A Cole County Circuit judge is expected to soon rule on a lawsuit over a proposed referendum on the congressional redistricting map Missouri lawmakers passed last year.
After hearing arguments on Wednesday in the case, Judge Daniel Green said in court that he would rule quickly.
That in part is because the case will inevitably be appealed and likely make it all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected a proposed referendum on the congressional district map as part of an effort to gain a Republican seat in the Kansas City area.
In his decision, Hoskins said he declined the referendum because he did not believe that redistricting plans are subject to the referendum process.
People Not Politicians, the group behind the referendum, sued to get it on the ballot.
Speaking in court, plaintiff attorney Chuck Hatfield argued that the Missouri Constitution explicitly allows for a referendum on redistricting.
"If it's an act of the General Assembly, the people have reserved the power to do a referendum," Hatfield said.
According to Hatfield, the constitution clearly outlines only two situations in which laws passed by the legislature would not be eligible for a referendum: laws that contain an emergency clause and laws that appropriate money to fund state government.
"What the secretary has done is to try to rewrite the Missouri Constitution to say that the people have reserved the right to have a referendum on any act of the General Assembly except congressional redistricting. Of course, that is not what it says," Hatfield said.
Speaking for the defense, Solicitor General Lou Capozzi said there is no provision of the constitution allowing for a referendum on congressional redistricting.
"There's no language specifically addressing this question. In fact, the Missouri Constitution says that the General Assembly shall redistrict and says nothing about anybody else doing that," Capozzi said.
Additionally, Capozzi spoke on the consequences that could occur if the referendum were to go onto the ballot.
"(The) plaintiff expects voters to choose between competing congressional maps with just a 100-word summary statement, like the one your honor has, with no pictures of the competing maps," Capozzi said.
In a similar argument, John Gore, speaking on behalf of interveners in the case like the Republican National Committee, said nothing would cause greater voter confusion than granting the plaintiff's request to suspend the 2025 map.
"They now ask the court to set aside the General Assembly's plan, which has already been used and upheld, and move hundreds of thousands of Missouri voters into new districts for the general election," Gore said.
Gore also stated that there is a prohibition within Missouri's constitution on referendums on redistricting.
"Article Three, Section 7H of the Missouri Constitution states, 'No redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum,' period. That plain text covers all redistricting," Gore said.
However, Hatfield said that particular section of the constitution applies to the redistricting of Missouri state Senate and representative districts that is done by committee, not congressional redistricting.
"The constitution says redistricting plans drawn by bipartisan commissions, not subject to referenda. They could have said that about congressional redistricting, and they didn't," Hatfield said.
Ultimately, Hatfield said all the lawsuit is asking is to decide whether the referendum is sufficient, and if so, to use the map prior to 2025.
"No one is proposing a congressional map or asking the court to adopt a congressional map that was not approved by the legislature. The legislature drew a map in 2022," Hatfield said.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in May that if the redistricting referendum qualifies for the ballot, the 2025 map will have been suspended as of December 2025.
Speaking after the hearing, Richard von Glahn of People Not Politicians, said what he heard in the majority of the defense's argument wasn't whether this referendum should be voted on in November.
"It was about them trying to justify Denny Hoskins offering a single-person veto of the constitutional rights of Missourians in the referendum process," von Glahn said.
Marc Ellinger, one of the attorneys for the interveners, said the case is about protecting the votes of everyone who participated in the August primary, where the 2025 congressional map was in effect.
"Those decisions have been made by voters, and they should roll forward into November," Ellinger said.
This case marks the second day in a row that Green has heard arguments on a case regarding citizen ballot initiatives.
Like the case on Tuesday, he has a tight deadline to rule as the case is inevitably going to be appealed.
All litigation on this issue must be resolved by Sept 8. That is the deadline for court-ordered additions to appear on the November ballot.
Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio
