A newer version of this record has been published.

HB1Watch

A documentary record of the Missouri HB 1 redistricting and referendum litigation.

This page was rebuilt 09/09/2026 8:29 p.m. Central. Every entry also carries when this record learned it.

What this is about

In September 2025 Missouri's legislature redrew the state's congressional districts mid-decade, in a law called HB 1. Missourians can veto a new law by referendum if they gather enough signatures, and more than 300,000 signed a petition to do exactly that.

The Secretary of State rejected the petition at about 4 p.m. on August 4, 2026 — roughly an hour before the deadline, on primary election day — not because the signatures fell short, but because he concluded the state constitution does not allow a referendum on redistricting. Missouri's Supreme Court unanimously disagreed on September 3 and held that HB 1 never became law.

Five days later a federal judge ordered Missouri to use the HB 1 map anyway for the November election, on the reasoning that the August primary had already been run under it. So one court says the map never legally existed and another temporarily requires it. That conflict is unresolved, and the election is on November 3.

This site records what happened and when, links every statement to the document behind it, and says plainly where the record runs out. It does not tell you who should win.

Missouri HB 1 status live

Why this is legally unusual

Missouri's highest court has held that HB 1 never became state law. A federal district court has nevertheless temporarily required the HB 1 boundaries for the 2026 general election because the August primary was conducted under those boundaries, and on September 9 the Eighth Circuit declined to pause that order. The Secretary has now asked the federal court to enjoin the Missouri Supreme Court itself, the day before that court hears a contempt motion against him. Both existing orders remain in force and direct the same official in opposite directions.

The central unresolved question

Why was the HB 1 Certificate of Insufficiency issued at approximately 4 p.m. on August 4, 2026 — roughly one hour before the statutory deadline and while the congressional primary was underway?

UNRESOLVED BY CURRENT DOCUMENTARY RECORD

The words you need first

Court vocabulary, in plain English, before the timeline uses it. Every other term is defined where it appears — tap any underlined word.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
A short-term emergency court order intended to prevent alleged harm while a court considers what should happen next. It is not a final decision on the merits.
Injunction
A court order directing a person or government official to do something or stop doing something.
Stay
A court order temporarily pausing another court order or legal proceeding. The order that is stayed is not erased — compare vacate.
Merits
The substance of a legal dispute — who is actually right — as opposed to procedural or emergency questions about what should happen in the meantime.
Referendum
A vote in which the people approve or reject an act already passed by the legislature. Missouri reserves this power in Article III, section 49 of its constitution.
Certificate of Insufficiency
The Secretary of State's formal determination that a petition does not qualify. Under RSMo 116.150 the Secretary must issue a certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency by a statutory deadline.

Documentary timeline

Times are shown where a document states one. Federal appellate dockets record an entry time; the district and Missouri dockets record only a date. So most entries here carry a date and no clock time — that is the record, not an omission.
Newest first. Every entry is labelled verified (established by a primary document) or reported (a reputable source reports it and the primary document has not been obtained).

  1. Still to come
  2. 11/03/2026 · Referendum

    November 3 general election and referendum

    HB 1 cannot take effect unless voters approve it at the November 3 referendum, after which the constitutional effective-date rule applies. Under Article III, section 52(b), a referred measure takes effect when approved by the voters “and not otherwise.”

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri · Missouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  3. 09/10/2026 at 10:00 a.m. · Missouri Supreme Court

    Oral argument set for September 10 at 10:00 a.m.

    Docket 32, entered September 9. In the court's words: “CAUSE DOCKETED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 AT 10:00 AM.” Counsel arguing must sign in with the deputy clerk by 9:45 a.m. This confirms, from the court's own docket, the argument that had been reported only second-hand.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net) · Associated Press
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:35 p.m. Central
  4. What has happened
  5. 09/09/2026 · Federal District Court

    District clerk transmits the appeal to the Eighth Circuit

    Docket 39. The district court clerk filed a notification of appeal and notice-of-appeal supplement to the court of appeals regarding the memorandum and order at docket 35. The docket also records the $605 appeal filing fee received the same day.

    verifiedCourtListener / RECAP (federal docket mirror)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:49 p.m. Central
  6. 09/09/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Secretary responds to the order to show cause

    Docket 33. A response to the order to show cause was filed by Louis Capozzi, attorney for the , with the federal complaint attached as Exhibit A and the federal temporary restraining order as Exhibit B.

