In a pair of unanimous decisions, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the reasons given by Secretary of State Denny Hoskins for his refusal to approve two petitions.

First, the court ordered Hoskins to certify a petition on whether voters want to accept or reject the legislature’s redistricting plan. Then the court ordered him to certify an initiative petition that would make it harder for the legislature to overturn measures approved or rejected by voters. Both will appear on the November ballot. I consider these two decisions victories for Missouri voters.

After the decisions came several chaotic days of conflicting federal and state court orders, a contempt proceeding and two emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a federal order requiring Missouri to use the legislature’s 2025 congressional map in November. The Missouri Supreme Court decisions remain in effect.

In the months leading up to the decisions, the court had allowed the Republican-backed redistricting plan to advance.

In March, a divided Missouri Supreme Court allowed the legislature to engage in mid-decade redistricting.

Then in May, the court issued a pair of unanimous decisions allowing the new map to remain in place through the primary election.

In *Healey v. State of Missouri*, the court rejected a claim that dividing Kansas City among three districts violated constitutional requirements for compactness and contiguity, deferring to the circuit court’s factual findings.

In *Maggard v. State of Missouri*, the court said it was too early to determine whether the referendum petition was “legal, sufficient, and timely” because Hoskins had not yet certified it.

On the date of the primary, Hoskins formally rejected both petitions, relying on opinions from Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway.

He declined publicly to state how many valid signatures were on the two petitions. But he later admitted each met the signature requirement. More than 300,000 voters had signed each.

Judge Daniel Green of the Cole County Circuit Court upheld Hoskins’ decisions. The Missouri Supreme Court heard both appeals Sept. 2.

One day after the arguments, the court unanimously ordered Hoskins to certify both petitions. Judge Ginger Gooch wrote both opinions.

On the redistricting petition, the Supreme Court said the sole basis for Hoskins’ decision was his claim that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting passed by the General Assembly.

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a state may authorize a referendum on legislation drawing new congressional districts.

The Missouri Constitution reserves to the people the power to approve or reject “any act of the general assembly,” with limited exceptions. Because the 2025 map was enacted by the General Assembly, the court held it was subject to referendum.

The court rejected Hoskins’ arguments that the map fell within constitutional exceptions for laws needed for “the immediate preservation of public peace” or for appropriations maintaining state institutions. It also noted that the Constitution expressly exempts state legislative redistricting commissions from referendum but contains no similar exemption for congressional maps.

The court already ruled in *Maggard* what would happen if the referendum petition was determined to be “legal, sufficient, and timely.” The 2025 map could not take effect unless voters approved it.

Hoskins emphasized the confusion, expense and practical difficulties of using one map for the primary and a different map for the general election. But the court noted he could have certified the petition any time after its May filing and waited until about an hour before the Aug. 4 deadline.

The court reversed the circuit court’s judgment. The congressional redistricting map established in 2022 remains in effect for the general election in November.

On the second petition, the Supreme Court first held that Hoskins gave no legally sufficient reason for declaring it insufficient.

Hoskins had attached an opinion from Hanaway rather than stating his own reasons in the certificate. Because state law requires the secretary to state those reasons, the court held he preserved nothing for review.

The court nonetheless rejected his remaining arguments on the merits. Almost all concerned potential constitutional violations that might occur only if voters approve the proposed amendment. The court found those claims were not ripe for review.

The court also rejected claims that the proposal violated the single-article and single-subject requirements. It amended only Article III, and its provisions all related to protecting citizens’ reserved lawmaking power.

Finally, the court held Hoskins lacked authority to replace the ballot title he had certified in September 2025.

Once again, the court reversed the circuit court judgment. It ordered Hoskins to certify the initiative and place it on the November ballot with the original ballot title.

I consider the two Missouri Supreme Court decisions an extraordinary rebuke of Hoskins’ actions. They ensure voters, rather than the secretary of state, will decide the fate of both measures: Proposition A, the referendum on the 2025 congressional map, and Amendment 6, the proposal to restrict lawmakers’ ability to rewrite measures approved or rejected by voters.