Top Missouri official faces price for going all in on Trump gerrymander.

This is Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team. Click here to receive it in your inbox each week.

For exactly one year, Missouri has been locked in a confusing legal battle over which congressional map it can use for the November elections, a byproduct of President Donald Trump pressuring GOP-run states to squeeze out more Republican House seats for this year’s midterms. Hundreds of thousands of Missourians coalesced to stop the madness via referendum petition, hoping to put the question of whether to use a new gerrymandered map more favorable to Republicans passed by the state Legislature last year or a 2022 map directly to voters. Their efforts were thwarted by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who rejected the petition right at the deadline, hours before the state’s primary election last month. A messy legal battle ensued, and earlier this month the Missouri Supreme Court sided with the petitioners, finding Hoskins in contempt while validating the legality of the referendum petition. Meanwhile, election officials are slated to begin sending out mail ballots to overseas and military voters this Friday, while candidates for office and voters are still consumed by chaos, unsure of which district they belong to or which office-seekers will be on their ballots.

Further escalating the drama is a fresh lawsuit brought by Missouri residents who are suing Hoskins over his handling of the referendum petition, invoking an obscure state statute that allows those aggrieved by the secretary of state to receive a monetary payment. If successful, Missouri could end up paying out a sum close to $80 million.

Buried in Missouri’s Constitution is a statute under Section 28.200 that says if the secretary of state should “neglect or refuse to perform any of the duties enjoined on him by law,” then aggrieved individuals are legally allowed to recover between $100 and $500 from them. Five Missouri residents who are each registered voters and signed onto the referendum petition over the state’s new congressional map filed a lawsuit against Hoskins last week, and they invoke this statute by arguing his actions when rejecting the petition were “illegal and contumacious.” Despite over 330,000 self-identified Missouri registered voters signing onto the petition, which was verified by local election authorities, Hoskins refused to certify it. Though he did not dispute the validity of the signatures, he argued, ultimately unsuccessfully, that acts of the Missouri Legislature that related to congressional districts simply were not subject to the people’s referendum power.

The lawsuit explains how in early September, the Missouri Supreme Court found that the referendum petition was legally valid, declared the new gerrymandered congressional map was never effective, and then ordered Hoskins to proceed with using the old 2022 congressional map for the upcoming November election. This is where things get confusing, as three days after the Missouri Supreme Court issued its ruling, Hoskins ran to the U.S. Supreme Court to file an appeal, which Justice Brett Kavanaugh flatly rejected. Desperate to keep their gerrymandered map alive, Missouri Republican Rep. Robert Onder filed a competing lawsuit immediately after SCOTUS’ decision. This is when Missouri Republicans finally struck gold, with a lower district court judge siding with Onder and issuing a directive not to use any map except the gerrymandered one drawn in 2025.

Hoskins chose to comply with the lower court judge’s order over the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the state Supreme Court reason to hold Hoskins in contempt. “In so doing, Hoskins violated the duties enjoined on him by law,” the referendum petition lawsuit now contends, also noting that the Missouri Supreme Court addressed the map discrepancy, but blamed it on Hoskins’ “own lack of diligence in performing his duties in reviewing the Referendum petitions.” In order to absolve himself of contempt, Hoskins finally issued new guidance to local election authorities directing them to use the 2022 congressional maps, but only after a second rebuke from SCOTUS.

Now, the referendum petition lawsuit seeks class-action status for 162,000 of the 330,000 signatories. Charles Rhodes, professor of law at the University of Missouri, told me the future of this lawsuit will likely come down to how the courts choose to define an “aggrieved” person. “This lawsuit could be very strong if it was more limited in scope. I think there are several people that are persons aggrieved,” he said, like candidates for office who fell under one district during Missouri’s primary—which used the new gerrymandered map—but stand to be placed in a different district come November, as the state is currently slated to use the 2022 map. “I could see persons aggrieved under the statute also applying to every person who signed one of the referendum petitions and didn’t get to vote in the same primary district as they will have to vote in the general election.”

