Missouri Organizer Appeals to Supreme Court to Uphold State Ruling Blocking GOP-Favored Congressional Map

On Monday, Richard von Glahn, a Missouri resident and organizer of a referendum petition, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Missouri Supreme Court decision that bars the state from implementing a new congressional map anticipated to benefit Republicans in the upcoming November elections.

The controversy originated last year when the Missouri Legislature passed House Bill 1 (HB 1), a redistricting plan signed into law by Governor Mike Kehoe. The new map would likely grant Republicans seven of Missouri’s eight U.S. House seats. This legislative action followed encouragement from former President Donald Trump for Republican-led states to redraw maps outside the usual decennial cycle.

In December, von Glahn and other organizers submitted over 300,000 signatures to place a statewide referendum on the November 2026 ballot, seeking voter approval of the new congressional map. However, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the petition on August 4, 2026—the final day for certification and coinciding with the state’s primary election—citing the Missouri Constitution’s lack of authorization for referenda on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.

That same day, von Glahn filed suit in state court to overturn Hoskins’ decision and to prevent the use of the new map in the upcoming election. On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously granted von Glahn’s request, ruling that the state constitution’s plain language authorizes referenda on “any act of the general assembly” without exception. The court held that the referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, concluding that HB 1 never took effect and will remain inactive unless approved by voters in November 2026.

The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed Hoskins’ claims that not using the new map would cause confusion, expense, and practical difficulties. The court noted that these concerns were irrelevant to the secretary’s sole basis for rejecting the petition and emphasized that the secretary’s own delay contributed to the problems he cited.

On Friday night, Secretary Hoskins petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, asserting that the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause. He argued that this clause grants state legislatures—not voters via referendum—the authority to regulate federal election procedures. Hoskins contended that the Supreme Court has never recognized that a small percentage of voters (3.3%) can unilaterally suspend a congressional map by referendum.

Hoskins further claimed that the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of voters by placing them in new districts where they would be compelled to vote for candidates they did not help select during the primary.

In response on Monday, von Glahn argued that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling rests solely on state law, constituting an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal review. The state court also indicated that Hoskins could not raise federal claims because he failed to present them during the initial petition rejection.

Von Glahn emphasized that a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling would not grant Hoskins the relief sought, as HB 1 never took effect under Missouri law. The 2022 congressional map remains the legal status quo. To use HB 1 in the election, Hoskins would need an injunction affirmatively authorizing its use, which requires meeting a higher legal standard.

Additionally, von Glahn challenged Hoskins’ and supporting Republican groups’ standing to bring the federal lawsuit, arguing they lack a legal right to claim that the Missouri Supreme Court unlawfully displaced legislative authority under the Elections Clause.

On the merits, von Glahn maintained that Hoskins’ Elections Clause argument conflicts with over a century of precedent recognizing that state constitutional referendum procedures can constrain congressional redistricting legislation. He also noted that Hoskins requests a novel right: a guarantee that every consequence of a primary vote is preserved through the general election, a right unsupported by precedent.

The case underscores ongoing tensions between state constitutional processes and federal election law, with significant implications for redistricting authority and voter participation in Missouri’s 2026 congressional elections.