Missouri Supreme Court denies request to stay ruling on congressional lines

The Missouri Supreme Court on Friday morning denied a request from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to pause its order requiring the Nov. 3 congressional election to be conducted using the districts in place for the 2024 election.

Hoskins asked for a decision by noon to allow for an “emergency appeal” to the U.S. Supreme Court. His request did not ask the court to block its decision placing a referendum on the gerrymandered congressional map passed by Republican lawmakers in 2025 on the November ballot.

The court denied the request without comment.

The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court had not been filed by 10 a.m. Missouri time Friday. In the request for the stay, Hoskins said the order is unprecedented by directing him to use the congressional maps that controlled the 2022 and 2024 elections instead of the gerrymandered plan muscled through the General Assembly by Republicans.

“The court’s order violates federal law in several serious respects,” Lou Capozzi, Missouri solicitor general, office wrote in the application for a stay. 

The main argument made to the court — and rejected in its Thursday ruling — is that reverting to the map used previously is logistically impossible and that changing the map disenfranchises the 1.2 million voters who participated in the Aug. 4 primary.

“This court’s injunction now asks the secretary of state and Missouri local election authorities to do what is technically impossible,” Capozzi wrote.

In its ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned Hoskins decision the U.S. Constitution forbids a referendum on congressional redistricting and that the referendum petition filed by the political action committee People Not Politicians would not be on the ballot. That decision put the referendum on the November ballot as Proposition A.

Under the Missouri Constitution, a referendum that is certified to the ballot suspends the effectiveness of the legislation it puts before voters. The referendum was filed Dec. 9 and the court ruled that the legislation passed in a special session was never legally in effect even though it was used for the primary election.

The argument that it would be impossible to revert to the previous maps was countered in a filing to the Missouri Supreme Court from two county clerks, one Democrat and one Republican. They said the switch can be made simply by changing which district map is the controlling one in the state’s voter database.

And in a footnote to the decision, Judge Ginger Gooch said the logistical problems Hoskins cited were largely of his own making.

“The secretary devotes a significant portion of his briefing to discussing the confusion, expense

and practical difficulties that may result from not utilizing the congressional redistricting in (the 2025 map) for the November 2026 election,” Gooch wrote. “Besides being irrelevant to the secretary’s sole basis for declaring the referendum petition insufficient, these arguments are particularly misplaced given the secretary’s delay created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains.”

Chuck Hatfield, attorney for People Not Politicians, told reporters Thursday that Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s immediate statement that Hoskins would appeal is a violation of her duty to defend Missouri legal precedent.

Hatfield noted that Jim Layton, former solicitor general of the state, also was surprised by the announcement.

“For an attorney general of our state to question the Supreme Court of our state on what the law is and to appeal that to the Supreme Court of the United States is unprecedented,” Hatfield said. “Attorneys general are supposed to stand up for Missouri law, not try to overturn it.”

In the application to the Missouri Supreme Court, Capozzi wrote that Hoskins expects to prevail before the U.S. Supreme Court and therefore a stay is a proper step. 

The state Supreme Court’s decision, Capozzi wrote, violates the rights of primary voters by changing the districts between elections and violates the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voter Act, which directs states to get ballots out 45 days before the election, because complying would be impossible.

“The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision puts the state in an impossible situation,” Hoskins said in a declaration accompanying the application for a stay. “Unless that decision is stayed, I am confident Missouri will be forced to violate federal law. And I am gravely concerned that Missouri’s ability to hold timely congressional elections in 2026 will be jeopardized.”

This article will be updated.