Five Missouri voters are seeking approximately $80 million from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins over his handling of a congressional redistricting referendum, invoking an obscure state law that dates back at least to 1909. The proposed class action seeks the statutory maximum of $500 for each of approximately 162,000 verified petition signers, according to the complaint. But the case has not been certified as a class action, and the court has not ruled that Hoskins is liable or awarded any damages.
The lawsuit, Bermudez et al. v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00591, was filed September 11 in Cole County Circuit Court. It centers on Section 28.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, a provision that allows a person who is "aggrieved" by a secretary of state's neglect or refusal to perform a legal duty to bring a civil action.
Hoskins was elected Missouri's 41st secretary of state in 2024. Before taking office, he served in both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives. The plaintiffs' claims stem from Missouri's dispute over a congressional map enacted through House Bill 1 (HB1) in 2025.
As reported by Newsweek, the dispute centers on whether Missouri should use its 2022 congressional map or the Republican-backed districts approved in 2025. The newer map could give Republicans seven of Missouri's eight House seats, rather than six. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the 2025 districts had not taken effect, but a federal judge later ordered officials to use the newer map.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh subsequently rejected a request supporting the 2025 map, before the full U.S. Supreme Court paused the federal judge's order while the case is appealed. The lawsuit alleges that Hoskins declared the referendum petition insufficient even though, according to the plaintiffs, he did not dispute that it contained enough valid signatures.
The plaintiffs also allege that Hoskins directed local election authorities to use the HB1 congressional map after the Missouri Supreme Court ordered that the districts enacted in 2022 be used. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Hoskins agreed to a federal temporary restraining order that the plaintiffs characterize as an attempt to circumvent the state Supreme Court's ruling. Those are allegations made in the complaint and have not been established as findings of fact in the damages case.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
