A Missouri man on Monday urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that bars the state from using a new congressional map that could give Republicans an additional seat in the upcoming November elections. The case, which pits state constitutional referendum rights against the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, has become a high-stakes test of whether voters can suspend a redistricting plan passed by a legislature — and whether the Supreme Court will intervene on an emergency basis just weeks before Election Day.
The Dispute Over Missouri’s HB 1 Map
Last year, the Missouri Legislature passed and Governor Mike Kehoe signed a new congressional redistricting map known as HB 1. Under that map, Republicans would likely hold seven of the state’s eight seats in the U.S. House, a significant shift from the current 6-2 split. The move came after President Donald Trump encouraged states with Republican-controlled legislatures to draw new maps outside the normal decennial redistricting cycle, arguing that changing demographics and population shifts warranted mid-decade adjustments.
In December, a coalition of organizers led by Richard von Glahn submitted more than 300,000 signatures in support of a petition to put the new map up for a statewide referendum on Missouri’s 2026 ballot. Missouri’s constitution allows voters to challenge any act of the General Assembly through a referendum petition — a process that, if successful, suspends the law until voters approve it at the polls.
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the petition on August 4, 2026 — the last day on which he could make his certification decision and also the day of the state’s primary election. In his view, Missouri’s constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.” That rejection set off a legal battle that has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Missouri Supreme Court Unanimously Backs the Referendum
On the same day Hoskins denied the petition, von Glahn went to state court seeking to reverse the secretary’s decision and to prohibit the state from using the new map. On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court granted that request in a unanimous ruling. The state’s highest court held that “the plain language of … the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to ‘any act of the general assembly’ and no exception applies.” As a result, the court concluded, the referendum petition “was legal, sufficient, and timely,” meaning that HB 1 “never took effect” and will not go into effect “unless and until approved by the voters at the November 2026 general election.”
The Missouri Supreme Court deemed “wholly unpersuasive” Hoskins’ argument that the failure to use the new congressional map would create “confusion, expense, and practical difficulties.” The court noted that those concerns were “particularly misplaced given the secretary’s delay created” the problems about which he was now complaining. The state court’s decision effectively restored the existing 2022 congressional map — which gives Republicans six seats and Democrats two — as the governing plan for the upcoming election.
What Is the Elections Clause Argument?
Secretary Hoskins appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night, asking the justices to step in and issue an emergency stay of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling. He argued that the state court’s decision violates the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That provision, found in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, gives state legislatures — not voters who sign a petition — the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections.
The Supreme Court has never held that just 3.3% of a state’s voters can unilaterally suspend a disfavored congressional map by submitting a referendum petition, Hoskins argued. He further contended that the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling unconstitutionally disenfranchised “hundreds of thousands” of voters by putting them in new districts, where they will be “forced to vote on General Election candidates they had no role in choosing” — because those candidates were nominated under the old map during the August primary.
The Elections Clause question is at the heart of the case. Hoskins’ position is that the power to draw congressional maps belongs exclusively to the state legislature, and that any state constitutional mechanism — including a referendum — that allows voters to override that legislative determination is preempted by federal law. Von Glahn counters that the Elections Clause has never been interpreted to strip states of their ability to condition legislative acts on popular approval through referenda, a right that exists in many state constitutions.
Von Glahn’s Response: No Emergency, No Federal Question
In his response on Monday, von Glahn urged the Supreme Court to reject the stay application. He offered three main arguments why the justices should stay out of the dispute.
First, he contended that the Supreme Court lacks the power to weigh in because the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling rested exclusively on state law — what is known as an “adequate and independent state-law” bar to Supreme Court review. The Missouri Supreme Court indicated that Hoskins could not make his arguments based on federal law because he had not originally raised them when he rejected von Glahn’s petition. Under the adequate-and-independent-state-ground doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court generally will not review a state court decision that rests solely on state law, even if a federal constitutional question is lurking in the background.
Second, von Glahn argued that a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling would not actually provide the relief that Hoskins seeks. Because HB 1 never went into effect, he reasoned, “under Missouri law, the 2022 Plan is the legal status quo, not HB 1.” If Hoskins wants to be able to use HB 1 in the upcoming election, he needs an injunction — “an order affirmatively establishing [his] authority to use it,” which requires him to meet a much higher legal bar. A stay would merely preserve the status quo, which under state law is the old map.
Third, von Glahn argued that neither Hoskins nor the Republican groups that joined the case to support him have legal standing to bring a lawsuit contending “that the Missouri Supreme Court unlawfully displaced authority the Elections Clause assigns to the state legislature.” Without a concrete injury that can be traced to the state court’s ruling, von Glahn argued, the federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear the case at all.
Does the Supreme Court Have the Power to Intervene?
The question of whether the Supreme Court can hear this dispute turns on the adequate-and-independent-state-ground doctrine. When a state supreme court decision rests squarely on state law, the U.S. Supreme Court generally will not review it, even if the losing party claims that state law violates federal constitutional rights. That doctrine has been a cornerstone of federalism and the relationship between state and federal courts for more than a century.
However, the doctrine has exceptions. If the state court’s decision appears to rely on federal law — or if the state law ground is not “adequate” because it is novel or surprising — the Supreme Court may step in. Von Glahn insists that the Missouri Supreme Court’s opinion is purely a matter of state constitutional interpretation: the court read its own constitution’s plain language, applied no federal precedents, and rejected Hoskins’ federal arguments as procedurally forfeited.
For the Supreme Court to grant a stay, at least five justices would need to find that there is a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certiorari and reverse on the merits. Given the doctrine’s strength and the procedural posture, many legal observers view that as a steep climb for Hoskins.
Historical Context: Referenda on Congressional Maps
The use of referendum processes to challenge redistricting plans is not new. Several states — including California, Arizona, Ohio, and Florida — have used ballot initiatives or referenda to shape congressional maps. In some cases, state supreme courts have struck down maps drawn by legislatures, and voters have directly approved new maps through initiatives. But the question of whether a referendum can temporarily suspend a legislative map before an election is less settled.
Von Glahn’s legal team points to more than a century of precedent recognizing that state constitutional referendum procedures may constrain congressional-redistricting legislation. In Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant (1916), the Supreme Court upheld a state referendum that vetoed a congressional redistricting plan, holding that the Elections Clause did not prevent states from conditioning legislative acts on popular approval. More recently, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the Court upheld Arizona’s commission-based redistricting system, rejecting the argument that the Elections Clause gives exclusive redistricting power to the legislature.
Hoskins argues that those cases involved permanent structural changes — such as creating a redistricting commission — rather than a one-time, last-minute referendum that suspends a map just weeks before an election. But Von Glahn counters that the principle is the same: the people of a state, through their constitution, have the power to set the rules by which their legislature operates, and the Elections Clause does not override that fundamental state constitutional authority.
Practical Consequences for the November Election
If the Supreme Court denies the stay, the 2022 congressional map will remain in effect for the November 2026 election. That means Missouri will elect representatives from the existing six Republican and two Democratic districts. Candidates were nominated in the August primary using that map, so voters casting ballots in November will be choosing among candidates they had an opportunity to vote for in the primary.
If the Supreme Court grants the stay — or eventually rules that HB 1 must be used — the state would need to quickly shift to the new map. That would require election officials to mail new ballots, update precinct assignments, and potentially redo some aspects of the election. Hoskins has argued that this would cause “confusion, expense, and practical difficulties,” but the Missouri Supreme Court assigned the blame for those difficulties to the secretary’s own delay in rejecting the petition.
The practical nightmare scenario: voters who cast ballots in the primary under the old map would find themselves in new districts for the general election, potentially with no say in who the candidates are. That could trigger lawsuits from voters claiming disenfranchisement. Timing is critical: absentee and mail voting may already have started or be imminent, and any change to the maps could cause chaos at the polls.