Persons who signed onto the referendum petition whose congressional district doesn’t change between the new map and the 2022 version could have a harder time proving that they’re aggrieved, as the switch-up does not impact their ability to vote. The Associated Press estimated about 23 percent of Missouri voters will be in a different congressional district in November than they were during the state’s August primary, which amounts to over 1 million people.

In these types of situations, in order to maintain consistency, judges typically order states to redo their elections, but in Missouri that has not happened, likely because the state’s primary is scheduled just three months before the general election. “It is strange,” Rhodes said. “Most of the time they go ahead and order a new primary, but there’s no time.”

This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only

The Jewish Leaders Celebrating Macklemore’s Dismissal From Ed Sheeran’s Tour Have Lost the Plot on Antisemitism

John Roberts’ New Role Model Demonstrates Everything Wrong With the Supreme Court

This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only

A Promising Young TV Star Was Sentenced to 92 Years for a Brutal Crime He Says He Didn’t Commit. Then a Prison Guard Delivered a Life-Changing Message.

We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term

The status of which map will be used in November is technically still up in the air. The competing lawsuit from Onder is still ongoing, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit scheduled to hear arguments on Thursday. Critically, whatever decision they make can be further appealed up to the Supreme Court—yet again.

All of this legal drama is over a singular congressional seat. Missouri Republicans’ gerrymandered map splits Kansas City into three separate districts, along racial lines. If it’s used, it would end up unseating Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, one of only two Black members of Congress out of Missouri’s eight House seats. A Republican has not represented his Kansas City district since before the Korean War.

Cleaver, in acknowledging the congressional map whiplash over his district, said, “the worst part is that it tells voters there are people who will do just about anything to win.”

We hope you learned a thing or two from this edition of Executive Dysfunction, and if you enjoyed reading it, please consider supporting our legal journalism by becoming a Slate Plus member!

Elsewhere in Jurisprudence

In this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Jacob Weisberg about all the people who failed to hold the line in President Donald Trump’s second term. From the law firms who fell in line to the Supreme Court’s fatal miscalculation about the president being just another generic Republican, critical institutions have failed to hold up.

For the Amicus bonus episode, Dahlia unpacks the election mayhem happening in Missouri with Madiba K. Dennie, deputy editor and senior contributor at Balls and Strikes. They also discuss the latest attempt to ban abortion nationwide in Louisiana v. FDA.

After the Supreme Court shot down President Trump’s mail-voting executive order, he predictably lashed out. In denouncing his appointees, Trump demonstrated just how much SCOTUS has actually insulated him from accountability. Friends of Slate Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan, professors at Harvard Law, argue that now Congress must step in to limit the Supreme Court’s power to give presidents like Trump everything they want.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear another gun rights case, this time a challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Connecticut and Illinois. Friend of Slate Jacob Charles, law professor at Pepperdine University, argues the justices should simply stay out of this dispute and respect states’ rights to rule themselves.

The Utah Legislature created a novel solution to a judge striking down the state’s new gerrymandered congressional map. They passed a law establishing a judicial panel that has the authority to veto judges’ rulings. The Utah Supreme Court is now considering the legality of such a panel, which friend of Slate Michael Milov-Cordoba, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program, argues puts state courts in a precarious position as they’re tasked with setting limits on legislatures’ authority.

Late Monday, the Supreme Court finally put President Trump’s unlawful mail-voting executive order to bed. In a three-sentence ruling, the justices held that the federal government would likely lose on the legal question of the U.S. Postal Service’s authority to reject mail ballots, which friend of Slate Richard L. Hasen, professor of law at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, explains.

Andrew and Tristan Tate seem to be on their way to becoming the next Epstein-style scandal for the Trump administration, argues Joshua Kolb, senior counsel at Democracy Defenders Action. The “manosphere” influencer brothers have been accused of running a decadeslong international sex-trafficking ring with plenty of connections to the world’s top political elite—including Trump family members.

Thank you for reading Executive Dysfunction! We’re thrilled to be in your feeds and will be back with more dysfunction analysis next week.