    The exhibits are the federal filings, which indicates the response relies on the federal TRO. What it argues has not been read here.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
  7. 09/09/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Appellant files suggestions regarding contempt

    Docket 36. contempt, with an appendix, were filed by Charles William Hatfield, attorney for the . In Missouri practice “suggestions” are a party's written argument.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
  8. 09/09/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Respondent granted leave to file out of time

    Dockets 34 and 35. The respondent moved for leave to file out of time and the court the motion the same day.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
  9. 09/09/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Three co-counsel enter appearances for the respondent

    Dockets 28, 29 and 30. were filed by William James Seidleck, Graham Miller and Ryan Dugan as co-counsel for the respondent.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
  10. 09/09/2026 · Federal District Court

    Secretary asks the federal court to enjoin the Missouri Supreme Court

    Docket 41, with a memorandum in support at 43 and a motion to expedite at 42. Denny Hoskins and the State of Missouri moved the federal district court for a enjoining the Supreme Court of Missouri under the All Writs Act. The motion was filed the day before the Missouri Supreme Court's scheduled argument on the contempt motion against the Secretary. What the motion argues is not known here; the filings are not public.

    The All Writs Act lets a federal court issue orders necessary to protect its own jurisdiction. The Anti-Injunction Act separately limits when a federal court may enjoin state proceedings — both are on the authorities page. No ruling on this motion is recorded here.

    Primary document still needed: The motion (doc 41) and its memorandum in support (doc 43)
    verifiedCourtListener / RECAP (federal docket mirror)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 5:26 p.m. Central
  11. 09/09/2026 at 5:00 p.m. · Federal District Court

    Court orders a response to the All Writs motion by 5:00 p.m. the same day

    Docket 45. In the court's words, it “orders to, no later than 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on September 9, 2026, file their response to Hoskins's Motion to Enjoin the Missouri Supreme Court Pursuant to the All Writs Act, doc. 41.” Signed by the Chief Judge.

    verifiedCourtListener / RECAP (federal docket mirror)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 5:26 p.m. Central
  12. 09/09/2026 at 4:58 p.m. · SCOTUS

    People Not Politicians applies to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay

    Application 26A326 was submitted to Justice Kavanaugh at 4:58 p.m. Central, with People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn as applicants and Robert Onder and others as respondents. It arises from the Eighth Circuit appeal, No. 26-2797, in which the court had denied a stay pending appeal earlier the same day. Justice Kavanaugh ordered a response by 10 a.m. Eastern on September 10, 2026. This is a second and separate application: the earlier one, 26A304, was filed by the Secretary of State against the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment and was denied on September 8. No ruling on 26A326 is recorded here.

    verifiedSupreme Court of the United States
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:30 p.m. Central
  13. 09/09/2026 at 3:16 p.m. · Eighth Circuit

    Eighth Circuit denies a stay of the TRO, and denies summary reversal

    The Eighth Circuit, before Judges Loken, Stras and Justin D. Smith, denied the motion for a stay pending appeal “because we either lack jurisdiction over the appeal or, based on the briefing we have so far, the stay factors have not been met,” citing Nken v. Holder and In re Rutledge for the point that a court of appeals ordinarily lacks jurisdiction over an from the grant of a temporary restraining order. The motion for summary reversal was also denied, and the motion for an administrative stay was denied as moot.

    The order gives two alternative grounds and does not choose between them, so it establishes neither that the appeal fails on its substance nor that the court has jurisdiction over it. The docket records it entered at 3:16 p.m., about eight hours after the motion it denies was filed.

    verifiedU.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (copy via Democracy Docket) · CourtListener / RECAP (federal docket mirror)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:39 p.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 5:04 p.m. Central
    What the Eighth Circuit did on September 9, in plain English

    What happened

    The referendum proponents asked the Eighth Circuit to pause Judge Clark's restraining order while they appealed it, and alternatively to reverse it outright without full briefing. A three-judge panel refused both, and dismissed the request for a very short-term administrative pause as no longer needed.

    Why the court did it

    The panel gave two reasons and deliberately did not pick between them: either it has no authority to hear an appeal at this stage at all, or the standards for granting a pause were not met on the briefing so far. A temporary restraining order is normally not appealable — it is meant to be short-lived and is not a final decision — which is what the cited cases say.

    What it means right now

    Judge Clark's order is not paused. As things stand, the federal requirement to use the HB 1 map for the November election remains in force alongside the Missouri Supreme Court's injunction against using it.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • The court did not approve the restraining order or say it was correct.
    • It did not decide whether it has jurisdiction — it said either that or the stay factors, without choosing.
    • It did not decide the underlying federal claims.
    • It did not decide which map governs November 3.

     

    Refusing to pause an order is not the same as agreeing with it, and here the court was explicit that it might have no power to review this order at all yet.

  14. 09/09/2026 at 7:07 a.m. · Eighth Circuit

    Appellants move in the Eighth Circuit for summary reversal or a stay

    A motion for summary reversal or for a stay was filed in the Eighth Circuit at 7:07 a.m. by counsel for appellants People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn. Entries of appearance were filed at 9:02 a.m. for the appellees and 9:16 a.m. for Denny Hoskins and the State of Missouri. The court ruled on the motion later the same day.

