The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that the submission of referendum signatures did not automatically prevent a GOP-friendly congressional map from going into effect and also rejected two other challenges contending that the new lines violate constitutional prohibitions on compactness.
The rulings are another blow to Democrats, who have had a string of setbacks nationally related to redistricting in the past week.
Last year, Missouri lawmakers overhauled the state's congressional map to transform Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's Kansas City-based district into a GOP-leaning seat. The group People Not Politicians submitted signatures to place the map up for a referendum, which in the past would have likely prevented it from going into effect.
But Secretary of State Denny Hoskins announced that during the signature verification process, the new map – and not one passed in 2022 that features a district Cleaver would likely win – would be in effect. Two plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, which was rejected by Cole County Judge Brian Stumpe. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the same day that oral arguments were heard in the case, Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ginger Gooch wrote in her unanimous opinion that nothing in the state constitution stipulates that a bill is suspended when a group turns in signatures.
"Had the drafters intended a referendum petition filing to automatically suspend any act of the General Assembly at issue in the referendum petition, they would have so stated," Gooch wrote.
While the plaintiffs in the case pointed to other instances where laws were suspended, such as in 2017 when opponents of right to work submitted referendum signatures, Gooch wrote that "appellants offered no evidence the secretary could have determined, or did determine, compliance with the constitutional signature requirement on December 9 when the referendum petition was filed."
"In the examples Appellants cite, the former secretaries of state assumed the referendum petition was 'legal, sufficient, and timely,'" Gooch wrote. "Here, the secretary has chosen to do the exact opposite. The secretary has assumed the referendum petition is not 'legal, sufficient, and timely' and has chosen to move forward with his statutory review process under the assumption [the new map] was not referred to the people and went into effect on December 11, 2025."
Hoskins hasn't made a determination on whether the referendum has enough signatures and may not make a decision until close to the August primary. That could mean it will be too late in the electoral process to freeze the new map and go back to the map that favors Cleaver.
"I would say that it's too far along in the election in order to change the maps for 2026," Hoskins said in an interview after the decision was released.
Hoskins also added that if voters reject the map, there's nothing stopping lawmakers from coming back and, perhaps, passing an even more Republican plan that seeks to convert Rep. Wesley Bell's heavily Democratic 1st Congressional District into a seat Republicans could win. If lawmakers decide to do that, those new lines wouldn't go into effect until the 2028 election cycle.
"Obviously the governor and the legislature could either go into a special session sometime this fall, or that could be a priority for them next session – as far as to redistrict those districts again to get rid of racial gerrymandering," Hoskins said.
Hoskins was referring to a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakening the Voting Rights Act's protection of majority minority districts, which sparked a redistricting frenzy across the South. Since that decision, Louisiana, Tennessee and Alabama have moved to redraw their maps to help Republicans in time for the 2026 midterm elections. And the Virginia Supreme Court threw out a statewide election validating a map that could have helped Democrats win four seats.
In a statement, People Not Politicians' Richard von Glahn called on Hoskins to certify the referendum – citing that fact that his office's unofficial tallies show that the measure crossed thresholds in enough congressional districts to appear on the November 2026 ballot.
"The Secretary of State's own data confirms what more than 305,000 Missourians already made clear: this referendum is sufficient, and the people have a right to vote," von Glahn said. "Today's ruling from the Supreme Court confirms this fact. A sufficient petition suspends the law the day it is turned in. Unnecessary delays by politicians do not change this fact. If he continues to delay then he is moving forward under a map that has been suspended by the people."
The Missouri high court also ruled against plaintiffs on Tuesday in two other cases arguing that the new map violates constitutional guidelines around compactness and continuity.
In a joint statement reacting to the rulings, three groups involved in the cases – Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Missouri – said they were dismayed over the decisions.
"Mere hours after argument was held, the Court released its decisions siding against voters in every respect," the statement read. "We are extremely disappointed in these rulings, and in their failure to protect Missourians' right to fair maps. This state — and our democracy — are worse off for this outcome."
A win for Republicans
In any case, Tuesday's rulings are clearly a win for Republicans. If the 2025 lines remain in effect, Cleaver will be the underdog against a slew of potential GOP opponents — including Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, and former Boone County Clerk Taylor Burks.
"The Missouri First Map ensures those values are represented fairly and accurately at every level of government," said Gov. Mike Kehoe, referring to the map that seeks to oust Cleaver. "This August, Missouri voters will head to the ballot box to vote for candidates in these newly drawn districts."
Hoskins said it may be unwise to underestimate Cleaver.
"I think this is a huge win for Republicans, but I would not expect anything less than Congressman Cleaver is going to run a hard-fought race," Hoskins said.
This story has been updated with comments from Hoskins, Kehoe, a representative of the group People Not Politicians and groups representing the plaintiffs.
Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio
