The Secretary of State Who Out-Purcelled Purcell

GrantPrimary day, ballots still being counted, and Missouri's Secretary of State picks that exact moment to kill a three hundred thousand signature petition.

MayaWait, on the actual deadline? That's not a coincidence, Grant. That's a stopwatch.

GrantNBC News reported Hoskins rejected the referendum right on the statutory deadline, and it happened to land on primary day itself.

MayaAnd then he says the quiet part out loud.

GrantHe said he was hopeful that the courts would decide in my favor.

MayaHopeful, like he's picking lottery numbers, not deciding whether three hundred thousand Missourians get a say in their own map.

GrantI'm Grant.

MayaI'm Maya. This is Power Check, and today, we're watching an election official try to run out the clock on democracy itself.

GrantBold strategy.

MayaDoes it work?

GrantThat's the question we're sitting with all episode.

MayaBecause this petition didn't appear yesterday.

GrantNo. It sat on his desk for eight months.

MayaEight months, while the map stayed in effect, while candidates filed, while the whole election machinery just kept rolling forward.

GrantAnd then, right when courts have zero time left to fix anything, he finally acts.

MayaSo was that an accident or a plan?

GrantAnd even if it was a plan, could it actually hold up?

MayaAnd normally, how would courts even fix a map this late in the game?

GrantNormally, they'd have weeks. That's the whole point of getting a challenge in early.

MayaTwo questions, one rewind.

GrantLet's go back to month one, when that petition first landed on his desk.

MayaOkay, so we know the referendum landed on Hoskins' desk, but let's talk about the map it's trying to kill because that thing has a birthday.

GrantSeptember twenty twenty-five, that's when Missouri First actually passed the legislature.

MayaMissouri First. Subtle.

GrantRight, and it's already drawn, already law, already the district lines everybody's running under, while this referendum is just sitting there.

MayaAnd get this, according to later reporting on the case, the signatures actually landed on Hoskins' desk back in December.

GrantDecember.

MayaDecember.

GrantSo this isn't a guy who got the paperwork on a Tuesday and had to scramble.

MayaNo, he had it before Christmas.

GrantNice holiday reading.

MayaRight?

GrantHere's what bugs me about the timeline, though. Petition validation in Missouri isn't supposed to be some black box. There's a process. There's a certification step. County clerks sign off.

MayaAnd normally, that moves.

GrantIt moves. Weeks, maybe a couple months if there's a real dispute, not this.

MayaSo if a normal petition takes weeks, what's Missouri's excuse for eight months on this one?

GrantThat's what bugs me. County clerks sign the signature counts, the Secretary of State's office reviews it, and there's supposed to be a public determination somewhere in there. None of those steps are built to take the better part of a year.

MayaAnd nobody's pointed to some giant backlog or emergency that ate up that time.

GrantNot that's been reported anywhere. It's just eight months of quiet.

MayaSo walk me through what he was actually doing all that time.

GrantOfficially? Nothing anyone's pointed to. No big fight over signature counts, no big legal brief explaining a hold up.

MayaJust silence.

GrantJust silence and a calendar running out.

MayaWhich, I mean, if you're cynical, that's not incompetence. That's a strategy.

GrantCould be. Could also just be a slow office. I've seen plenty of state agencies that are just bad at their jobs for free.

MayaSure, the boring explanation exists.

GrantIt does, but the boring explanation doesn't usually end with the rejection landing on the exact day it becomes legally hardest to fix.

MayaSo the eight months isn't nothing. It's the whole setup for what comes next.

GrantExactly. It's the runway.

MayaWhich is the part that gets us to deadline day itself.

GrantRight, because sitting on it is one thing. What he actually did on that specific day is where you can see the move for what it is.

MayaOh, we are so getting into that.

GrantWe are. Okay, so primary day comes. Hoskins rejects it right on the deadline, and then he actually says the quiet part.

MayaWhich part? NBC News reported he admitted the timing made reverting to the old map difficult.

GrantWait, he said that himself?

MayaBasically. He's not even pretending the clock wasn't the point.

GrantOkay, but hold on. Government offices are slow. Signature verification is slow. Maybe this is just incompetence with good timing.

