Attorney General Hanaway says Missouri Constitution doesn’t allow redistricting referendum

From St. Louis Public Radio. This is Politically speaking. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins made a very consequential decision on Election Day. He announced to reporters that he rejected a referendum aimed at overturning a redistricting map lawmakers drew in 2025 that is seeking to oust Democratic Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hannaway was heavily involved in crafting the legal reasoning behind that decision. And the GOP statewide official joins us on the latest episode of Politically Speaking to talk about the impending court fight, as well as a host of other initiatives her office is involved in. Let's hit the music. This is the Politically Speaking podcast, the definitive show about Missouri politics.

Let's go back to some of those policies to that peace and prosperity that we had some four to five years ago. Everywhere is Democrat country once this Democrat's been there. There are a lot of things in Washington that are very bipartisan, including some bills that I've already gotten past. And I think it works best when you can see both sides. But you have to pick one, and I firmly align with the Republicans. But certainly I think if she's running against one of the crazy dudes, certainly it's going to be a lot easier. But I'll take wisdom and age. and a few missteps in oral to over somebody who has no substance. I believe that you represent the party's values and you move forward, and that's what I have done. And welcome to Politically Speaking. I'm your host, St. Louis Public Radio's politics correspondent, Jason Rosenbaum. Joining me from Springfield, Missouri. She is Missouri's Attorney General and apparently a big fan of this show and listens to it regularly. Our guest today is. Catherine Hannaway, Missouri Attorney General. I have to ask, General, what was your favorite recent episode of Politically Speaking? You know, I really, I'm going to forget the Senate district, but the episodes where you interviewed all three Senate candidates from Southwest Missouri, I thought it was super informative. It was the Rala area. So I guess in your time, that was the Sarah Steelman seat. Yes. Yes. I don't remember who was there before her, but it was a Democrat and she beat him and it was a big deal. Now the Democrat is a bit of an underdog in that district, as we all know. Just a bit. Just a bit. Lots to talk about, and I am just going to talk about redistricting on the onset because I do want to talk about other topics besides that, believe it or not. There's just redistricting news. It's inescapable. So Secretary of State Denny Hoskins announced on Tuesday he was rejecting the referendum to put a 2025 congressional map up for a statewide vote. You helped him come to that conclusion, or so he says. unless he's completely lying that you were involved. We provided legal advice. Yes. Is our duty. Yes. I'm being a little, I'm being facetious there. I want to make that clear. Why do you think it's unconstitutional? Well, for the same reasons, and we filed a lawsuit in federal court saying this months ago that the U.S. Constitution delegates to the states the... duty and authority to draw congressional districts. And our Missouri Constitution reserves that to the Missouri General Assembly. It is not a power that has been further delegated to anyone else. Some states do it by commission. And we could do that in our Constitution. We just have not.

Missouri's Constitution specifies there are two things that are excluded from referendums, bills that go into effect right away and appropriations bills. There's no mention of congressional redistricting plans. Does that weaken your argument when it goes to court? Well, I mean, if I was arguing on the other side, I would point out that there are two times that it specifically says, Things can't go out to a referendum. But if you look at the language of how congressional districts are drawn, it very specifically says the legislature shall after each decennial census draw the congressional maps with absolutely no further delegation of that power. So if you read the Constitution in its plain language, it's the legislature's job. The legislature has done its job. It's not something a duty right or a authority that's been given to anyone else. But a governor could veto a redistricting map, and you can make an argument that an executive branch has no role in redistricting. So what would you say to that point? Well. I would say that it goes back to the legislature to draw the districts, even though he might have the ability to veto it, he can't redraw them. And if you follow the argument that you can have a referendum on the maps to its logical conclusion, you end up with this absurd conclusion that the voters have the ability to effectively draw the maps. And that's just simply not the case. But you've also argued that you think this is against the federal constitution, correct? I want to make sure I'm under and very specifically trying to, you know, freeze now the map as it was before the legislature changed it, would disenfranchise every voter who's cast a vote in the primaries. And also, you know, it would. be so late in the cycle as to violate the Purcell principle that the U.S. Supreme Court has laid out. Yeah. And I, you got to my next point very elegantly. So if you're wrong and the Supreme Court says it is subject to a referendum, if you go back to the Maggard case, which your office won unanimously, it says that. If it's on the ballot, the map hasn't been in effect ever. And it says it's been suspended since December 2025. Couldn't somebody then argue that what happened on Tuesday where congressional races were done on the new map was a giant election administration error. And the remedy is you have to have new elections before November. Well, I think that's what Chuck Hadfield's arguing. That was not the holding of the Maggert case. Okay. The holding in the Mager case was that the new maps were in effect until sufficient legal signatures were submitted to the Secretary of State's office for the Secretary of State to even consider the legal and other sufficiency, constitutionality of the signatures that were collected.

The Magrard case specifically in a footnote reserved consideration of whether or not a referendum was constitutional. Yeah. There's nothing about that case. People have taken dicta from that case to sort of. create a panic and I think it's an intentional panic that we roll back to the old map. There is no way we're rolling back to the old map between now and November. Primary voters have voted. If you would roll back to the old map, that would mean that people would completely have their vote zeroed out. by a very small minority of voters who signed petitions to one day put this on the ballot. There is no reason that those signatures, even if the court says you can have a referendum, should have an impact on this cycle. People have cast their votes, candidates have been selected. The clerks have the maps. There's a, you know, there's some. There's some reason, and I think it's very good reason, that the Purcell principle exists, that government should not, at some late hour, interfere with the conduct of elections. And that reason is you don't take people's vote away from them. They've cast a vote. They've selected their nominees, and they're going to go forward in November under those maps. So I have Maggard right here. And you're correct that it does not make a determination about whether a referendum is constitutional or not. And that's going to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Like it's going to Cole County Court. It's going to get appealed either way. The Supreme Court will decide it before probably September 8th. I think it's actually in statute that there's like a timeline that has to be done. So there is going to be. The Supreme Court does have to decide that. So what I was referring to, it says in Maggard, if, however, the December 9th referendum petition filing is ultimately determined. to be sufficient, Article 3, Section 52B applies, in that case, because a legal sufficient and timely referendum petition was filed on December 9th before HB1 went into effect on December 11th. HB1 is the redistricting map. HB1 did not take effect on December 11th. HB1 was referred to the people as of December 9th, and HB1 shall take effect when approved by a majority of the votes thereum and not otherwise. That's what I was referring to. If you can do a redistricting referendum, it says the map was suspended as of December, according to the Supreme Court. Legal and sufficient. And both the Secretary of State and our office has said that this referendum is not legal or sufficient, and therefore...

Chuck Hatfield and the parties he represents have sued. None of that has been finally determined. I agree with you 100%. What I am trying to say is if the Supreme Court does find it to be sufficient and puts it on the ballot. It seems like what I just read means it's been suspended since December 2025. And I guess then the question becomes like, does the Purcell principle come into play? Is it too late to revert back to the 2020? Absolutely. I mean, look, not only does the Purcell principle come into play, but the timing for when the federal government requires that military ballots and other things be sent out will have expired. Like we are way beyond the time limits. and it would be legal to change the boundaries for these primaries and therefore the general election. There was also another decision that's gotten less attention, but I think also is really important, and that was the rejection of what's known as the Respect Missouri Voters Initiative. When I was talking with Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, He correctly pointed out when I just said it was a multiple subjects violation that there was actually more to it than that. I'd like you to just explain the reasoning behind that because it is not just multiple subjects. You think that there are actually other issues with this initiative. Yeah. And actually, I think the decentralial issue with respect to that initiative is that it would bind. future voters and future legislators in a way that is not constitutional. One general assembly can't bind the next one to either restrict what actions it can take or restrict what is prohibited. And this would have the effect of binding general assemblies going. you know, until such time as it's repealed. And that's clearly unconstitutional. And that was at least my primary reason for rejecting it. Is it possible the courts may say we have to decide this after the election? There is precedent for that. There was a campaign finance amendment that passed in 2016 that. was really legally questionable, in my opinion. And I think that the Supreme Court was like, you got to put it up for a vote and you can litigate it afterwards. Is it possible that's what might happen with this? Possible but not probable is what I would say. I think that this is so clearly not a legally sufficient initiative petition that we're going to get a decision from the courts before it goes to a vote of the people. All right. Let's move on beyond redistricting and respect Missouri voters. I want to talk about VLTs because your office has been very aggressive in not only getting these machines removed, but...

