THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY

Missouri's 2025-2026 Redistricting Crisis, the August 4, 2026 Primary, and an Ordered Liberty Constitutional Remedy

Status date: September 10, 2026
Subject: Missouri congressional redistricting, referendum law, the legality of the August 4, 2026 congressional primary, and prospective constitutional reform
Framework: Ordered Liberty
Document type: Legal-policy thesis and constitutional reform proposal

Core thesis: Missouri's August 4, 2026 congressional primary was conducted through congressional district boundaries that, under the Missouri Supreme Court's controlling interpretation of Missouri law, never became law. The congressional component of that primary was therefore constitutionally and statutorily defective. That conclusion does not automatically mean that every primary result has already been judicially declared void. No controlling court has yet entered such a judgment. It does mean that Missouri administered congressional nominations through a map that lacked legal force.

Executive Summary

Missouri's 2025-2026 redistricting crisis exposes a structural weakness in state constitutional design.

The General Assembly enacted House Bill 1 during a special session in September 2025. HB 1 replaced the congressional districts enacted in 2022 after the 2020 decennial census. Governor Mike Kehoe signed HB 1 on September 28, 2025. The new law was scheduled to take effect on December 11, 2025.

Missouri voters then invoked their constitutional referendum power. People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn submitted a referendum petition concerning HB 1. On December 9, 2025, proponents delivered the completed petition to the Secretary of State before HB 1's scheduled effective date.

The legal consequence of that filing was disputed for months.

During that period, courts rejected several independent attacks on HB 1. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the existing Missouri Constitution does not expressly prohibit mid-decade congressional redistricting. It also upheld the Governor's authority to call the extraordinary session and rejected challenges based on compactness, contiguity, and population equality. Those decisions established that HB 1 could have become valid law if no successful referendum prevented it.

But the referendum did prevent it.

On September 3, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court held in von Glahn v. Hoskins, SC101805, that the referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely. The Court applied its earlier decision in Maggard v. State and held that the legal effect related back to the December 9, 2025 filing date. The Court stated:

"HB 1 is not the law and has never been the law."

The Court further held that the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in full force and effect.

That holding changes the legal character of the August 4, 2026 primary.

Missouri had already conducted the congressional primary using the HB 1 districts. But if HB 1 never became law, those districts did not possess legal force on August 4. The primary therefore assigned voters, candidates, and nominations according to boundaries that Missouri law did not authorize.

This thesis calls that event a constitutionally defective congressional primary.

That term is deliberately narrower than saying the entire August election has already been judicially voided. No controlling court has declared every congressional nomination invalid. The federal courts are still considering the consequences of the mismatch between the primary map and the lawful map for the general election. On September 8, 2026, a federal district judge temporarily ordered continued use of HB 1 for the November election based on federal voting-right and election-stability concerns. On September 10, 2026, the United States Supreme Court stayed that federal order while the appeal proceeds.

The immediate legal status, as of September 10, is therefore:

1. HB 1 did not become Missouri law before the August primary.
2. The 2022 congressional map remained the legally operative Missouri map.
3. The August congressional primary was nevertheless conducted under HB 1.
4. That makes the congressional primary legally defective as administered.
5. No final court has yet held that the defect automatically voids all congressional nominations.
6. The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered the 2022 map used for the November 2026 general election.
7. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the federal TRO that attempted to require HB 1 for November.
8. The broader federal appeal remains pending.

The root problem is larger than one party or one map. Missouri's Constitution currently requires redistricting after a census but does not expressly prohibit another redistricting before the next census. That silence became the legal opening identified by the Missouri Supreme Court in Luther v. Hoskins.

The durable solution is to close that opening directly in the Missouri Constitution:

Congressional districts established following each decennial census shall remain in force until districts are established following the succeeding decennial census, except as necessary to comply with a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a change in congressional apportionment, or controlling federal law. No district shall be established or altered for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters.

This language solves two different defects.

First, it creates a clear temporal rule. One census produces one ordinary congressional map for the decade.

Second, it creates a clear anti-corruption rule. Government may draw districts to comply with population, geography, voting-rights, and representation requirements. It may not draw or alter a district for the purpose of helping or hurting a political faction or protected group of voters.

This is Ordered Liberty applied to election machinery:

The government may set neutral rules for political competition. It may not manipulate the rules of representation to predetermine the competitors' advantage.

I. The Precise Legal Claim

The strongest defensible claim is not:

"A court has already voided the entire August 4 election."

That has not happened.

The stronger and more accurate claim is:

The August 4, 2026 congressional primary was administered under district boundaries that never acquired legal force under Missouri law. Therefore, the congressional component of the primary was legally and constitutionally defective even though the final judicial remedy for completed nominations remains unresolved.

This distinction matters.

An election can contain an unlawful or unconstitutional defect without every result automatically becoming void. Courts often distinguish between:

• the illegality of the rule used,
• the injury caused by that rule,
• reliance interests created before the defect is finally adjudicated, and
• the remedy that remains legally and practically available.

Missouri now has exactly that problem.

The defect is clear under state law. The remedy is still contested.

II. The Governing Missouri Constitutional Structure

A. Article III, Section 45

Missouri's congressional-redistricting provision states in substance that when Missouri's number of representatives is certified following each census, the General Assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts that are contiguous, compact, and as nearly equal in population as may be.

The 2020 Census was certified to the Governor in 2021. Missouri enacted its post-census congressional districts in 2022.

The current text does not expressly say that those districts must remain unchanged until the next census.

That omission became decisive in Luther v. Hoskins.

The Missouri Supreme Court held that Article III, Section 45 imposes a mandatory duty to redistrict following the census, but the majority concluded that it does not expressly remove the General Assembly's broader legislative authority to redistrict again during the decade.

That is the constitutional gap the proposed amendment must close.

B. Article III, Section 49

Article III, Section 49 reserves legislative power to the people. It states that the people reserve the power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the General Assembly, subject to specified exceptions.

This means legislative sovereignty in Missouri is not held exclusively by the General Assembly.

The people retain a direct veto mechanism.

C. Article III, Section 52(a)

Section 52(a) establishes the referendum process and signature threshold and requires timely filing.

The central question in the HB 1 controversy became whether the referendum petition met those requirements.

D. Article III, Section 52(b)

Section 52(b) provides the critical rule:

A measure referred to the people takes effect when approved by a majority of votes cast thereon, and not otherwise.

That language ultimately controlled HB 1.