MayaEight months of incompetence that happens to hit exactly on primary day?

GrantI've seen slower agencies. I've dealt with title transfers that took longer than that.

MayaSure, but titles don't flip control of a congressional map.

GrantFair.

MayaBut you'd agree the timing here isn't just close, it's exact. Deadline day, primary day, same day.

GrantI'll agree it's suspicious. I just wanna see what the actual court record says about intent before I call it proven.

MayaAnd there's already a case moving on this, Von Glahn versus Hoskins. That's the challenge to his rejection, and it's sitting with the Missouri Supreme Court right now.

GrantSo the fight over whether he can even do this is already in front of judges.

MayaRight. Before he even rejected it, the lawsuit was building.

GrantWhich tells you something. If you know a court's about to look at your decision and you wait until the exact day that makes reversal hardest...

MayaThat's not bureaucracy. That's strategy.

GrantI'll go that far. Structurally, though, I still wanna see intent proven, not just inferred from timing.

MayaYou want a smoking gun email.

GrantI want more than good timing, yeah.

MayaWell, hold that thought, because this whole maneuver only works because of one legal doctrine

GrantThe one where courts don't wanna change election rules right before a vote.

MayaExactly. And it's meant to restrain judges from making last-minute changes that confuse voters or election workers

GrantNot to hand election officials a free pass to sit on their hands for months

MayaThat's the distinction that matters here

GrantThe doctrine polices judicial timing. Hoskins is an executive branch official using it like a shield for his own inaction

MayaWhich is a very different animal

GrantAnd that distinction is exactly why this case matters beyond Missouri. Anywhere an official controls the clock, they can try the same move

MayaWhich is the scarier version of the story

GrantSo before we get into how the Missouri Supreme Court actually ruled on this-

MayaWe should probably explain what this doctrine is actually for, because right now it sounds like magic words that make courts back off

GrantIt's not magic. It's a real principle with a real purpose, and it's worth getting straight before we watch Hoskins bend it. So strip away the Missouri specifics for a second. Purcell is a doctrine. It just tells courts not to change election rules or maps right before a vote, because a late change confuses voters and the people running the polls

MayaRight. It's a don't touch the wiring on election night rule

GrantExactly. And it's aimed at judges. It's a warning to the bench. Don't be the one who flips the map two weeks out

MayaOkay, but Hoskins isn't a judge

GrantNo, he's not. He's the guy who controls the calendar the judges would have to work inside of

MayaOh, wait. So he's not breaking the rule, he's using the rule against the people it's supposed to protect?

GrantThat's the move

MayaOkay, so this isn't just a Missouri thing though, right? Because I remember reading something about Texas and Indiana doing basically this exact play

GrantYeah. Balls and Strikes wrote about that back in December, laid out how Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas and Indiana pushed aggressive maps banking on Purcell-minded justices bailing them out once the clock got short

MayaSo it's not one office figuring out a clever trick, it's a strategy other states have already tried

GrantThat's the argument, yeah. Draw the map, let the legal fight drag, and trust that a court that hates last-minute changes would just leave the map in place because it's suddenly too close to fix

MayaWhich is diabolical, honestly, because the closeness is the plan

GrantRight. The emergency isn't happening to you, you're building it

MayaSo if you're a voter in one of these states, what's that actually feel like?

GrantYou're voting under a map that might get thrown out later, so your ballot's sitting on shaky ground the entire time, and you don't even find out until after the fact whether it counted the way you thought it

MayaOkay, so back to Hoskins, does that mean he's just copying a playbook?

GrantCould be. Could also be he stumbled into the same incentive everyone else has found. Either way-

MayaTwo questions are the two questions

GrantSay 'em

MayaDid he do this on purpose, and is a court gonna let it work?

GrantThat's it. That's the whole thing hanging over this case

MayaAnd we've been sitting with those for, like, 10 minutes now

GrantI know, I know. But that's because the answer to both actually shows up in the same place

MayaOoh, okay. Don't tease me. Where?

GrantThe Missouri Supreme Court

MayaThey ruled?

GrantThey ruled. And once you see what they said about his timeline, both questions get answered at once, the intent question and the survive scrutiny

MayaWait, at the same time? How does one ruling do both?

