Secretary of State Denny Hoskins wants another chance to write the ballot language for a referendum on Missouri’s gerrymandered redistricting map after admitting that the first version he prepared was unfair.
And he doesn’t want to answer any questions about how the first version was crafted or who advised him on what it should say.
In a court filing this week that surprised advocates for a statewide vote on the new map Republicans forced through the General Assembly, Hoskins’ attorney wrote that accusations the original ballot language was “argumentative and likely to create prejudice” were true.
“There is no longer an active controversy sufficient to support a hearing,” wrote Madeline Lansdell, an assistant attorney general.
The filings, taken together, show Hoskins wants to hide how he is handling the referendum, said Richard von Glahn, director of People Not Politicians, the PAC that gathered 300,000 signatures to force a statewide vote on the new congressional map.
“They were going to try to play games with the ballot summary, and they’re admitting as much, and now they don’t want to have to answer what games they were playing,” he said.
The filing follows a Jan. 9 hearing where Kathleen Hunker of the attorney general’s office told Cole County Circuit Judge Brian Stumpe that Hoskins had decided the language did “come close enough to the line of being inherently argumentative” to be rewritten.
The surrender on the referendum ballot summary challenge is the latest move in the legal fights over redistricting. There are 10 lawsuits at various stages in five state and federal venues that, among other issues, will determine whether the special session was legal, whether lawmakers had the power to change the congressional maps and when a referendum campaign can begin after a bill is passed.
Missouri lawmakers passed a revised map in a September special session called by Gov. Mike Kehoe in response to pressure from President Donald Trump. Republicans are hoping to protect their slim majority in the U.S. House by changing the Missouri map to give the GOP an edge in seven of the state’s eight districts instead of the six they currently hold.
The intended result from the new map is to flip the 5th District to the GOP. The district, based in Kansas City, has been represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver since 2005.
People Not Politicians launched the referendum campaign the day the Missouri Senate held a final vote on the bill and, on Dec. 8, turned in more than 300,000 signatures seeking a statewide vote on the map.
The trial over the ballot language is scheduled for Feb. 9. Stumpe will hold a hearing Wednesday on the motion to accept that the current version is unfair and to block the depositions.
In his ballot summary, Hoskins wrote:
“Do the people of the state of Missouri approve the act of the General Assembly entitled “House Bill No. 1 (2025 Second Extraordinary Session),” which repeals Missouri’s existing gerrymandered congressional plan that protects incumbent politicians, and replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact, are more compact, and better reflects statewide voting patterns?”
In the filing, Lansdell wrote that Hoskins accepts “that in the context of this statement, the term ‘gerrymandered’ and the phrase ‘protects incumbent politicians’ are argumentative and likely to create prejudice.”
The admission misses an important distinction about the original version, von Glahn said. Hoskins called the map approved by lawmakers in 2022 the “existing” map and the plan approved in September as replacing it.
That is the opposite of what Hoskins’ office is saying about the law, which he contends took effect Dec. 11 despite the filing of petition signatures, von Glahn said.
“They are admitting, yes, we wrote something that was misleading, and now they’re saying, we don’t want to have to explain what it is that it is misleading,” von Glahn said.
If depositions go forward, Lansdell wrote, attorneys for People Not Politicians should be barred “from asking questions related to the preparation, communication, methodologies and bases of the summary statement (for the referendum petition) or any other summary statement as well as questions related to the signature counting efforts, the secretary’s position on the referendum, or any topic related to other cases pending between the parties to this proceeding.”
While the case has been pending, the law governing challenges to ballot language has changed. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Jan. 23 that a law passed last year taking revisions out of the hands of judges was part of a bill that violated procedural rules for legislation outlined in the constitution.
The ruling overturned a Cole County decision upholding the law on ballot language revisions, which allowed the secretary of state three chances to rewrite it.
Prior to the law, and now that it is no longer in effect, when a judge rules ballot language is unfair or insufficient, the court has revised the wording with input from both parties.
In the filing, Hoskins asked Stumpe to give him another chance. The bill ruled invalid wasn’t unconstitutional in contents, just the way it was passed, Lansdell wrote.
“The court is not prohibited from following this approach,” she wrote.
Chuck Hatfield, who represents People Not Politicians, said Hoskins is seeking a “do-over” that could mean a reignited case when it is presented.
“They invited the court to give it back to them, even though there’s no authority for that now,” Hatfield said.”But I think they’re wanting to do something completely different than what they did the first time.”
The filings need no explanation for Hoskins’ giving up the defense of his language, Rachael Dunn, spokeswoman for Hoskins, wrote in an email to The Independent.
“Secretary Hoskins is following the court’s process and hopes for clear judicial guidance that reduces confusion for voters rather than amplifying it through misplaced or misguided media interpretations,” Dunn wrote.
Once Stumpe rules on the motions and new ballot language is written, it could be appealed and a final version would not be ready for several weeks.
The other legal cases surrounding the redistricting plan are:
