5th congressional district, while HB 1 would divide Kansas City across multiple districts.[2]
President Donald Trump (R) said HB 1 "will, hopefully, give us an additional Seat in Congress" and "will help send an additional MAGA Republican to Congress in the 2026 Midterm Elections."[4] U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) said, "Bowing to the demands of Donald Trump, corrupt Missouri Republicans advanced their mid-decade gerrymandering scheme today to try and rig the midterm elections in order to salvage the weak GOP House majority."[5]
The HB 1 map "breaks up a Democratic-held district in Kansas City and gives Republicans an advantage in seven of the state's eight U.S. House of Representatives districts," according to Reuters writer Joseph Ax.[6] According to Inside Elections writer Nathaniel Rakich, "the old map had six seats that were R+10 or redder and two seats that were D+10 or bluer — and no seats in the competitive zone in between. This resulted in a congressional delegation that has consisted of six Republicans and two Democrats since 2013. The new map, however, features seven districts with a Baseline of R+10 or redder and leaves just one seat that is D+10 or bluer. There are still no seats between D+10 and R+10."[7]
The following maps compare the state's existing congressional districts with the congressional districts proposed under HB 1.
What is the status of the veto referendum against HB 1?
The campaign behind the veto referendum, People Not Politicians, reported submitting more than 305,000 signatures on December 9, 2025. In Missouri, placing a veto referendum on the ballot requires collecting signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast for governor in the most recent election in six of the state's eight congressional districts. Therefore, the total number of signatures required depends on which six districts meet their respective thresholds. This number could range from 106,384 to 115,720. If enough signatures are verified, the veto referendum would qualify for the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot, unless the legislature calls an earlier special election.
Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) said signatures collected between Sept. 15 and Oct. 14 would be considered invalid. He said, "Under Missouri law, no signatures gathered before this approval date are valid, and doing so constitutes a misdemeanor election offense." von Glahn responded, saying that approach violated court precedent in No Bans on Choice et al. v. Ashcroft (2022), in which the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a state law prohibiting signature gathering for a veto referendum before the referendum's official ballot title is certified violates citizens' constitutional rights to use the referendum process.[8]
Is HB 1 currently in effect?
The campaign People Not Politicians and Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R), who oversees the signature verification process, disagree over whether, with signatures submitted, HB 1 is now suspended, and whether signatures collected before the ballot title was certified can be counted.
Secretary of State Hoskins said the submission did not suspend HB 1, which took effect on Dec. 11. Hoskins said, "The map will not be frozen until I certify the referendum," and that the signature review could take place until late July. He added, "I’m going to do everything I can to protect Gov. (Mike) Kehoe’s Missouri First Map — the map the General Assembly passed." Attorney General Catherine Hanaway (R) also said, "The Court also held that the State has not yet suffered any injury because House Bill 1 and the Missouri FIRST Map will go into effect on December 11 and not be frozen unless and until the Secretary of State certifies the referendum."[9]
Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, said, "The reality is more than enough adequate signatures have been turned in. The law is suspended until there is either an issuance of a certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency, either one of those things the Secretary of State has the power to do. And at that point, there will either be an election or potentially litigation."[9]
What is the status of redistricting in other states ahead of the 2026 elections?
States must redraw district lines every 10 years following the completion of the U.S. census. The federal government requires the districts resulting from this process to have nearly equal populations and not cause racial or ethnic voting discrimination.
While every state redrew its district lines after the 2020 census, some states are revisiting redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. Currently, five states—California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas—had passed a new congressional map between the 2024 and 2026 elections, and litigation had led to a new map in Utah. Three states—Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana—had congressional or state legislative maps that were subject to change due to ongoing litigation. Four states—Florida, Indiana. Maryland, and Virginia—had taken official action toward voluntary redistricting.
Voters decided a new congressional map in California by approving [California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)|Proposition 50]] on November 4, 2025. Voters could also decide an amendment in Virginia, where the General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature to conduct congressional redistricting between Jan. 1, 2025, and Oct. 31, 2030. The amendment must be approved again next year to appear on the ballot, which could be a special election ballot to allow new maps to take effect before Nov. 2026.