Once the Missouri Supreme Court determined that the referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, HB 1 could not have taken effect on December 11, 2025.

The legal consequence related back to the timely filing.

III. The Factual and Legal Timeline

2022 - The Existing Lawful Map

Following the 2020 Census and certification of Missouri's congressional apportionment, the General Assembly enacted new congressional districts in 2022.

Those districts were enacted pursuant to Article III, Section 45.

They became the baseline lawful map.

Nothing occurring in 2025 automatically erased them. They could be displaced only by another valid law or by controlling judicial or federal authority.

August 29, 2025 - Governor Kehoe Calls an Extraordinary Session

Governor Mike Kehoe announced a special legislative session for congressional redistricting and initiative-petition reform.

His official announcement stated that the proposed "Missouri First Map" had been created by his team and argued that Missouri's congressional representation should better reflect Missouri's political values.

The Governor's formal proclamation relied in part on concerns that the existing map might face Voting Rights Act or Fourteenth Amendment challenges and on the approaching 2026 candidate-filing schedule.

The proclamation also asserted an extraordinary occasion requiring legislative action.

Legal significance

The special session provided the procedural route through which HB 1 could be enacted.

The Governor's power to call that session was later challenged.

The challenge ultimately failed.

Ordered Liberty significance

An official who participates in one political coalition possessed the power to initiate a process that could change the districts used to determine congressional political power before the next census.

Current Missouri law did not impose a neutral temporal limit preventing that action.

September 3, 2025 - Special Session Begins

The General Assembly convened.

The Governor's proclamation was entered into the legislative record.

The General Assembly considered HB 1, which would replace the districts enacted in 2022.

Legislators objected that Article III, Section 45 should be understood to limit congressional redistricting to the post-census cycle.

That constitutional interpretation was later rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court majority in Luther.

September 12, 2025 - General Assembly Passes HB 1

The General Assembly truly agreed to and finally passed HB 1.

HB 1 repealed and replaced portions of Chapter 128 and created new congressional boundaries intended to apply beginning with elections for the 120th Congress.

Legal significance

The legislature completed its lawmaking act.

But passage alone did not end the legal process.

The bill still required gubernatorial action, and Missouri's Constitution preserved the people's referendum power.

September 28, 2025 - Governor Signs HB 1

Governor Kehoe signed HB 1.

The Governor publicly credited the General Assembly, Missouri's congressional delegation, and President Donald Trump for their roles in getting the map to his desk.

The Governor described the map as reflecting Missouri's values.

Legal significance

HB 1 was enacted but was scheduled for a later effective date.

It therefore remained vulnerable to Missouri's referendum process before taking effect.

Evidentiary significance

The political context may support an inference that partisan consequences were understood and desired by political actors. That is not the same as a judicial finding that HB 1 violated a constitutional anti-partisan provision, because Missouri did not yet contain the proposed anti-purpose rule.

The proposed amendment would change that.

September 29, 2025 - Referendum Petition 2026-R004 Submitted

Richard von Glahn and People Not Politicians submitted a referendum petition directed at HB 1.

Other earlier versions had also been submitted. The final referendum process centered on 2026-R004.

The Secretary of State later approved the petition for circulation.

Legal significance

Missouri voters began exercising legislative power explicitly reserved to them by Article III, Sections 49 and 52.

The referendum was not merely political protest.

It was part of Missouri's constitutional lawmaking system.

October-November 2025 - Petition and Ballot-Title Litigation

The Secretary of State processed the referendum and issued ballot language.

People Not Politicians challenged portions of the Secretary's summary statement as unfair or insufficient.

The Cole County Circuit Court found defects in portions of the ballot summary and revised the language.

On April 30, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, further addressed the ballot-title dispute in People Not Politicians v. Hoskins, WD88795.

Legal significance

The referendum remained active through judicial review.

The case demonstrates that Missouri law treats referendum rights as judicially enforceable rights, not merely discretionary administrative privileges.

December 8, 2025 - State's Federal Attempt to Stop the Referendum Is Dismissed

In Missouri General Assembly v. von Glahn, the State, General Assembly, and Secretary of State sought federal declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the referendum from displacing HB 1.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case as unripe.

The court emphasized that the Secretary of State had authority under Missouri law to assess the petition after submission and that the asserted dispute was not ready for federal adjudication.

Legal significance

The federal court did not hold the referendum unconstitutional.

It refused to decide the dispute prematurely.

The State therefore proceeded with the referendum process under Missouri law.

December 9, 2025 - Completed Referendum Petitions Filed

People Not Politicians delivered 691 boxes of referendum petitions to the Secretary of State.

The petition was filed before HB 1's scheduled December 11 effective date.

This date later became the central legal pivot.

Legal significance

Under Maggard and later von Glahn, if the petition was eventually determined legal, timely, and sufficient, HB 1 would not have taken effect.

The status of HB 1 therefore depended on the final legal determination of the referendum.

December 11, 2025 - HB 1's Scheduled Effective Date

State publications listed December 11 as HB 1's effective date.

But the existence of the referendum created an unresolved legal condition.

The State proceeded as though HB 1 had taken effect.

That assumption ultimately proved wrong.

IV. The Major 2026 Court Decisions Before the Primary

A. Luther v. Hoskins - March 24, 2026

Question

Does Article III, Section 45 prohibit the General Assembly from redrawing congressional districts more than once after a decennial census?

Majority holding

No.

The Missouri Supreme Court held that Section 45 requires redistricting after census certification but does not expressly prohibit additional congressional redistricting during the same decade.

The Court relied on the principle that the General Assembly has plenary legislative authority unless the Constitution restricts it.

Dissent

The dissent argued that when the Constitution specifies the time and mode for exercising a particular power, that specification can imply a prohibition against exercising the power at another time or in another manner.

Importance to this thesis

Luther identifies the exact textual defect in the present Missouri Constitution.

The existing text says when redistricting must occur.

It does not clearly say when redistricting may not occur.

The proposed amendment fixes this directly by stating that post-census districts shall remain in force until the succeeding census, subject only to specified legal exceptions.

The amendment therefore answers Luther with express constitutional language rather than asking courts to infer a limitation.

B. Healey v. State / Wise v. State - May 12, 2026

Question

Did the 2025 map violate Missouri's constitutional requirements regarding contiguity, compactness, or population equality?

Holding

The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rejection of those claims.

The litigation showed that HB 1 could satisfy conventional geometric and population criteria even while remaining deeply controversial as a partisan redistricting measure.