    Superseded by a later entry: 2026-09-09-ca8-denies-stay.

    verifiedCourtListener / RECAP (federal docket mirror)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:49 p.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 5:01 p.m. Central
  15. 09/08/2026 · Federal District Court

    Chief Judge Clark issues a 14-day temporary restraining order

    Docket 35. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and , in its words “on federal law grounds,” Secretary of State Hoskins — and his officers, agents, employees and attorneys — from implementing, using, publishing, distributing or mandating the use of any congressional district map other than the HB 1 map for the November 3, 2026 general election. The court stated that a hearing was not necessary. Clark did not hold that the Missouri Supreme Court was wrong about Missouri law; his reasoning turned on what followed Missouri conducting the August primary under HB 1 — voters participated in those districts, nominees were selected in them, campaigns operated within them, and the primary cannot physically be rerun merely by declaring HB 1 never took effect under state law.

    The state injunction and this federal order restrain the same official in opposite directions: the Missouri Supreme Court enjoined Hoskins from using HB 1, and this order enjoins him from using anything else. The court itself marked its grounds as federal.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri · Associated Press
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
    Judge Clark's September 8 TRO, in plain English

    What happened

    Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order requiring Missouri election officials, while that TRO remains in effect, to use the HB 1 congressional districts for the November 2026 congressional election.

    Why the court did it

    Clark did not decide that HB 1 became valid Missouri law. His reasoning focused on the fact that Missouri had already conducted the August congressional primary using the HB 1 districts. He found preliminary federal constitutional concerns arising from changing congressional districts between the primary and the general election, including voters participating in a primary for one district but potentially voting in the general election in another; nominees having been selected under the HB 1 districts; candidates having campaigned and spent resources based on those districts; and the inability to physically undo or rerun the completed primary merely because a later state-law ruling determined HB 1 never legally took effect. At the TRO stage he found a high probability of success on the plaintiffs' Article I, section 2 and Equal Protection theories, and concluded that preserving the districts actually used in the primary was the less disruptive short-term course.

    What it means right now

    While Clark's TRO remains operative, the federal order prohibits Missouri officials from using a congressional map other than HB 1 for the November election. That federal command exists alongside the Missouri Supreme Court's separate state-law judgment that HB 1 never became Missouri law and may not be implemented or mandated unless approved by referendum.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • It did not overrule the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri law.
    • It did not hold that HB 1 legally took effect under Missouri law.
    • It did not enter a final judgment in the federal case.
    • It did not finally determine the validity of HB 1 for future elections.
    • It did not finally resolve the referendum.
    • It did not decide the entire case on the merits.

     

    The TRO is temporary emergency relief.

    How two courts ordered opposite things, in plain English

    What happened

    The Missouri Supreme Court enjoined the Secretary of State from using or mandating the HB 1 map. Five days later a federal judge enjoined the same official from using any map except HB 1. Both orders are directed at Denny Hoskins, and they point in opposite directions.

    Why the court did it

    They are answering different questions. The state court was asked what Missouri law is: does a valid referendum petition suspend HB 1? It said yes, so the 2022 map remains in force. The federal court was asked something else: given that Missouri already ran its August primary using the HB 1 districts, does the federal Constitution allow switching maps before the general election? It said that switching now could injure voters and candidates who acted on those districts, and marked its own grounds as federal. Neither court reviewed the other; a federal court does not sit in appeal over a state court's reading of state law.

    What it means right now

    Both orders are live. On September 9 the Eighth Circuit denied a stay of the federal order and denied summary reversal, saying it either lacks jurisdiction over the appeal or that the stay factors were not met on the briefing before it; the appeal itself has not been decided. Later that afternoon the appellants applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay in Application 26A326, and Justice Kavanaugh ordered a response by 10 a.m. Eastern on September 10, 2026. Separately, the Missouri Supreme Court has set argument for September 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. on whether the Secretary should be held in contempt of its injunction. Which map governs November 3 depends on how those tracks resolve, and none of them has resolved.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • Neither court overruled the other.
    • The federal court did not hold that HB 1 became Missouri law.
    • The state court did not decide any federal question about running an election.
    • Nothing yet establishes which map will be used on November 3.

     

    Two courts can each be answering their own question correctly and still leave an official ordered to do two incompatible things. That is the situation, and it is why this is unusual rather than simply a dispute about who is right.

  16. 09/08/2026 · Secretary of State

    Secretary reported to have told local election authorities to use HB 1

    The Associated Press reports that the Secretary immediately notified local election officials that they were required to use HB 1 following the federal TRO. The directive itself has not been obtained.