Before 2025, only two states had conducted voluntary mid-decade redistricting since 1970.
Text of measure
Full text
The text of the referendum is below:
Support for a "Yes" vote
Put Missouri First is leading the campaign to uphold the targeted legislation, House Bill 1. In Missouri, upholding legislation through a referendum requires a “yes” vote.[10]
Supporters
Officials
- Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R)
Organizations
- American Action Network
- National Republican Congressional Committee
- Republican National Committee
- Securing American Greatness Inc.
Support for a "No" vote
People Not Politicians is leading the campaign to repeal the targeted legislation, House Bill 1. In Missouri, repealing legislation through a referendum requires a “no” vote.[10][11]
Supporters
Unions
- LIUNA Missouri and Kansas Laborers District Council
- National Education Association
- SEIU MO/KS State Council
Organizations
- American Opportunity Action
- Brick by Brick Foundation
- Democracy Fund Voice
- Democratic National Committee
- Global Impact Social Welfare Fund
- Health Forward Foundation
- National Redistricting Action Fund
- Open Society Action Fund
- The Fairness Project
- Think Big America
- Tides Foundation
Arguments
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026
People Not Politicians registered as a political action committee (PAC) to sponsor the veto referendum. In Missouri, a 'no' vote overturns the targeted legislation, meaning the campaign behind the veto referendum supports a 'no' vote. People Not Politicians reported about $5.0 million in contributions.[10]
Put Missouri First registered as a political action committee (PAC) to support a 'yes' vote on the referendum. In Missouri, a 'yes' vote upholds the targeted legislation. Put Missouri First reported $2.1 million in contributions.[10]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $4,963,769.01 | $31,066.77 | $4,994,835.78 | $1,264,298.24 | $1,295,365.01 |
| Total | $7,063,769.01 | $31,066.77 | $7,094,835.78 | $1,264,298.24 | $1,295,365.01 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[10]
| Committees in support of Congressional Map Referendum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Put Missouri First | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[10]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Action Network Inc. | $1,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000,000.00 |
| Securing American Greatness Inc. | $1,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000,000.00 |
| National Republican Congressional Committee | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Republican National Committee | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the measure.[10]
| Committees in opposition to Congressional Map Referendum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| People Not Politicians | $4,963,769.01 | $31,066.77 | $4,994,835.78 | $1,264,298.24 | $1,295,365.01 |
| Total | $4,963,769.01 | $31,066.77 | $4,994,835.78 | $1,264,298.24 | $1,295,365.01 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[10]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Opportunity Action | $1,350,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,350,000.00 |
| Health Forward Foundation | $750,000.00 | $0.00 | $750,000.00 |
| Global Impact Social Welfare Fund | $500,000.00 | $0.00 | $500,000.00 |
| Open Society Action Fund | $450,000.00 | $0.00 | $450,000.00 |
| Tides Foundation | $300,000.00 | $0.00 | $300,000.00 |
Background
Federal redistricting requirements
- See also: Redistricting
Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures.
All United States Representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. The states redraw district lines every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government requires that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[12][13]
| “ | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[14] | ” |
| —United States Constitution | ||
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[15][16][17]
The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[17]
Missouri redistricting process
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
In Missouri, congressional district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.[18]
In 2018, the voters passed a citizens’ initiative called Amendment 1 that reshaped the redistricting process; in 2020, the voters narrowly passed a legislatively referred initiative called Amendment 3 that reshaped the process again.
Two distinct politician commissions are ultimately responsible for state legislative redistricting, one for the Missouri State Senate and another for the Missouri House of Representatives. Membership on these commissions is determined as follows:[18]
| “ |
Missouri’s congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature, as a regular statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The state legislative lines are drawn by two separate politician commissions — one for state Senate districts, one for state House districts. For each commission, each major party’s congressional district committee nominates 2 members per congressional district, and the state committee nominates 5 members; the Governor chooses 1 per district per party and two per party from the statewide lists, for a total commission of 20.[14] |
” |
Missouri redistricting measures
Missouri voters decided on 10 redistricting-related ballot measures.