Importance to this thesis

Compactness, contiguity, and equal population are necessary safeguards.

They are not sufficient safeguards.

A map can satisfy geometric tests while still being adopted for the purpose of helping one party or harming another.

The proposed amendment therefore adds a substantive rule that existing Article III, Section 45 lacks:

No district shall be established or altered for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters.

This creates a corruption test that geometry alone cannot provide.

C. Maggard v. State - May 12, 2026

Question

Did merely filing the referendum petition on December 9 automatically and immediately suspend HB 1?

Holding

No.

The Missouri Supreme Court held that filing alone does not automatically establish that a valid referendum exists.

The petition must ultimately be determined legal, timely, and sufficient.

But the Court also made clear that if the petition ultimately met those requirements, HB 1 would never have gone into effect.

Importance to this thesis

Maggard created a conditional legal status.

The State could not know with finality in May whether HB 1 had legally displaced the 2022 map until the referendum's validity and sufficiency were resolved.

That is precisely why allowing the issue to remain unresolved through candidate filing and into the August primary created extraordinary risk.

A sound election system should never allow the legal identity of the district map to remain unresolved until after voters have nominated candidates.

D. Secretary Hoskins' May 14 Enforcement Directive

Two days after the May 12 decisions, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins announced that the HB 1 map remained in effect and directed local election authorities to continue preparation under it.

The Secretary cited the Supreme Court's decisions regarding HB 1 and the rule that filing alone did not automatically suspend the law.

The central problem

That interpretation treated Maggard's uncertainty as though it were final confirmation of HB 1.

But Maggard did not establish that the referendum would ultimately fail.

It established a conditional rule:

• if the referendum was insufficient, HB 1 took effect;
• if the referendum was sufficient, HB 1 never took effect.

The referendum's final sufficiency therefore had to be resolved.

Proceeding to a congressional primary before that issue was conclusively resolved created the danger that eventually occurred.

E. NAACP Missouri State Conference v. Kehoe - May 27, 2026

Question

Did the Governor lack constitutional authority to call the extraordinary session because no valid "extraordinary occasion" existed?

Holding

The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld the Governor's authority.

Importance to this thesis

The present Constitution provides little judicially enforceable constraint on the Governor's decision to call an extraordinary session for congressional redistricting.

The proposed amendment does not need to redefine the Governor's special-session power.

It solves the problem at a more fundamental level.

Even if the Governor may call a special session, and even if the General Assembly may meet, they could not replace a valid post-census congressional map mid-decade except for the expressly listed legal reasons.

That is simpler and stronger than litigating the meaning of "extraordinary occasion" every time.

V. August 4, 2026 - The Defective Congressional Primary

Missouri conducted its statewide primary election on August 4, 2026.

Congressional candidates were placed on ballots and voters were assigned to congressional races using the HB 1 district configuration.

The official results were later canvassed and announced by the Board of State Canvassers on August 25.

But August 4 was also the date on which the Secretary of State issued a certificate rejecting the referendum.

Critically, the eventual Missouri Supreme Court record established that the rejection was not based on a failure to obtain the required number of valid signatures.

The Secretary instead relied on a legal theory that the referendum itself could not validly apply to congressional redistricting.

That legal theory was later rejected.

VI. September 3, 2026 - The Controlling Missouri Decision

von Glahn v. Hoskins, SC101805

This is the decisive case for the legality analysis.

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the referendum petition was:

• legal,
• sufficient, and
• timely.

The Court rejected the Secretary's theory that congressional redistricting legislation was outside Missouri's referendum power.

It then applied Maggard.

Because the petition met the constitutional requirements, the legal effect related back to the December 9, 2025 filing date.

The Court's conclusion was categorical:

"HB 1 is not the law and has never been the law."

It also held that the 2022 congressional map remained in full force and effect.

The Court ordered the Secretary to certify the referendum, place it on the November ballot, and stop using HB 1.

VII. Why This Makes the Congressional Primary Legally Defective

The logic is straightforward.

Step 1 - Congressional districts are creatures of law

Voters do not naturally belong to "Congressional District 4" or "Congressional District 5."

District boundaries exist because valid law creates them.

Election officials may administer congressional elections only according to legally established districts.

Step 2 - The 2022 districts were validly established

The General Assembly enacted the 2022 congressional map following the 2020 Census.

Those districts therefore had legal force.

Step 3 - HB 1 was the only asserted legal mechanism replacing them

State officials treated HB 1 as replacing the 2022 map beginning in December 2025.

Step 4 - The Missouri Supreme Court held that HB 1 never took effect

This is not merely a statement that HB 1 became invalid in September 2026.

The Court held that because of the timely and sufficient referendum:

HB 1 never became law.

Its legal effect was prevented before its scheduled effective date.

Step 5 - Therefore HB 1 could not legally replace the 2022 districts for the August primary

If HB 1 never became law, the HB 1 district boundaries did not possess the legal authority required to govern the August congressional primary.

Step 6 - Therefore voters were sorted into congressional nomination contests using unauthorized boundaries

Some voters participated in party nominations according to HB 1 districts rather than the districts that remained legally in force.

Candidates sought nominations from electorates defined by HB 1.

The State certified results produced through those boundaries.

Conclusion

The August 4 congressional primary was administered through a districting instrument that lacked legal force.

That is the constitutional defect.

VIII. Why "Legally Defective" Is More Precise Than "Automatically Void"

There are two separate questions.

Question One

Was the legal rule used to conduct the congressional primary valid?

Under von Glahn, the answer is no.

HB 1 never became law.

Question Two

What is the legal remedy for a completed primary conducted under that invalid rule?

That question is not fully resolved.

Courts may consider:

• whether nominations remain valid despite the defective map;
• whether particular candidates or voters suffered cognizable injury;
• whether there is time for corrective procedures;
• whether ballot deadlines permit relief;
• whether a special or remedial nomination process is authorized;
• whether federal election law constrains the available remedy;
• whether changing the map after a primary creates a separate federal constitutional injury;
• whether equitable doctrines counsel against disturbing completed votes.

Therefore this thesis does not claim that every August congressional nomination disappeared automatically on September 3.

It claims something both narrower and stronger:

The state had no lawful HB 1 district map on which to base the August congressional primary.

Whether courts preserve, modify, or rerun nominations is a remedial question.

It does not retroactively transform HB 1 into law.