    Primary document still needed: The September 8 directive: email or memorandum, timestamp, recipients, exact wording, attachments, whether issued before or after notice of appeal, and whether later modified
    reportedAssociated Press
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  17. 09/08/2026 · Secretary of State

    Official Secretary of State social media post concerning the TRO

    A post on the official Missouri Secretary of State Facebook page stated that Judge Clark issued a TRO mandating use of HB 1, and included the words “This is a win for Missouri and a win for constitutional conservatism and I am proud to lead this charge.” Held here as a user-supplied screenshot only. This is an official public communication; it does not establish illegal motive, and its political framing is not a court holding.

    Primary document still needed: Post URL, exact timestamp, exact caption, image hash and archive timestamp
    reportedMissouri Secretary of State (official account) (not yet obtained)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  18. 09/08/2026 · Eighth Circuit

    Referendum proponents appeal the TRO to the Eighth Circuit

    The referendum proponents appealed Judge Clark's TRO to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and sought emergency relief, including an emergency letter application for an immediate administrative stay. An emergency application for a stay was also filed in the district court.

    Primary document still needed: Eighth Circuit appellate case number, notice of appeal, responses, any administrative stay, panel assignment if public, orders, and treatment of 28 U.S.C. 2284
    verifiedU.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · Associated Press
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  19. 09/08/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Emergency motion for contempt filed in the Missouri Supreme Court

    Docket 25. An EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT was filed by Charles William Hatfield, attorney for the appellant. The court's docket records the filing; the motion itself has not been read here, so no allegation in it is reproduced.

    Primary document still needed: The motion PDF itself, and the exact relief it requests
    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net) · Associated Press
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
  20. 09/08/2026 · Federal District Court

    Court grants intervention: People Not Politicians and von Glahn added as Intervenor-Defendants

    Docket 32. Chief Judge Clark granted the intervenors' motion to intervene as defendants and directed the Clerk to add People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn to the docket as Intervenor-Defendants, and to file their as a separate document. The referendum proponents are therefore parties to the federal case, not only to the state case.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  21. 09/08/2026 · Federal District Court

    Intervenor-defendants' motion to dismiss docketed

    Docket 33. The motion to dismiss the complaint, with combined memorandum in support, was docketed for Intervenor-Defendants People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  22. 09/08/2026 · Eighth Circuit

    Emergency notice of appeal filed by von Glahn

    Docket 36. An emergency was filed by Intervenor-Defendant Richard von Glahn. The docket records that the document was emailed to the court of appeals the same day, and that its text was modified on 09/08/2026 due to a counsel filing error.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  23. 09/08/2026 · Federal District Court

    Emergency motion to stay the TRO filed in the district court

    Docket 38. Intervenor-Defendant Richard von Glahn filed an emergency motion to stay, directed at the memorandum and order and the notice of appeal.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  24. 09/08/2026 · Eighth Circuit

    Appeal docketed in the Eighth Circuit as No. 26-2797

    The appeal was docketed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as Congressman Robert Onder v. Richard von Glahn, No. 26-2797. People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn are the appellants; Robert Onder, Debra Havens, Richard Brattin and Patricia Thomas are the appellees.

    The appellate case number was one of the documents this record listed as missing.

    verifiedCourtListener / RECAP (federal docket mirror)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:49 p.m. Central
  25. 09/08/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Missouri Supreme Court issues an order to show cause

    Docket 27. The court issued an order to show cause the same day the emergency contempt motion was filed. An order to show cause requires a party to explain why the court should not take a proposed step; it is not itself a finding.

    Primary document still needed: The order itself, which states what the Secretary must show cause about
    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
    The contempt track, and what happens at 10 a.m. on September 10

    What happened

    On September 8 the referendum proponents asked the Missouri Supreme Court to hold the Secretary of State in contempt of the injunction it had entered five days earlier. The same day, the court issued an order to show cause. On September 9 the Secretary filed a response attaching the federal complaint and the federal restraining order, the proponents filed their written argument, and the court docketed the matter for oral argument on September 10 at 10:00 a.m.

    Why the court did it

    An injunction is a court order to a person. When someone says it has been disobeyed, the court does not simply take their word for it: it issues an order to show cause, which requires the other side to explain why it should not act. That is a step in a process, not a finding. The Secretary's response attaching the federal filings indicates he is pointing to the federal order as the reason for what he did; what he actually argues is not known here, because the filings themselves are not public on Case.net.

    What it means right now

    Nothing has been decided. The court has heard that a contempt motion exists, required an answer, received one, and set argument. Whether the Secretary is in contempt is exactly the question the court has not yet reached.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • Nobody has been found in contempt.
    • The argument is about the state injunction, not about the federal restraining order.
    • It will not decide which congressional map governs the November election — the federal appeal is where that question sits.
    • The court has not said what it would do if it found a violation.