In 1922, Missouri voters rejected Proposition 17, a veto referendum that provided for a new congressional map passed by the state legislature—thus, repealing the map. The redistricting plan, also referred to as the Elmer Congressional Redistricting Bill. According to The Kansas City Post, the plan would have made "12 of the districts safely Republican" and that "during the debate on the bills, Republican representatives, frankly, admitted on the floor of the House that they were endeavoring to arrange the districts as to give their party every congressman possible."[19] A statement by the Missouri Democratic Committee read, "The congressional redistricting bill which we are herewith submitting to the referendum we consider extremely unfair and partisan in the extreme. It puts many of the strong Democratic counties. in as few districts as possible and insures the election of at least 10 Republicans out of the 16 congressmen from Missouri for the next 10 years. Is that fair; is that nonpartisan?"[20]
| Year | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Amendment 3 | Addresses lobbying, campaign finance, and redistricting procedures |
|
1,489,503 (51%) |
1,430,358 (49%) |
|
| 2018 | Amendment 1 | Address lobbying, campaign finance, and redistricting procedures |
|
1,469,093 (62%) |
899,613 (38%) |
|
| 1982 | Amendment 12 | Require the State senate reapportionment commission to hold hearings and file plan for new districts the same as the house apportionment commission, and authorize the Supreme Court to appoint judges to draw districts if either commissions does not complete the task |
|
724,225 (57%) |
544,691 (43%) |
|
| 1982 | Amendment 5 | Establish a process for selecting a congressional redistricting commission to redraw district boundaries after each U.S. census and outline its procedures |
|
581,210 (44%) |
729,031 (56%) |
|
| 1978 | Amendment 3 | Authorize an appointed commission of appellate judges to draw state legislative districts |
|
333,911 (40%) |
490,684 (60%) |
|
| 1966 | Amendment 3 | Establish the number of state representatives at 163 and authorize bipartisan commissions to create legislative districts, with the Missouri Supreme Court stepping in if the commissions fail |
|
178,924 (52%) |
165,395 (48%) |
|
| 1965 | Amendment 3 | Set the size of the state House and Senate |
|
112,211 (41%) |
160,568 (59%) |
|
| 1924 | Amendment 3 | Change legislative and redistricting processes and authorize certain public assistance laws |
|
137,430 (42%) |
190,911 (58%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 17 | Uphold a congressional redistricting plan |
|
240,340 (38%) |
386,522 (62%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 19 | Establish the apportionment of the state into Senatorial Districts from the previous United States census |
|
227,000 (37%) |
379,615 (63%) |
Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
As of December 2025, five states had congressional district maps that were subject to change before the 2026 elections, and six states—California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah—had new congressional maps. Three states were reportedly exploring voluntary redistricting, and two states had congressional maps that were subject to change due to litigation. Before 2025, only two states had conducted voluntary mid-decade redistricting since 1970.[21]
The map below shows redistricting activity between the 2024 and 2026 elections.
The table below shows redistricting activity between the 2024 and 2026 elections as well as the pre-redistricting U.S. House delegation in each state.
