By Tom Hicks | September 13, 2026
Editorial Note
There’s been no shortage of court rulings against the Trump administration lately. Read enough headlines, and you could come away believing the system is working exactly the way your eighth-grade civics teacher promised: government overreaches, somebody sues, a judge says no, and the constitutional machinery clicks neatly back into place. The problem is that courts can stop what happens next. They’re considerably worse at giving yesterday back.
MISSOURI FOUND THE LOOPHOLE
Missouri Republicans passed a new congressional map in September 2025 that broke apart the Kansas City district represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver and was designed to give Republicans a shot at winning seven of the state’s eight House seats. Opponents responded with a referendum petition, gathering enough signatures to put the map before voters. Under Missouri’s Constitution, a sufficient referendum petition suspends the challenged law until voters decide whether to approve it. The fight should have become fairly straightforward at that point. Missouri Supreme Court opinion
It didn’t, because Secretary of State Denny Hoskins decided congressional redistricting couldn’t be challenged by referendum at all. He waited until August 4, the statutory deadline, to issue a certificate declaring the petition legally insufficient even though its signatures and timing weren’t disputed. That happened on the same day Missouri conducted its congressional primaries using the new map. By the time the courts finally sorted out whether Hoskins was right, about 1.2 million Missourians had already voted under districts that the state’s highest court would later say had never legally taken effect. Federal court record in Onder v. Missouri
On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court answered the underlying question unanimously in von Glahn v. Hoskins, No. SC101805 (Mo. Sept. 3, 2026). The state constitution says voters may challenge “any act of the general assembly” by referendum, the court held, and congressional redistricting isn’t one of the exceptions. Because the petition was legal, timely, and sufficient, House Bill 1 never took effect, meaning Missouri was supposed to use its 2022 congressional districts for the November election unless voters later approved the new map. von Glahn v. Hoskins
And then came the part that makes this a Blind Spot instead of another redistricting story. Opponents of returning to the lawful map argued that changing districts now would create chaos because candidates had campaigned under the new districts, voters had already cast primary ballots under them, and election officials would have to undo months of preparation. In other words, the disruption created by using a map that never legally took effect became an argument for continuing to use it. The government had managed to turn the consequences of getting the law wrong into evidence that correcting the mistake would be too disruptive. Missouri’s emergency Supreme Court filing
That argument wasn’t theoretical. On September 8, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary restraining order in Onder v. State of Missouri, No. 4:26-cv-01424-SRC (E.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2026), ordering the state to keep using the new map for November. The Missouri Supreme Court had already said that map had never become law, but Clark focused heavily on what had happened while everyone behaved as though it had, including the August primary and the disruption that switching back could cause. The clock had created its own legal argument. Federal TRO in Onder v. Missouri
🔒 BLIND SPOT CONTINUES FOR PAID SUBSCRIBERS
The Missouri fight is where this story starts. It isn’t where it ends.
Blind Spot is the Sunday premium edition of Off Script, built for the stories that need more room than the daily news cycle gives them.
Upgrade to a paid subscription to keep reading and support the reporting, research, and publishing behind Tom Hicks Media.