IX. The Secretary of State's Role and the Problem of Delay

The Missouri Supreme Court directly criticized the Secretary's handling of the referendum.

The Secretary had authority and statutory mechanisms to resolve the legal issue.

The Court emphasized that he delayed certification until the last possible date and did not seek early resolution of the referendum's constitutional status.

That delay mattered because election administration continued while the legal status of HB 1 remained conditional.

The sequence became:

1. disputed map;
2. candidate filing under disputed map;
3. ballot preparation under disputed map;
4. congressional primary under disputed map;
5. final referendum rejection on primary day;
6. state Supreme Court reversal after the primary;
7. conflicting state and federal orders before the general election.

This is a governance failure.

It is not enough for a constitutional system eventually to reach the correct legal answer.

Election law must reach that answer before voters are forced to rely on an invalid rule.

Ordered Liberty requires not only lawful rules but timely enforcement of those rules.

X. September 8, 2026 - The Federal Counterargument

Onder v. Missouri

After the Missouri Supreme Court ordered use of the 2022 map for November, Representative Robert Onder and other plaintiffs filed federal litigation.

On September 8, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the HB 1 map for the November 3, 2026 general election.

The federal court did not simply hold that HB 1 had been valid Missouri law.

Instead, its concern focused on the consequences of changing districts after the primary had already taken place.

The basic federal argument was:

• voters participated in August under HB 1;
• candidates won party nominations under HB 1;
• changing the district boundaries for November could disconnect those primary votes from the final general-election electorate;
• that mismatch could implicate Article I, Section 2 and Equal Protection;
• late election changes can also implicate federal election-stability principles.

This is a serious remedial concern.

But it does not erase the state-law defect.

Indeed, it demonstrates the damage created by allowing the invalid-map question to remain unresolved until after the primary.

XI. The Fait Accompli Problem

The federal theory produces a dangerous logical possibility if carried too far.

Suppose state officials implement a legally disputed election rule.

Suppose they continue using it until voters rely on it.

Suppose a court later holds that the rule never legally took effect.

If the State can then argue that reliance on its own unlawful implementation requires courts to preserve that implementation, government gains a powerful incentive to create a fait accompli.

The principle would become:

Act first. Create reliance. Then argue that correcting the unlawful act would be too disruptive.

That is incompatible with Ordered Liberty.

A government actor should not obtain legal authority merely by acting without it long enough to make correction inconvenient.

The better rule is:

Administrative reliance may affect the remedy, but it cannot retroactively create legal authority that never existed.

That distinction respects both sides:

• voters should not casually lose votes because government officials made an error;
• government officials should not be able to convert an unlawful rule into lawful authority through delay.

XII. September 8-10 Federal Emergency Litigation

September 8 - U.S. Supreme Court, Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304

Secretary Hoskins asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the Missouri Supreme Court's September 3 ruling.

Justice Kavanaugh denied the application on September 8.

That left the Missouri Supreme Court's order in place at that moment.

September 8 - Federal District Court TRO

Later the same day, the Eastern District of Missouri issued its TRO in Onder, requiring use of HB 1 for the November election.

That created direct practical tension between the state-court judgment and the federal order.

September 9 - Eighth Circuit

The intervenors sought emergency appellate relief.

The Eighth Circuit did not provide the requested immediate stay.

The merits of the larger dispute remained unresolved.

September 10 - U.S. Supreme Court, People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A326

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the September 8 federal district-court order.

The Supreme Court's order states that the TRO is stayed while the Eighth Circuit appeal proceeds and through any timely petition for Supreme Court review.

Present consequence

As of September 10, the federal TRO requiring HB 1 is not operative.

The Missouri Supreme Court's state-law judgment therefore controls the immediate election administration unless later federal proceedings alter that result.

Important limitation

The U.S. Supreme Court's September 10 emergency order contains no merits opinion explaining the ultimate federal constitutional answer.

The federal dispute is still not finally resolved.

XIII. What Every Major Court Track Established

The litigation looks contradictory only if all claims are treated as the same claim.

They are not.

1. Special-session authority

NAACP v. Kehoe

Finding: the Governor had authority to call the extraordinary session.

Meaning: the session itself was not invalidated on that ground.

2. Mid-decade legislative authority under the current Missouri Constitution

Luther v. Hoskins

Finding: current Article III, Section 45 does not expressly prohibit mid-decade congressional redistricting.

Meaning: absent another legal obstacle, the legislature could enact another map during the decade.

3. Geometric and population validity

Healey / Wise

Finding: the 2025 map survived the asserted compactness, contiguity, and population challenges.

Meaning: existing geographic standards alone did not invalidate HB 1.

4. Effect of merely filing a referendum

Maggard v. State

Finding: filing alone does not conclusively establish suspension.

Meaning: legal, timely, and sufficient status must ultimately be determined.

But if those requirements are met, HB 1 never took effect.

5. Federal pre-enforcement effort to stop referendum

Missouri General Assembly v. von Glahn

Finding: dismissed as unripe.

Meaning: the federal court would not decide the referendum dispute before Missouri's own process had matured.

6. Ballot-title litigation

People Not Politicians v. Hoskins

Finding: portions of the Secretary's ballot description were subject to judicial correction.

Meaning: referendum administration is constrained by enforceable fairness rules.

7. Earlier signature-form dispute

People Not Politicians v. Hoskins, SC101801

Finding: after the Secretary's August 4 insufficiency determination did not rest on lack of signatures, the earlier dispute became moot.

Meaning: the decisive issue shifted away from signature quantity and toward the Secretary's legal theory about referendum authority.

8. Final referendum validity

von Glahn v. Hoskins, SC101805

Finding: petition legal, sufficient, and timely.

Consequence: HB 1 never took effect. The 2022 map remained the lawful congressional map.

This is the controlling state-law premise of the defective-primary thesis.

9. Federal post-primary reliance theory

Onder v. Missouri

District-court finding at TRO stage: switching away from HB 1 after voters had already participated in the primary could create separate federal constitutional harms.

Meaning: even an unlawfully administered primary can create real voter reliance interests that courts must consider when choosing a remedy.

10. U.S. Supreme Court emergency stay

People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A326

Finding: the September 8 federal TRO is stayed pending appeal.

Meaning: the federal district court's attempt to require HB 1 is presently blocked.

The Supreme Court did not issue a final merits holding on the completed-primary problem.

XIV. Why Existing Law Failed Even Though Courts Eventually Corrected the Map

A functioning constitutional system should prevent foreseeable institutional conflicts before they reach the ballot.