GrantBecause the way they described what he did is basically an answer to whether it was deliberate

MayaOkay. Now I need to hear the actual language

GrantYou will. That's exactly where we're headed next. Okay. September 3rd, Missouri Supreme Court finally rules

MayaAnd it's not close. Unanimous

GrantWait, unanimous? Every single justice?

MayaEvery one. They said Hoskins was wrong to reject the petition

GrantSo the eight months mattered after all

MayaThe Missouri Independent reported something sharper than that, actually. They noted the map should've been suspended the moment those December signatures landed on his desk. Not eight months later, immediately

GrantSo the whole I was just following the deadline story-

MayaDoesn't survive contact with the ruling, right. Okay, but a ruling isn't a wall. What happens next?

GrantHoskins and Attorney General Hanaway don't sit with it for a day

MayaWait, seriously? Same week?

GrantNext day they file an emergency appeal

MayaTo who?

GrantStraight to Justice Kavanaugh

MayaFederal? From a state court loss?

GrantYep. And this is the part I actually love. The Missouri Independent's follow-up quotes the attorney for People Not Politicians, and she basically says the quiet part out loud. Hoskins' own delay is what created the confusion, and now he's citing that same confusion as the emergency

MayaSo he built the fire and then called 911

GrantPretty much

MayaOkay, so both questions we've been circling all episode. Was it deliberate?

GrantState court basically says yes, functionally

MayaAnd would courts let it work?

GrantNot this court. Not unanimously, anyway

MayaSo it's not a judge stretching Purcell to protect a map

GrantIt's an electoral official manufacturing the exact emergency Purcell was built to stop. That's the reveal

MayaAnd the justices didn't hedge on that, right? No maybe he had his reasons language

GrantNone of that. The ruling doesn't tiptoe around it. They call the rejection wrong, full stop, and point straight at the December filing as the moment it should've ended

MayaIn... That's... Okay, that's the whole episode in one sentence

GrantAnd normally, that's the end of the story, right? State Supreme Court rules map's dead, referendum happens

MayaBut?

GrantBut Hoskins and Hannaway didn't stop. They went federal.

MayaRight, Kavanaugh.

GrantWhich means we're not done. A state ruling doesn't end a fight when one side decides to take it to Washington.

MayaDoes an emergency appeal like this usually move fast, or could this drag?

GrantThese things can move on their own clock entirely. That's kind of the point of calling it an emergency.

MayaSo the real question now isn't whether the state court called it correctly.

GrantIt's whether the US Supreme Court lets that ruling stand, or whether this whole thing gets messier from here.

MayaOh, it gets messier. Trust me.

GrantOkay, so federal court fight. Grant, walk me into this mess.

Speaker 3So while the state case was still sorting itself out, a lower federal court also had a piece of this, and the US Supreme Court stepped in and stayed that federal order.

GrantStayed it, meaning paused it.

Speaker 3Paused it. And at basically the same time, the Missouri Supreme Court holds Hoskins in contempt.

GrantWhat, contempt of the same court that already ruled against him?

Speaker 3The same one. He's fighting a federal stay on one side and sitting in contempt on the other.

GrantThat is not a good week.

Speaker 3Hanaway, the attorney general, actually said the quiet part to reporters. She called the whole posture very confusing.

GrantThe attorney general. If she's confused, what am I supposed to be?

Speaker 3Right, and she's the one who filed it.

GrantSo walk me through what she filed exactly.

Speaker 3An emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court on Hoskins' behalf, trying to get the federal courts to keep the map alive while the state case is basically already decided against him.

GrantAnd how normal is that move?

Speaker 3Not normal at all. A former Missouri solicitor general looked at this exact appeal and called it unprecedented.

GrantUnprecedented from someone who used to argue Missouri's side at that level.

Speaker 3Exactly. That's not a partisan hack take. That's someone who knows the playbook saying this isn't in it.

GrantSo even people who've argued Missouri's side of these fights look at this and go, "That's a stretch."

Speaker 3That's the read, yeah. When your own side's playbook says this move is new territory, that tells you something about how far outside normal practice it is.

GrantSo here's my question. Does any of this actually function as a check?