| State | Reason for redistricting | Status | Method of redistricting | U.S. House delegation before redistricting | Potential result of new maps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New map enacted | |||||
| California | Voluntary redistricting | Voters approved the use of a new map on Nov. 4, 2025. | Commission | 43 D - 9 R | +5 D |
| Missouri | Voluntary redistricting | Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed new map into law on Sept. 28, 2025. | Legislature-dominant | 6 R - 2 D | +1 R |
| North Carolina | Voluntary redistricting | Legislature passed new map into law on Oct. 22, 2025 | Legislature-dominant | 10 R - 4 D | +1 R |
| Ohio | Required by law to redistrict | Redistricting commission approved a new map on Oct. 31, 2025 | Legislature-dominant | 10 R -5 D | +2 R |
| Texas | Voluntary redistricting | U.S. Supreme Court ruled the new Texas map could be used in 2026 | Legislature-dominant | 25 R -12 D with 1 vacancy | +5 R |
| Utah | Changed due to litigation | Court approved new plaintiff-submitted map | Legislature-dominant | 4 R - 0 D | +1 D |
| Net | +3 R | ||||
| New map possible | |||||
| Florida | Voluntary redistricting | Florida House to form Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting | Legislature-dominant | 20 R - 8 D | - |
| Georgia | Subject to change due to litigation | Litigation ongoing | Legislature-dominant | 9 R - 5 D | - |
| Louisiana | Subject to change due to litigation | Litigation ongoing | Legislature-dominant | 4 R - 2 D | - |
| Maryland | Voluntary redistricting | Gov. Wes Moore (D) announced a redistricting advisory commission. | Legislature-dominant | 7 D - 1 R | - |
| Virginia | Voluntary redistricting | The Virginia General Assembly completed its first of two required rounds of approval for a constitutional amendment. | Hybrid | 6 D - 5 R | - |
History of Missouri veto referendums
Historically, Missouri voters decided a total of 25 veto referendums, the first being decided in 1914. Out of the 25 measures, one of them (3.8%) was approved, meaning voters upheld the legislation placed on the ballot, while 24 (96.2%) of the measures were defeated, meaning voters repealed the legislation placed on the ballot.
| Year | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | Proposition A | Approval upholds Senate Bill 19, a right to work law; defeat rejects the law |
|
453,283 (33%) |
939,973 (67%) |
|
| 1982 | Proposition A | Refer a law to allow longer and heavier trucks on Missouri highways, and to extend metropolitan commercial zones |
|
405,471 (47%) |
463,585 (53%) |
|
| 1970 | Proposition 1 | Refer a law that increases State employees' retirement benefits and establishes a separate, State-funded retirement system for legislators and elected State officers |
|
217,133 (22%) |
769,378 (78%) |
|
| 1970 | Proposition 1 | Refer an existing income tax law and replace it with revised tax rates adopted from the federal income tax law |
|
364,546 (44%) |
468,597 (56%) |
|
| 1950 | Amendment 1 | Refer a law that increases the motor fuel license tax from two to four cents per gallon to fund highway construction and maintenance, allocates part of the revenue to state rural roads based on county population and area, under the supervision of the State Highway Commission with bipartisan advisory input |
|
179,094 (25%) |
528,201 (75%) |
|
| 1938 | Proposition 5 | Repeal statues relating to the motor vehicle fuel tax, and enacting legislation to levy a $0.03 motor vehicle fuel tax to fund the construction of the State Highway system |
|
245,195 (27%) |
664,150 (73%) |
|
| 1926 | Proposition 1 | Refer the Workmen's Compensation law that provided compensation to injured workers, defined the rights of injured workers and determining the amount of compensation, and established a Commission to administer the law |
|
160,645 (21%) |
612,392 (79%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 10 | Refer a law that abolishes the 38 judicial circuit and Sturgeon Court of Common Pleas and creates 34 new judicial circuits |
|
247,484 (39%) |
394,637 (61%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 11 | Refer a law that establishes a workmen's compensation and creating a commission to administer it |
|
288,384 (45%) |
356,001 (55%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 12 | Refer a law that established a county school district and a county board of education |
|
291,157 (43%) |
381,320 (57%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 13 | Refer a law that abolishes township justices of the peace in cities with populations between 100,000 and 300,000 and transfers their pending business to legally designated justices of the peace |
|
234,288 (38%) |
