Missouri Voters File Lawsuit Over Redistricting Referendum

1 hour ago 0

Five voters in Missouri are seeking around $80 million from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins. They are unhappy with the way he handled a congressional redistricting referendum. The case calls upon an old state law from at least 1909. The proposed class action requests the maximum statutory amount of $500 for each of about 162,000 verified petition signers, as stated in the complaint. However, the court has not yet certified this as a class action, nor have they determined Hoskins’ liability or awarded any damages.

The Legal Action Against Hoskins

Filed on September 11 in Cole County Circuit Court, the lawsuit is identified as Bermudez et al. v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00591. It revolves around Section 28.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. This law allows individuals “aggrieved” by the secretary of state’s neglect or refusal to perform a legal duty to initiate civil action. Hoskins, elected as Missouri’s 41st secretary of state in 2024, previously served in the state’s Senate and House of Representatives.

Allegations Outlined in the Lawsuit

The plaintiffs’ grievances arise from a conflict over a congressional map enacted through House Bill 1 (HB1) in 2025. As reported by Newsweek, there is a dispute over the appropriate congressional map for Missouri. Whether to use the 2022 map or the Republican-favored districts set in 2025 remains contested. The new map may increase Republican control of House seats from six to seven out of eight. Although the Missouri Supreme Court declared the new map ineffective, a federal judge mandated its use. Justice Brett Kavanaugh later dismissed a request supporting the 2025 map, and the U.S. Supreme Court halted the judge’s order while the appeal continues.

The lawsuit claims Hoskins declared the referendum petition inadequate, despite not challenging its valid signatures. It also alleges Hoskins directed local election authorities to implement the HB1 map after the Missouri Supreme Court mandated the 2022 map be used. Furthermore, it accuses Hoskins of agreeing to a federal restraining order, which the plaintiffs argue circumvented the state Supreme Court’s ruling. The allegations are not yet verified facts in the case.

Potential Class Membership

The proposed class would include Missouri voters who signed the verified referendum petitions and were state citizens when the petition was lodged. The plaintiffs assert the potential class members’ information can be obtained from the petitions. However, the class certification is pending court approval before any classwide recovery occurs.

Hoskins’ Response to the Allegations

Hoskins addressed the lawsuit on social media platform X, stating his commitment to adhering to a federal temporary restraining order relating to the congressional election issued by Judge Clark. Hoskins remarked, “I will continue to abide by Judge Clark’s federal temporary restraining order on a federal congressional election.” He also criticized detractors, affirming his dedication to “Missouri values” and expressing disapproval of governance similar to “communists running NYC.” His social media post included an image of him, with the caption, “God bless the Show-Me State.”

Overview of Section 28.200

The statute specifies that if a secretary of state “neglects or refuses to perform any duty required by law,” they must pay the “person aggrieved” between $100 and $500. Historical analysis of the law shows its progression through various amendments since 1909, with the current wording effective from August 28, 1945. Plaintiffs argue Hoskins did not fulfill his legal duties in relation to the redistricting referendum.

Calculation of the $80 Million Claim

Around 162,000 verified signers of the People Not Politicians referendum meet the proposed class criteria, according to the lawsuit. If each class member receives the statute’s maximum of $500, total damages could amount to around $80 million. This figure represents the lawsuit’s demand, not a penalty or established liability.

Legal Proceedings Ahead

The court first must address the proposed class and the statutory claim’s validity. A critical question remains whether Section 28.200 supports the type of classwide recovery the plaintiffs seek. The court will determine if each class member qualifies as “aggrieved” under the statute, and what defenses Hoskins might use. The decision on who would bear responsibility for any judgment if the plaintiffs succeed has yet to be clarified.