Missouri group sues secretary of state to force decision on redistricting referendum 

By Jason Rosenbaum0%

5/19/2026, 1:49:34 PM

BS Summary: The article has not yet been analyzed.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins is facing another lawsuit over a congressional map passed in 2025. 
People Not Politicians Executive Director Richard von Glahn filed suit on Monday in Cole County Court to force Hoskins to either accept or reject the group's referendum on the new congressional lines. 
He also wants a Cole County judge to stop Hoskins and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway from mandating that local elections officials implement the map aimed at ousting Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver. 
"Because Defendant Hoskins has abdicated his duties, Plaintiffs bring this suit to force him to do them, ensure that Plaintiff von Glahn and countless other Missourians are able to cast legal votes in the correct congressional districts, and restore sanity and decorum to Missouri's electoral process," the lawsuit states. 
The suit is, in some respects, part of the aftermath of a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court decision in another lawsuit that the submission of signatures from People Not Politicians didn't automatically suspend the new map. 
Hoskins told reporters that he plans to wait until late July or early August to decide on the referendum. 
But von Glahn is asking a judge to make Hoskins accept or reject the referendum immediately, especially since he's already filed federal court documents and made public statements that he thinks that a redistricting referendum is unconstitutional. 
"We're still doing some research," Hoskins said last Friday. 
"I do have some constitutionality concerns that  the referendum was never meant for congressional redistricting." 
If Hoskins rejects the referendum now, the lawsuit states, it would give von Glahn adequate time to appeal the decision  and, perhaps, provide certainty for the state's elections officials. 
The suit also wants a judge to prevent Hoskins and Hanaway from making local elections officials implement the 2025 map. 
That stems from a letter Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon sent to Hoskins saying her residents would vote under a map lawmakers approved in 2022 until he decides on the referendum. 
In response, Hanaway and Hoskins have blasted Lennon  and said that she may face civil or criminal legal action. 
"I think obviously there will be a lot of legal lawsuits, including some probably from the attorney general's office, maybe from the Department of Justice, if she decides to defy the Supreme Court order, defy the opinion from the attorney general and defy direction from the chief election officer," Hoskins said last Friday. 
But the filing notes that the Missouri Supreme Court decision doesn't say anything about elections officials being required to implement the 2025 map. 
It also points to part of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ginger Gooch's decision specifying that because Hoskins hasn't made a decision on whether to accept or reject the referendum, "it is impossible to say as of this opinion" if People Not Politicians' filing of signatures triggered the suspension of the 2025 map. 
And von Glahn's lawsuit goes on to say that Hanaway and Hoskins are "attempting to bully and intimidate local election officials into implementing congressional districts that  per the Missouri Supreme Court's opinion and the evidence  should be deemed suspended as of December 9, 2025." 
"Because it is impossible to know whether HB 1 is the law, it is not lawful for Defendant Hoskins to direct that it be used to conduct the primary elections for Congress," the lawsuit states. 
A spokeswoman for Hoskins said the Republican official is reviewing the lawsuit along with lawyers from the attorney general's office. 
Hanaway spokeswoman Stephanie Whitaker said in a statement that the lawsuit "re-litigates the exact same questions the Missouri Supreme Court just decided." 
"We look forward to prevailing in court," Whitaker said. 
Copyright 2026 St. 
Louis Public Radio 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 2.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 8.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.6%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 8.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 27.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 6.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias27.0%This article: 7.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 9.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem7.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.3%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority19.3%This article: 4.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 8.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope8.5%This article: 5.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning5.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 4.9%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 7.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion7.9%This article: 7.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 5.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice15.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

623 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers38%attributed speech386writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Hoskins • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Hoskins • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Hoskins • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDenny Hoskins • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageRichard von Glahn • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Whitaker • 22 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Whitaker • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Denny Hoskins

71%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words41% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.6 ptsWriter: 25.6%Denny Hoskins: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.