386,680 (62%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 14 | Refer article IX, chapter 22, R. S. 1919, and enact a new article setting new eligibility standards, expanding justice court jurisdiction, establishing a presiding justice, requiring bonds, defining duties and powers, and setting salaries |
|
232,704 (38%) |
386,663 (62%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 16 | Abolish the office of constable in certain townships |
|
231,601 (38%) |
382,915 (62%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 17 | Uphold a congressional redistricting plan |
|
240,340 (38%) |
386,522 (62%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 5 | Refer a law that created a State Department of Budget |
|
267,241 (42%) |
375,676 (58%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 6 | Refer a law that abolished the office of State Inspector of Oils and transferring the authority to the Supervisor of Public Welfare |
|
274,530 (42%) |
383,370 (58%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 7 | Refer a law that abolished the office of State Beverage Inspector and transferring those duties to the Supervisor of Public Welfare |
|
276,641 (43%) |
365,406 (57%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 8 | Refer a law that created an office of Supervisor of Public Welfare and transferring the powers of the Food and Drug Commissioner to it |
|
262,816 (41%) |
371,812 (59%) |
|
| 1922 | Proposition 9 | Refer a law that created a Department of Agriculture |
|
252,060 (40%) |
378,181 (60%) |
|
| 1920 | Proposition 13 | Refer a law that prohibits the manufacture, sale, advertisement, and transportation of intoxicating liquors with exceptions, enforces penalties, allows searches and nuisance abatement, and grants legal action against illegal liquor sellers |
|
481,880 (53%) |
420,581 (47%) |
|
| 1920 | Proposition 14 | Refer a law that established a workmen's compensation |
|
344,724 (48%) |
376,651 (52%) |
|
| 1914 | Proposition 10 | Refer House bill No. 19, which would have changed local laws that allowed towns with a population of 2,500 inhabitants or more could vote if their municipality prohibited alcohol, and instead established that counties have complete jurisdiction of the sale of alcohol |
|
172,909 (36%) |
311,285 (64%) |
|
| 1914 | Proposition 11 | Refer House bill No. 7, which would have abolished the current governor-appointed Excise Commissioner in cities with a population of 300,000 or more, and establish a bipartisan Board of Excise Commissioners appointed by the mayors of those cities |
|
134,449 (31%) |
303,757 (69%) |
|
| 1914 | Proposition 12 | Refer House bill No. 6 which would have terminated the governor-appointed Board of Police Commissioners in cities with a population of 300,000 or more inhabitants, and instead establish a bipartisan Board of Police Commissioners appointed by the mayor of those cities |
|
131,382 (30%) |
306,942 (70%) |
|
| 1914 | Proposition 9 | Establish minimum crew size requirements for trains operating within the state |
|
159,892 (33%) |
324,384 (67%) |
Path to the ballot
Process in Missouri
In Missouri, a veto referendum requires signatures equal to 5 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election in six of the state’s eight congressional districts. Signatures must be submitted within 90 days after the legislative session adjourns in which the targeted law was passed.
The requirements for this veto referendum were:
- Signatures: The smallest possible requirement for veto referendums for the 2026 ballot is 106,384 valid signatures. The actual requirement depends on the congressional districts in which signatures are collected.
- Deadline: The special legislative session adjourned on September 12, 2025, meaning the deadline was December 11, 2025.
When an initiative or referendum petition is submitted, the secretary of state determines whether it complies with the Missouri Constitution and state law. The secretary chooses the signature verification method, either a random sample or a full review of all signatures. After that, the secretary sends copies of the petition pages to local election authorities for signature verification. All petition pages must reach local officials within four weeks of the petition’s filing. If the secretary uses a random sample, local authorities have 30 days to complete their review; if a full verification is required, they must finish by the last Tuesday in July before the election.[22][23]
Stages of this veto referendum
- September 12, 2025: Richard von Glahn, the executive director of People Not Politicians, filed two versions of the veto referendum—R001 and R002.[24]
- September 15, 2025: von Glahn filed a third version of the veto referendum—R003.[24]
- September 26, 2025: Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) rejected the three petitions (R001, R002, and R003).
