Opinion in von Glahn v. Hoskins, SC101805

… chose not to seek resolution of the constitutional question despite having been told at least as | early as December 2025 he had the unique ability as secretary to do so under Missouri statutes. Given these undisputed facts, the secretary’s arguments about confusion, expense, and practical difficulties are wholly unpersuasive. Perhaps worse, these arguments fundamentally misunderstand the status of HB 1 pending | the referendum vote. HB 1 is not the law and has never been the law. There is only one valid | congressional redistricting in effect—the congressional redistricting the General Assembly | established in 2022. Under article III, section 52(b), HB 1 “shall take effect when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise.” Unless and until the voters approve HB 1 | | 12 | i 13a In summary, this Court reaffirms Maggard. Because the referendum petition was legal, | …