Aston04 said:

---

The legislature passed the new map. That is the will of the people. Not signatures on a petition (a mere fraction of the voting population) fighting it.

The default should be the map passed by the legislature, until a petition is successful, not merely on the ballot.

Oh, you can complain about the sos. Guess what? Who elected him too? Yes, the people of Missouri. And he acted upon legal advice he was given by the attorney general of the state AND a lower court had agreed with him in rejecting the petition.

As a Missouri voter, I feel completely disenfranchised. The left is hijacking this solidly red state via how this played out.

---

Then get the legislature to amend the law.

Just remember that should the Democrats take the state, they can do exactly the same thing.

eric76 said:

---

To use the new map legally, it must be approved by the citizens of the state in a referendum.

The problem was caused by the Missouri of State deciding that legalities don't matter. The Secretary of State knew that a referendum was required but ignored that and chose to use the new map even though it had never been legally approved by the voters.

Blame the Secretary of State for this mess. If he had followed the law instead of brazenly flouting it, there would not be an issue.

---

When the SOS approved the new map, ONE court had ruled on the petition - and REJECTED it. LEGALLY, he was bound to put it in place since the legislature had passed it and the governor had signed it.

The MOSC ruled AFTER it was put in place AND after primaries had been held.

Should the SOS have told the legislature and governor to go **** themselves when all of the legal advice he had AT THE TIME stated it should be enacted?

eric76 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

The legislature passed the new map. That is the will of the people. Not signatures on a petition (a mere fraction of the voting population) fighting it.

The default should be the map passed by the legislature, until a petition is successful, not merely on the ballot.

Oh, you can complain about the sos. Guess what? Who elected him too? Yes, the people of Missouri. And he acted upon legal advice he was given by the attorney general of the state AND a lower court had agreed with him in rejecting the petition.

As a Missouri voter, I feel completely disenfranchised. The left is hijacking this solidly red state via how this played out.

---

Then get the legislature to amend the law.

Just remember that should the Democrats take the state, they can do exactly the same thing.

---

Ironically, Democrats have put an initiative on the ballot that would block the legislature from passing a new map prior to 2030 and arguably even then.

They already have slick ads with one random turn coat republican saying amendment 6 is a good idea.

The Republican leadership in Missouri is terrible. They have been out maneuvered at every turn the last year on the map and 2 other statewide initiatives.

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

To use the new map legally, it must be approved by the citizens of the state in a referendum.

The problem was caused by the Missouri of State deciding that legalities don't matter. The Secretary of State knew that a referendum was required but ignored that and chose to use the new map even though it had never been legally approved by the voters.

Blame the Secretary of State for this mess. If he had followed the law instead of brazenly flouting it, there would not be an issue.

---

When the SOS approved the new map, ONE court had ruled on the petition - and REJECTED it. LEGALLY, he was bound to put it in place since the legislature had passed it and the governor had signed it.

The MOSC ruled AFTER it was put in place AND after primaries had been held.

Should the SOS have told the legislature and governor to go **** themselves when all of the legal advice he had AT THE TIME stated it should be enacted?

---

No.

The Missouri courts did not reject the petition prior to the primaries. The Missouri courts said that the petition had to be legally sufficient in order to suspend the new map and require a referendum. (The argument in the case was over whether simply filing a petition suspended the new map.)

https://cases.justia.com/missouri/supreme-court/2026-sc101581.pdf?ts=1778617804



Again, the mess comes back to the fact that the Secretary of State sat on the petition for months and waited until the literal day of the primaries to (incorrectly) reject it. That left no time for the courts to review his decision.

As the Missouri Supreme said in the above linked May 2026 opinion, "only when the secretary's review along with any judicial review is complete will the question be decided of whether HB 1 went into effect on December 11 or was referred to the people on December 9 before HB 1 went into effect."

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

To use the new map legally, it must be approved by the citizens of the state in a referendum.

The problem was caused by the Missouri of State deciding that legalities don't matter. The Secretary of State knew that a referendum was required but ignored that and chose to use the new map even though it had never been legally approved by the voters.

Blame the Secretary of State for this mess. If he had followed the law instead of brazenly flouting it, there would not be an issue.

---

When the SOS approved the new map, ONE court had ruled on the petition - and REJECTED it. LEGALLY, he was bound to put it in place since the legislature had passed it and the governor had signed it.

The MOSC ruled AFTER it was put in place AND after primaries had been held.

Should the SOS have told the legislature and governor to go **** themselves when all of the legal advice he had AT THE TIME stated it should be enacted?

---

No.

The Missouri courts did not reject the petition prior to the primaries. The Missouri courts said that the petition had to be legally sufficient in order to suspend the new map and require a referendum. (The argument in the case was over whether simply filing a petition suspended the new map.)

https://cases.justia.com/missouri/supreme-court/2026-sc101581.pdf?ts=1778617804



Again, the mess comes back to the fact that the Secretary of State sat on the petition for months and waited until the literal day of the primaries to (incorrectly) reject it. That left no time for the courts to review his decision.

As the Missouri Supreme said in the above linked May 2026 opinion, "only when the secretary's review along with any judicial review is complete will the question be decided of whether HB 1 went into effect on December 11 or was referred to the people on December 9 before HB 1 went into effect."

---

This was the judgment of the circuit court IN 2025:

Quote:

---

The circuit court entered judgment against Appellants, dismissing their petition for lack of standing and, alternatively, dismissing their petition for lack of ripeness, for presenting a nonjusticiable political question, and for seeking a declaratory judgment when an adequate statutory remedy exists.

---

But, thank you for posting the MOSC ruling that occurred AFTER the primaries...like I stated above.

So, the ONLY legal ruling that the SoS had when he implemented the 7-1 map was...that the referendum was rejected by the circuit court. And he had a map that had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. So, was he supposed to violate the law and not implement a map that, AT THE TIME, had not been ruled against?


Your actual problem here is that the right actually used your side's lawfare game of delay, delay, delay to achieve something.

Nope.

"Opinion issued May 12, 2026"

It's literally in red print on the front page so you don't miss it.

The primaries took place in August.

And "petition" in your quote means their petition to the court. Not the actual petition for a referendum on redisticting.