- Attorney General Catherine Hanaway recommended that Hoskins reject the petitions, stating, "A bill passed by the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate does not become ‘a law’ until it is either ‘approved by the governor’ or until the bill is not ‘returned by the governor within the time limits prescribed by this section.’" Abigail Bergmann, a spokesperson for Hanaway, said, "State law only allows a referendum on measures that have been enacted into law. The referendum petition was thus premature."[25]
- People Not Politicians responded, "People Not Politicians has continued to face obstinance from politicians who refuse to perform their administrative duties and adhere to legal deadlines around processing the legally submitted referendum petition. The group continues to gather signatures to put the issue before Missouri voters."[25]
- September 29, 2025: von Glahn filed a fourth version—R004.[24]
- October 15, 2025: Hoskins approved the referendum petition for circulation. His office also stated, "The Secretary’s approval authorizes the sponsor to begin collecting signatures from registered Missouri voters. Under Missouri law, no signatures gathered before this approval date are valid, and doing so constitutes a misdemeanor election offense."[26] von Glahn responded, citing No Bans on Choice et al. v. Ashcroft, in which the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a state law prohibiting signature gathering for a veto referendum before the referendum's official ballot title is certified violates citizens' constitutional rights to use the referendum process.[27]
- October 15, 2025: Hoskins, Hanaway, and the General Assembly filed litigation against von Glahn and People Not Politicians, arguing that a veto referendum on a congressional redistricting plan in Missouri violated the U.S. Constitution.[27]
- Hanaway said, "The Constitution entrusts congressional redistricting to the people’s elected legislature, not to activist organizations bankrolled by undisclosed donors. If allowed to proceed, this effort would destroy faith in our elections and set a dangerous precedent where outside interests could override constitutional order."[28]
- von Glahn said, "It feels like what's happened over the last 24 hours is let's try to throw as much spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks but the logic, both in the Missouri constitution of our statute and judicial precedent would say none of that should stick. Missouri politicians continue to try to confuse, intimidate and, frankly, silence us."[29]
- On December 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Zachary Bluestone dismissed the case, saying, "Secretary Hoskins has a tool at his disposal that almost no other litigant could boast—the power to declare the petition unconstitutional himself." He also noted, "abstaining here would avoid federal interference in a referendum process created entirely by the Missouri Constitution and state law."[30]
- November 13, 2025: Hoskins certified a ballot title for R004, which said the targeted legislation, House Bill 1, "repeals Missouri’s existing gerrymandered congressional plan that protects incumbent politicians, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact, are more compact, and better reflects statewide voting patterns."[24] von Glahn responded, saying "I don’t think this is going to pass the smell test on whether or not it’s accurate or unbiased or likely to create prejudice."[31]
- December 9, 2025: People Not Politicians reported submitting more than 305,000 signatures.[32]
- Hoskins said the signature submission did not mean the targeted legislation, HB 1, would be suspended. He said, "The map will not be frozen until I certify the referendum," and that the signature review could take place until late July. He added, "I’m going to do everything I can to protect Gov. (Mike) Kehoe’s Missouri First Map — the map the General Assembly passed."[33] Attorney General Hanaway also said HB 1 "will go into effect on Dec. 11 and not be frozen unless and until the secretary of state certifies the referendum."[34]
- von Glahn said HB 1 is suspended. He stated, "It is very clear in law and in practice in Missouri that upon the submission of signatures, until the Secretary of State makes a decision to either certify the initiative as sufficient or to certify the petition is insufficient, the map is frozen. As of today, right now, House Bill 1 is suspended pending voter approval."[35]
Lawsuits
See also
View other measures certified for the 2026 ballot across the U.S. and in Missouri.
Explore Missouri's ballot measure history, including citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedsigs - ↑ 2.0 2.1 Missouri House of Representatives, "HB 1 Map," accessed September 29, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Office of Administration, "2020-2022 Redistricting Cycle Information," accessed September 29, 2025
- ↑ ABC 7 Eyewitness News, "Missouri Senate passes Trump-backed plan that could help Republicans win an additional US House seat," September 13, 2025
- ↑ CBS News, "Missouri lawmakers pass GOP redistricting plan backed by Trump," September 12, 2025
- ↑ Reuters, "Missouri House approves Republican-drawn congressional map," September 29, 2025
- ↑ Inside Elections, "A Detailed Analysis of Missouri’s New Congressional Map," September 29, 2025
- ↑ KCUR, "Missouri case over anti-redistricting ballot signatures hits more delays. Here's why" November 14, 2025
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 KCUR, "Is Missouri's gerrymandered new map in effect now? Dispute may spark even more legal fights" December 16, 2025
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 Missouri Ethics Commission, "Campaign Finance Search," accessed September 23, 2025
- ↑ People Not Politicians, "Homepage," accessed December 9, 2025
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 All About Redistricting, "Missouri," accessed April 16, 2024
- ↑ The Kansas City Post, "GOP Reserves 12 Seats in US House, Adopting Gerrymander," July 17, 1921
- ↑ Macon Chronicle-Herald, "Referendum Invoked in Gerrymander," January 16, 1922
- ↑ Pew Research Center, "Redistricting between censuses has been rare in the modern era," August 28, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Revised Statutes, "116.120. Secretary of state to determine sufficiency of form and compliance — invalid signatures not counted — signatures may be verified by random sampling, procedure and requirements," accessed December 10, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Revised Statutes, "116.130. Election authorities may be requested to verify signatures either by random sampling or checking signatures, when, how," accessed December 10, 2025
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Missouri Secretary of State, "2026 Initiative and Referendum Petitions Filed," accessed November 1, 2025
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Missouri Independent, "Effort to force vote on gerrymandered Missouri congressional map hits roadblock," September 26, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Secretary of State Approves Redistricting Referendum for Circulation," October 15, 2025
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 St. Louis Public Radio, "Missouri redistricting referendum backers cry foul as Hoskins disputes signatures," October 15, 2025
- ↑ KOMU, "Missouri attorney general files lawsuit to block referendum petition challenging new districts," October 15, 2025
- ↑ Spectrum News, "Backers of Missouri referendum to overturn new congressional maps call federal suit 'desperate'," October 16, 2025
- ↑ United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri, "Missouri General Assembly v. von Glahn," October 8, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Referendum backers reject ballot title for vote on gerrymandered Missouri congressional map," November 10, 2025
- ↑ NBC News, "Group seeking to put Missouri's GOP-drawn congressional map before voters submits signatures," December 9, 2025
- ↑ Associated Press, "Opponents of Trump-backed redistricting in Missouri submit a petition to force a public vote," December 10, 2025
- ↑ St. Louis Public Radio, "Missouri redistricting foes may have dealt big blow to Trump-backed congressional map," December 9, 2025
- ↑ KRTV, "Advocates say they have enough signatures to block Missouri gerrymandering, at least for now," December 9, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Lawsuit alleges Missouri officials are ignoring constitution to enact gerrymandered map," December 23, 2025
- ↑ Cole County Circuit Court, "Maggard and Lombardi v. Missouri," December 23, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Lawsuit alleges Missouri officials are ignoring constitution to enact gerrymandered map," December 23, 2025
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, "Missouri General Assembly, et al. V. Richard von Glahn & People Not Politicians," December 8, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Attorney General, "Attorney General Hanaway Fights Out-of-State Dark-Money Groups Attempting To Hijack Missouri’s Constitutional Authority," October 15, 2025
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, "Missouri General Assembly, et al. v. Richard von Glahn & People Not Politicians," October 15, 2025
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, "Missouri General Assembly, et al. v. Richard von Glahn & People Not Politicians," November 3, 2025
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedorder - ↑ Missouri Independent, "Federal judge rejects Missouri AG’s push to block referendum on gerrymandered map," December 8, 2025
- ↑ Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, "People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn v. Hoskins," September 18, 2025
- ↑ Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, "People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn v. Hoskins," September 29, 2025
- ↑ Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, "People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn v. Hoskins," October 14, 2025
- ↑ St. Louis Public Radio, "Judge freezes case over whether Hoskins can deny some redistricting referendum signatures," December 12, 2025
- ↑ Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, "People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn v. Hoskins," November 20, 2025
- ↑ Court Listener, "Advanced Micro Targeting, LLC v. Let the Voters Decide, LLC (4:25-cv-00881)," accessed November 17, 2025
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Lawsuit details alleged scheme to sabotage referendum on Missouri congressional map," November 21, 2025
