Missouri Supreme Court weighs if new Congressional map must be suspended pending referendum

Summary

• Missouri Supreme Court ruled HB1 was not automatically suspended by referendum petitions.
• The court affirmed a Cole County ruling allowing the congressional map to remain in effect.
• Opponents argued voters’ referendum rights were violated before signature verification concluded.
• The decision impacts Missouri’s 2026 midterm elections and contested congressional districts.

A law allowing mid-decade redistricting in the state overcame one of the judicial hurdles in its path on May 12 when the Missouri Supreme Court sided with the state, rejecting voters’ challenge.

At issue was the question of whether boxes of signatures from concerned voters asking for a referendum on the new map triggered a suspension of the law, even though Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has since December, declined to certify the petition.

The state’s highest court heard arguments in the case and handed down their opinion with unusual speed just hours later.

The case stems from an appeal from Cole County where Judge Brian K. Stumpe ruled that a referendum petition filed at the end of 2025 “did not automatically suspend House Bill No. 1 under article III, sections 49, 52(a), or 52(b) of the Missouri Constitution.”

In a unanimous decision authored by Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ginger K. Gooch the court affirmed his decision.

HB1 faces a slew of legal challenges to its implementation ahead of a contentious midterm election cycle. Two other cases concerning redistricting and the new congressional map also were consolidated, heard and decided on May 12 .

Missouri Supreme Court judges will weigh another challenge to HB1 on May 27. This is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri Conference, et al. v. Governor Mike Kehoe, et al.

Arguments

Represented by several attorneys from Perkins Coie alongside Tori Schafer and Jonathan D. Schmid of the ACLU of Missouri, the appellants argued the lower court erred in ruling that they lacked standing and that their claim was not ripe for adjudication.

In appellants third, fourth and fifth points relied on, they argued the lower court erred in labeling their claim a nonjusticiable political question; in concluding they improperly sought declaratory relief; and in its decision that HB1 was not automatically suspended upon the submission of signed referendum petitions.

The appellants said they do not seek to control the secretary of state’s certification of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the referendum. Instead, they ask that HB1 be suspended until a decision is made by voters.

“The lower court’s decision ignores over a century of judicial precedent upholding our constitutional right to referendum by allowing legislation to go into effect before the people have an opportunity to vote on it,” Schafer said in a previous statement. “Local election officials have already verified that the referendum has received enough signatures. Missourians have an urgent need to know the operative district boundaries for which they will vote. The constitutional right to a referendum cannot be set aside to accommodate the whims of those in Washington, D.C.”

In its arguments, the state claimed the changing the state’s congressional maps has already been enacted and a referendum campaign cannot halt its implementation.

“A referendum campaign cannot freeze laws — duly enacted by the people’s representatives — merely by depositing boxes of unverified referendum petitions with the Secretary of State,” wrote Solicitor General Louis J. Capozzi III on behalf of the state.

Capozzi cited the court’s decision in Kaesser v. Becker in which it determined: “when a solemn legislative act is sought to be set aside, it is our duty to see that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been substantially met by those seeking to refer the act.”

Additionally, the state claimed it is too late to set aside the new map enacted by HB1.

“Finally, even setting aside standing, ripeness, and the merits, the Purcell principle bars a judicial change to Missouri’s congressional maps in the middle of the ongoing 2026 elections,” Capozzi said. “Both the U.S. Supreme Court and this court have held that it is too late for courts to order changes to voting districts during candidate filing.”

Opinion

In its 17-page opinion, the court rejected appellant’s argument that HB 1 was automatically suspended under article III, sections 49, 52(a), and 52(b) of the Missouri Constitution when the referendum petition was filed.

“This court need look no further than the plain language of article III, sections 49, 52(a), and 52(b) to resolve the question appellants present,” Gooch wrote. “Nothing in article III, sections 49, 52(a), or 52(b) provides the filing of a referendum petition alone automatically suspends the act of the General Assembly at issue in the petition. 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.”

Article III, sections 52(a) and 52(b) state no measure is referred to the people until the signature requirement is satisfied, Gooch added. The appellants stated they do not take issue with the signature verification process itself. Instead, appellants focused their arguments on whether HB1 is suspended pending the verification of these signatures.

“Because the secretary’s certification process under chapter 116 is ongoing and has not been finally determined, it is impossible to say as of this opinion whether the December 9 referendum petition filing was ‘legal, sufficient, and timely’ and, therefore, whether HB 1 went into effect on December 11 or whether HB 1 was referred to the people as of December 9 and can only go into effect when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon,” according to Gooch.

Ultimately the court sided with the state and wrote in its opinion that no rule 84.17 motions are permitted.

“The circuit court correctly concluded the December 9 referendum petition filing did not automatically suspend HB 1 under article III, sections 49, 52(a), or 52(b) of the Missouri Constitution,” Gooch said.

The case is: Jake Maggard et al., v. State of Missouri et al., Case no. SC101581.