Obscure Missouri Law at Center of $80 Million Lawsuit Against Denny Hoskins - Newsweek

Five Missouri voters are seeking approximately $80 million from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins over his handling of a congressional redistricting referendum, invoking an obscure state law that dates back at least to 1909.

The proposed class action seeks the statutory maximum of $500 for each of approximately 162,000 verified petition signers, according to the complaint. But the case has not been certified as a class action, and the court has not ruled that Hoskins is liable or awarded any damages.

The lawsuit, Bermudez et al. v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00591, was filed September 11 in Cole County Circuit Court. It centers on Section 28.200 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, a provision that allows a person who is "aggrieved" by a secretary of state's neglect or refusal to perform a legal duty to bring a civil action.

Hoskins was elected Missouri's 41st secretary of state in 2024. Before taking office, he served in both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives.

The plaintiffs' claims stem from Missouri's dispute over a congressional map enacted through House Bill 1 (HB1) in 2025. As reported by Newsweek, the dispute centers on whether Missouri should use its 2022 congressional map or the Republican-backed districts approved in 2025. The newer map could give Republicans seven of Missouri's eight House seats, rather than six.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the 2025 districts had not taken effect, but a federal judge later ordered officials to use the newer map. Justice Brett Kavanaugh subsequently rejected a request supporting the 2025 map, before the full U.S. Supreme Court paused the federal judge's order while the case is appealed.

The lawsuit alleges that Hoskins declared the referendum petition insufficient even though, according to the plaintiffs, he did not dispute that it contained enough valid signatures.

The plaintiffs also allege that Hoskins directed local election authorities to use the HB1 congressional map after the Missouri Supreme Court ordered that the districts enacted in 2022 be used.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Hoskins agreed to a federal temporary restraining order that the plaintiffs characterize as an attempt to circumvent the state Supreme Court's ruling.

Those are allegations made in the complaint and have not been established as findings of fact in the damages case.

The dispute follows a broader legal battle over which congressional map Missouri should use for the 2026 elections.

The proposed class would cover registered Missouri voters whose referendum signatures were verified and who were state citizens when the petition was filed, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say the names and addresses of potential class members are available from the referendum petitions.

But the proposed class has not yet been certified. The court will have to determine whether the case can proceed on behalf of the larger group before any classwide recovery could be considered.

Hoskins responded to the lawsuit on X, saying he would continue to comply with a federal temporary restraining order issued by Judge Clark concerning the congressional election.

"I will continue to abide by Judge Clark’s federal temporary restraining order on a federal congressional election," Hoskins wrote. "I look forward to my day in court."

He also criticized his opponents, saying he would "always fight to protect our common-sense Missouri values" and that Missouri would not be run "like the communists running NYC" on his watch.

He later posted on X what appeared to be a picture of him holding a drink in his hand with the caption: "God bless the Show-Me State."

Section 28.200 of the statute provides that if the secretary of state "neglects or refuses to perform any duty imposed upon him by law," the official "shall pay to the person aggrieved" between $100 and $500.

The provision has a long history. The state's statutory history traces earlier versions to 1909, 1919, 1929 and 1939, while the current provision became effective August 28, 1945.

The language is at the center of the new lawsuit because the plaintiffs argue that Hoskins failed to perform duties connected to a referendum over Missouri's congressional map.

The law does not itself establish that the plaintiffs are entitled to $500 each. That amount is the maximum provided by the statute.

The proposed class consists of registered Missouri voters whose signatures on the People Not Politicians referendum petition were verified and who were Missouri citizens when the petition was filed, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint estimates that approximately 162,000 people meet the proposed class definition, meaning the potential recovery could reach about $80 million if each member were awarded the statutory maximum.

That figure is the amount requested in the lawsuit, not a fine, judgment or established liability.

The court would first have to address the proposed class and the underlying statutory claim.

Among the unresolved questions is whether Section 28.200 permits the kind of classwide recovery sought by the plaintiffs in this case. The court may also have to determine whether each proposed class member qualifies as a "person aggrieved" under the statute and what defenses are available to Hoskins.

It is also not yet clear what person or entity would ultimately be responsible for satisfying any judgment if the plaintiffs were to prevail.