Five Missouri voters are seeking approximately $80 million from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins. This is related to his handling of a congressional redistricting referendum. They invoke an obscure state law dating back to at least 1909. The proposed class action aims for the statutory maximum of $500 for each of around 162,000 verified petition signers. However, the class action status is not yet certified, and the court hasn’t determined liability or awarded damages.

The lawsuit, identified as Bermudez et al. v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00591, was filed on September 11 in the Cole County Circuit Court. It revolves around Section 28.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. This provision allows individuals aggrieved by a secretary of state’s neglect or refusal to perform a legal duty to bring a civil action.

Details of the Lawsuit Allegations

The plaintiffs’ claims arise from Missouri’s dispute over a congressional map enacted through House Bill 1 (HB1) in 2025. The contention involves whether Missouri should use its 2022 congressional map or the Republican-backed districts approved in 2025. The latter could result in Republicans securing seven of Missouri’s eight House seats instead of the previous six. The Missouri Supreme Court stated that the 2025 districts had not come into effect. However, a federal judge directed officials to implement the updated map. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dismissed a request supporting the 2025 map before the full U.S. Supreme Court paused the federal judge’s mandate during the appeal process.

The lawsuit contends that Hoskins declared the referendum petition inadequate despite not challenging its count of valid signatures. Additionally, it claims Hoskins instructed local election authorities to utilize the HB1 congressional map following a Missouri Supreme Court directive to adhere to the 2022 districts. The suit also alleges Hoskins agreed to a federal temporary restraining order, which plaintiffs described as an attempt to sidestep the state Supreme Court’s ruling. All these allegations remain unproven in the damages case.

Proposed Class Inclusion

The class would encompass registered Missouri voters whose referendum signatures were verified and who were state citizens when the petition was filed. The plaintiffs assert that the names and addresses of potential class members are accessible from the referendum petitions. Certification of the class is pending. The court will decide if the case should proceed for the larger group before considering any classwide recovery.

Hoskins’ Defense

Hoskins responded on X, indicating he would comply with a federal temporary restraining order issued by Judge Clark related to the congressional election. Hoskins emphasized his adherence to the order and expressed his anticipation for his day in court.

He criticized his opponents, pledging to uphold Missouri values and resisting influences he deemed akin to those in New York City. Hoskins later shared a post on X, appearing with a drink in hand, captioned “God bless the Show-Me State.”

Understanding the Statute

Section 28.200 dictates that if the secretary of state neglects or refuses a legally imposed duty, the official should pay the aggrieved person between $100 and $500. The statutory history traces earlier versions of this provision back to 1909, with the current version effective since August 28, 1945. The language is crucial in the lawsuit as plaintiffs argue Hoskins failed in duties related to a referendum on Missouri’s congressional map. The statute doesn’t guarantee $500 to each plaintiff, only that this is the maximum allowed.

Calculation of the $80 Million Claim

The proposed class consists of verified signatories on the People Not Politicians referendum petition who were Missouri citizens at the filing time. The lawsuit estimates about 162,000 individuals meet these criteria, meaning potential recovery could reach $80 million if each obtains the statutory maximum. This sum represents the lawsuit’s request, not a predetermined fine or judgment.

Next Legal Steps

The court needs to address the proposed class and the underlying statutory claim. Unanswered questions include whether Section 28.200 allows for the type of classwide recovery the plaintiffs seek. The court may also determine each proposed class member’s qualification as a “person aggrieved” and assess Hoskins’ defenses. It remains unclear who would be responsible for satisfying any judgment if the plaintiffs succeed.