Missouri HB 1 status live
-
Missouri-law status
HB 1 held not effective
final
The Missouri Supreme Court held HB 1 never took effect; the 2022 map remains Missouri law unless voters approve HB 1 on November 3.
-
Federal election status
Clark TRO currently requires HB 1
temporary
A 14-day 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 The substance of a legal dispute — who is actually right — as opposed to procedural or emergency questions about what should happen in the meantime.. entered September 8 prohibits Missouri from using any congressional map other than HB 1 for the November election while it remains in effect.
-
Eighth Circuit
Emergency appeal pending
pending
The 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. proponents appealed the TRO and sought an immediate Administrative stay Very short-term relief often used by an appellate court to preserve the situation while judges consider a fuller request for a stay. It does not ordinarily indicate how the court will ultimately rule.. No later Eighth Circuit order resolving the map question has been verified.
-
U.S. Supreme Court (26A304)
Emergency stay denied September 8
final
Justice Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application without explanation. This was Emergency application A request asking a court to act quickly, outside the ordinary briefing schedule. A ruling on one decides whether to grant emergency relief, not who is right about the underlying dispute., not a merits determination.
-
Missouri Supreme Court enforcement
Contempt/enforcement proceeding reported
reported
AP reports a Contempt A court's finding that someone disobeyed its order, and the process for asking a court to make such a finding. A request for contempt is an allegation; only the court decides. request was filed Tuesday night and that argument was scheduled for Thursday. Neither the motion nor the court's notice has been obtained.
-
November referendum
On the November 3, 2026 ballot
final
HB 1 cannot take effect unless approved by voters at the November 3 referendum.
-
Next critical election deadline
UOCAVA ballot transmission
pending
Ballots for military and overseas voters must be transmitted on a statutory schedule. The controlling date for Missouri's November 3 election has not been sourced here and is not stated until it is.
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. The Eighth Circuit has been asked to review that federal order.
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 RECORDThe 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.
- 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
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).
- Still to come
-
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.”
-
09/10/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court
Missouri Supreme Court argument reported scheduled
The Associated Press reports that the Missouri Supreme Court scheduled argument for Thursday. Reading AP's September 8 report, that is September 10, 2026. The court's own notice has not been obtained and the date is therefore derived, not verified.
Primary document still needed: The Missouri Supreme Court's hearing noticereportedAssociated Press - What has happened
-
09/08/2026 · 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.
verifiedSupreme Court of the United States · ReutersWhat 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.
-
09/08/2026 · Federal District Court
Chief Judge Clark issues a 14-day temporary restraining order
Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing Missouri from using any congressional map other than HB 1 for the November election. Clark did not hold that the Missouri Supreme Court was wrong about Missouri law. His reasoning focused on what happened after Missouri conducted the August primary under HB 1: voters participated under HB 1 districts, nominees were selected under those districts, campaigns operated within them, and the primary cannot physically be rerun merely by declaring HB 1 never effective under state law. He found that changing districts between the primary and the general election could create asserted Article I, section 2 and Equal Protection injuries and severe election disruption.
verifiedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (copy via Democracy Docket) · Associated PressJudge 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.
-
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 modifiedreportedAssociated Press -
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 timestampreportedMissouri Secretary of State (official account) (not yet obtained) -
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 -
09/08/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court
Contempt and enforcement request reported filed at the Missouri Supreme Court
The Associated Press reports that Richard von Glahn filed a request on Tuesday night asking the Missouri Supreme Court to hold the Secretary in contempt for attempting to implement HB 1 following the federal TRO. The motion itself has not been obtained, and no allegation in it is reproduced here.
Primary document still needed: The actual motion PDF, docket timestamp, exact relief requested, exhibits, any response, and any court order or hearing noticereportedAssociated Press -
09/04/2026 · Missouri Supreme Court
Missouri Supreme Court denies a stay of its injunction
The Missouri Supreme Court denied the Secretary's request to stay the Injunction A court order directing a person or government official to do something or stop doing something. entered in SC101805.
verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri -
09/04/2026 · Federal District Court
Separate federal action filed in the Eastern District of Missouri
Onder et al. v. Missouri election officials was filed 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.
-
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 amici, the September 8 reply, and the September 8 denial.
-
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.
verifiedSupreme Court of Missouri · JustiaThe 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.
-
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 -
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 timestampreportedMissouri Secretary of State (official) (not yet obtained) -
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 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. 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.
-
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 -
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.
-
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 quotationreportedABC17 News (not yet obtained) -
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 -
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 Unripe A case a court declines to decide because the dispute has not yet developed enough to be resolved.. 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) -
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 transcript has not been obtained.
Primary document still needed: November 25, 2025 hearing transcriptreportedU.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri (not yet obtained) -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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
Open questions
None of these is answered here until a document answers it.
- Why was the August 4 certificate issued approximately one hour before the deadline?
- When did signature verification actually establish sufficient signatures?
- When did the Secretary of State reach its constitutional conclusion?
- What exactly did the Secretary of State tell local election authorities on September 8?
- What relief does the contempt and enforcement motion request?
- What will the Eighth Circuit do with Judge Clark's TRO?
- Will 28 U.S.C. § 2284 require a three-judge district court?
- 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
HB 1 PASSED
|
v
REFERENDUM PETITION
300,000+ RAW SIGNATURES
|
v
SOS FULL VERIFICATION
+ CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
|
v
AUGUST 4 PRIMARY BEGINS
USING HB 1
|
v
~4 P.M. AUGUST 4
SOS CERTIFIES PETITION INSUFFICIENT
ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
|
v
JUDICIAL REVIEW
|
v
SEPTEMBER 3
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT:
PETITION LEGAL + SUFFICIENT + TIMELY
HB 1 NEVER TOOK EFFECT
|
v
SCOTUS EMERGENCY STAY REQUEST
|
v
SEPTEMBER 8
KAVANAUGH DENIES STAY
|
+----------------------------+
| |
v v
STATE INJUNCTION SEPARATE FEDERAL CASE
NO HB 1 CLARK TRO: USE HB 1
| |
+-------------+--------------+
|
v
PRESENT COLLISION
|
+--------+---------+
| |
v v
8TH CIRCUIT MO SUPREME COURT
EMERGENCY ENFORCEMENT/
APPEAL CONTEMPT TRACK