     

    An order to show cause asks a question. It does not answer one.

  26. 09/08/2026 at 5:00 p.m. · Election administration

    Statutory deadline for finalizing the general-election ballot

    In the words of the federal court's memorandum: “the deadline for finalizing the ballot is 5:00 p.m. today, September 8,” citing RSMo 115.125(2), which sets it at 5:00 p.m. on the eighth Tuesday before the general election. The same statute the court relied on in weighing how late a change to the map could be made.

    Recorded because it fixes the calendar: this deadline fell on the same day as the federal restraining order and the denial of emergency relief at the U.S. Supreme Court. No inference is drawn from that here.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · Missouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:37 p.m. Central
  27. 09/08/2026 at 4:30 p.m. · SCOTUS

    Justice Kavanaugh denies the emergency stay application

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had requested a response, denied the emergency stay application without explanation. This was a ruling on emergency relief, not a determination of the merits. The Eighth Circuit emergency application states the denial came at about 4:30 p.m. on September 8.

    verifiedSupreme Court of the United States · Reuters · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:37 p.m. Central
    What the U.S. Supreme Court did on September 8, in plain English

    What happened

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the Secretary's emergency application for a stay in Hoskins v. von Glahn, 26A304, without explanation.

    Why the court did it

    No reasons were given. An order denying emergency relief ordinarily says nothing about how the Court would resolve the underlying legal questions.

    What it means right now

    The Missouri Supreme Court's injunction was not paused by the U.S. Supreme Court. The separate federal TRO from Judge Clark is a different case and was unaffected by this order.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • The Court did not affirm the Missouri Supreme Court.
    • The Court did not decide the merits.
    • The Court did not refuse to hear the case; no petition for review was before it.

     

    The accurate description is narrow: Justice Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application.

  28. 09/07/2026 · Federal District Court

    Both sides brief Rooker-Feldman, abstention, and the effect of the Supreme Court stay application

    The plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum on , and the effect of the stay application; the proposed intervenor-defendants filed supplemental briefing on abstention and the Supreme Court stay application. These are the doctrines governing when a federal court may hear a matter already decided in state court.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  29. 09/06/2026 · Federal District Court

    Defendants move to dismiss the claims against the State of Missouri

    The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against the State of Missouri with a memorandum in support, and separately filed a statement in response to the court's orders.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  30. 09/06/2026 · Federal District Court

    Plaintiffs oppose the proposed intervenor-defendants' motion to dismiss

    The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed intervenor-defendants' motion to dismiss, later superseded by corrected and substitute versions.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  31. 09/05/2026 · Federal District Court

    People Not Politicians and von Glahn move to intervene as defendants

    The referendum proponents sought to intervene as defendants in the federal case, filing a memorandum of law in support of the motion.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  32. 09/04/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Missouri Supreme Court denies a stay of its injunction

    Docket 24. Order issued: the respondent's motion for a stay of the injunction pending emergency appeal, and application for stay to the Supreme Court of the United States, was overruled.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net) · Supreme Court of Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:07 p.m. Central
  33. 09/04/2026 · Federal District Court

    Federal action filed: Onder et al v. State of Missouri et al

    Robert Onder, Debra Havens, Richard Brattin and Patricia Thomas filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:26-cv-01424-SRC, before Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order and . The case caption is Onder et al v. State of Missouri et al.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 2:34 p.m. Central
  34. 09/04/2026 · SCOTUS

    Emergency stay application filed at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Secretary Hoskins sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court in Hoskins v. von Glahn, 26A304. The docket contains the September 4 stay application, responses and , the September 8 reply, and the September 8 denial.

    verifiedSupreme Court of the United States · Supreme Court of the United States (docket PDF)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  35. 09/03/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Missouri Supreme Court: the referendum petition was legal, sufficient and timely; HB 1 never took effect

    In von Glahn v. Hoskins, SC101805, the Missouri Supreme Court held unanimously that the referendum petition was legal, sufficient and timely; that the Secretary's constitutional conclusion was incorrect; that HB 1 did not take effect; and that the 2022 congressional map therefore remained Missouri law. HB 1 cannot take effect unless voters approve it at the November 3 referendum, after which the constitutional effective-date rule applies. The court enjoined Hoskins and persons acting in concert with him from implementing, using or mandating HB 1 unless it is approved by voters. The court wrote that “HB 1 is not the law and has never been the law.” The court also stated there was no dispute that the petition had the number of signatures required by the Missouri Constitution.

    The opinion was authored by Judge Ginger K. Gooch. The docket records the disposition as “Opinion Reversed,” all judges concurring, with no Rule 84.17 rehearing motions permitted, and a certified copy of the opinion and mandate sent to the Circuit Clerk of Cole County.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri · Justia · Supreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central
    The Missouri Supreme Court's September 3 decision, in plain English

    What happened

    In von Glahn v. Hoskins the Missouri Supreme Court held unanimously that the referendum petition against HB 1 was legal, sufficient and timely, that the Secretary of State's constitutional conclusion was incorrect, and that HB 1 never took effect. It enjoined the Secretary and those acting in concert with him from implementing, using or mandating HB 1 unless voters approve it.

    Why the court did it

    The Secretary had rejected the petition on the ground that the Missouri Constitution does not permit a referendum on congressional redistricting legislation. The court rejected that reading. Because a valid referendum petition suspends the referred act, and because Article III, section 52(b) provides that a referred measure takes effect when approved by the voters and not otherwise, the consequence was that HB 1 had never become law.

    What it means right now

    As a matter of Missouri law, the 2022 congressional map remains in force unless voters approve HB 1 on November 3. The court denied a stay of that injunction on September 4, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied emergency relief on September 8.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • It did not decide any federal constitutional question about running a general election under districts different from the primary.
    • It did not find that the Secretary acted with any improper motive.
    • It did not resolve what remedy a federal court may order after a primary has already been held.

     

    This decision answers a question of Missouri law. It does not answer the separate federal-remedy question now before the federal courts.

  36. 09/03/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Missouri Supreme Court also reverses the separate Harris determination

    On the same day, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the Secretary's determination in Harris v. Hoskins, SC101806, and addressed compliance with RSMo 116.150.2.

    verifiedJustia · Missouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  37. 09/03/2026 · Secretary of State

    Secretary of State issues a public statement following the decision

    The Secretary of State's office issued a public statement following SC101805 using language including “constitutional crisis,” “we may have lost the battle today, but the war … is far from over,” and “fall on my sword.” This is recorded as an official public communication by Missouri's chief election official concerning litigation in which his office is a party. It does not establish illegal motive.

    Primary document still needed: The original official statement, with URL and exact timestamp
    reportedMissouri Secretary of State (official) (not yet obtained)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  38. 09/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. · Missouri Supreme Court

    Argued and submitted

    Docket 19. The case was on September 2. The court had set argument for 9:00 a.m. that day. The decision followed the next morning.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:35 p.m. Central
  39. 08/27/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Secretary and the Republican committees file their briefs

    Dockets 16 and 17. The brief of respondent Denny Hoskins was filed by Louis Capozzi. The Intervenor-Respondents' brief was filed by Marc Henry Ellinger on behalf of the Republican National Committee, the Missouri Republican State Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, who are parties to the state case as intervenors. The appellant's reply brief followed on August 30.

    Marc Henry Ellinger appears for these committees here, and separately for the plaintiffs in the federal Onder case. That is a fact recorded on both dockets; no inference is drawn from it.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central
  40. 08/25/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Briefing: appellant's brief, amicus briefs, and the intervenors' counsel admitted

    Dockets 10 through 15. The brief of appellant Richard von Glahn was filed on August 25. Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of Lightfoot and Lennon (August 24) and by the Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU and the ACLU of Missouri (August 25). The court sustained the Intervenor-Respondents' motion to admit John M. Gore .

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central
  41. 08/24/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Oral argument set for September 2

    Docket 9. The cause was docketed for oral argument on September 2, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. — thirteen days after the notice of appeal, reflecting the schedule.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:35 p.m. Central
  42. 08/20/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Supreme Court takes the case on its own motion and sets an expedited schedule

    Docket 5. In the court's words: “Without determining whether this appeal invokes this Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction, this Court, on its own motion, grants transfer of this case under because of the general interest or importance of the legal issues involved in this matter.” An expedited briefing schedule was set in the same order. The case therefore bypassed the Court of Appeals.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central
    Why this case skipped a court

    What happened

    A day after the notice of appeal was filed in Cole County, the Missouri Supreme Court took the case for itself, transferring it under Rule 83.01 and setting an expedited briefing schedule. It was argued twelve days later and decided the next morning.

    Why the court did it

    Missouri's Supreme Court may take a case directly, before the Court of Appeals hears it, when the legal issues are of general interest or importance. It said it was doing that without deciding whether the appeal fell within its exclusive jurisdiction anyway. The compressed schedule reflects the statute governing petition cases, which requires them to be advanced and decided as quickly as possible — the election calendar leaves little room.

    What it means right now

    It explains why a dispute over an August 4 certificate reached a final state ruling by September 3, and why the whole appellate stage occupies only two weeks of the timeline.

    What the court did NOT decide

    • Taking the case said nothing about who would win it.
    • The court expressly did not decide whether the appeal invoked its exclusive jurisdiction.

     

    Speed here was a deliberate procedural choice, not an irregularity.

  43. 08/19/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Notice of appeal filed in Cole County Circuit Court

    Richard von Glahn filed a notice of appeal in the Circuit Court of Cole County from the judgment entered against him that day in 26AC-CC00440, and it was filed in the appellate court the following morning.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri (Case.net) · 19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net) · Missouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:11 p.m. Central · revised 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  44. 08/19/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Cole County enters judgment for the Secretary of State

    Docket 61. The court entered judgment “in favor of Defendant Denny Hoskins and Intervenors Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and Missouri Republican State Committee and against Plaintiff” on the and injunctive relief. This is the first judicial ruling on the August 4 certificate, and it went the Secretary's way. It is the judgment the Missouri Supreme Court reversed on September 3.

    Primary document still needed: The judgment itself — the docket text is truncated mid-sentence and Case.net does not serve case documents to the public
    verified19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  45. 08/19/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Notice of appeal filed the same day, after hours

    Dockets 62 and 63. The notice of appeal, judgment and jurisdictional statement were filed the same day as the judgment. The clerk recorded that the notice was “accepted for filing after hours by Presiding Judges Secretary.”

    verified19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  46. 08/19/2026 at 10:00 a.m. · Missouri Supreme Court

    Bench trial held in Cole County

    Docket 58. Trial had been reset to 10:00 a.m. on August 19. In the court's words: “Case called. Parties announce ready. Evidence adduced. Cause .” Judgment was entered the same day.

    verified19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  47. 08/13/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Republican committees allowed to intervene in the trial court

    Docket 44. The court granted the amended motion to intervene of the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Missouri Republican State Committee. They remained parties through the appeal, where they filed as Intervenor-Respondents.

    verified19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  48. 08/07/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Change of judge granted

    Docket 20. The plaintiff's timely application for a was granted and the case transferred to the Presiding Judge for assignment. Missouri allows one such application as of right, without showing cause.

    verified19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  49. 08/04/2026 · Election administration

    Congressional primary conducted using the HB 1 districts

    Missouri conducted its congressional primary using the HB 1 districts. Approximately 1.2 million Missourians participated in congressional primaries.

    verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  50. 08/04/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court

    Suit filed in Cole County the same day as the certificate

    Richard von Glahn filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Cole County, case 26AC-CC00440, on August 4, 2026 — the same day the issued — together with a motion for a trial setting. RSMo 116.200 places review of a certification in Cole County and requires it to be advanced and decided as quickly as possible.

    verified19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County (Case.net) · Missouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 4:57 p.m. Central
  51. 08/04/2026 — approx. 4 pm · Secretary of State

    Certificate of Insufficiency issued for the HB 1 referendum petition

    Secretary Hoskins issued a Certificate of Insufficiency for referendum petition 2026-R004 at approximately 4 p.m., approximately one hour before the 5 p.m. statutory deadline, on primary election day. The dispositive reason given was not insufficient signatures: the Secretary concluded that the Missouri Constitution did not permit a referendum on congressional redistricting legislation. The Secretary had selected full signature verification rather than the optional random-sampling procedure; Missouri law permitted either.

    The Secretary met the statutory outside deadline. The timing and administration of the process became a subject of judicial criticism and public scrutiny.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri · Missouri Revisor of Statutes · Missouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  52. 08/04/2026 — approx. 4 pm · Secretary of State

    Certificate of Insufficiency issued in the separate Harris petition matter

    The Missouri Supreme Court records that the Secretary issued another Certificate of Insufficiency at approximately 4 p.m. on August 4 in Harris v. Hoskins, SC101806, a separate initiative-petition dispute that is not an HB 1 case.

    Included as administrative context. No common motive is inferred from the shared timing.

    verifiedJustia
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  53. 07/22/2026 · Secretary of State

    Hoskins says verification and constitutional research are continuing

    A contemporaneous ABC17 report quoted Secretary Hoskins as saying “I am still verifying and certifying the signatures…” and that he was continuing to research the constitutionality of the referendum. This documents the Secretary's own public explanation 13 days before the August 4 deadline.

    Primary document still needed: Original ABC17 article URL, plus any video, transcript or source material behind the quotation
    reportedABC17 News (not yet obtained)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  54. 12/09/2025 · Referendum

    Signed referendum petitions submitted

    Signed petitions were submitted: 691 boxes and more than 300,000 signatures. Court filings describe approximately 49,773 petition pages. That figure is the raw submission total, not a count of verified valid signatures.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  55. 12/08/2025 · Federal District Court

    Judge Bluestone dismisses the federal action as unripe

    In Missouri General Assembly v. von Glahn, 4:25-cv-1535-ZMB, Judge Zachary Bluestone dismissed the federal action as . The order discussed the Secretary's authority under Missouri law to review the petition's constitutionality after submission, and noted that a rejection could then be defended through Missouri judicial review. The court also observed that if the referendum ultimately proved sufficient, the new map could be frozen until the referendum, potentially causing significant disruption to the 2026 election.