Missouri's current structure failed at four points.

Failure 1 - No express one-map-per-census rule

Luther held that the Constitution's silence leaves the General Assembly with authority to redraw mid-decade.

That permits elected officials to alter the political boundaries under which their coalition competes.

Failure 2 - Existing map standards do not directly prohibit partisan purpose

Compactness and contiguity can constrain bizarre geography.

They do not necessarily prevent politically engineered maps.

Healey/Wise demonstrates this distinction.

Failure 3 - Referendum verification can remain unresolved too long

Maggard made final sufficiency decisive.

But the process was not completed before the primary.

The system therefore allowed an election to occur while the governing map's legal existence remained conditional.

Failure 4 - No automatic safe-map rule

Missouri lacked a simple constitutional default stating:

If a replacement map is not unquestionably in force before the election process begins, the last valid map remains operative.

Without that rule, the State moved forward under a map later held never to have become law.

XV. The Ordered Liberty Standard

Ordered Liberty starts with a basic division of authority.

Government may:

• establish fair rules;
• enforce them equally;
• protect every person's ability to participate;
• stop concentrated power from rigging the system.

Government should not:

• manipulate participation to preserve its own power;
• create special rules for incumbents or parties;
• turn temporary political control into control over the machinery that decides future political control.

Applied to redistricting:

Voters should choose representatives. Representatives should not be permitted to redesign the electorate for the purpose of choosing more favorable voters.

This rule does not depend on which party holds power.

A valid constitutional design must survive a veil-of-ignorance test:

Would Republicans accept the same redistricting power in the hands of a Democratic supermajority and Democratic governor?

Would Democrats accept it in the hands of a Republican supermajority and Republican governor?

If the answer changes with the party in power, the rule is not neutral.

The Constitution should therefore establish a rule that neither side can rationally fear when out of power.

XVI. The Proposed Constitutional Amendment

The core reform should be added directly to the Missouri Constitution:

Congressional districts established following each decennial census shall remain in force until districts are established following the succeeding decennial census, except as necessary to comply with a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a change in congressional apportionment, or controlling federal law. No district shall be established or altered for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters.

This provision should be understood as two complementary rules.

XVII. Clause One - The Decennial Stability Rule

"Congressional districts established following each decennial census shall remain in force until districts are established following the succeeding decennial census..."

Legal purpose

This language expressly removes the ambiguity identified in Luther.

The current Constitution says that the legislature shall redistrict when the census is certified.

The proposed text adds what current law lacks:

once that duty is completed, the resulting districts remain in force until the next census cycle.

A court would no longer need to infer whether mid-decade redistricting is forbidden.

The prohibition would be textual.

Logical purpose

Census data provides a neutral recurring trigger.

Every ten years:

1. population is measured;
2. congressional representation is apportioned;
3. districts are adjusted;
4. the map becomes stable.

The rule makes demographic necessity, not political opportunity, the ordinary reason for redistricting.

Ordered Liberty purpose

Political actors remain free to compete.

They lose the power to change the playing field merely because a later political opportunity appears.

That constrains government while preserving political liberty.

XVIII. Clause Two - Narrow Exceptions

"...except as necessary to comply with a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a change in congressional apportionment, or controlling federal law."

A rigid rule with no exceptions would be unsafe.

The Constitution must allow correction when higher law requires correction.

A. Final court judgment

A map may later be held unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful.

Missouri must retain authority to comply with a binding judicial remedy.

The word final is important.

It reduces the chance that temporary political litigation becomes a pretext for discretionary redrawing.

B. Change in congressional apportionment

If federal apportionment changes Missouri's number of U.S. House seats, districts must necessarily change.

This exception preserves practical compliance with Article I, Section 2 and federal apportionment law.

C. Controlling federal law

Congress may regulate the times, places, and manner of congressional elections under the Elections Clause.

The Voting Rights Act and other controlling federal requirements can also require changes.

Missouri cannot constitutionally insulate its map from federal supremacy.

This exception acknowledges that hierarchy.

Why there is no generic "public interest" exception

A broad exception such as "when necessary for fairness" would recreate the same discretionary opening.

The exceptions should be objective and externally verifiable.

XIX. Clause Three - The Anti-Favoritism Rule

"No district shall be established or altered for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters."

This is the substantive anti-rigging rule.

A. Why "purpose" matters

Existing geometric requirements regulate the shape of districts.

This clause regulates the reason government is acting.

A district can be compact and contiguous yet still be intentionally engineered to protect an incumbent or damage a political opponent.

The Constitution should prohibit that governmental purpose directly.

B. Why political parties are included

Government should not use public authority to convert temporary party control into structural advantage.

Parties may persuade voters.

They may organize.

They may campaign.

They may not use the districting power itself as a campaign weapon.

C. Why incumbents are included

An incumbent should not receive district boundaries designed to protect the incumbent from electoral competition.

Public office belongs to the public, not to the officeholder.

D. Why candidates are included

The rule must apply before a person becomes an incumbent.

Otherwise a legislature could draw a district to help or hurt a known challenger while claiming that the incumbent-protection ban does not apply.

E. Why "class of voters" is included

The purpose of redistricting should never be to diminish the political effectiveness of a targeted class of citizens.

This phrase must be interpreted consistently with the federal Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It should not be used to prohibit lawful race-conscious compliance required by federal voting-rights law.

The federal-law exception resolves that potential conflict.

XX. Why This Amendment Is Consistent With Federal Law

A. Elections Clause

Article I, Section 4 gives states authority to prescribe the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, subject to congressional alteration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this state lawmaking authority operates through the state's constitutional lawmaking structure.

B. Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant (1916)

The Supreme Court upheld the use of a state referendum against a congressional-redistricting law.

The case establishes that voters may participate directly in the state's legislative process governing congressional redistricting.

This supports Missouri's referendum structure and the right of Missouri voters to constitutionalize stronger redistricting limits.

C. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

The Supreme Court upheld an Arizona constitutional amendment that transferred congressional-redistricting authority from the legislature to an independent commission.

That is a powerful precedent for state constitutional control over congressional districting.

Missouri does not need to go as far as Arizona to adopt the proposed rule.

If a state may constitutionally remove ordinary mapmaking authority from the legislature and give it to a commission, it may also impose clear temporal and anti-partisan limits on legislative districting authority.

D. Moore v. Harper (2023)

The Supreme Court rejected the strongest version of the "independent state legislature" theory.

