By Rudi Keller
The political action committee People Not Politicians, which submitted petitions to put the map on the ballot, accuse Hoskins and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway of “attempting to bully and intimidatelocal election officials” who are asking for a decision on whether the referendum will be on the November ballot.
The petitions were submitted Dec. 9 and signature verifications reported to Hoskins’ office show it has enough signatures in enough districts to meet the constitutional threshold for placement on the ballot.
Under state law, Hoskins has until Aug. 4, the day of this year’s primary, to issue a decision on whether the petition has sufficient signatures and whether he believes it is a legal use of the referendum power for the congressional map. He has said he intends to use the full time allotted for his decision.
That leaves the legal status of the primary in doubt, the new lawsuit argues.
The lawsuit asks Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green to declare that the laws governing the verification of signatures are unconstitutional as applied to their referendum because of the conflicting dates.
“Defendants are not acting in good faith and are instead intentionally delaying issuance of a certification decision in the hopes of conducting elections under maps they know are not, and cannot be, in legal effect,” the lawsuit states.
Under the Missouri Constitution, a petition that qualifies for the ballot stops a law from taking effect unless it is approved in the election. Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional provision is only triggered when the secretary of state certifies that enough signatures were collected to put a referendum on the ballot.
Hoskins and Hanaway believe the decision means the districts in the new map will be used this year. In the lawsuit, People Not Politicians asserts that another section of that decision means the question is in doubt.
In her opinion for the unanimous court, Judge Ginger Gooch wrote that because Hoskins has not ruled on the petitions, “it is impossible to say as of this opinion” the status of the revised districts as a matter of law.
Hoskins’ office, through a spokeswoman, said it is reviewing the lawsuit.
Hanaway’s office said it expects the courts to leave the process untouched.
“This lawsuit re-litigates the exact same questions the Missouri Supreme Court just decided (last week),” spokeswoman Stephanie Whitaker wrote in an email. “We look forward to prevailing in court.”
The fight over the map began last summer when President Donald Trump pressured Missouri Republicans for help to maintain the slim Republican majority in the U.S. House.
Republicans hold six of Missouri’s eight seats in Congress and the partisan goal of the new map is to oust 5th District U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat, by splitting Kansas City and adding voters in 14 counties along the Missouri River.
The district that elected Cleaver in 2024 to an 11th term includes most of Kansas City and a portion of Jackson and Clay counties outside the city. Cleaver filed for re-election in February and said he will stay in the race regardless of which district is used in this year’s elections.
Five Republicans have filed for the nomination to oppose Cleaver in hopes of exploiting the partisan advantage in the map passed last year.
Nearly a dozen lawsuits have been filed challenging the map and litigating issues arising from the referendum. Republicans have prevailed in all the cases seeking to block the map.
The accusations that Hoskins and Hanaway are trying to “bully” local election authorities is based on statements made after the court ruled.
The day after the Supreme Court decision, Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon, a Democrat, said she would not update the state’s voter database to assign her county’s voters to the new districts until Hoskins made a decision.
At a news conference Friday, Hoskins accused her of violating state election law and threatened her with state or federal legal action.
“Obviously there will be a lot of legal lawsuits including some probably from the attorney general’s office, maybe from the Department of Justice, if she decides to defy the Supreme Court order, defy the opinion from the attorney general and defy direction from the chief election officer,” Hoskins said.
Hoskins has not reached out to her directly, Lennon said in a text Monday.
“I’m always available to discuss the process of redistricting at the local level,” she said.
St. Charles County County Elections Director Kurt Bahr, a Republican, said last week that a decision about the referendum would allow the courts to settle the question before primary ballots must be printed.
On Monday, Bahr said he has updated his county’s voter list to reflect the new map.
One option for Hoskins is to declare that the referendum, even if it has sufficient signatures, is illegal for congressional redistricting plans. That was his position in a federal lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Constitution, by giving congressional districting responsibility to legislatures, precludes the possibility of a referendum.
U.S. District Judge Zachary Bluestone dismissed the case and wrote that Hoskins could make the call on his own and defend it in state courts.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, People Not Politicians said Hoskins can clear up the issue by making his decision.
“In refusing to admit what is plain to see, Secretary Hoskins is risking conducting an invalid election, a grave injustice to all Missourians, regardless of political party,” said Richard von Glahn, the campaign’s executive director. “He is ignoring the pleas of countless county clerks, who only wish to conduct elections their voters can have confidence in.”