Speaker 3That's the tangle. You've got a state Supreme Court trying to enforce its own ruling with contempt and a state AG racing past it straight to Washington. Two branches of the same fight pulling in opposite directions, and neither one is clean.

GrantDoes the contempt finding actually bite, though, or is it just a court being annoyed on paper?

Speaker 3Contempt findings are supposed to have teeth, fines, sanctions, eventually jail for an official who won't comply. Whether Missouri presses that is a separate fight.

GrantSo it's a check that exists on paper but might not land in time.

Speaker 3Which is the whole problem. Every day this bounces between courts is a day the old map stays benched and nobody's actually running the election under a settled one.

MayaSo is this slowing Hoskins, or is the appeal itself buying him exactly the delay he wanted?

Speaker 3Honestly, both. The federal stay didn't save the map, but it kept the fight alive past the point where it should have been over.

MayaSo the state court says no.

Speaker 3The federal courts pump the brakes on fixing it.

MayaAnd now we've got to actually call it. Check or no check?

GrantOkay, so tally it up. Nine justices on the Missouri Supreme Court, zero dissents, plus a contempt finding against a sitting secretary of state. That's not a system limping along, Maya. That's a check doing its job.

MayaSlow clap for state courts.

GrantI mean it. Unanimous rulings are rare. Contempt findings against statewide officials are rarer. If that combination doesn't count as oversight working, what does?

MayaIt counts, but it counts down here.

GrantDown here?

MayaState level. The second this thing climbed to the US Supreme Court, the whole tone changed. A stay isn't a ruling on the merits, but it acts like one for however long the map stays in place.

GrantSure, but the map isn't safe. The fight's still going.

MayaRight, and that's exactly the problem. The federal stay didn't need to win the case. It just needed to buy time until it's too close to the next election to fix anything. That's the doctrine working exactly as designed, just one rung up the ladder.

GrantSo the state check holds, and the federal layer is where the gamesmanship migrates.

MayaYep, move the fight upstairs, and suddenly the same trick that got Hoskins in trouble locally has a shot at working nationally.

GrantHanaway basically admitted the whole thing was a mess when she called the litigation posture very confusing. That's not spin. That's her own read on it.

MayaConfusing for her, clarifying for us. It tells you the federal track was never resolved, even with a unanimous state ruling sitting right there.

GrantWhich is the tangent, right? You can win completely at one level and still be stuck.

MayaCompletely stuck. Institutions did their part. The referees threw the flag, called the penalty, everything.

GrantAnd the game kept going anyway.

MayaBecause the guy with the ball got to appeal the flag to a different stadium.

GrantOkay, that's a stretch, but I get it.

MayaSo where do you land? Check or no check?

GrantBoth, honestly. Check at the state level, no check yet at the federal level. The map's fate is still open.

MayaI'd say check, but slower and shakier than it should be. One official sat on a petition for months, and it still took a court system stretching across two levels of government to even get to maybe.

GrantAnd for anyone outside Missouri watching, this split verdict is the takeaway. Winning in your state court doesn't mean the fight's over if the other side has a federal lane to try.

MayaExactly. The check you get depends entirely on which level of government you're watching at that moment.

GrantThat's the verdict.

MayaNow, let's close it out.

GrantSo here's where we landed. Purcell was supposed to stop judges from flipping maps at the last minute.

MayaAnd Hoskins just proved you don't need a judge to run that play.

GrantRight. An election official can build the same too late problem all on his own.

MayaThat's the whole story this year, honestly. The doctrine is leaking out of the courtroom.

GrantINTRO every office with a deadline stamp.

MayaTerrifying, but also kind of the whole show.

GrantWe'll keep tracking it.

MayaOh, we absolutely will.

GrantAnd honestly, that's the through line for the whole year. Watch what happens the moment someone controls the calendar instead of the outcome.

MayaSame trick, different office every time.

GrantAll right. If this one got you, send it to somebody who still thinks redistricting is boring.

MayaOne person, that's the ask.

GrantFollow the show wherever you're listening. Leave us a review.

MayaIt actually helps more than you'd think.

GrantIt does.

MayaGrant, I still can't get over a Secretary of State trying to out Purcell Purcell.

GrantOnly in this job does that sentence make sense.

MayaSee you next week.