Having an entire company pull the plug on these machines. Can you kind of talk about... Two companies. Two companies. You're doing so much... plug polling. I didn't even see you pulling the plug on the other company. Can you just sort of talk about your mentality on this? Because I'm sure you have followed this issue for a while. It's very much a thorny thicket when it comes to public policy and politics. But I kind of get the understanding that your interpretation is these machines are illegal until the legislature decides they're legal. And as long as they're illegal, I'm going to try to get these machines out of places. Is that basically your position? Yeah, and I have to say it's not an issue, Jason. You know, I was off minding my own business in the private practice of law until the governor appointed me. So it wasn't an issue that I'd given a lot of thought to when I, way back when I was in the legislature, it wasn't an issue. These machines really came into Missouri about 2018. And so I had kind of a fresh set of eyes when I came to the office and it was very clear to me. And you call them video lottery terminals. Some people call them gray machines. Some of them call, there's lots of different names. I call them illegal slot machines because that's what they are. And in Missouri, you can have slot machines at casinos or boats, boats and moats or whatever the current constitution is. They're not really on boats. Let's be honest. I know. They are. Casinos. And you can have sports betting on your phone, but other forms of gaming are still illegal in this state. And these machines were allowed to proliferate to the point where we had some 25,000 of the machines. And what was really troubling to me is it had become nearly a billion dollar cash business. And when you get that kind of cash floating around. undoubtedly there's other crimes below the surface. And that really, my number one objective is to reduce violent crime in Missouri. And it struck me when I looked at this that... There was probably a lot of crime. And I'm not accusing the owners of the machines of being the perpetrators of it. But now turf battles are starting. Other companies are coming into Missouri. Plus, you know, people steal from these companies. People steal from the machines. Like, there's all kinds of money floating into the system that perpetuates criminal activity. And that's my goal. reduce the amount of violent crime in Missouri. There has, I think, been some pushback against this. I think your office has been sued by some bars and some, and I think there was like an advocacy group that doesn't want their liquor licenses pulled. I'm not really surprised there's pushback because of how lucrative this industry is, but how.

How confident are you that your crackdown will ultimately be upheld in court? I'm very confident because this isn't a judgment I made all by myself, right? The Missouri Gaming Commission says these machines are illegal. The one federal judge who has considered it says these machines are illegal. The one case that's gone to trial in Graham Platner County concluded that these machines are illegal. The law is on our side. And I want just your listeners. to think about it from a very practical perspective. What activity in their life that's legal is completely untaxed? Absolutely zero. There's no tax on this. It's all cash. It's clear it's something people were trying to do under the table. And it grew far beyond, I think, what their expectations were. And that's why I think we have to shut it down. The same thing, same approach I'm taking with... illegal drugs. Which was my next topic. Again, you are a great segueer. And I was, before this interview, I learned that you're cracking down on something called 70H. Now, this may shock you. I am not really that big of an expert on these types of things. I am more well-versed in hemp versus marijuana just because it's become a big public policy issue. What is 70H? Can you explain why you're trying to crack down on it? Yeah. So it's a synthetic opioid that is derived from the crate implant. And the FDA has said it's three times more powerful than morphine. It's highly addictive. And obviously, it's very intoxicating. And what we did was because we didn't, it's not illegal in Missouri, which is like a. It's stunning, but a critical point because people could just go into gas stations and buy it. So we had to be creative and we sued these companies under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, claiming that they were engaged in false advertising because they were telling people it wasn't addictive and it wasn't intoxicating. And it is a huge problem. Coroners in Missouri say 161 people have died from overdoses of it. The director of the Poison Center at Cardinal Glennon stood up with me at our press conference to say what a huge problem it is. So here's the great news. We've made incredible progress since we filed our first lawsuit. The five biggest sellers have agreed to stop selling in Missouri. And the FDA has now scheduled it as a controlled substance, which does make it illegal in Missouri. And so now county prosecutors can go after it. When I was thinking about how to approach this issue, It does seem like in my time following efforts to crack down on basically things that are outside the legal boundaries of marijuana. I understand 7-8-O-H is not marijuana. But it seems like the way around it is people find some way to derive something from a plant that is not technically within the legal definitions of what's illegal.

