Missouri redistricting referendum has enough verified signatures for the ballot, organizers say

Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, stands alongside boxes of petition signatures submitted Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025, to the secretary of state’s office in Jefferson City, Mo. calling for a referendum election on new U.S. House districts approved by the Missouri legislature. (AP Photo/David A. Lieb)

Efforts to oppose a Trump-backed gerrymander in Missouri cleared a major milestone Monday, when pro-voting activists announced that they had logged enough signatures to put the new congressional map, which favors the GOP, to a statewide vote.

Opponents of the gerrymander had already gathered more than three times the needed signatures, but Republicans have slow-walked the signature verification process and thrown every imaginable hurdle in the path of the referendum. That fight still isn’t over — but it’s now clear that the petition gathered enough support to force its way onto the 2026 ballot. 

Richard von Glahn, the executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, which organized the signature campaign, called the verification milestone a “decisive victory for democracy and for the people of Missouri.” 

Despite the win, more hurdles remain. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) could drag out the official signature verification process for months, and he’s indicated that he may declare the entire petition unlawful. 

Republicans in the state legislature passed the gerrymandered map last year, making Missouri one of three GOP-controlled states that hastily redrew their congressional districts at President Donald Trump’s behest to help Republicans win control of Congress in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. 

But the Missouri Constitution gives voters the right to hold a “veto referendum” on legislation, so Missourians quickly mobilized to gather signatures. 

The ensuing redistricting fight — which will only affect one seat in Congress — has produced an astounding amount of litigation. 

But the most significant ruling could be in one still-pending case that went to trial last month. It will determine whether the new map is legally paused until the referendum vote, or whether the GOP can use the gerrymander in this year’s midterms. 

Supporters of the referendum stressed in court filings that Missourians’ referendum power is meant “to serve as a check on the legislature,” so the map cannot go into effect until the vote takes place. 

“This must be the rule; otherwise, referred legislation could take effect before the People have their say, vitiating the referendum process and rendering these constitutional provisions decidedly hollow,” the plaintiffs argued. 

But Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s (R) office argued that the map is not paused until Hoskins certifies that the petition has enough signatures and is legal. Under state law, officials have until July 28 to finish verifying signatures. 

“If the Secretary certifies the referendum, state and local election officials will work collaboratively to reimplement that old congressional map that Plaintiffs favor,” the state argued in court filings. “But at this time, the State does not know whether the proposed referendum is legally sufficient; therefore the State stands by its position that [the redistricting legislation] remains in effect for the time being.” 

To qualify for the ballot, the referendum petition must be signed by 5% of voters in six out of eight congressional districts in the state. Over three months after People Not Politicians turned in more than 300,000 signatures, county election officials have now verified enough signatures for the measure to go to the voters.

But they weren’t exactly fast about it. Some counties vetted signatures at an astonishingly slow pace or even seemingly stopped counting weeks ago.

In comments to Democracy Docket last week, von Glahn took aim at Missouri’s claim that it could not suspend the map until the legally required number of submitted signatures had been verified.

“That’s a bogus argument,” he said. “But if you take that argument at its face, well, now they’re faced with the fact that there’s evidence that enough signatures are submitted…that there are enough signatures that have been verified.”