State legislatures exercising Elections Clause authority remain subject to constraints imposed by state constitutions and judicial review of those constraints.

That makes an express Missouri constitutional restriction legally significant.

E. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Rucho held that claims of excessive partisan gerrymandering under the federal Constitution present nonjusticiable political questions in federal court.

But that does not mean partisan gerrymandering must remain unregulated.

The decision specifically recognized that states can address partisan gerrymandering through state constitutions, state statutes, commissions, and other political reforms.

The proposed amendment does exactly that.

It supplies a state constitutional rule that federal constitutional doctrine currently lacks.

XXI. Why the Proposed Rule Is Better Than Asking Courts to Infer a Ban

Luther is the warning.

The plaintiffs asked the Missouri Supreme Court to infer from existing Article III, Section 45 that only one redistricting may occur per census.

The majority refused because the Constitution did not expressly say so.

The proposed amendment does not repeat that mistake.

It says exactly what the legal rule is:

Post-census districts remain in force until the next census.

A future court would not need to construct a prohibition from implication.

The text itself would supply the prohibition.

XXII. Why the Proposed Rule Is Better Than a Pure Compactness Standard

Compactness is useful but incomplete.

Consider two maps.

Map A

The boundaries are oddly shaped because mountains, rivers, municipal borders, and communities of interest require unusual geography.

Map B

The boundaries are visually compact but voter data was used to pack political opponents into one district and spread them thinly across surrounding districts.

A pure compactness test may punish Map A while missing the manipulation in Map B.

The anti-purpose clause asks the missing question:

Why was this boundary chosen?

That moves redistricting law from appearance alone to lawful governmental purpose.

XXIII. Evidence That Should Be Relevant Under the New Rule

A purpose standard must be enforceable.

Courts should be permitted to consider objective evidence such as:

• public statements by officials;
• legislative history;
• communications concerning desired partisan seat outcomes;
• incumbent addresses;
• partisan voting files used during map creation;
• alternative maps rejected without neutral justification;
• abrupt changes unsupported by new census data;
• statistical partisan outlier analysis;
• packing and cracking patterns;
• unexplained deviations from counties, municipalities, or communities of interest;
• timing tied to anticipated election advantage.

No single fact should automatically invalidate a map.

The court should evaluate the total record.

This gives the anti-purpose clause a manageable evidentiary structure.

XXIV. An Optional Burden-Shifting Enforcement Rule

Missouri could implement the constitutional clause through statute.

A challenger would first need to show credible evidence that political favoritism was a substantial purpose of establishing or altering a district.

If that showing is made, the State would need to demonstrate that the challenged boundary was necessary or reasonably justified by legitimate districting criteria such as:

• equal population;
• federal voting-rights compliance;
• contiguity;
• compactness;
• county and municipal integrity;
• recognized communities of interest;
• geography;
• final judicial orders;
• controlling federal law.

This avoids making every political effect unconstitutional.

The Constitution would target governmental purpose, not ordinary political consequence.

XXV. The Missing Safe-Map Rule

The 2026 crisis also shows the need for an implementation rule:

A replacement congressional map shall not govern candidate filing, a primary election, or a general election unless the map has legally taken effect and all mandatory state-law pre-election review has been completed before the first day of candidate filing. If those conditions are not satisfied, the most recent unquestionably lawful congressional map shall remain in force for that election cycle.

This is not a substitute for the proposed amendment.

It is an enforcement mechanism.

Its purpose is to prevent another August 2026.

The system should never again reach a primary without knowing which districts legally exist.

XXVI. Expedited Judicial Review

Redistricting litigation should receive a mandatory accelerated schedule.

A valid implementing law could require:

1. immediate filing of any challenge after enactment;
2. priority docket status;
3. rapid factual discovery;
4. direct or accelerated appellate review;
5. a final state-law resolution before candidate filing whenever practicable.

The objective is not to prevent lawsuits.

The objective is to resolve them before votes are cast.

This protects both rule-of-law values and voter reliance.

XXVII. Referendum Protection

The 2025-2026 episode proves that the referendum is not an inconvenience to democracy.

It is part of Missouri's democracy.

The Constitution already reserves that legislative power to the people.

A redistricting reform should therefore preserve referendum rights.

It should also prevent delay from becoming a method of defeating those rights.

Possible implementing protections include:

• strict administrative deadlines;
• automatic transfer of unresolved constitutional questions to expedited judicial review;
• prompt publication of verified-signature reports;
• no discretionary delay beyond statutory deadlines;
• automatic continuation of the last lawful map while a timely referendum capable of preventing a replacement map from taking effect remains unresolved.

The principle is simple:

Government should not be able to defeat a constitutional veto by running out the election clock.

XXVIII. The Immediate 2026 Remedy Under Current Law

Prospective constitutional reform does not itself solve the completed August primary.

Current law still has to address 2026.

The present state-law answer is clear on the map:

the 2022 map remained in force.

The harder question concerns nominations.

A legally responsible remedy should proceed in this order.

Step 1 - Preserve the Missouri Supreme Court's determination of which map is law

Administrative reliance cannot make HB 1 retroactively valid.

Step 2 - Separate the map defect from the nomination remedy

The fact that the map was unlawful does not itself dictate a single remedy.

Step 3 - Identify affected congressional races and voters

The State and courts should determine which voters and candidates were materially affected by the difference between HB 1 and the 2022 districts.

Step 4 - Use expedited judicial proceedings to decide the least disruptive lawful nomination remedy

Possible remedies may include preservation of existing nominations, corrective ballot-access orders, or a court-authorized remedial nomination process if required and legally available.

A special primary should not be assumed automatically. It would require statutory and federal timing analysis.

Step 5 - Preserve all unrelated August primary results

The defect described in this thesis concerns congressional district administration.

There is no basis in this thesis for invalidating unrelated statewide, state legislative, county, or local primary contests merely because they occurred on the same day.

XXIX. Why a Special Congressional Primary Is a Remedy Question, Not the Thesis

It may be tempting to argue:

Invalid map equals automatic new primary.

That skips several legal steps.

A court would need to determine:

• whether Missouri law authorizes a replacement nomination process;
• whether candidate filing can be reopened;
• whether federal ballot deadlines permit a new primary;
• whether military and overseas voting deadlines can be satisfied;
• whether preserving existing nominees causes less constitutional injury;
• whether new nominations would violate reliance interests.

Therefore the thesis should not depend on obtaining a new primary.