What you just mentioned federally has made it illegal. But I just wanted to ask more broadly, does this make this entire public policy area kind of difficult to chase? Because somebody's going to come up with something that goes around the definitions that the federal government just did, basically. It makes it super difficult. And it is a trend that's, you know, I've been in public service a long time. You know, when I was the U.S. attorney. Like people were cooking meth. That completely went away. Now it's very sophisticated. These companies are making so much money. They're able to like hire chemists and see as law enforcement catches up. They have those chemists look at, you know, changing a molecule or two and claiming now it's. you know, not the substance that's been made illegal. And so as the Missouri General Assembly and the federal government consider these issues, I think that they're going to have to be equally creative. And rather than defining it by sort of its chemical composition, start using definitions that rely on the effect it has on people. And the telephone calls I've gotten on 70H. absolutely heartbreaking from moms who have minor children who've bought it who've ended up in the hospital people who were recovering from opioid addictions who ended up hooked again because they were told it was safe and might actually help them with the cravings it's it's really been a devastating drug and i'm i'm very pleased we've made so much headway I want to switch topics to the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners because you recently actually spoke at a meeting of this entity that has become very contentious since its inception. And I think we should note for our listeners, your office does have a direct role with the police department now, if you want to just explain that before I ask my question. Yeah, we defend the police department anytime it gets sued. And that's pretty regularly. We do the same thing in Kansas City. But there's a very large backlog of cases in St. Louis. So we're devoting quite a bit of time to that endeavor right now. What has been your overall impression of how the Board of Police Commissioners has operated since it started a few months ago? My overall impression is that they are standing up strongly, firmly for the men and women in blue, that they are working very hard to hire and train more officers and get more officers on the street and to pay officers at a rate that is competitive with the surrounding area. And to me, in terms of reducing violent crime in the city of St. Louis, there's nothing more important than having enough officers who are paid enough money. I think that the reason why policymakers in the city across the political spectrum. So that goes everywhere from Megan Green, who's a Democratic socialist, to Matt Devote, who represents the Hill and is probably more moderate. I just don't think that there has been a lot of appreciation that the board is basically making the city do things like tap into the RAM settlement or reserves to pay officers more.

I'm summarizing what they're feeling. They may come up to a different conclusions, but I think that they just don't really feel like the governor's appointees are going about it in the right way. What do you say to that? Well, there's litigation around that specific point. So I don't want to go in too much detail on which funds should be counted towards the requisite percentage that the city has to spend on paying police officers. But what I can say is under the leadership, under the city leadership, the St. Louis police officers lagged behind St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Jefferson County, and many of the municipal departments in what they were being paid. So of course it became increasingly difficult to either hire or retain officers. And during that time period, with that leadership, we saw it. violent crime skyrocket in the city of St. Louis. So anybody who's really committed to reversing that trend, I'm going to stand with them. I think that there's probably a more global problem, though, that I think you just kind of touched on. And that is that there are so many options for police officers to be a police officer in the St. Louis region. You're correct. The city is way behind like St. Louis County Police Department, but the St. Louis County Police Department is funded by a county with a million people versus a city with only 300,000 people. And then they're just suburban. Police departments that just have more money because they just are in wealthier areas. So isn't that going to be a problem, even if the pay goes up significantly, that there are just other options that are always going to pay better? I don't think they have to always pay better. I mean, you have an earnings tax in the city. You don't have that in the county. You have a lot of retail that creates sales tax that's in the city. But the other thing is, it matters what you prioritize. And if you prioritize policing, they should be able to pay a competitive wage. And the $300,000 to a million comparison, I mean, it's a different number of police officers, too. They're having to pay. many more officers in the county between the county and all the municipalities in it than serve in the city of st louis well let me just end this interview by asking you like the thornyest question st list politics why not just combine the st louis and st louis county police departments and everybody gets paid more that would be a really good question for somebody who had a vote on that issue i don't yeah don't you have to live in jefferson city now or has that law been repealed

The law has been repealed. We bought a house in Jeff City, but we still have our house in St. Louis County. So I kind of go back and forth. So you do have a vote in that, hypothetically, unless you've registered to vote in Cole County. No, no. I'm still voting at the St. Louis County Library, but it's not on the ballot, right? The people who are on the Board of Alderman and County Council have to go at that first. Are the Board of Freeholders. I appreciate your ability to. not answer that question because you're correct, it is not your responsibility to come up with that plan. But General Hannaway, it's always a pleasure to talk with you. Politically speaking is a product of Singlet's Public Radio, which is part of the University of Missouri system. You can follow all of our stories at STLPR.org. And General Hannaway, how could people find out more about the Attorney General's office on the worldwide web? The best way is aGO.bo.gov and on social media, Almost every platform, it's at A.G. Hannaway. Thank you very much. Until next time, so long.

Politically speaking is produced by Sarah Kellogg, Rachel Lipman, and me, Jason Rosenbaum. The show is edited by Fred Ehrlich. Read all of our coverage at STRPR.org. And if you haven't already, make sure to subscribe to Politically Speaking by searching the term politically speaking on Apple Podcasts. From St. Louis Public Radio. This is politically speaking.