Legal Actions Against Missouri’s Secretary of State

Five voters in Missouri have initiated a legal case against Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, demanding about $80 million. The lawsuit stems from his handling of a congressional redistricting referendum, relying on a rarely cited state law dating back to at least 1909.

Class Action Proposal

The lawsuit seeks the statutory maximum of $500 for each of the roughly 162,000 confirmed petition signers. The case is filed as a proposed class action, but the court has yet to certify it as such. No liability or damages have been awarded against Hoskins thus far.

Details of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit, Bermudez et al. v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00591, was filed on September 11 in Cole County Circuit Court. It is based on Section 28.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. This provision allows individuals aggrieved by the secretary of state’s neglect or refusal to fulfill legal duties to take civil action.

Hoskins became Missouri’s 41st secretary of state in 2024. Prior to that, he was a member of both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives.

Allegations Against Hoskins

The plaintiffs’ claims arise from the controversy concerning the congressional map established through House Bill 1 (HB1) in 2025. The dispute revolves around whether Missouri should utilize its 2022 congressional map or the Republican-supported districts approved in 2025. The newer map could lead to Republicans holding seven of Missouri’s eight House seats instead of six.

Although the Missouri Supreme Court declared the 2025 districts invalid, a federal judge later mandated the use of the new map. Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied supporting the 2025 map request, while the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently stayed the federal judge’s order pending an appeal.

The lawsuit contends that Hoskins deemed the referendum petition insufficient despite acknowledging enough valid signatures. It also accuses him of instructing local election authorities to apply the HB1 congressional map following the Missouri Supreme Court’s directive to use the 2022 districts.

Moreover, the lawsuit claims Hoskins consented to a federal temporary restraining order, allegedly aiming to circumvent the state Supreme Court ruling. These are allegations, not confirmed facts in the lawsuit. The conflict arises amidst ongoing legal battles over Missouri’s congressional map for the 2026 elections.

Who Might Be Included?

The proposed class consists of registered Missouri voters with verified referendum signatures who were state citizens at the petition filing time. The plaintiffs assert that the names and addresses of potential class members can be obtained from the referendum petitions. The court must rule on whether the case can proceed as a class action before any classwide recovery considerations.

Hoskins’ Defense

Hoskins addressed the lawsuit on social media platform X, affirming adherence to Judge Clark’s federal temporary restraining order concerning congressional elections. He stated, “I will continue to abide by Judge Clark’s federal temporary restraining order on a federal congressional election.” He anticipates presenting his case in court.

Criticizing his adversaries, Hoskins pledged to protect Missouri’s values, opposing what he describes as “communists running NYC.” He later shared a photo on X holding a beverage, captioned “God bless the Show-Me State.”

Statutory Basis of the Lawsuit

Section 28.200 permits individuals aggrieved by the secretary of state’s neglect or refusal to fulfill duties to claim between $100 and $500. The statute’s history traces back earlier versions, with the current provision effective from August 28, 1945. The plaintiffs believe Hoskins did not meet duties related to the referendum over Missouri’s congressional map.

The law’s wording does not automatically entitle each plaintiff to $500, a figure mentioned as the statutory maximum.

Lawsuit’s Financial Implications

The proposed class encompasses around 162,000 Missouri voters whose petition signatures were verified, out of which the lawsuit estimates a potential recovery of approximately $80 million if each member receives $500. This amount reflects the requested sum, not any established fines or liabilities.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

The court must first address the proposed class and examine the statutory claims. Key unresolved questions include whether Section 28.200 allows the classwide recovery claimed by the plaintiffs. The court will also determine if each proposed class member qualifies as an aggrieved person and evaluate Hoskins’ available defenses.

The responsible party or entity for fulfilling any judgment, if the plaintiffs succeed, remains undetermined.