The Supreme Court’s Recent Redistricting Cases
The Supreme Court has a mixed record on mid-decade redistricting and emergency election intervention. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court, effectively leaving the issue to state courts and legislatures. In Moore v. Harper (2023), the Court rejected the “independent state legislature theory” that would have stripped state courts of the power to review congressional redistricting under state constitutions. That case established that state courts remain free to enforce state constitutional limits on redistricting — including, potentially, referendum provisions.
But the Court has also shown a willingness to step into election disputes when they involve clear federal law violations or when state court decisions appear to conflict with the Elections Clause. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Court ordered Alabama to redraw its congressional map to comply with the Voting Rights Act. And in several emergency applications during the 2020 election cycle, the Court intervened to clarify election rules in battleground states — though it largely declined to make major changes close to Election Day.
What is the likelihood that the Court grants a stay in this case? Legal analysts are divided. Some believe the adequate-and-independent-state-ground doctrine will be a decisive barrier, given that the Missouri Supreme Court expressly based its ruling on state constitutional text. Others point to the Court’s recent willingness to police the Elections Clause — especially in light of Moore v. Harper’s majority opinion, which reaffirmed that state courts must act within the bounds of state law and cannot usurp the legislature’s authority under the guise of interpretation.
Key Questions the Justices Will Weigh
When the Supreme Court considers an emergency stay application, it typically looks at four factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (3) whether a stay would harm the opposing party; and (4) the public interest. In this case, each factor is contested.
On the merits, Hoskins must convince the justices that the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling conflicts with the Elections Clause and that the state-law ground for the decision is not genuinely independent. Von Glahn’s argument that Hoskins forfeited his federal arguments below could be fatal — the Supreme Court often refuses to consider issues not raised in state court.
On irreparable harm, Hoskins claims that the state will be unable to run a timely federal election under the old map. But von Glahn notes that the state ran the primary under the old map without incident, and that the only harm is the loss of a political advantage that HB 1 would have given Republicans. The Missouri Supreme Court characterized the secretary’s complaints as “self-inflicted wounds.”
On harm to the opposing party, von Glahn argues that granting a stay would disenfranchise the more than 300,000 voters who signed the referendum petition, nullifying their constitutional right to challenge a legislative act. The public interest, he says, favors adhering to state law and ensuring election stability.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is likely to act on the stay application within days, possibly even before the end of the week. The justices may refer the application to the full Court or have a single justice — likely Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency applications from the Eighth Circuit — decide whether to grant a temporary administrative stay while the Court considers the matter. Given the proximity to the November election, any delay in issuing an order adds to the pressure.
If the Court denies the stay, the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling stands, and the 2022 map will be used for the general election. The referendum itself will proceed in November, giving Missouri voters a direct say on whether HB 1 should take effect for future elections. If the Court grants the stay, the state would likely revert to HB 1 for the November election, with the referendum still on the ballot — potentially creating a situation where voters approve a map that is already in use, or reject one that has already been used.
The broader implications extend far beyond Missouri. A ruling that allows a referendum to suspend a congressional map could embolden other state-level efforts to challenge mid-decade redistricting — particularly in states where Republican legislatures have drawn new maps with the encouragement of President Trump and other national figures. Conversely, a ruling that the Elections Clause precludes such a referendum would give legislatures a powerful tool to insulate their maps from voter challenge, potentially reshaping how redistricting battles are fought across the country.
For now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court, where the future of Missouri’s congressional delegation — and the balance of power in the next U.S. House — hangs in the balance.
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_08fbf48bc0524877943fe86e43087e7a/internal_photos/bs/2026/B/N/5EQ9QeQAa2XoA9mRtS0w/marvels-wolverine-state-of-play.jpg "Marvel’s Wolverine Settings: What Actually Works in Combat")