The thesis is complete before that question:

Missouri conducted the congressional primary under districts that were never legally in force.

That proposition follows from the state Supreme Court's ruling regardless of the eventual remedy.

XXX. The Principle Against Government-Created Legality

The 2026 dispute raises a larger constitutional principle.

Government cannot create its own legal authority merely by exercising power before a court stops it.

Otherwise constitutional limits become optional whenever officials can move faster than judicial review.

Ordered Liberty should reject this rule:

Unauthorized action + enough time = lawful authority.

The better rule is:

Unauthorized action remains unauthorized. Reliance created by the action may influence the remedy, but it does not alter the source of legal authority.

This distinction is essential.

It protects citizens who relied on government instructions without rewarding the government for creating the defect.

XXXI. Why the Proposed Amendment Is Party-Neutral

A legitimate constitutional rule must operate identically regardless of who holds power.

Imagine four cases.

Case 1

Republicans control the legislature and redraw a Democratic district mid-decade to gain a seat.

The rule prohibits it.

Case 2

Democrats control the legislature and redraw a Republican district mid-decade to gain a seat.

The rule prohibits it.

Case 3

A federal court finds a district violates federal law.

The rule permits the correction.

Case 4

Congressional apportionment changes Missouri's number of seats.

The rule permits the required redistricting.

The amendment therefore distinguishes legal necessity from political opportunity.

That is the correct constitutional distinction.

XXXII. Why This Is Ordered Liberty Rather Than Anti-Political Regulation

Politics cannot and should not be removed from democracy.

Candidates will seek advantage.

Parties will organize.

Voters will form coalitions.

Officials will advocate policies.

Ordered Liberty does not try to eliminate political competition.

It defines the boundary between competition within the rules and manipulation of the rules themselves.

Redistricting becomes corrupt when a governing coalition uses public power to alter the electorate for the purpose of preserving or expanding its own political advantage.

The constitutional response should therefore be narrow:

• do not regulate political speech;
• do not require equal election outcomes;
• do not guarantee any party a number of seats;
• do not forbid voters from clustering geographically;
• do not require proportional representation.

Instead:

Forbid government from changing district boundaries for partisan or personal electoral advantage.

That preserves liberty while constraining abuse of state power.

XXXIII. The Great Conversation Behind the Rule

The problem is older than modern redistricting software.

Republican government has always faced a central question:

Who guards the rule-maker when the rule-maker benefits from the rule?

The American constitutional tradition answers through divided power, written limits, review, elections, and direct popular sovereignty.

Redistricting is a special case because the ordinary accountability mechanism can be distorted by the officials being held accountable.

If representatives can choose the composition of the electorate that chooses representatives, the feedback loop is corrupted.

The constitutional answer must therefore operate one level above ordinary politics.

The mapmaking rule must be fixed before the political contest begins.

That is why the solution belongs in the Constitution rather than in ordinary legislation.

XXXIV. Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric

Grammar - What happened?

Missouri enacted a new congressional map in 2025.

Voters timely invoked referendum rights.

The State nevertheless administered the 2026 congressional primary under the new map.

The Missouri Supreme Court later determined that the referendum was legal, sufficient, and timely and that HB 1 therefore never took effect.

The 2022 map remained the lawful map.

Logic - What follows?

If HB 1 never became law, its district boundaries could not lawfully replace the 2022 districts.

The congressional primary was therefore conducted through legally unauthorized boundaries.

The defect does not automatically dictate whether completed nominations are void, preserved, or corrected through another process.

The remedy must address both the rule-of-law violation and voter reliance.

Rhetoric - What rule should citizens adopt?

Do not make the reform about one party's map.

Make it about the power itself:

No political faction should possess a power that it would call tyranny when exercised by its opponent.

The constitutional answer is therefore one neutral rule for everyone:

One census. One ordinary map. No partisan redrawing between censuses. Corrections only when law requires them.

XXXV. Proposed Constitutional Text With Interpretive Notes

Proposed text

Congressional districts established following each decennial census shall remain in force until districts are established following the succeeding decennial census, except as necessary to comply with a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a change in congressional apportionment, or controlling federal law. No district shall be established or altered for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters.

Interpretive note 1 - "established following each decennial census"

This ties ordinary redistricting to a neutral recurring demographic event.

Interpretive note 2 - "shall remain in force"

This creates the express limitation missing from current Article III, Section 45.

Interpretive note 3 - "until ... the succeeding decennial census"

This establishes temporal finality and prevents opportunistic mid-decade redistricting.

Interpretive note 4 - "except as necessary"

The exception is necessity-based, not convenience-based.

A legislature may not invoke an exception merely because it prefers a different map.

Interpretive note 5 - "final judgment"

Temporary litigation should not become a pretext for discretionary political remapping.

Interpretive note 6 - "change in congressional apportionment"

Missouri must be able to respond if its number of U.S. House seats changes.

Interpretive note 7 - "controlling federal law"

Federal supremacy is preserved.

Interpretive note 8 - "purpose of favoring or disfavoring"

The clause targets governmental motive.

It does not guarantee partisan proportionality.

Interpretive note 9 - "political party, incumbent, candidate"

The government cannot use districting power as an electoral weapon.

Interpretive note 10 - "class of voters"

The rule protects citizens from intentional manipulation as a group while remaining subject to federal voting-rights obligations.

XXXVI. Recommended Implementing Provisions

The constitutional sentence is the core reform.

For durability, implementing legislation should also provide:

1. Safe-map rule: the last unquestionably lawful map governs if a replacement map is not finally in force before candidate filing.
2. Expedited review: all redistricting litigation receives priority sufficient to reach final state review before election administration begins.
3. Public record: all map drafts, data sets, instructions, and official communications used in map creation are preserved and publicly accessible subject to legitimate legal privileges.
4. Neutral criteria: population equality, Voting Rights Act compliance, contiguity, compactness, municipal integrity, and communities of interest must be documented.
5. Partisan-purpose review: election data may be used to audit a map for partisan distortion but not as an instruction to achieve a predetermined partisan seat result.
6. Referendum clock: referendum sufficiency and legal challenges must be resolved before a disputed replacement map may govern a congressional primary.
7. Automatic fallback: unresolved replacement map equals continued use of the last lawful map.
8. Severability: if one implementing provision is struck down, the decennial stability and anti-favoritism clauses remain effective.

