Cole County judge hears challenge to ballot language for Missouri congressional map
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ)
A bench trial began Monday in Jefferson City over the language that would place Missouri’s new congressional map on the November ballot.
The trial is the latest in a series of lawsuits challenging the congressional map the General Assembly passed during a September 2025 special session, a map that could possibly eliminate U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City–based 5th District and flip the seat to Republicans.
Sean Soendler Nicholson, a progressive political activist based in Kansas City who was hired to help defeat House Bill 1, testified as a witness for the plaintiffs. Nicholson's testimony focused on specific wording that would appear on the ballot.
The state did not call any witnesses; instead focusing its case on the map itself. Attorneys for both sides scrutinized differences between the old and new district boundaries, including how cities and counties are divided under each plan.
Nicholson also argued historical statewide voting patterns show Democrats typically receive about 40% of the vote in statewide elections. Yet, he said, Democrats currently hold only about 25% of Missouri’s U.S. House seats, and the new map would reduce that share to roughly 12%.
Hoskins’ attorney Kathleen Hunker pushed back, arguing the case is not about the merits of the map itself, but whether the ballot summary written by the Secretary of State’s Office is accurate, fair and free of prejudice.
That issue has been at the center of the case since People Not Politicians and its director Richard von Glahn filed a lawsuit in November 2025. The plaintiffs allege the ballot language drafted by Secretary of State Denny Hoskins is unfair, misleading and not authorized under state law, arguing Missouri law does not give the secretary of state authority to draft summary statements for referendum measures.
Hoskins rejects that claim, citing Missouri statutes that require the secretary of state to prepare ballot summaries for all statewide measures, including referendums. In a brief filed with the court, Hoskins’ office argued that limiting that authority to initiative petitions would create what it calls an “absurd result,” leaving referendum measures without a legally required ballot title.
In earlier hearings, Hoskins’ legal team conceded two phrases in the original summary — describing the prior map as “gerrymandered” and saying it “protects incumbent politicians” — were unfair and overly argumentative. Hoskins asked the court for permission to rewrite the ballot language, but Cole County Judge Brian Stumpe declined to approve that request outright, instead choosing to consider it as part of the trial.
Stumpe also denied a request from People Not Politicians to depose state elections officials, ruling the case should focus on the ballot language and map.
Despite conceding that the disputed phrases should be removed or rewritten, Hoskins maintains the remaining language accurately describes the central features of House Bill 1. His attorneys argue the new map is more compact than the 2022 plan, splits fewer counties and municipalities, and better reflects statewide voting patterns — factors they say are visible to voters and tied to constitutional redistricting requirements. The brief contends ballot summaries are not required to be exhaustive or free of positive attributes, only neutral and sufficient to give voters adequate notice of what the referendum would do.
After hearing arguments from both sides on Monday, Stumpe took the case under advisement. Hunker told ABC 17 News there is no set timeline for when a decision will be issued.