    Establishes that the possibility of election disruption from an unresolved referendum was foreseeable by late 2025. It does not establish that anyone deliberately created that disruption.

    Primary document still needed: Order of dismissal (PDF not yet located)
    reportedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (not yet obtained)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  56. 11/25/2025 · Federal District Court

    Federal hearing in Missouri General Assembly v. von Glahn

    A hearing was held in the federal action brought by Missouri, the General Assembly and Secretary Hoskins, 4:25-cv-1535-ZMB (E.D. Mo.). The has not been obtained.

    Primary document still needed: November 25, 2025 hearing transcript
    reportedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (not yet obtained)
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  57. 11/13/2025 · Referendum

    Official ballot title approved for circulation

    The official ballot title for referendum petition 2026-R004 was approved for circulation.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  58. 09/29/2025 · Referendum

    Referendum petition form submitted

    People Not Politicians, through Richard von Glahn, submitted the petition form for referendum petition 2026-R004.

    verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  59. 09/28/2025 · Legislature / Governor

    Governor Kehoe signs HB 1

    Governor Mike Kehoe signed HB 1. Its scheduled statutory effective date was December 11, 2025.

    verifiedMissouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central
  60. 09/12/2025 · Legislature / Governor

    General Assembly passes HB 1

    The Missouri General Assembly passed HB 1 during the September 2025 special session. The bill provided for mid-decade congressional redistricting, with major changes centered on the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District.

    verifiedMissouri Revisor of Statutes
    Recorded 09/09/2026 8:38 a.m. Central

Open questions

None of these is answered here until a document answers it.

  1. Why was the August 4 certificate issued approximately one hour before the deadline?
  2. When did signature verification actually establish sufficient signatures?
  3. When did the Secretary of State reach its constitutional conclusion?
  4. What exactly did the Secretary of State tell local election authorities on September 8?
  5. What relief does the contempt and enforcement motion request?
  6. What will the Eighth Circuit do with Judge Clark's TRO?
  7. Will 28 U.S.C. § 2284 require a three-judge district court?
  8. Which congressional map will ultimately govern November 3?

The distinction that explains the conflict

The state-law question — which congressional map legally exists under Missouri law? The Missouri Supreme Court's answer: the 2022 map; HB 1 never took effect.

The federal-remedy question — after Missouri actually conducted the primary under HB 1, does the federal Constitution require, permit or prohibit using different districts for the general election? Judge Clark's temporary answer: use HB 1 while the TRO is in force.

Those are different questions. That is how two orders pointing in opposite practical directions can coexist procedurally.

How the record got here

Each step is an event on the timeline above. The two-column stretches are the point: a state-law track and a federal-remedy track running at the same time.

  1. 09/12/2025

    HB 1 passed

    Mid-decade congressional redistricting, September special session.

  2. 12/09/2025

    Referendum petition submitted

    691 boxes, 300,000+ raw signatures. Raw submission total, not verified valid signatures.

  3. Dec 2025 – Aug 2026

    Full signature verification, plus constitutional review

    The Secretary chose full verification over the optional random sample. Missouri law permitted either.

  4. 08/04/2026

    Primary conducted using HB 1 districts

    About 1.2 million Missourians voted in congressional primaries.

  5. 08/04/2026 ~4 p.m.

    Certificate of Insufficiency issued

    About an hour before the 5 p.m. statutory deadline, on primary day. The dispositive ground was constitutional, not a shortfall in signatures.

  6. Aug – Sep 2026

    Expedited judicial review

    RSMo 116.200 requires such litigation to be advanced and decided as quickly as possible.

  7. 09/03/2026

    Missouri Supreme Court: petition legal, sufficient and timely

    HB 1 never took effect. The 2022 map remains Missouri law unless voters approve HB 1.

  8. 09/04/2026

    Emergency stay sought at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Hoskins v. von Glahn, 26A304.

  9. 09/08/2026

    Justice Kavanaugh denies the emergency stay

    Emergency relief only. Not a ruling on the merits.

  10. Two orders, two different questions
    State law

    State injunction

    Do not implement, use or mandate HB 1 unless voters approve it.

    Federal remedy

    Clark TRO

    Use no congressional map other than HB 1 for the November election, while the TRO lasts.

  11. The present collision

    Missouri law says HB 1 never existed. A federal order temporarily requires it, because the primary already happened under it.

  12. Where it goes next
    Pending

    Eighth Circuit

    Emergency appeal of the TRO, with a request for an immediate administrative stay.

    Reported

    Missouri Supreme Court

    Enforcement and contempt track. The motion itself has not been obtained.