XXXVII. The Strongest Public Explanation

The issue can be explained without partisan framing:

Missouri held its August congressional primary under a map the Missouri Supreme Court later held had never become law. That does not automatically erase every vote, but it means the State used legally unauthorized district boundaries to decide who voted in which congressional nomination contests. The deeper problem is that Missouri's Constitution never clearly prohibited politicians from redrawing congressional districts again before the next census. The solution is to close that loophole for every party: one post-census map for the decade, except when a court, federal law, or reapportionment requires a change, and an explicit ban on drawing districts to help or hurt a party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters.

XXXVIII. Final Thesis

The Missouri redistricting crisis is not ultimately about whether one particular congressional map looks fair.

It is about constitutional authority.

The 2022 map was enacted after the 2020 Census.

HB 1 attempted to replace it in 2025.

Missouri voters timely invoked their constitutional referendum power.

After months of litigation, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the referendum was legal, sufficient, and timely.

The legal consequence was retroactive to the filing date.

HB 1 therefore never took effect.

The 2022 map remained the law.

Yet Missouri conducted the August 4, 2026 congressional primary using HB 1.

That produces an unavoidable conclusion:

The congressional primary was conducted through district boundaries that did not legally exist as governing districts.

That is a constitutionally defective congressional primary.

The fact that voters and candidates relied on the State's instructions is important.

It may influence the remedy.

It does not transform HB 1 into a law that the Missouri Supreme Court has held never took effect.

The crisis was created by a constitutional gap and a procedural delay.

The permanent solution is therefore constitutional clarity.

Missouri should adopt:

Congressional districts established following each decennial census shall remain in force until districts are established following the succeeding decennial census, except as necessary to comply with a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a change in congressional apportionment, or controlling federal law. No district shall be established or altered for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party, incumbent, candidate, or class of voters.

This rule does not decide elections.

It protects the conditions under which citizens decide elections.

It does not guarantee Democrats seats.

It does not guarantee Republicans seats.

It guarantees both sides the same thing:

the government cannot move the boundaries for the purpose of moving the outcome.

That is Ordered Liberty.

Set the rule before the contest. Apply it equally. Prevent those holding temporary power from rigging the mechanism that determines future power. Then let the voters decide.

Appendix A - Core Legal Proposition in Syllogistic Form

Premise 1

The 2022 congressional districts were validly established after the 2020 Census.

Premise 2

HB 1 was the asserted legal instrument replacing those districts.

Premise 3

Article III, Section 52(b) provides that a properly referred measure takes effect only upon voter approval.

Premise 4

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the HB 1 referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely.

Premise 5

The Court held that the consequence related back to December 9, 2025.

Premise 6

The Court held that HB 1 never took effect and that the 2022 map remained in force.

Premise 7

Missouri conducted the August 4, 2026 congressional primary using HB 1 boundaries.

Conclusion

The August 4 congressional primary was administered through boundaries that lacked governing legal force.

Remedial limitation

This conclusion does not itself establish that every completed nomination is automatically void. That requires a separate judicial determination concerning remedy.

Appendix B - Problem-to-Solution Matrix

Appendix C - Principal Sources

Missouri constitutional and statutory materials

1. Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 45 - Congressional apportionment
   Missouri Revisor of Statutes:
   https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?bid=31801&constit=y&section=III+++45
2. Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 49 - Reservation of initiative and referendum power
   https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=III+++49
3. Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 52(a) - Referendum procedure
   https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?constit=y&section=III+++52(a)
4. Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 52(b) - Effect of referred measures
   https://revisor.mo.gov/main/onesection.aspx?constit=y&section=iii++++52(b)
5. HB 1 / congressional district statutes and Revisor notes
   https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=128.348
6. Secretary of State - 2026 Referendum Petitions
   https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2026
7. Secretary of State - 2026 Ballot Measures, including Proposition A
   https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2026BallotMeasures
8. Secretary of State - Official August 4, 2026 Primary Results
   https://enr.sos.mo.gov/default.aspx

Executive and legislative materials

1. Governor Kehoe announces special session - August 29, 2025
   https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/governor-kehoe-announces-special-session-congressional-redistricting-and
2. Governor Kehoe signs HB 1 - September 28, 2025
   https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/governor-kehoe-signs-missouri-first-map-law
3. Missouri Senate Journal - September 12, 2025
   https://www.senate.mo.gov/25info/Journals/T2Day03091223-31.pdf

Missouri litigation

1. Luther v. Hoskins, SC101412 - March 24, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101412.html
2. Maggard v. State, SC101581 - May 12, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101581.html
3. Healey v. State / Wise v. State, SC101570 / SC101572 - May 12, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101570.html
4. NAACP Missouri State Conference v. Kehoe, SC101541 - May 27, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101541.html
5. People Not Politicians v. Hoskins, WD88795 - April 30, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/court-of-appeals/2026/wd88795.html
6. People Not Politicians v. Hoskins, SC101801 - September 3, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101801.html
7. von Glahn v. Hoskins, SC101805 - September 3, 2026
   https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101805.html

Federal litigation arising from the Missouri dispute

1. Missouri General Assembly v. von Glahn, E.D. Mo., Dec. 8, 2025
   https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4%3A2025cv01535/223961/39
2. Onder v. Missouri, E.D. Mo., Sept. 8, 2026, Memorandum and Order, Doc. 35
   https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/documents/PressBox09082026.html
3. Hoskins v. von Glahn, U.S. Supreme Court No. 26A304
   https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A304.html
4. People Not Politicians v. Onder, U.S. Supreme Court No. 26A326
   https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a326.html
5. U.S. Supreme Court September 10, 2026 stay order in No. 26A326
   https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091026zr_b07d.pdf

Controlling and relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent

1. Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916)
   https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/565/
2. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015)
   https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/787/
3. Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)
   https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/rucho-v-common-cause-2/
4. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023)
   https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r50_h3ci.pdf

Research Note and Legal Caution

This thesis is a legal-policy analysis based on publicly available constitutional text, statutes, court opinions, official election records, and court orders available through September 10, 2026.

The phrase "constitutionally defective congressional primary" is an analytical characterization derived from the Missouri Supreme Court's holding that HB 1 never became law combined with the undisputed fact that the August congressional primary was conducted using HB 1 boundaries.

It should not be misquoted as though a court has already entered a final judgment stating, "the August 4 primary is void." No controlling court has yet issued that specific judgment.

That distinction should be preserved in advocacy, litigation, testimony, and public writing because it makes the underlying argument more accurate and more defensible.