Missouri's Gerrymandering Scandal: When Politicians Choose Their Voters

The Facts:

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has proposed ballot language for a potential referendum on the state’s newly drawn congressional map, characterizing it as replacing a “gerrymandered” version that “protects incumbent politicians” with boundaries that “better reflect statewide voting patterns.” The map was created during a September special legislative session called at the insistence of former President Donald Trump, with the explicit goal of giving Republicans an advantage in seven instead of their current six congressional seats. The plan specifically targets the 5th District, held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver since 2005.

Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway must review Hoskins’ proposed language within 10 days, and if unchanged, it will likely face legal challenges from Richard von Glahn of People Not Politicians, who called the language biased and inaccurate. Von Glahn argues that while statewide voting patterns give Republicans about 60% of the vote and Democrats 40%, the new map would reduce Democratic representation from 25% to just 12.5% of the state delegation.

The referendum effort itself is subject to multiple lawsuits across different jurisdictions, including cases questioning the legislature’s authority to revise districts without new census data, challenges to the governor’s power to call the special session, and a federal case where Hanaway argues redistricting plans are not subject to referendums because the U.S. Constitution vests this power solely with legislatures. Despite the legal battles, People Not Politicians claims to have collected over 200,000 signatures, far exceeding the required 106,384-115,720 needed from six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts.

Opinion:

This Missouri gerrymandering scandal represents one of the most egregious assaults on democracy I’ve witnessed in recent years. The sheer audacity of Secretary Hoskins attempting to frame blatant partisan manipulation as “fair representation” is nothing short of political gaslighting at its most dangerous. When elected officials openly work to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to choose their representatives, they undermine the very foundation of our constitutional republic.

What makes this particularly reprehensible is the coordinated effort to use legal technicalities and distorted language to circumvent the will of the people. The multiple lawsuits, the strategic timing of the special session, and the manipulation of ballot language all demonstrate a conscious effort to subvert democratic processes for partisan gain. This isn’t just politics as usual—it’s a systematic dismantling of electoral integrity that should alarm every American who values free and fair elections.

The argument that these maps “better reflect statewide voting patterns” while actually reducing minority representation is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. True representation requires respecting community boundaries, keeping cities and counties intact, and ensuring that every vote carries equal weight. Instead, we see the largest metro area divided into thirds and connected with communities 250 miles away—a textbook example of the manipulation the term “gerrymandering” was created to describe.

As someone who deeply believes in constitutional principles and democratic values, I find this manipulation of electoral districts particularly disturbing because it strikes at the heart of what makes America exceptional: our commitment to representative government. When politicians can predetermine electoral outcomes through map manipulation, they render the sacred act of voting meaningless. We must stand firm against these attacks on our democracy and fight for electoral systems that honor the principle that voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.